Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger is one of many who are confused as to what the foundations of the united States are about. According to a letter that was posted to his website, Kinzinger claims the same protection of Muslims to implement Sharia is protected under the Constitution.
“While our Founding Fathers thoughtfully prohibited the establishment of state sanctioned religion, they purposefully did not restrict religious activity in everyday life,” Rep. Kinzinger (R-IL) wrote. “With that in mind, just as Christian, Jewish, and other faith tradition laws may be a part of a private court case between individuals, the same right is guaranteed for Muslim Americans.”
No, actually, if Rep. Kinzinger had done his homework, he would understand why there was no restriction of religious activity in everyday life. It was because we were founded as a Christian nation, though there may have been many denominations under the umbrella of Christianity. Also, the Constitution’s restriction on the establishment clause is with regard to the federal government, not the states.
Additionally, there were state sanctioned religions, some that continued up until 1877. Again, it would be helpful if people would start confronting people like Rep. Kinzinger with historical facts. Those that had such, were Christian, not Muslim. Those that did not still made reference in their state constitutions to God, and has been demonstrated before, many even required religious test oaths which amounted to those who served in office testifying to the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God and an affirmation of the Trinity, the One God revealed in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Delaware’s constitution originally required the following oath by those taking office in the state:
” I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced.”
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
This remained in effect until 1897 in Delaware when it was amended. That’s over 100 years after the signing of the US Constitution!
Additionally, Thomas Jefferson warned of the followers of Muhammad after he read and understood their ideology in the Koran. Congress, under Jefferson, issued letters of marque and reprisal to send privately owned warships (not an American standing army or the Navy) to engage Muslim Pirates in what we called the Barbary Wars.
“As your representative, I swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution,” Kinzinger added. “I take this oath seriously and will do everything in my power to ensure it is executed faithfully and the rights it guarantees are preserved for all Americans. The fundamental freedom of religion is cornerstone of our American democracy and distinguishes us from nations that do not guarantee this freedom for their citizens.”
Kinzinger takes his oath seriously? Is that supposed to be a serious statement? Kinzinger has a 55% freedom index score and a 37% liberty score. This man does not take his oath seriously and is part of the problem we face in America. He is the quintessential RINO (Republican in Name Only).
The fact that Kinzinger has said that the American people must bow to the Nazi-like Supreme Court, who illegally ruled on the issue of marriage to include sodomites, should tell you all you need to know about this man.
However, Kinzinger, who served in the United States Air Force and served in South America, Guam, Iraq and Afghanistan, rejects the idea that he is supporting Sharia Law. His office provided a statement to Breitbart.
“It is ludicrous to think that Congressman Kinzinger supports Sharia Law. Not only has he fought the proponents of Sharia Law while serving in the U.S. Air Force, but in Congress. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.”
Really? Well, isn’t that what you are promoting? Islamists believe in Sharia as a part of Islam. In fact, polls show that more than half of US Muslims want it implemented. So, I ask Rep. Kinzinger, do you really support that effort which is a part of their religion? Furthermore, would he support the religion of the Mayans here, in which hearts of people are cut out as sacrifices? What about the religion of Molech, where children are burned to death? I’m guessing he wouldn’t, but isn’t that what he is promoting, a freedom of religion to any and every religion without restriction? It most certainly is.
Sharia is not only incompatible with Christianity, it is incompatible with American law, including the US Constitution, no matter what Muslim imams, who have served the Marxist-Muslim in the White House, say.
However, as my friend Scott Buss points out, there is no God-given right to worship false Gods. The First Amendment’s language regarding freedom of religion is either about Christianity or it is about every religion under the sun. Considering how the states operated at the time, one could not conclude that it was about any and all religions.
The Constitution has provided the means to shut down the Islamization of America, if only Americans are willing to stand with the shield and bear the sword of it. Some states are already engaging in that practice.