Gaffney Group Wants Islam Outlawed

Family Security Matters, founded by deranged authoritarian bigot Frank Gaffney, has come out officially in favor of banning Islam from the United States completely. They base this on the ridiculous claim that Gaffney and many other right wing authoritarians have made that Islam is not a religion but something far more.

Islam is not a religion, as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host nations. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host governments, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.” In order to neutralize Islam’s cultural institutions within our country, we must do as I have previously suggested: We must tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the Supreme Court and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

“The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

It’s bullshit, all the way down. Islam is more than a religion in precisely the same way that Christianity is more than a religion.

"Yep. Principally raking in a nice fat paycheck for hauling the party line."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"That should surprise absolutely nobody whatsoever. The man's got about as much spine as one ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"Not quite. It's only Illuminati when the hurricanes hit upper-middle-class right-wing white people. If the ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nick Gotts

    So, Islam is not a religion. And Christianity is not a religion (it’s a personal relationship with Jesus). Buddhism’s not a religion (it’s a philosophy). Judaism? More a set of practices expressing an ethnic identity – many Jews don’t believe in God. Hinduism? Much the same. Ah! But as we’re often assured, atheism is a religion! Phew.

  • rationalinks

    Let me help you out here, Ed. It’s only more than a religion when it’s not MY religion. Illegal for the, but not for me.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    It’s funny that he mentions Communism, because I was going to say that even if Islam was a purely political ideology, outlawing that would be just as unconstitutional as the Communist witch hunts were.

  • Chris J

    @rationalinks

    Let me help you out here, Ed. It’s only more than a religion when it’s not MY religion. Illegal for the, but not for me.

    Exactly. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the… other goose.

    @Nick Gotts:

    And Christianity is not a religion (it’s a personal relationship with Jesus).

    And yet somehow it is still protected under RFRA.

  • John Pieret

    Where’s the provision for people like Larry Klayman, Paul Vallely, Thomas McInerney, and Jim Garrow who have been calling for a military coup to topple the democratically elected president and even the Congress?

  • D. C. Sessions

    The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

    The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam

    … so-called “Christian Dominionism” …

    And follow through. It’s really far more accurate than the “Islam” version, given the many centuries that Muslims have lived among infidels such as the Hindus and Christians, mostly following the Koranic precept to follow the law of the land with the exception of those that would require (e.g.) blasphemy.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    I can’t help reading “Family Security Matters” as an response in one of those Twitter “add a word to a familiar sitcom title” memes.

  • Dave Maier

    Bill Donahue, I’d like you to meet Martin Niemöller. I’m sure you have a lot to talk about.

  • Chiroptera

    Islam is not a religion, as we understand the term.

    This is probably true. Conservatives demonstrate quite often that there are a lot of terms they don’t understand.

  • busterggi

    ” it is a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host nations”

    Kinda like the Christians did to the First Nations peoples?

  • Chiroptera

    Gaffney certainly sounds like he doesn’t know any American Muslims, doesn’t he?

  • jonathangray

    Islam is not a religion, as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion.

    I wonder how Mr Gaffney “understands the term”. Mohammedanism is a religion that has produced a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, ie a religious civilisation.

    Historically, this civilisation reached a very high level. It has also persistently sought to subjugate all Christian civilisations, on a number of occasions coming close to doing so.

    It is amusing that resurgent Mohammedanism misidentifies the apostate West as “Christian” or “crusaders” when it is manifestly the instrument of divine chastisement for that apostasy.

    (Everyone should read all of this: https://ia601400.us.archive.org/34/items/mir225/English_Translation.pdf)

  • Kevin Kehres

    @9. Beat me to it.

  • Alverant
  • http://timgueguen.blogspot.com timgueguen

    Family Security Matters was better when Steve Urkel was at the forefront, not this Gaffney guy.

  • grumpyoldfart

    He says Islam is “a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion.”

    Sounds a lot like Christianity for most of its history (dark ages, crusades, inquisitions, etc)

  • Michael Heath

    Frank Gaffney and his ilk are all authoritarian idiots – of course; but President Obama provides them with leverage when he falsely claims the adherents of the IS are not Muslims. That’s an incredibly denialist position to take given the fact that the IS’s members are exemplary of Islamists and a certain type of Muslim.

    I’d have to rank Mr. Obama’s denialism regarding the nature of the IS right up there with AGW denialism, a false though politically convenient position to take. The IS is merely a form of Islam we wish didn’t exist, but it does. And we won’t adequately deal with the IS unless we actually accept the relevant, factually true premises needed to form optimal policy. Which in short term is probably the least-worst option.

    Denialism regarding the suffering religion causes has long been a defect that doesn’t merely infect conservatives, but moderates and liberals as well.

    The troubles in the Middle East reveal a moral quandary for the West. Do you support tyrants who contain themselves to their borders? Or do you support populist uprisings that strive to install some form of Islamist government that promotes contagion beyond borders? Liberal democratic secular states remains a non-starter in the Middle East. And that’s partly because U.S. Christianism in the U.S. continues to enable the two worst choices being the only two viable choices.

  • Dave Maier

    It’s not only Obama (not that MH said it was); UK PM Cameron also said the same thing explicitly.

  • John Pieret

    grumpyoldfart @ 16:

    Sounds a lot like Christianity for most of its history (dark ages, crusades, inquisitions, etc)

    You don’t have to go that far back. The Puritans in Massachusetts were a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system. Even today, the religious right claims the US is a “Christian Nation” and advocates that all institutions, political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural, should reflect Christianity. The Christian right is simply envious that most Muslims don’t have a pesky Constitution to get in their way.

    Michael Heath @ 17:

    I’m willing to cut Obama and other world leaders some slack on these sorts of statements. They’re less intended as descriptive than proscriptive. “Many Muslims consider Islam to be a religion of peace. We should encourage that belief.”

  • Michael Heath

    John Pieret writes:

    I’m willing to cut Obama and other world leaders some slack on these sorts of statements. They’re less intended as descriptive than proscriptive. “Many Muslims consider Islam to be a religion of peace. We should encourage that belief.”

    I understand the appeal of this position. It was my first reaction when I heard the president promote this falsehood. However the more I think about it the more I realize it narrows the context in order to avoid confronting the primary root cause for the evil we confront in the Middle East – and that’s the practice governments privileging religion which in turn justifies using state power to harm others.

    This an opportunity for the West to point out that the exercise of liberty and equal protection requires secularism. You can’t have peace and prosperity and the protection of human rights when government is infused with religion. Religion is a primary wellspring that creates organized violence.

    When President Obama lies that the IS aren’t Muslims, he not only squanders an opportunity to better protect liberty by promoting secularism via a vivid example of anti-secularism. He’s also effectively promotes the continuation of religion-fueled government that results in massive human suffering.

  • John Pieret

    Michael Heath @ 20:

    And I understand the appeal of your position. The problem is how likely is it that “promoting secularism,” which our own religious right hates, is going to end religion-fueled governments in the Muslim world when we can’t even eradicate it entirely here in the US? Sometimes, you just have to settle for the possible.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Mohammedanism is a religion that has produced a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, ie a religious civilisation.

    Um, no, the civilization predates Islam, and was built on a huge variety of influences, from many sources, other than that one religion. The math and science, for example, was built on the achievements of polytheist Greeks and Romans. Islamic civilization is no more a “religious civilisation” than Christendom.

    It is amusing that resurgent Mohammedanism misidentifies the apostate West as “Christian” or “crusaders” when it is manifestly the instrument of divine chastisement for that apostasy.

    So…you’re saying the West was created by God to punish Muslims for not being Western?

  • Dave Maier

    I had trouble with that rather obscure sentence too, RB, but I think it means that a) while “Mohammedans” believe the West to be Christian, it is not Christian any longer, but instead apostate; and b) God is using that apostate West to punish *itself* (or: the remaining Christians in it — not clear) for that apostasy. Not that that makes much more sense, but clearly it’s not the Muslims (excuse me, “Mohammedans”) who are supposed to be apostates (as on your reading).

  • dingojack

    Hey I’m sure I snuck into see the “Gaffney Group” at the Apollo. Little Stevie Urkel played some sweet, sweet licks on the vibes …

    Ah good (family) times. Ain’t we glad we got ’em. Gooood Tiiiiimess’.

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    Um, no, the civilization predates Islam, and was built on a huge variety of influences, from many sources, other than that one religion. The math and science, for example, was built on the achievements of polytheist Greeks and Romans. Islamic civilization is no more a “religious civilisation” than Christendom.

    Obviously all civilisations are subject to a huge variety of influences throughout their existence; they don’t spring up fully formed ex nihilo. That doesn’t mean that the Mohammedan civilisation that reached its apogee in the medieval/early modern period cannot best be described as religious, just like its Christian enemy. Religion was its animating principle. The fact that you yourself use the terms “Islamic civilisation” and “Christendom” rather than, say, “Arab civilisation” and “Latin Europe”, is significant.

    I had trouble with that rather obscure sentence too

    Apologies for the ambiguity. I meant that Mohammedanism was the chastisement inflicted upon the West for its apostasy.

  • inquisitiveraven

    @jonathangray:

    Are you aware that Muslims don’t like being called Mohammedans because it implies (to them at least) that they worship Mohammed? After reading the Song of Roland, wherein it appears that Medieval Europeans believed just that, I can’t say that I blame them.

  • yoav

    ….not subject to the laws of their host nations.

    Isn’t the whole Hobby Lobby case about xtians refusing to be subject to the laws of their host nation?

  • https://www.facebook.com/malissathomas.mackiewicz Malissa-Thomas Mackiewicz

    While misguided and void of all irony, Gaffney does make a few valid points. The religious right likes to claim that Christianity inspired America’s government, but even if it had, it pales in comparison to how intertwined Islam is with governments in Islamic majority countries. Islam is, by design, meant to infiltrate and take over regardless of the means required to do so , even if those means are forcing, coercing, tricking, and/or killing. I understand that not all Muslims support those means, but how can one ever truly differentiate those Muslims with Muslims that support those means when two of the tenets of Islam are lying in wait until the time is right to assert authority and gain dominance and using deception as a means to protect and spread the religion? Look at all of the verses in the Quran that command each and every Muslim to convert nonbelievers or eradicate them. Either Gaffney’s goals are too premature to be reasonable solutions or America won’t ever have a large enough Muslim population to face any kind of dominance being asserted, but one thing is certain; Mulsims should all be held responsible for supporting a “holy book” that is clearly the enemy of freedom, peace, liberty, unity, and honesty and unless a Muslim is willing to denounce the vile parts of the Quran and is willing to edit those things out and adhere to a Quran 2.0, it simply can’t be reasonable or rational for a non-Muslim to not be suspicious of even the most moderate of Muslims. How can we not be when there is no way of knowing if a Muslim is using the Islamic principle of Taqiyaa (deceiving to spread or benefit the religion) to make people think that they aren’t a Quranic literalist?

    I know this all seems counterintuitive or contradictory for people that are empathetic and accepting, but why should even the most empathetic and accepting among us be required to ignore what Islam is designed to be and why must we be seen as bigots or even mislabeled as racists for pointing out that someone that believes in a book that says to kill, well, anyone probably should be a suspect at least until they no longer believe that book or believe a different book?

    Whatever the right answer is, it sure isn’t an easy answer to arrive at for us progressive liberals. I think we will somehow have to come to terms with the fact that there are some groups that people can join, like the Nazis, KKK, etc. that should automatically make them, with right wing terminology, a “bad” person. Should Islam be considered one of those groups? Sadly, by what the Quran describes a Muslim to be, I would argue yes, however, just like with the thousands of brands of Christianity, I fully acknowledge that not all Muslims are bad just because their holy book is.

  • dingojack

    Malissa-Thomas Mackiewicz – now take your post above, cross out ‘Muslim’ and replace it with ‘Christian’ and it’s still largely true*. Perhaps we should just discourage religion, generally.

    Dingo

    ——–

    * For example, what Muslims call ‘Taqiyaa’, Christians call ‘equivocation’

  • jonathangray

    inquisitiveraven:

    Are you aware that Muslims don’t like being called Mohammedans because it implies (to them at least) that they worship Mohammed?

    Yes.

    dingojack:

    Perhaps we should just discourage religion, generally.

    A no-brainer for an atheist, one would have thought. Surely the only good reason for a progressive atheist to show more indulgence to Christianity than to Mohammedanism would be if the former were judged less of a real and present danger to progressive atheist values. However, since Christianity today clearly is less of a danger, one can only wonder why progressive atheists seem to display more outrage at Christians refusing to bake cakes for homosexual weddings than at Mohammedans inflicting physical violence on homosexuals in a London pub.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon — What, like in the Christian Right’s wet dream, the Czardom of Vlad the Impalor, you mean? Yeah the LGBT community feel ever so safe. @@

    Run along and play Jon-Jon, the adults want to talk.

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    So unless we force Christians to bake wedding cakes for gays, a ruler like Prince Vlad could come to power?

  • howardhershey

    The attempt by Congress to ban the Communist Party USA by the Communist Control Act of 1954 was completely ineffectual and the SCOTUS did rule in favor of the CPUSA in the one case that reached them. Not that CPUSA members were not harassed and damaged at that time, but it was nothing like the persecution of CPUSA members (mainly foreign-born) in the early 1920s, when many were deported. Basically the CPUSA was forced to change its name to the Workers Party of America. How does this idiot think that passing a law to outlaw Islam would work when the government couldn’t even effectively eliminate the Communist Party’s ideas by deportation of many adherents? Magical thinking?

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon — When you’ve got some kind of real point, come back and tell us…

    Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • raven

    Malissa:

    even the most empathetic and accepting among us be required to ignore what Islam is designed to be and why must we be seen as bigots or even mislabeled as racists for pointing out that someone that believes in a book that says to kill, well, anyone probably should be a suspect at least until they no longer believe that book or believe a different book?

    1. Malissa to put it bluntly, ….you are an idiot.

    2. The penalty for heresy, atheism, or apostasy in the bible is…death by stoning.

    If you are a xian or Jewish fundie, you have to do this. Supposedly. There are tens of millions of xians in the USA that believe this fervently, the xian Dominionists of the fundies. They aren’t shy about saying so themselves.

    3. The only difference is that we in the west (so far) have put a leash on our religious extremists and then put them in a box. They hate it and keep trying to get out.

    The Moslems haven’t managed to do this. Yet. And it shows. Well over 90% of the victims of Moslem terrorists are…other Moslems.

    Malissa the idiot:

    pointing out that someone that believes in a book that says to kill,

    Quite the ignorant and idiot aren’t you? Death penalty offenses in the bible include disobedient children, nonvirgin brides, heretics, blasphemy, adultery, sabbath breakers, apostasy, and atheism.

    It’s estimated that under biblical law, 99% of the US population, 297 million people, would end up dead under a pile of rocks.

    The difference between Moslem fundies, xian fundies, and Jewish fundies is…about zero.

  • raven

    Malissa:

    pointing out that someone that believes in a book that says to kill, well, anyone probably should be a suspect at least until they no longer believe that book…

    bcseweb.org Rushdooney:

    Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

    We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens. Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death.

    Malissa, look in the mirror.

    If you believe in the xian bible or the Hebrew bible, you believe ,…in a book that says to kill. Sucks to be you.

  • Anri

    jonathangray @ 30:

    However, since Christianity today clearly is less of a danger…

    Ok, I’m gonna stop you right there.

    I live in the US. Islam has very little political power in my country, while the religious right’s hate machine has a massive amount. These people are apparently bound, bent, and determined to make the US into a heavily militarized, reactionary, regressive third world nation, and they are able to make headway largely because of appeals to religion. That is a clear and present danger to me … and well, pretty much everyone else in the world, actually.

    Care to guess which religion they are appealing to to get that headway? Go on, guess, you get three tries.

    … one can only wonder why progressive atheists seem to display more outrage at Christians refusing to bake cakes for homosexual weddings than at Mohammedans inflicting physical violence on homosexuals in a London pub.

    First of all, you’re incorrect in your assessment of my relative levels of outrage at those two things. So, if it seems that way to you, the problem might be you.

    Secondly, what faith provides substantial cover in the UK for mistreatment of homosexuals (regardless of who is actually performing that mistreatment)? Again, three guesses.

    Third, if you’re honestly too stupid to see that these two things are in fact, part of a single problem and can be opposed at the same time, than you’re too stupid to have a voice in this conversation. If you’re not that stupid, than you’re being dishonest and should probably stop being so. Take your pick.