PostHeaderIcon A New Religion

Imagine, if you will, that some new prophet suddenly appears with instructions direct from the deity for constructing a new religious sect (no, not me – I am a strictly non-prophet operation).

Let us assume the new sect is benevolent in every respect, that it respects other sects and non-believers, that it follows the Judeo-Christian tradition in every respect, including the ancient Jewish practice of human sacrifice.

After all, if the deity created all life, it seems only reasonable that it demand that some meager amount of said life be offered back as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. Let us say that a child of less than 5 years must be sacrificed on the eve of each new moon. Not all that extravagant is it? And maybe, for good measure, the sacrifice of a female virgin on each winter solstice to thank the deity for the return of the Sun. Again, not at all extravagant. Indeed, given current population growth rates, such modest sacrificial demands would hardly make a statistical difference in the population.

And, keep in mind that these sacrificial demands would not be optional. They would be mandatory for each congregation of practitioners. Period, no exceptions allowed.

Indeed, there is really nothing really new in the proposed sect and much to be admired. For sure, no jihad, no mass murder.

So, my question to all of you is this: Would any national government accept or allow the open and public practice of this “new” religion? For sake of argument, let us narrow the question to address only the United States. The first amendment to our Constitution says, in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…

Seems pretty clear to me. Government is not allowed to “prohibit the free exercise…”, so that is that. Light the fires and bring in the virgins. Or is it really that clear?

Now the more rational among you will no doubt see an obvious conflict here in that our Constitution also seeks to protect the rights of each individual, especially the right to life. Human sacrifice, especially of children, surely violates the rights of the sacrificed, does it not?

So, it would seem that the only way out of this conflict is to admit that, in reality, there is a hierarchy inherent in any body of law. In this case, most rational people would admit that the natural rights of the individual trump any rights extended to artificial concepts, such as religious sects, political organizations and the like.

In other words, no “right” guaranteed by our Constitution includes express or implied permission to violate other “rights”; and the natural rights of the individual are the most basic of all rights, ergo cannot be trumped by any other supposed “right”.

One might argue that the first amendment itself establishes an individual right – the right to believe whatever one chooses to believe and to worship whatever one chooses to worship. While there is an implied element of truth in this, the actual point of the first amendment is to tell government to stay out of the issue of religion.

Any disagreement so far? If so, please articulate that disagreement.

Is there a point to this ramble? Certainly! The religion described above is hypothetical. But, there is a real religion, widely practiced all around the world which, based on its defining texts, is every bit as much in violation of natural human rights and, more specifically, in violation of the tenants of our Constitution. Yet many among us argue, irrationally, that, in the case of Islam, its pretense at being a religion, allows it, under our first amendment, to trump all other Constitutional considerations, including denying others their basic right to life for trifling “offenses”.

Ever since Donald Trump proposed to limit Muslim immigration into the United States, until such time as we can effectively vet out the likely terrorists among them, I have heard this almost deafening cacophony of progressives as well as bible thumpers claiming that such a move would be not just inhumane, but anti-American and/or a violation of our ethics and standards.

What a load of crap.

The overriding point to creating a government in the first place is to protect ourselves and our chosen way of life.

Yet, we (as in our government) buy into this notion of a “refugee crisis” where over three quarters of the supposed “refugees” are military age males.

Then we have the often but falsely stated claim that Islam is “the religion of peace”. Indeed, many of the fools making this claim think that the word “Islam” means “peace” when, in fact, it means “submission”.

Then there is the biggest fallacy of all – that we are not “at war with Islam”. Well, Islam is certainly at war with us (us being all who do not embrace Islam). True, not every follower of Islam is taking overt action to destroy or convert non-Muslims, and a few even talk of an Islamic reformation. But, until such a reformation takes place, starting with the total elimination of Sharia law, Islam, by its own self-definition, is at war with the non-Muslim world and seeks domination of that world. To believe otherwise is to invite one’s own destruction.

Am I suggesting violence against Muslims? Only in self defense against overt attacks.

What I AM trying to suggest, and have been for some time, is that it is a potentially fatal mistake for members of any culture to invite in people who detest said culture and wish to destroy it rather than be assimilated into it. Truly, America is a nation of immigrants and, indeed, was built by immigrants. But the immigrants in question came here to be American, to enjoy the obvious benefits that came with being American.

We are faced today with a potential flood of immigrants who wish only to destroy us. To knowingly open the gates to this flood is insanity.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

16 Responses to “A New Religion”

  • Jerry Elkins says:

    Correct Troy. Our political members and media are just wacko.

  • Chris says:

    I have been arguing this for the past week on the big sites. Number one Islam is more than a religion but Trump and everyone else are asking the wrong question. They are trying to bar what is thought of as a religion. How about this question at the visa interview?

    Do you believe sharia is the supreme law? Any Muslim that answers no is either lying or not a Muslim.

    People are right. There has never been a religious test placed on immigration. There is however a rich history of denying immigrants on the basis of political ideology. Sharia is the man made political and law component that governs adherents of Islam. Disobedience to that law is not punished by Allah but by man. No other religious text speaks of punishment by man for slights against God. They speak of punishment by God. Therefore Sharia is mans law and stands to be judged by man as acceptable or not.

    I find Sharia as incompatible with our constitutional law therefore find it a destructive ideology that need not be tolerated or allowed to be integrated. Residence denied.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Sharia is the man made political and law component that governs adherents of Islam.

      Is the law Moses supposedly passed on from his God to the Israelites, as recorded in Leviticus, God’s Law or man-made? If the former, please explain the difference with Sharia. 🙂 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        Whether God actually wrote the commandments himself or whether Mosses dreamed them up all on his own is of little importance to the subject of “Gods law v. mans law”. The root of every law is not the written description of the offense but the consequences of non compliance. There were no penalties prescribed to be carried out by man included in the law passed down by mosses. Judgement and punishment are prescribed and carried out by God. In the total absence of any civil law (“mans law”) that leaves the non-believer free to do whatever they please and expect no punishment because there is nobody to punish them.

        In Sharia the sinner is judged to be a sinner by man and punishment carried out by man. Therefore even in the absence of civil law a non- believer can still not avoid punishment no matter how fiercely they deny Allah. In order to enforce their religious law they have codified it into civil law with civil punishment. At that point it becomes “mans law”. Once religious law is codified in civil law you no longer have freedom to practice or not practice that religion.

        I know your next argument will be that the constitution was written largely based on Christian law. Fair enough. I submit that ample room for deviation was left and it sure has been proven to be used over time. That room alone tells me that US law was written with Christian law as a guide not a dictate. Otherwise amendment by man wouldn’t be allowed. You have to start someplace. With Sharia I see no such flexibility save the occasional dictate from some psycho imam that usually sends it farther off the rails. That is why our friends trying to start a reformation movement are going to have such a hard time. Most theology has slowly changed over the past 1400 years to more easily survive in a civil law world. They have a lot of catching up to do.

    • Troy says:

      Sharia is the man made political and law component that governs adherents of Islam.

      Please direct my attention to any body of judicial / political law that IS NOT man made. I am not aware of any.

      If you accept the notion of a creator / law giver, the only “laws” it could possibly have established are the physical laws that govern the universe. I take this position on the grounds that the “creator” of anything must have already existed before the thing created, and, continues to exist OUTSIDE the thing created.

      In other words, if the universe we inhabit had a creator, said creator MUST be outside that universe. We (humankind) hardly understand the universe we inhabit. To think that any human can understand anything OUTSIDE that universe is too silly for a rational discussion.

      Indeed, I suspect that the act of “creation” was nothing more (or less) than the establishment of those physical laws.

      Condensed version, establish the physical laws, ignite the fuse that set off the (or a) big bang, then stand aside and watch what happens. Eventually, everything that CAN happen, WILL happen. Fascination worthy of a creator.

      IMHO, approached in any other fashion, creation would have been pointless.

      Good discussion.

      Troy

      • Chris says:

        Some of my own thoughts on the subject run pretty close to what you are describing Troy. As a believer in a creator I have often postulated that we are little more than tiny specs in a really big petri dish. If one were to subscribe to an all knowing everywhere deity that would be the guy (figuratively of course) looking through the microscope to see what happens once the desired experimental conditions (“physical laws”) have been set. I hope we are at least half as interesting as our egos lead us to believe.

  • Chris says:

    To speak to your hypothetical religion regarding human sacrifice Troy. Gods law does not absolve from mans law. (a particularly troubling aspect of Islam. They don’t recognize a difference and think it their duty to carry out Allah’s wrath.) If the strict practitioner were to engage in his practice it would only happen once. The separation of religion and government we enjoy does come with a price. You have to be willing to live under both sets of rules no matter how conflicting they are.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      You have to be willing to live under both sets of rules no matter how conflicting they are.

      Not really, Chris. I have personally outgrown both of them. First I discarded the irrational belief in gods and devils. Not only do I no longer need to ‘obey’ “God’s Law,” I haven’t had to experience a moment of guilt, fear of the unknown, or the slightest trepidation about the hereafter, ever since. These unnecessary concepts have had no relevance in my life for 50 years.

      It took a while longer; but eventually it occurred to me that I had not signed any ‘social contract,’ and was under no obligation to sacrifice my life in any way to the amorphous concept of ‘society.’ Rules and laws I find silly, unnecessary, and/or offensive simply do not apply to me. I will guiltlessly flaunt them with impunity, if I think I won’t be caught, and/or reckon I can afford to pay the penalty if I am. I don’t look for trouble; but I choose not to allow “it’s against the law” to stop me from doing something that pleases me, which is not in violation of my own personal moral code. ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        I understand Dave and fully realize that living under religious law is without a doubt a matter of choice. Nobody in America is compelled to do so. (The root conflict of Islam) You also have the right to flout civil law any time you wish. That does not mean you don’t have to live under it because even in your statement you recognize that if caught you will pay a penalty. Sorry my friend your living under civil law no matter how you rationalize it. Until the day comes when you can break the law and get caught but not be penalized simply on the basis that you don’t like the law your stuck like the rest of us.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Agreed, I am stuck with an oppressive, increasingly tyrannical, government I never asked for, and have no respect for, not unlike the vast majority of the people in this world. I acknowledge that I have to be careful regarding those violations that would bring serious consequences, although most of them violate my own moral principles so I wouldn’t violate them anyway. What I was reacting to was your suggestion that one had to be “willing” to abide by the established rules of our society. I am not and generally do not. 🙂 ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          Fair enough. Substitute willing for compelled. 🙂

  • ◄Dave► says:

    We have had some pretty good discussions of rights here in the past. It is always important to distinguish natural rights, which are always individual in nature and preceded both governments and religions, from political rights, which are more often collective in nature, and probably should be called privileges or entitlements.

    While the first ten Amendments to our Constitution are called “The Bill of Rights,” as Troy suggests, they are more accurately further clarifications on the intended limited scope and power the Founders assigned to the Federal Government, than any definitive list of the Rights of Man.

    Note that one’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Rather than relying on codified law and capricious government, it makes clear that the defense of such basic natural rights, lies in the power of well-armed people to revolt again, against any new tyrannical government that might arise here.

    Your concept of a hierarchy of rights is a good one, Troy. Whether the “Freedom of Religion” is properly considered a collective ‘right,’ or a ‘privilege’ of citizenship in our particular country, it is clearly codified in our Constitution, and meant to be off-limits to the Federal government. Yet, in any rational hierarchy of rights, it would obviously be subservient to our superior natural rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Chris’ point regarding Islam being more of a political ideology than a religion is also a good one. While our history is replete with some rather ugly chapters of Christian persecution of those (witches, adulterers, apostates, heathens, Mormons, etc.) who did not conform to the predominant dogma of an area, Americans have pretty much outgrown such foolishness of man punishing men for violating “God’s Law,” as defined in ancient scrolls. Islam alas, by and large has not.

    I heartily agree that we need to vet all potential immigrants, and bar those who are a potential threat to our culture and lives. Were it up to me, I would probably just ban any and all who admit to a belief in the existence of deities. That would cover all the crazies pretty well. 🙂

    Since that isn’t going to happen, Chris’ suggestion that they be queried on Sharia law is a good one. I would make any potential immigrant sign an affidavit under the penalty of death, renouncing all forms of Sharia (or any other religious “law”) and pledging to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, against all challenges, religious or otherwise. Believe in Allah if it pleases you; but the misogynous nonsense, and Jihadi activities, are strictly verboten in America. ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    Those founders might have been some pretty smart guys. The constitution can be changed. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness codified in the Declaration of Independence stands on it’s own safe from even the SCOTUS. Now if only the government would define what it means to be happy like they define life and liberty we would have it made.

    • Troy says:

      Chris,
      Nobody need define what it means to be happy. What the Declaration says is that each individual has the right to PURSUE happiness, whatever that might mean to the individual in question.

      Jefferson’s original text said “Life, Liberty and Property” but the other members of the committee assigned to draft the Declaration insisted he change it because of its implications RE slavery. Personally, I prefer Jefferson’s original notion because, as you rightly imply, “pursuit of happiness” can be quite ambiguous.

      Troy

      • Chris says:

        Quite true Troy and thank you for the response. I probably should have put on my rhetorical hat when posting that. I was actually somewhat mocking that government has no idea how to define any of the three but try they do bless their hearts.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links