What Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali thinks of as "Islamic radicalism" is older than he realizes; it didn't begin with Ibn Taymiyya, as the great jihad conquests that created the heart of what we think of as the Islamic world took place before the birth of that famous Islamic jurist; in fact, "Islamic radicalism" is as old as the Muslim Prophet Muhammad himself, as I demonstrate in my forthcoming book The Truth About Muhammad. But much of what the Bishop has to say here is absolutely true, and useful.
From the Telegraph, with thanks to B.:
Islamic radicalism did not begin with Muslim grievances over Western foreign policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. It has deep roots, going back to the 13th-century reformer Ibn Taimiyya, through Wahhabism to modern ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb in Egypt or Maududi in Pakistan.The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gave it the cause it was looking for, and Afghanistan became the place where Muslim radicals were trained, financed and armed (often with Western assistance).
The movements that were born or renewed do not have any kind of centralised command structure, but co-operate through diffuse networks of affinity and patronage. One of their most important aims is to impose their form of Islam on countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia. This may be why they were not regarded as an immediate threat to the West. Their other aims, however, include the liberation of oppressed Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and elsewhere, and also the recovery of the Dar Al-Islam (or House of Islam), in its historic wholeness, including the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans and even India.
In this cause, the rest of the world, particularly the West, is Dar al-Harb (House of War). These other aims clearly bring such movements into conflict with the international community and with Western interests in particular.
So how does this dual psychology - of victimhood, but also the desire for domination - come to infect so many young Muslims in Britain? When I was here in the early 1970s, the practice of Islam was dominated by a kind of default Sufism or Islamic mysticism that was pietistic and apolitical. On my return in the late 1980s, the situation had changed radically. The change occurred because successive governments were unaware that the numerous mosques being established across the length and breadth of this country were being staffed, more and more, with clerics who belonged to various fundamentalist movements.
There were no criteria for entry, no way of evaluating qualifications and no programme for making them aware of the culture that they were entering. Until quite recently, ministers and advisers did not realise the scale of the problem, even though it was repeatedly brought to their attention. Secondly, in the name of multiculturalism, mosque schools were encouraged and Muslim pupils spent up to six extra hours a day learning the Koran and Islamic tradition, as well as their own regional languages. Finally, there are the grievances. Some of these are genuine enough, but the complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene where Muslims are victims (as in Bosnia or Kosovo), and always wrong when they may be the oppressors or terrorists (as with the Taliban or in Iraq), even when their victims are also mainly Muslims.
Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made. It is clear, therefore, that the multiculturalism beloved of our political and civic bureaucracies has not only failed to deliver peace, but is the partial cause of the present alienation of so many Muslim young people from the society in which they were born, where they have been educated and where they have lived most of their lives.
Read it all.
Arguably a bit OT, but I take my cue in this from the fact that the topic is multiculturalism, and from the Bishop's observation that governments in the Islamic world in the 1970's were not aware of what was happening or being said in the mosques of their countries.
The following is a clarification (a somewhat ammended version) I provided for a proposal I'd made on another page of this forum for the establishment of "ministries of religious affairs" - a misnomer I'd say in hindsight - to help governments of Western nations better understand and manage issues arising from the presence of religious and ethnic communities in their countries. It summarizes the essence of what I have in mind. Would anyone care to comment or make suggestions for improvements to the idea (or scrapping it)?
Anyway, here it is, beginning with the comment that prompted me to write it:
"Templar, that is a terrible idea. It is only Islam that we must deal with, not religion per se"
"Thank you Redwine and Feralee for your responses. Both of you are, of course, absolutely right that its only Islam that has to be dealt with - generally - but on very rare occasions its been other groups that have been the source of serious terrorism. Recall the Jim Jones cult in South Africa or the terrorist activity of Sikh groups that resulted in the bombing of Air India flight 182 off the coast of Ireland in 1985 which resulted in the deaths of nearly 400 people. Here in Canada, the problem of violence in the Sikh community on our west coast - where the men who are thought to have carried out the bombing live -has continued in the years since, although its generally been a problem of gang activity. Even so its been serious enough that a group of them some years ago assaulted the Attorney General of British Columbia at the time -himself a Sikh - and put him in the hospital. If I recall correctly, even the thinking of the group that bombed the Murraugh federal building in Oklahoma City had at least some religious roots. There are even a few Christian hotheads like the Catholic fanatics (don't worry I can say this since I'm Catholic) who bomb abortion clinics (its happened more than once) or bomb theatres when heretical or blasphemous films (such as "Hail Mary" or "The Last Temptation of Christ") are shown. This is especially unusual of course, nowhere even remotely near the scale of what Islam is responsible for, but the examples show that there are at least a few hotheads in just about any religion who can threaten our safety.
"Clearly though, as you say, the focus needs to be on Islam. I referred to "religous affairs" because that makes the notion non-specific enough to get by the PC crowd, but the agency wouldn't have to have reference to religion in its name at all. Its a role could probably be fulfilled by the Interior or Public Security ministries that most Western democracies already have (e.g. maybe in the U.S. it could be part of the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security). Anyway, the point is that we need to be frank about the fact that government and society have a legitimate interest in knowing and having a say in what goes on in religious circles, even if in practice that usually means taking repressive measures ONLY against Islam (we would expect of course that our courts would prevent the agencies from casting this net too far and I assume that legislation governing the mandate of the agencies would be written to allow them just enough authority to exclude the expression of religious views that are anti-social or sociopathic (e.g. the arrogant Islamic assumption that Muslims are, by definition, superior to other human beings) or that directly rationalize or justify such things as terrorist attacks, domestic violence (e.g. Islamic "honor killings"), threats or public disturbances. The governing legislation should make it clear that the agencies have no competence in the purely "ethereal" matters of theology such as whether God is a Trinity or a Monad, what is or is not a kosher meat (or a "halal" meat for that matter), what direction one should face in prayer or what the essential elememts of religion are (provided that "Jihad" or other such menacing stupidity is not included).
"In any event, this type of ministry could have a much more positive role than simply to monitor the religious scene. It could govern policies for immigration, the proper reception and integration of immigrants into our societies, and generally keeping government properly informed on issues in its immmigrant communities, including conflicts between different groups and how to diffuse or avoid problems or threats arising from them. As we know, these matters are all at the root of our current terrorist problem - which, again, I say, you're right - is an almost exclusively Islamic problem".
I'd also add that it should also be used to help governments better deal with other problems in religious organizations that relate to the well-being of their societies in general, such as the recent sexual abuse and pedophilia scandals in the Catholic Church.
I'd welcome anything anyone has to say on this, since I really think this is an important part of what has to be done in the West.
Yes, so send them home to the land of the sand, where they are all living under one culture, trapsing around like zombies.
"Multiculturalism" is putting a mouse in a cage with a rattlesnake. Multiculturalism.
In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants. If not for Islam's will to dominate, the multitude of other cultures wouldn't have to worry that some angry, aggrieved, disaffected, disenfranchised, humiliated young believers were going to sneak some liquid explosives into a baby's bottle and blow up thousands of air travelers over the Atlantic Ocean.
On the other hand, they DID give us algebra.
/
In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants. If not for Islam's will to dominate, the multitude of other cultures wouldn't have to worry about angry, aggrieved, disaffected, disenfranchised, humiliated young believers were going to sneak some liquid explosives into a baby's bottle and or Preparation-H and blow up thousands of air travelers over the Atlantic Ocean.
On the other hand, they DID give us algebra.
In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants. If not for Islam's will to dominate, the multitude of other cultures wouldn't have to worry that angry, aggrieved, disaffected, disenfranchised, humiliated young believers were going to sneak some liquid explosives into baby formula or Preparation-H and blow up thousands of air travelers over the Atlantic Ocean.
On the other hand, they DID give us algebra.
/
In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants. If not for Islam's will to dominate, the multitude of other cultures wouldn't have to worry about angry, aggrieved, disaffected, disenfranchised, humiliated young believers were going to sneak some liquid explosives into a baby's bottle and or Preparation-H and blow up thousands of air travelers over the Atlantic Ocean.
On the other hand, they DID give us algebra.
/
In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants. If not for Islam's will to dominate, the multitude of other cultures wouldn't have to worry that angry, aggrieved, disaffected, disenfranchised, humiliated young believers were going to sneak some liquid explosives into baby formula or Preparation-H and blow up thousands of air travelers over the Atlantic Ocean.
On the other hand, they DID give us algebra.
/
scaramouoche, I agree on all counts except one, THEY did NOT give us algebra. They simply stole and named the ancient babylonian mathematical inventions after themselves.
I think multiculturalism is perverse! Islam is proof that all cultures are not equal. Therefore multiculturalism is wrong. Also multiculturalism destroys the host nations own culture and destroys people's identities. People who believe in nothing are willing to fight for nothing. That is what we have now in th west.
Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism. If not for Islam's insistence on its own primacy, the rest of the tiles in the multiculti mosaic could more or less go about their business, lauding each others' cultures and eating in each other's restaurants.
Posted by: scaramouoche at August 16, 2006 03:42 PM
You're right, but I also agree with Infidel33's comment even more:
"THEY did NOT give us algebra. They simply stole and named the ancient babylonian mathematical inventions after themselves"
This in accord Islam's typical historic policy: appropriate and benefit from the wealth, knowledge and achievements of other cultures, while slowly murdering them with every imaginable kind of oppression. No wonder so many Islamic countries are so backward, impoverished and underdeveloped.
Correction notice (just for the record):
I said in my first entry: "... governments in the Islamic world in the 1970's were not aware of what was happening or being said in the mosques of their countries"
Having read the author's comments a second time, and more carefully than the first perusal I gave them, I've noticed he was referring to British governments.
Either way, close government monitoring of Mosques is common in the Middle East, according to my sources, and it should be in the West as well. Very close!
Multiculturalism is a two edged sword, and just flinging it out as an epithet does more harm than good, and in fact obfuscates the question (besides making the person who uses the word look like a fascist).
All Americans are descendants of immigrants.. and vitually all Americans have a debt to the pre existing multiculturalism that enabled their ancestors to migrate, settle in and get established.
What Jewish community doesn't celebrate it's heritage? In fact there are over 300 gated Jewish communities in the U.S. and it is or should be known that Hillary Clinton courted them in her bid for the Senate.
You can go into almost every state and find special days set aside in cities and towns to celebrate the cultural heritage of this or that town from German to Norwegian to Spanish.
And Mr Spencer himself with his dark complexion and beard bespeaks his own mid east origins and can pass for Muslim..if America was anti Multicult I doubt Mr Spencer and in fact most Americans would be here.. so proceed careful or clarify exactly what you mean by multiculturalism.. just flinging the word is like a monkey flinging feces.
On the other hand not all cultures are equal, and on that I agree.. in fact as I don't hesitate to tell immigrant workers, if your culture was so great, then we would be migrating to your country and not vice versa.. you migrate because your culture is a failure.. and that is a fact.
By the way the first person I heard that stated publicly that not all cultures are equal was Bill Maher on Real Time, Bill and Tucker Carlson (but alas not Oreilly) have the number of Islam and Muslims.
Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is an interesting man. He was born in Pakistan of Muslim parents, became a Christian, was a parish priest in both the UK and Pakistan, the first bishop of Rawind in Pakistan and became Bishop of Rochester in 1994.
If you look at some of the comments to his article you will see one in particular, from a Muslim who does not accept that a Christian and apostate has anything of value to say. I think he is rattled at hearing the truth from someone who knows.
Infidel33 if you'll examine the matter more closely you will find that the muslims took Hindu numbers from India to Persia where they were used by Greek trained mathematicians, thus creating what is commonly called the "Arabic" number system. In mathematics the muslims simply drew on work that had already been done by Egypians, Babylonians, Greeks and Hindus. They contribute4d little of value and almost nothing original.
The father of modern algebra was a Frenchman named Evariste Galois.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1475.htm
In math as in many other fields, the contribution of muslim scholars is grossly over-exaggerated, with islamic apologists trying to credit al-Khwarizmi as the father of algebra. 'Tain't so.
"Islam is proof that all cultures are not equal. "
Islam is not the only proof that all cultures are not equal -- it's just the most egregious proof.
Hmmmm. His Grace Michael Nazir-Ali does justice to the traditional title for a bishop. He is also living proof that the Christian West has a lot more going for it (the Spirit of God, for starters) than it knows.
Take the time to read the comments section. There are a few that really make sense.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/15/do1501.xml#comments
If I recall correctly, even the thinking of the group that bombed the Murraugh federal building in Oklahoma City had at least some religious roots. posted by Templar
I never heard one word about "religious" roots to the Oklahoma City bombing, except the possibility that there were some muslims involved. An intrepid journalist, I'm sorry to say I forgot her name, has written extensively about it and she insists that Islamic terrorists helped McVeigh and company plan the attack, and it was fashioned after the Beirut marine barracks bombing.
Timothy McVeigh's reason for bombing the Murrah Building was purely political; it was his way of "dissing" the federal government.
The Bishop does make good points.
But I disagree with one of them.
"One of their most important aims is to impose their form of Islam..."
Isn't it that
"I never heard one word about "religious" roots to the Oklahoma City bombing, except the possibility that there were some muslims involved.
An intrepid journalist, ... insists that Islamic terrorists helped McVeigh and company plan the attack ..."
and
"Timothy McVeigh's reason for bombing the Murrah Building was purely political; it was his way of "dissing" the federal government.
Both of the above posted by: Susanp.
Noted. My remark was speculative and based on unaided memory. Thanks for the correction.
Templar, your idea about a government agency to oversee religious organizations, especially mosques, is good and bad. It would be another incompetent bureaucracy here in the U.S., and God knows we have enough of those. But I do agree that mosques should be monitored because they are the spawning grounds for radicalism. Muslim clerics should be carefully screened before they are permitted to take over mosques but as it now stands, any religious cleric gets a special visa and probably little or no scrutiny.
Islamic clerics are the most dangerous men on earth. They inculcate the masses with hate and intolerance and are responsible for creating the terrorists running loose in the world today. But the idiots in charge have not yet figured out that terrorism begins in the mosque and until they do, our security hangs in the balance. Political correctness is the religion of politicians and they would rather see millions die than be accused of racism or bigotry.
I would like to see something, some sort of regulatory panel or whatever, with the power to at least investigate demagoguery and hate mongering in mosques. To be successful, mosques must be secretly monitored. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Any interference by the government would be construed as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and would never get by the ACLU, except if it pounced on Christians.
In America, the First Amendment gives jihadist muslims the same protection it gives those who practice legitimate religions. It is apparent that our government still considers islam a legitimate religion, so muslims can go to mosques and scream "death to America" all day and there is nothing we can do. This is a very dangerous and ridiculous conundrum that needs to be changed, but we're nowhere near that point yet.
The Bishop does make good points.
But I disagree with one of them.
"One of their most important aims is to impose their form of Islam..."
Are there different forms of Islam or merely different interpretations of the same texts?
Isn't it that kind of statement that perpetuates the myth that Islam comes in a number of 'versions'; that Grandma Fatima in Dearborn believes in a 'kinder and gentler' version of Islam than, say, UBL?
Or that she reads a sanitized version of the Qur'an; one more suitable for the 'form' of Islam that she has chosen to follow?
"In America, the First Amendment, gives jihadist muslims the same protection it gives those who practice legitimate religions. It is apparent that our government still considers islam a legitimate religion, so muslims can go to mosques and scream "death to America" all day and there is nothing we can do"
Posted by susanp
Extremely sad and troubling if true. Still, though I'm hardly an expert on the U.S. Constitution, from what I understand about the First Amendment its exact wording states simply that "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion". A great deal has been predicated upon these simple words these days, running to the ridiculous. (Don't feel alone, we have the same tired old stuff going on in this country). But as I read this, and an American friend once explained to me, this only means that there can be no "official" religion or or official church. In other words, you can't have a state church such as the Church of England is in Great Britain. As for the rest, it hardly makes sense to say that "Death to America" can hide behind "religious" freedom with impunity.
Any comment on that?
I also understand your point about more beauracracy but I'm not sure that that's a greater evil than the current menace of "religious" terrorism, or for that matter the idiocy of religious leaders who let pedophiles run amok in their institutions because there are no standards outlining what to do in these cases (though I guess this is changing now through other means).
"Or that she reads a sanitized version of the Qur'an; one more suitable for the 'form' of Islam that she has chosen to follow?"
Posted by: PRCS
You want a sanitized version of Islam and the Koran? How's this? The Koran as we've known it throughout most of Islamic history is actually a mangled translation and expansion (including a number of inorganic and illegitimate additions) of an original ancient Christian document written (probably in the fourth century) in Syriac as an instruction to Arab tribesmen that East Syrian Christians were in contact with. From this mistranslation, we get hilarious mistakes like the well-known "virgins" coming from what the Syriac had as "raisins" (or white grapes), a delicacy in the Middle East and a figure of such qualities as clarity (of insight), and purity and a symbol of the Eucharist and the Last Supper, and the instruction to wear the hijab (veil) arising from a misunderstanding of a verse that actually meant "They should tie their belts around their wastes" (the belt is one of numerous Christian symbols for chastity). These are the findings of one Chrisoph Luxenburg, and professor of ancient languages who used Syriac as the basis for translation of the more mysterious and opaque passages of the Koran, since its closely related to early and classical Arabic.
Based on other reading I've done on this topic, Mohammed's initial inspiration had a lot more to do with a relationship to Messianic Judaism in a movement to recover a place alongside the Jewish tribes they were living near effecting a reconciliation between the "children of Ishmael" and the "children of Isaac", but the the Arab jurists and theologians who translated the Koran ("instruction" in Arabic) considerably later changed its early character to make it into the basis of an entirely new religion designed to serve as a vehicle for Arab nationalism and expansionism.
A word of caution about all this though. Before getting into this kind of critical analysis of using this hypothetical proto-Koran (why should the Koran be treated any different than the Bible, which Biblical scholars, including both Jews and Christians, long ago recognized needed to be scrutinized using such methods?), people should keep in mind that it would be best to have a good grasp of the present Koran, which I myself do NOT have at present, but which is apparently available in an excellent annotated English edition from Penguin Classics, trans. by Dawood.
Keep in mind also that Islamic theology can be expected to resist this kind of information as "blasphemous" with possibly violent results.
"In fact, he's got it backwards. Multiculturalism isn't to blame for perverting Muslims; Islam is to blame for perverting multiculturalism."
I agree, IF multiculturalism means "we all have the same basic rights and freedoms and live in a secular society. On top of that, we can all enjoy our specific modes of dress, language, religion, cuisine, celebrations and customs, as long as none of these interfere with anybody's rights and as long as everyone is free to quit their culture and religion if they like."
Multiculturalism becomes dangerous when some people get superior rights, are absolved of crimes, oppress other members of their culture or start interfering with other cultures' freedoms.
Templar,
Thanks for the insight. But it's not a sanitized version of the Qur'an that I want.
My point is that there is no sanitized version of either Qur'an or Islam.
Grandma Fatima in Dearborn believes in the same versions of each as does UBL.
The problem is that Muslim apologists and others perpetuate the false impression that she, and other 'moderate' Muslims either read a kinder and gentler version of the Qur'an than UBL.
I believe that's where the 'perversion of Islam' thinking comes into play.
Thansk.
Hi PRCS:
Recently Cardinal George Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Australia has had a war of words with some big-mouthed Imam or some such thing (I listened on-line to a recording of the latter's response to Pell and it was absolutely (and unprovokedly) vitriolic (he even raised a call for the banning of the Bible!).
The guy was incensed over a statement Pell made in the media (or at some religious event or maybe an interreligious symposium or some such thing - I'm relying on memory again here) about his recent examination of the Koran. Pell started reading it and taking notes about its refereces or imperatives to violence, but he had to quit after 60 or 70 pages because he was writing so many notes he didn't have time to continue.
In light of realities like this it may be that even Muslims who sincerely try to remain peaceful and "moderate" will always be challenged by the intense, inflammatory, and what some call "poetic", language of the text, with its powerful forces of suggestion. I don't dismiss it outright, but in light of all this, I am pessimistic that any other form of Islam than the present one that seems to have this pervasive culture of violence on its fringes (a pretty large fringe it sometimes seems) is possible as long as the current Koran is the accepted one. As for "moderate" translations, all versions rely on the first Arabic version completed centuries ago, so I doubt that there is a "more moderate" one available at present. Possibly the only way forward for anyone serious about finding a gentler face to Islam, or some sort of reform of that faith, may be to subject it to a complete deconstruction proceding from scholarship like the findings I mentioned im my last post.
Sorry the information I provided wasn't what you needed. Hope it was worth reading though. Personally I find it extremely amusing contemplating the scene of the "noble martyrs" before the throne of Allah awaiting their virgins, and the look of surprise and dismay when instead each receives his handful of raisins.
Templar,
Grandma Fatima's ignorance of what Islam actually teaches (or that she, and probably most Muslims, chose to read only the 'warm and fuzzy' Qur'anic passages')does not negate the fact that Islam is a fascistic, supremacist ideology.
I believe the root cause of problem, as President Bush likes to call it, is the pervasive, false impression of many non-Muslisms that Islam (as they and my mythical 'Grandma Fatima' believe it/understand it/wish it to be) is being perverted by Muslim fundamentalists and jihadists.
Of course, it's Grandma Fatima's 'version' of Islam that is the true perversion.
I did read Cardinal Pell's letter and the listened to the audio response. Pretty impressive.
"Islam is a fascistic, supremacist ideology"
Posted by PRCS
Exactly! My allusions to "bridge-building" measures such as "reform of Islam" are simply meant to provide an escape route for those caught in its midst.
The more important part of our response to it, to my mind,is summarized in the words of another Archbishop, an Italian:
"ENOUGH of this turning the other cheek already!! OUR DUTY IS TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!!
It is the koran that corrupts.
Templar, the exact words pertaining to religion in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof-----
Sixteen little words, very simple, direct, unambiguous. There must be sixteen billion pages of legal arguments and interpretations of these sixteen words. Muslims are safe and protected under our Constitution, so it could eventually be a suicide pact. That seems to be the direction we're headed. Houses of worship, even temples of death and doom (mosques) are basically off limits to government scrutiny and interference because of the "prohibiting the free expression thereof" part of the clause.
The words are quite clear any way you look at them. They basically say that any religion may be freely expressed without government interference. The founders obviously did not anticipate the emergence of death cults like islam, with its three-fold system of religion, culture, and law.
A mere twenty years ago, who would have dreamed that muslims would have a presence in every state in the union? Right after 9-11, muslims were bragging on an islamic website that they were "taking America, one state at a time." Their goal was to own America within ten years. They better get busy.
"even temples of death and doom (mosques) are basically off limits to government scrutiny and interference because of the "prohibiting the free expression thereof" part of the clause"
Thanks for the correction and clarification, susanp.
You note that the founders "did not anticipate the emergence of death cults like islam, with its three-fold system of religion, culture, and law".
So I wonder ... what would it take to amend the amendment, or would that even be possible? No easy task I'd guess.
Either way, lol to both of us. I hope you find a way out of your conundrum very soon. This country (with only one tenth the population of the U.S.) also has a very long way to go in getting its response to the threat of Islam in order, but even the best outcome here isn't going to do us a lot of good if we end up with the Islamic States of America next door to us. So I hope you won't consider it to out of place if I make any further comments on the issue in the future.
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Susanp,
It's also come to my attention that you included that phrase in an earlier posting and I missed it because I obviously did not read it carefully enough. My apologies for this mistake - which appears to have cost you some extra effort to get corrected. Once again though, good luck with your problem down there.