Perkins: Constitution Doesn’t Protect Muslims

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council offers a ridiculously hypocritical argument for why the religious freedom of Muslims is not protected by the Constitution. It’s the same old argument about Islam being more than just a religion, as if that did not apply to Christianity as well. Oh, and the murderous Muslims are the real ones.

Perkins, who was responding to a caller who worried that mosques in her hometown are harboring terrorist sleeper cells, said the vast majority of Muslims who aren’t committing acts of violence are all phony Muslims who “don’t really believe the Quran or practice it as its written.”

Funny, that’s what the Christian Reconstructionists say about other Christians too. Like the Muslims, they want to stone gay people and women who aren’t virgins to death too. If you instituted the Old Testament Mosaic law in this country, it would be virtually indistinguishable from Sharia law. And there are lots of Christians who want to do just that and who think that any Christian who doesn’t want to do that “doesn’t really believe the Bible or practice it as it’s written.” Most Muslims, like most Christians, find ways to reinterpret those barbaric verses and excuse them away. And then there are people like Perkins, who are sort of Dominionism Light and want to impose some of the Biblical law and not other parts of it.

He warned that Islam isn’t necessarily protected under the Constitution because it “tears at the fabric of our society” and undermines “ordered liberty,” adding that Islam is “not just a religion, it’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system and it’s a military system.”

Seriously? How many examples would you like me to list of Christian leaders, including Perkins, arguing that the Bible tells us what kind of economic system to have, what kind of judicial system to have, what kind of military and so forth? How many books would you like me to list of people Perkins considers friends and allies claiming that Christianity and the Bible are not just religious but are political and economic as well and how Christians should control every institution of society in the name of Jesus?

“Those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy,” he said. “So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that will harm the whole. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.”

It’s the same damn God. Muslims accept the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) as well and trace their lineage back to Abraham too. Perkins knows this, but he also knows that his audience is incredibly ignorant.

"Like Lyekka, angels are smooth around the bend."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."
"Maybe Republicans...and Trump didn't try grab their pussies."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"No. Trump and Moore haven't asked for investigations of themselves. You are upset because it ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Richard Smith

    We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.

    That’s a good, clear way of proving that Christianity has nothing to do with politics, for sure.

  • peterh

    “If you instituted the Old Testament Mosaic law in this country, . . . And there are lots of Christians who want to do just that . . . ”

    There’s a vocal sub-set of Christians who vehemently assert that the NT trumps the OT, therefore they/we are not bound in any way by OT law. These are generally the same ones who go ballistic with their hair on fire when courts rule they can’t post portions of OT law on public property.

  • John Pieret

    We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles

    Only if Enlightenment principles, particularly from John Locke, are considered Judeo-Christian.

    Those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy

    The hardest thing about keeping a democracy is the tendency of its citizens to destroy it in order to save it.

    Perkins knows this, but he also knows that his audience is incredibly ignorant.

    They pretty much have to be in order to be his audience.

  • cptdoom

    Well Tony’s buddy Mike Huckabee – speaking at an event last week allegedly to mark the anniversary of the Star Spangled Banner – reassured his fellow Dominionists that “we win in the end,” and the children of Isaac will conquer the children of Ishmael. So at least he’s got an understanding of the Biblical linkages among the major religions. Too bad Huckabee wants to start the Crusades again.

  • colnago80

    Re peterh @ #2

    There’s a vocal sub-set of Christians who vehemently assert that the NT trumps the OT, therefore they/we are not bound in any way by OT law.

    Example: the blogs resident physics professor and former math department chairman.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    You can’t compare the two. They’re totally different. One is “Us”, and the other is, well, “The Other”. The first, conveniently, contains everything that is Good, and the last, Bad. In Venn diagram form, it would be two totally non-overlapping circles.

  • Alverant

    We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles

    I can’t help notice the lack of examples. Are they on the web page with his full diatribe? Is slavery one of those principles?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    shorter Modsoperandi: O o

  • Trebuchet

    Does SLC1 have any idea how tiresome his off-topic blatherings are? Probably not.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Trebuchet “Does SLC1 have any idea how tiresome his off-topic blatherings are? Probably not.”

    To be fair, it’s better that he’s here, where he can’t do any harm. The same can be said for the rest of you, too. Not me though. I’m just an observer, like a visitor to the monkey exhibit.

  • dingojack

    Modus – or are you really — [music sting] A lizardman from 20000 leagues?!?!?

    😉 Dingo

  • Michael Heath

    Modusoperandi writes:

    I’m just an observer, like a visitor to the monkey exhibit.

    I got a hunch you’re the monkey in the exhibit us monkeys most seek out for a reaction. Kinda like humans do with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Michael Heath “I got a hunch you’re the monkey in the exhibit us monkeys most seek out for a reaction. Kinda like humans do with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.”

    You’re all just after my grapes and melon slices. Still, I won’t turn down the grooming.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Does SLC1 have any idea how tiresome his off-topic blatherings are? Probably not.

    Quite possibly. The power to annoy is, after all, power. A rather low order, but some people set the bar low — often out of necessity.

  • Chiroptera

    …said the vast majority of Muslims who aren’t committing acts of violence are all phony Muslims who “don’t really believe the Quran or practice it as its written.”

    Even if this were true, phony Islam would still be definite religion and so phony Muslims would be protected under the First Amendment.

  • busterggi

    If the US Constitution wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian values then why did it allow slavery and disenfranchise women?

  • Nemo

    The thing is, even if (for the sake of argument) Islam were nothing but a political movement, and not a religion at all — it would still be protected under the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech (especially political speech) and freedom of assembly would still apply to its members. So the whole claim that “it’s not a religion” seems irrelevant to me.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Perkins, who was responding to a caller who worried that mosques in her hometown are harboring terrorist sleeper cells, said the vast majority of Muslims who aren’t committing acts of violence are all phony Muslims who “don’t really believe the Quran or practice it as its written.”

    So, he agrees that any Christian who isn’t stoning his neighbor for picking up sticks on the sabbath is similarly a phony Christian, right?

    He warned that Islam isn’t necessarily protected under the Constitution because it “tears at the fabric of our society” and undermines “ordered liberty,” adding that Islam is “not just a religion, it’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system and it’s a military system.”

    Just like Christianity, right? You say it’s the basis of free, civil society, right? The Bible also talks a lot about property, such as its rules for slavery – how much to pay, how long you can have them, how hard you can beat them, etc. Also its rules for how much you have to pay to a father when you rape his daughter, plus you have to marry her too because “damaged goods” are now valueless to the father. That’s sound economic principles, right?

    /sarcasm

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    I wonder if Perkins asked the Judeos what they think, since he seems to think their religion was eaten by his own. Maybe he can attend synachurch on Sunterday, and, standing before the mennorahafix, explain everything to the Jewtiles.

  • dingojack

    Area Man – are ‘Jewtiles’ found fiddling on the roof?

    😀 Dingo

  • vereverum

    Perkins, who was responding to a caller who worried that mosques in her hometown are harboring terrorist sleeper cells, said the vast majority of Muslims who aren’t committing acts of violence are all phony Muslims who “don’t really believe the Quran or practice it as its written.”

    This is the position of fundamentalist Islamic groups such as al-Qaeda.

    Perkins and al-Qaeda on the same side o’ the fence.

    Looks suspicious to me; is he a false flag?

  • dan4

    @17: Not 100% true. If Islam was established in the law as a non-religion, then it wouldn’t violate any aspect of the First Amendment to ban the construction of mosques (i.e. stuff like that is not “freedom of speech”).

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    @17: Not 100% true. If Islam was established in the law as a non-religion, then it wouldn’t violate any aspect of the First Amendment to ban the construction of mosques (i.e. stuff like that is not “freedom of speech”).

    Depends on the justification. You are right that being religious affords you additional protections. You are wrong that being non-religious affords you zero protections. Any act of the US government which has the purpose or effect of targeting mere speech is unconstitutional, no matter what that speech is. Except in the usual exceptions, such as assault, true threats, harassment, false advertising, etc. Further, if they can whip up some excuse which obfuscates the desire and effect to ban construction of mosques, it might fly. For example, see the blue laws.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Err, implicit in my argument is that architecture can be speech. I think I can make a good case that it is. If Islam was construed to be non-religious, it can still be argued that the shape of the building is itself speech (political speech in this case). I have good confidence that this argument would hold up in court too.