Our Founders on Islam: Even They Knew It Stinketh

smell-bad-holding-nose

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Mohammed.

So far as I can see, it is the principle cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

~ Alexis de Tocqueville, French social scientist

Until our current day of “enlightenment” (where in order to prove your intellect, you must first make evident the fact that you possess none), learned and perspicacious men would look clearly at the facts and draw conclusion on the reality before them … as did our Founders.

Not so today … the majority of our leaders (as mirrored across the Pond in Europe) are either intentionally ignorant, intellectually lazy or craven to the core, regarding the facts about the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Most leaders are virtually untouched by the supremacist actions of Muslims, being tucked away in gated and guarded communities. And since their goals have changed from serving the public to cementing their thrones … they will appease these enemies of freedom for a temporal peace … and their seemingly sustained piece of the pie.

But the Founding Fathers of this great Republic had NO problem pointing out the grave error of Muhammed’s cult … and loved freedom and people enough, to say so. I believe you deserve the truth … right from some of the Founders’ Mouths:

Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War patriot and hero, from his book, Reason, The Only Oracle of Man:

Mahomet taught his army that the “term of every man’s life was fixed by God, and that none could shorten it, by any hazard that he might seem to be exposed to in battle or otherwise,” but that it should be introduced into peacable [sic] and civil life, and be patronized by any teachers of religion, is quite strange, as it subverts religion in general, and renders the teaching of it unnecessary … We are liable to be imposed upon by impostors, or by ignorant and insidious teachers, whose interest it may be to obtrude their own systems on the world for infallible truth, as in the instance of Mahomet.

Joseph Story, Father of American Jurisprudence, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, concerning the First Amendment:

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation … the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, in the debates of 1788 on the wording of the Constitution:“But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices … But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.”

John Locke, the Father of Classical Liberalism (NOT today’s liberalism), was an English philosopher and physician, from his, “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, 4 of the 5 exceptions inarguably describe Muslim behavior across the world, as it clearly resembles the precise intolerance that characterizes Islamic countries:

Those whose religious opinions are contrary to “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” (1796, p. 53);
The religion that “teaches expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise” (p. 54);
“[T]hose that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion … and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to [seize the government]” (p. 55);
All those who see themselves as having allegiance to another civil authority (p. 56).

About the author: Audrey Russo

Audrey Russo is the Host of the weekly REELTalk Radio Show (NYC). Audrey writes a column for ClashDaily.com and handles Middle East/National Security/Terrorism/Cultural Issues, and her articles can be read in several other news/opinion journals. She is also a contributor on Barbwire.com. Audrey's Radio Show can also be heard on the Leading Edge Radio Network. Audrey is also an active member of the NYC performing arts community as a singer and actor.

View all articles by Audrey Russo

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily