The DNC says that there will also be Catholic representation in the multi-faith group at the convention, but it does not want New York archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan to be there. This sounds like payback for Dolan's opposition to Obamacare's insistence that Catholic institutions offer birth control. Conspiracy theorists and Republican campaign outliers would like to make this proof that Obama favors Islam over Christianity. I doubt this is the case.
Even a radical multi-culturalist like Barak Obama must see that snubbing the "Pope of America" in favor of exclusive Muslim prayer would be political suicide. An official with the Obama campaign admitted that there will be a "high ranking" person from the Catholic church invited to the DNC convention. "Both/and" not "either/or" is the Democrat way. No surprise here. However, this incident highlights one of the dangers of the multi-cultural agenda and it showcases another way the Democrats can be distinguished from the Republicans.
This discussion must be undergirded with the premise that America is a pluralist society, not a Christian society. The founding fathers' concept of religious freedom embraces at least one tenet that is lacking from many other religious systems, Islam in particular. The First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees all religions the right of expression without government interference. That Constitutional freedom ends, however, when the religious expression impinges on the rights of others to believe or act differently. The Quran is not equally tolerant, and this generation has seen the radical outworking of that intolerance, particularly since 9/11.
The Blaze has a particularly revealing article about the real intentions of the Muslims who are spearheading their prayer service at the DNC. The biography of Siraj Wahhaj, the head Imam in this operation, is particularly frightening. He is quoted by one interviewer saying, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” And in another instance, “it is his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran…we need to speak up!”
This raises a paradox of freedom question: must religious freedom include the right to espouse a religion that would exterminate all other religions? Asked another way, does our Constitution grant citizens the right to abolish the Constitution? This is where the question of minority rights becomes tricky. If a minority of citizens wants to rewrite the Constitution, they must enlist the majority on their side. This is what the civil rights movement accomplished, as I see it; not a rewrite, but an amendment process within the Constitutional framework. This is fine.
A replacement of the Constitution with the Quran, with Sharia law is a different matter. Until Muslims become a majority, this eventuality is impossible to imagine. That said, our current system must allow a voice and a place for those who wish to see the Constitution replaced. This must be the position of Christians as well as Muslims. The only ground on which Christians can fight for their own freedom is that which guarantees all others their freedom as well.
Conditions already exist which begin to limit the free expression of the Christian religion. The outgoing Air Force chief recently forbade Christian officers from "proselytizing." There have long been complaints that public schools teachers can talk about any religion with their students except Christianity. The expression of certain Biblical views are now considered "hate speech" punishable in some jurisdictions. We must continue to fight this kind of discrimination.
But there must be limits to our freedoms. In the same way that freedom of speech cannot allow someone to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we must consider how to handle religious zealots whose belief system is antithetical to our Constitution. If my religion required that I sacrifice a virgin on every full moon, the law against murder would trump my religious freedom. Similarly, if my religious views demand insurrection and the overthrow of the majority, my actions must be curtailed. Without this restriction, we would have to allow homicide bombers to express themselves without legal consequence. 9/11 becomes just a really dramatic religious expression; nothing wrong with that.
One hopes the Democrats weren't thinking this far when they allowed the expansion of Muslim activities at their convention. One wonders how they could even embrace someone as radical as the people who are coordinating the event. Robert Spencer pegged it in frontpagemag.com saying, "The Democrats are so in thrall to multiculturalism that it is likely that few, if any, DNC organizers know or care about Wahhaj’s Islamic supremacist statements and ties." One risks being called Islamophobic for saying so, but it is hard to imagine the Republicans being in this position. Again, one thing is clear: the two parties are radically unlike in what they support. A real choice is being offered: ride the horse George Washington rode, or climb on the Trojan horse the Democrats are building.
No comments:
Post a Comment