FORMER TOP U.S. GENERAL SAYS CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT PROTECT MUSLIMS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn2S94CsGIE

FORMER TOP U.S. GENERAL SAYS CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT PROTECT MUSLIMS

William G. Boykin, 2/11/11
We tend to assume Islam deserves unquestioned First Amendment protection. But it is a totalitarian way of life with aggressive political goals, not just a religion. What is to be done?
The Founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution were very aware that the citizens of this nascent nation wanted the freedom to choose their own manner of worship. They made history byforbidding religious tests for public office in Article VI. They added the First Amendment to ensure that Americans would be protected from government interference in their spiritual affairs.
But a dilemma exists in our nation today concerning whether or how the First Amendment should properly be applied to Islam. This essay will show that the ultimate outcome of blanket protection for Islam in all its manifestations on the grounds of “religious freedom” would be the establishment of Islamic law and government, or Sharia, alongside or in place of civil law and government in this country … .
Islam does have a religious component but it has many other components, which should not be entitled to the same level of constitutional protection … .
Our First Amendment was never meant to protect sedition or insurgency. It is time to stop applying it in this suicidal fashion. Even as you read this, law and policy in the United States are continuing to allow seditious insurgents hiding behind a nave misinterpretation of “religious freedom” to erode our values, undermine our liberties, and threaten our future. We must stop it now before we are incapable of stopping it at all. (More)