We need a new legal and semantic test for the word ‘religion’.
Any organization that proselytizes their belief system in part or in whole by coersion violates the definition of the word ‘religion’. Any faith with ‘convert or kill’ in its tenets anywhere should not be confused with ‘faith’, and shouldn’t enjoy the protection of the first amendment.
As such, Islam doesn’t meet the ‘faith’ test. It’s not a religion. It’s not even a cult. It’s a gang, and its members subscribe to the belief that if you do not accept Islam, then you should die, or be subject to those that are. It’s an autocratic form of government with a sort of dogma at its core. Himmler tried to give Nazism that sort of dogma artificially and succeeded mightily within Germany early on.
In the US should be able to choose freely to believe or reject the beliefs of any religion at any time without the threat of death, the withholding of rights, or without being subject to any economic penalty for leaving that religion.
If the dogma in question can’t withstand that test, then it shouldn’t enjoy first amendment rights. Jefferson in the Federalist papers actually suggested the test: “It neither breaks my back, nor picks my pocket, what another man believes. . .”
We are a court case away from such a test being applied. Some large company needs to withhold service based on their being Muslim, and then state that the discrimination based on faith didn’t meet the test based on the fact that any dogma relying on coersion as a method of proselyzation isn’t actually a faith since the dogma required violation of the higher and fundamental rights of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’.
With a very small tweak, mosques would suddenly be looked at as just another clubhouse and not a place of worship. We can and should raid and bomb more mosques, since radicals rely on the first amendment to ensure their arsenals remain safe.
Very thoughtful post.
Religion is defined as: *a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny*
Any act or behavior that promotes harm to another human being or damage to society (under cover of a religious practice) should be treated as a crime.
i.e. mutilation, honor killing, asassination, terrorism, theft, treason.
“In the US should be able to choose freely to believe or reject the beliefs of any religion at any time without the threat of death, the withholding of rights, or without being subject to any economic penalty for leaving that religion.”
You already have that right.
To do as you suggest puts a Christian spin on the constitution - and that’s equally as bad.