Is Muslim Right to Worship Protected By the Free Exercise Clause?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 18, 2012.

?

Is Muslin Right to Worship Protected By the Free Exercise Clause?

  1. Yes

    89.5%
  2. No

    10.5%
  3. Other, I need to explain myself

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Simple question - Is Muslin Right to Worship Protected By the Free Exercise Clause?
     
    #1 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2012
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Yes, absolutely. Islam has been seen as a religion since the founding of the State.
     
  3. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely they do.
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The treaty of Tripoli (?) signed by George Washington recognized them as a legit religion and promised we would not hold their religion against them.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    From Ben Franklin's autobiography

    CHAPTER TEN
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Good point - it was President Adams who signed it and here is the pertinent text.

    WIKIPEDIA ENTRY
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Note - I reworded the question to better reflect what I would like to see discussed.
     
  8. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I voted yes, but then I reconsidered.

    Muslim religious speech (even if we don't like it) is their right under free speech.

    Muslim rights of worship are covered under freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

    It makes sense to me however that all these rights are included together under the first amendment. You can't have freedom of religion without freedom of speech and assembly. And religion would be quite limited if it couldn't print scriptures, etc or if it wasn't allowed to petition the government when it's rights were offended or when it saw the need for a new law or a challenge of an old one.
     
  9. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    While the technical answer is "yes" I had to vote no. The reason I did so is because Islam is not purely a religion. It does have an aspect of faith to it, however it is more a political and judicial movement. That being the case they would not have freedom as a religion. However, they would be protected by free speech.

    All that said, if we really understood the nature of our current conflict we would see them as the enemy of the state that they are and thus, be restricted on those grounds. For an in-depth article on the current conflict I encourage you to read this article. http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2007/Mar/chamberlinMar07.html
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    My issue with that is from the earliest days of the State (and before) Islam was recognised as a religion and therefore when the Constitution was written it would have included Islam in the 'free exercise' aspect. Based in Franklin's quote above Islam was well known already.

    The Treaty of Tripoli indicated that there would be difficultly differentiating between the religious and political aspects, but indicated the the religious aspect was inviolable.

    Thanks for the article - I hate reading on the computer so sent it to my Kindle to read later.
     
    #10 NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2012
  11. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I said, speaking of Islam strictly as a religion I would have voted yes. It would be protected by the free exercise clause. Since studying the crusades a couple of years ago and looking closer at Islam today, I cannot justify thinking of it as a purely religious issue....which is why I ended up voting no.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I would have an easier time regulating Muslim political speech if it were seditious than infringing on their right to free exercise of the religious aspect.
     
  13. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, calling for general violence against, and enslavement of, non-Muslim is ok with you as long as it is not directly seditious against the US? I thought hate crime laws would come into play sooner, rather than later.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Disappointed. Was appreciating a civil discussion for a change.

    My point is that since before day one Muslims have enjoyed the free exercise of religion in America. I don't see how that can be changed now, and I would not want it changed.
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    Thanks for the correction. Note that the treaty was made by the States (plural) and NOT with the United States (singular).

    Second, when did any official hostility first start between the States and a Muslim nation? When Iran invaded our embassy during the Carter administration?
     
  16. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Of course it is. To deny Muslims the right to practice and worship is against the basic principles of the American experiment.
     

Share This Page

Loading...