The linked post is about Gingrich and his war against Islam, but it makes me wonder if Gingrich is intentionally trying to work against the Constitution. Isn’t Freedom of Religion central to the Constitution, and isn’t Freedom from Religion there as well?

I don’t mean those questions glibly- I’m fully serious. If we put any weight in the US Constitution, then we must accept Religion to be just that, and not a standing term for one group’s religious beliefs over another’s.

Washington Post columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson examines Newt Gingrich’s history of anti-Muslim fear-bating and concludes that “those views demonstrate a disturbing tendency: the passionate embrace of shallow ideas.” But Gerson fails to acknowledge that Gingrich’s “shallow ideas” are more than just rhetoric. Gingrich has a plan to put them into action.

But more importantly to me, is this notion of Freedom from Religion. How our Laws were and are designed to be based on fact, logic and not based in Religion or Religious law. So, I’m startled when Gingrich says:

And one of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law that says ‘no court, anywhere in the United States, under any circumstances, is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.’ Period.

If he thinks that any court could or would “replace American Law” with a religious law from one Faith, then he must think a court could replace American law with any other religious law.  Do you get my point?

How is it that he thinks Judges would use ANY religious based laws?

Gingrich is a danger to the American people, not only because he is at war with Islam, but because, he can not distinguish the divisions between the Constitution, and Religious Law in general.

via The Dangers Of Gingrich’s War Against Islam | ThinkProgress.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

One Comment

  1. Eugene Garner says:

    Newt is a typical neocon  who panders to anyone that offers him a buck for his vote.  Totally morally and ethically bankrupt.