Al-Qaeda on Capitol Hill
by Patrick Poole
09/16/2010rs
When a report challenging our national security policy of ignoring Islamic supremacism through Islamic law, “Shariah: The Threat to America,â€
Printable View
Al-Qaeda on Capitol Hill
by Patrick Poole
09/16/2010rs
When a report challenging our national security policy of ignoring Islamic supremacism through Islamic law, “Shariah: The Threat to America,â€
It is unbelievable how incredibly easy it is for Muslims, radical and not to infiltrate our highest echelons of government.
Do the people in our government who allow these Muslims in, think there is any reason at all for them to want to be there other than to bring
Shariah law into the US?
What stupidity, to give Muslims and Shiriah law one foot hold after another.
Here is an interesting case from the 1878 Supreme Court when Morrison Waite was Chief Justice.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory.
The Mormons, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to ignore Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act at the time. On the other hand, in subsequent years, efforts had been underway to strengthen the anti-bigamy laws. Eventually, amid the efforts to indict the LDS leadership for bigamy, the First Presidency agreed to furnish a defendant in a test case to be brought before the United States Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the anti-bigamy law.
Religious Duty argument
The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.
The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.
The version of Jefferson's Danbury letter which the Court used was in fact a mistaken transcription. While the Court quoted Jefferson as writing, "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions", Jefferson's original handwriting reads "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
In the case of Muslims ever instituting sharia law in the United States, which sharia contains actions against freedom of choice as well as against a multitude of other secular laws here, there is already judicial precedent that would probably deny it.