A Canadian reader comments and I reply:
I've been thinking about the problem of interpreting "no religious test" in light of your post. It's actually a very difficult problem! I'm almost convinced the correct response is that, unfortunately, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly then fundamentalist Muslims do indeed have the right to hold public office--given the most natural and reasonable interpretation of word meanings and even taking into account the likely intentions of the founding fathers, the history of legal interpretation, etc. It's very hard to get around this. Maybe rather than saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact on any sane interpretation, we have to say that a sane person would reject both suicide pacts and some parts of the US Constitution.
I grant that it is a very difficult problem, and I am aware that few will be convinced by what I wrote earlier. Ask anybody what Islam is and he will tell you that it is a religion. And then, given that
. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.(Article VI)
it seems to follow via some uncontroversial auxiliary premises that no Muslim shall be barred from running for office simply because he is a Muslim.
But of course among those Muslims are those who have no intention of assimilating and accepting our values but instead seek to impose Sharia on us thereby rejecting our values and principles and subverting our system of government.
So the question I would put to my fellow citizens is: Are you comfortable with an interpretation of the Constitution that allows for its elimination and the values and principles it enshrines?
I am not.
There are those who will say: let anyone immigrate from anywhere and then let the people who have immigrated decide what they want. They call that democracy, and they are all for it. The people are the residents within certain geographical borders, and residency constitutes citizenship. If the residents want blasphemy laws, then we shall have blasphemy laws.
You point out that Islam is not just a religion but also a political ideology. But does that really help? It still is a religion, and if the Constitution forbids any "religious test", without ever saying anything about the scope of "religion", the most natural interpretation is that even religions that double as political ideologies--most religions, really--are subject to the "no religious test" rule. You say that we could declare Islam an inadmissible religion, but then wouldn't effectively mean that the Constitution is self-contradictory? On the one hand, there is to be freedom of religion and no religious test--the subject here being surely just religion in general. On the other hand, only some religions are protected by the "no religious test" rule, and for other religions there can be a religious test after all. That seems incoherent, no?
Islam is a religion, but not a religion in the sense in which Hinduism, Buddhism Judaism, and Christianity are religions. Will you grant me that? Or must I argue it out?
There is no contradiction or incoherence such as you imagine. I take it you find no incoherence in what the logic books call exceptive propositions. For example, "All citizens of the United States are guaranteed freedom of religion except those whose religions are incompatible with the values and principles of the American founding." The following propositions are logically consistent. (1) The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and disallows religious tests. (2) The Constitution guarantees these things subject to the proviso that the religion in question is compatible with the principles of the American founding.
Now the Constitution does not contain these formulations. But we will agree that the document is subject to interpretation. My claim is that it is most reasonable interpreted along the lines I have suggested.
As for incoherence, I should think that your account is more justly charged with it. A constitution that allows for its own subversion is incoherent if not strictly self-contradictory in the logical sense. The provisions of such a constitution do not cohere with its own continued existence.
Actually I don't know that the idea of a church/state or religion/politics distinction will make sense if we allow that some religions are also political ideologies. If the two can be separated, wouldn't that mean that the religions that are also political must be either banned or else somehow reformulated so that they're only religious? Otherwise, the effect would be to prevent the normal or traditional practice of those religions--since normally or by their nature they'd function as political entities. But then wouldn't that be incompatible with the ideal of freedom of religion? I don't know. Just some rambling thoughts. The issue seems very confusing. The US Constitution was never meant to apply to this bizarre multicultural situation that's been induced.
But why on earth would you want the normal or traditional practice of (radical) Islam in the U. S. , Canada, France, the West generally? I know you don't want that.
The Founders figured something out. They figured out that a modicum of civil peace can be had if government is kept limited in scope and kept separate from religion.
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, and like toleration, has limits. As you know, Islam does not recognize freedom of religion. You either convert, accept dhimmitude, or are put to the sword. It is therefore entirely reasonable to place restrictions on freedom of religion and ban politically subversive religions.
A commitment to freedom of religion becomes incoherent and suicidal when it is taken to imply freedom for all religions including those that reject freedom of religion. Similarly for freedom of speech and toleration. A sane toleration must be intolerant of the intolerant.
Recent Comments