At least since JFK (who had to assure Americans that the first Catholic president would not be controlled by the Pope) one of the most popular and sacrosanct liberal shibboleths states that our constitution calls for the "separation of church and state."  Of course, no such phrase exists in the constitution, and the establishment clause was written to assure that no state-sponsored church could be founded in the United States. 

But if we adhere to the liberal view that there is an implicit constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, then perhaps liberals should consider Islam to be at least as dangerous and threatening as conservatives once considered communism to be.

Islam is not merely the practice of a faith, but a complete integration of religious and social spheres, one that doesn't eschew, but explicitly demands, the union of church and state. Mosque and Sharia are one. 

Why then haven't liberals had the courage to propose a legal ban on the practice of Islam, since in its current form it clearly violates their sacred constitutional principle requiring the separation of church and state?

Andrew McCarthy is doing a commendable job exposing many of the contradictions between Sharia and our secular rule of law.

 

Claude can be reached at csandroff@gmail.com