The Politics Of religion

Hey Dylan,

Funny I just posted a religion article yesterday, but it dealt with my path, not Church/State.

Yeah The Islamists are busy at work in public universities, here is some info on the MSA (Muslim Student Ass.):

MSA has published a MSA Starter's Guide: A Guide on How to Run a Successful MSA, which states: "It should be the long-term goal of every MSA to Islamicize the politics of their respective university … the politicization of the MSA means to make the MSA more of a force on internal campus politics. The MSA needs to be a more 'In-your-face' association … For example, the student body must be convinced that there is such a thing as a Muslim-bloc."

The MSA Starter's Guide further advises: "Aim to rise within the ranks of the Union [student government] and to get on selected executive committees … I cannot stress this enough, the Union has vast powers that Muslims need to control."

In addition, MSA has prepared and published a guide on "How to Establish a Prayer Room on Campus" for its student leaders, to help them press their schools with demands for separate, rather than a shared, religious space on campus as part of their Muslim Accommodations Task Force. A supplement to the guide specifically instructs MSA leaders on setting up a "Prayer Room Demand Survey."

Noteworthy MSA-related news items from recent years include the following:

• On October 22, 2000, Ahmed Shama, then-President of the UCLA Muslim Students Association, led a crowd of demonstrators at the Israeli consulate in chants of "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the Jews!" One guest speaker at the event was Hamid Ayloush, a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which co-sponsored the rally. In his speech, Ayloush solicited contributions for the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation.
• In recent years, MSA members at UCLA raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists at their annual "Anti-Zionist Week."
• In March 2003, speaker Muammad Faheed told an MSA meeting at Queensborough Community College in New York, "The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
• At its Annual Conference in 2003, the Iowa Muslim Student Association invited, as a guest speaker, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, who had told a college audience in 1994: "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."
• The University of Southern California MSA invited Taliban ambassador Sayyid Hashimi to speak on campus six months before 9/11.
• The MSA chapter at California State University-Northridge held a fundraiser for Islamic Relief Worldwide, an organization that received a $50,000 contribution from a pro-Osama bin Laden front group based in Canada.
• In 2002, James Madison University's MSA sponsored a "Jihad" panel that included Dr. Abdulrahman Hijazi, who had once extolled an Islamic suicide bomber as a "martyr" whose actions were animated by a hope of securing "the mercy of Allah" by means of "one of the greatest good deeds, which is jihad."
• In 2003, University of Idaho MSA President Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was ordered deported because he worked for the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has ties to al Qaeda. While on campus, Al-Hussayen had sought access to a chemical lab containing nuclear material.
• Alkalima, the newspaper of the Muslim Student Union at the University of California - Irvine (which is an MSA campus chapter), once published a special report called "Zionism: The Forgotten Apartheid," which glorified Hamas and Hezbollah as noble warriors fighting Israeli oppression. Alkalima's June 2004 edition contained an opinion piece praising Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. It also described Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and former Hamas senior leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi as "martyrs."

Source

Notice allot of the institutions are Public Universities...

Then there is this:

Islamic Programs & Activities For America's Grade School

Not Good Devildog!

USCDF - Duty First!

Aloha

"Why is it then that we constantly attempt to pursue the separation of Church and State?"

JMHO...

Mainly because the phrase "separation of church and state" is not a phrase contained within the body of the U.S. Constitution, proper (including the amendments thereto).

The language of the United States Constitution, in the first amendment thereto, states specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." that phrase is followed by a semi-colon and further restrictions placed upon the Congress which forbid Congress from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. This is followed by yet another semi-colon which is followed by the provision which prohibits the Government from enacting law which would prohibit the right of the people to peaceably assemble, as well as protecting their right to petition the government regarding grievances the people may have regarding same.

Together, all these issues are generally referred to as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution as well as the 1st of ten amendments commonly referred to as the "Bill of Rights."

But let us take the first part (the initial clause) of the 1st amendment and address what it says specifically...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the U.S. Congress has had a habit of breaking this amendment almost from the moment it was officially adapted.

The Catholic church is an "establishment" of religion. So are Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and (yes, even Mormon) churches. Each are recognized "establishments" of religion, in the same manner that Harvard, Notre Dame and most other Universities and colleges are recognized "establishments" of higher learning, as hospitals and clinics are recognized as medical "establishments". Your corner bar is also an "establishment" in which one may go to legally imbibe spirits in a public venue. There are, likewise, many different types of establishments.

Unfortunately, the language of the late 1700's employed by the founding fathers has been stripped of the common meaning of the word "establishment" during the period it was in common use, and has been reinterpreted time and again to mean something altogether different from its original intent, that being explicitly to prohibit Congress from enacting laws against any specific recognized branch of religion, hence the comma that follows the initial statement followed by a phrase which attempts to clarify the intent of the first phrase by stating implicitly, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Socialist (and other subversives) have been ever since trying to redefine this into their own motto of "separation of church and state" rather than a prohibition against Congress from enacting any law which would prohibit the free exercise of any recognized branch of religion extant at the time the bill was adapted as a component of the original document.

As American citizens, we are given every opportunity in the world to learn the English language, including the purpose of commas, colons, semi-colons, clauses, phrases, and all other major components of said language (from preschool all the way up to and including a doctorate if one so chooses to pursue the matter to that end).

It is therefore our responsibility, as citizens of this great nation, to insure the language of the document is employed as written and not as reinterpreted, allowing misconstrued definitions and obtuse implementations by the current powers that be (who are subversively seeking to usurp the freedoms granted and assumed to be protected by those same individuals, who swear [under oath] to uphold and protect those principles) as they are given in said document.

Any failure to do so is the failure of the people, not of the government!

Thank you for the kind response.

With regard to the current stream of concessions the government seems to be granting the Muslims of the world (not only here in the US, my friend), it's due to a larger scenario in progress for some time already.

The governments of the world have a certain degree of control over the majority of other religions. Not so with Islam.

The US government has in all but disavowed the first amendment in its entirety, allowing not only itself great lattitude in its interpretation but have also granted such immunity at both the state and local levels that there is no true freedom of religion in America (only a semblance of it).

Our current military involvement in numerous areas which are predominantly Muslim is the basest quotient of the answer to the question you pose.

Oil and other global interests (which are eco-centric to that geographical region (really the term should be "geologic region") have little to do with the regions inhabitants. Only the lack of firm control over the inhabitants of the region prevents those who are really in control (people seldom seen in the public eye, though they have, by and large, been exposed to anyone not wearing blinders), from escalating the grasp they have on all of us already economically.

This is the very reason Iran has been allowed to go as far as it has. The need to gain control over the region is a global desire, not only a desire of those who wield power behind the scenes in Washington D.C.

Let no one deceive you, the U.S. and its allies are poised on either side of Iran and others sympathetic towards Iran (as the US was also in times past) coveting areas to its north, the field has been readied for the games, which (by the way... in case you are oblivious to world events)) are already underway.

Covert activities continuing around the globe have this region as their main goal.

The socialization of America, the incorporation of Red China into the global economic scenario, along with a resurgent Socialist Russia have the world poised for the battle ahead.

MARK MY WORDS (...yes, "mark" my words)... the situation is rapidly coming to a head. I expect we'll see much activity related to the continued cottering to the Islamic nations by the U.S., the E.U., the (idealized) independent areas of the former U.S.S.R. and all over the Asain quarters of the globe as well for a short time to come.

The American people are already tired of this fraternizing with the so-called enemy in our conflicts within Afghanistan and Iraq. What do you think they'll do and say when the @!$%# really starts hitting the fan?

No nation needs to coddle any of the major Christian religions, they are well controlled, their hierarchy, dogmas and foundations having been subverted long ago.

The Hindi feel semi-secure (or secure enough) with their own nuclear arsenal at the ready.

The Soviet Unions weapons have not suddenly just disappeared.

China is content letting North Korea distract the attention of most of the West as it readies for a mass push toward the Middle East as well.

When the "battle royale" really gets going, do not be surprized if U.S. Muslims do not face similar fates as those of Japanese descent did during the last "Great War"!

Muslims in America are therefore being coddled now (for the moment) but not forever!

The Amish have been forced to forgo parts of their religion as have the Mormons (well I should also mention our governments exercise of authority over the religion of Native Americans ...even now that they are already subdued peoples).

Islam is getting a little leeway for the time being, as the powers that be position themselves to subdue Islam as well !!!

Unfortunately, I am not (nor do I claim to be) that "One" (nor one of the many false prophets of the end-times).

I was just looking for your opinion based on your previous post. Thanks for indulging me. I have great difficulty in understanding world issues and who is allied with whom, etc. I sure hope you are wrong because that sounds very frightening.

If religion has no place in politics, nor politics in religion, why is the Conservative Christian Right such a powerful lobby in this country? Why is the Roman Catholic Church attempting what boils down to, for lack of a better term, political extortion if government does something that is against Catholic teaching?

Remember when this was an issue in 1960 when Kennedy ran for President?