By Scott W. Winchell
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.