“The First Amendment was not written for Muslims....."

According to Media Matters, RSBN host Nick Fuentes went off on a racist rant against Muslims before calling for the killing of “globalists,” including CNN personalities he considers part of a threat to the U.S.

“The First Amendment was not written for Muslims, by the way. It wasn’t written for a barbaric ideology that wanted to come over and kill us. It was written for Calvinists. It was written for Lutherans and Catholics, not for Salafists, not for Wahabists, not for the Saudi royal family,” Fuentes exclaimed. “Why do none of our elected officials talk about this or like this? They know it’s true. Why don’t we hear about in the mainstream media? We don’t hear about it on Fox News, by the way, either.”
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/...rced-apologize-contributor-s-call-kill/216156

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard this idea from some freedom-hating con artists that the First Amendment only
applies to Christianity. THINK AGAIN.....It does apply to Muslims.

 

That guy is nuts

 

I think I would say to him, "Then why were Catholics (and a number of other religions but since he named Catholics) turned away in droves during the 1800's to the point that immigration had to become a federal issue? That's right, because a bunch of southern Governors were terrified that the Pope was trying to take over America. This situation is no different and the amendment applies to everyone." I might throw in an insult afterwards too.

 

If the OP is correct, & that's what Fuentes said, he's wrong. Read

Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : Islam and the founders / Denise A. Spellberg, c2013, Alfred Knopf, 973.4609 SPEL 2013.

Subjects

• Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Political and social views.
• Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Religion.
• Muslims -- Civil rights -- United States -- History -- 18th century.
• Islam and politics -- United States.
• Freedom of religion -- United States -- History -- 18th century.
• Constitutional history -- United States.

Notes

• Introduction : Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : imagining the Muslim as citizen at the founding of the United States -- The European Christian origins of negative, incorrect, curious, but sometimes accurate American ideas about Islam and Muslims, 1529-1797 -- Positive European Christian precedents for the toleration of Muslims, and their presence in colonial America, 1554-1706 -- What Jefferson learned, and didn't, from his Qur'an : his negative views of Islam, and their political uses, contrasted with his support for Muslim civil rights, 1765-1786 -- Could a Muslim be president? : Muslim rights and the ratification of the Constitution, 1788 -- Jefferson "the infidel" wages war against an Islamic power; entertains the first Muslim ambassador in Washington; decides on where to place the Qur'an in his library; and affirms his support for Muslim rights, 1790-1823 -- Beyond toleration : John Leland, Baptist advocate for the rights of Muslims, 1776-1841 -- Afterword why can't a Muslim be president? : eighteenth-century ideals of the Muslim citizen and their significance in the twenty-first century.

Summary

• "In this original and illuminating book, Denise A. Spellberg reveals a little-known but crucial dimension of the story of American religious freedom-- a drama in which Islam played a surprising role. In 1765, eleven years before composing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur'an. This marked only the beginning of his lifelong interest in Islam, and he would go on to acquire numerous books on Middle Eastern languages, history, and travel, taking extensive notes on Islam as it relates to English common law. Jefferson sought to understand Islam notwithstanding his personal disdain for the faith, a sentiment prevalent among his Protestant contemporaries in England and America. But unlike most of them, by 1776 Jefferson could imagine Muslims as future citizens of his new country. Based on groundbreaking research, Spellberg compellingly recounts how a handful of the Founders, Jefferson foremost among them, drew upon Enlightenment ideas about the toleration of Muslims (then deemed the ultimate outsiders in Western society) to fashion out of what had been a purely speculative debate a practical foundation for governance in America. In this way, Muslims, who were not even known to exist in the colonies, became the imaginary outer limit for an unprecedented, uniquely American religious pluralism that would also encompass the actual despised minorities of Jews and Catholics. The rancorous public dispute concerning the inclusion of Muslims, for which principle Jefferson's political foes would vilify him to the end of his life, thus became decisive in the Founders' ultimate judgment not to establish a Protestant nation, as they might well have done." -- From publisher's web site.

Length

• viii, 392 pages : photos, index, chapter notes

A brilliant book about Islam & religious freedom in the fledgling US.

 

This commentator is wrong, obviously. But can you please explain to me how criticizing a religion constitutes racism?

 

Does Sharia law support the 1A? For their men of course, because under Islam their women are property.

 

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan(Muslim), the Hindoo(Hindu), and Infidel of every denomination" - Thomas Jefferson

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions45.html


This isn't a thing that people who are educated in American history debate. Anyone with a 5th grade level of education in American history knows that the founding fathers' intentions of establishing religious freedom was meant to be a universal right.

 

muslim isnt a race.

media matters is not a credible source.

 

To be honest, it wasn't written for anyone who wasn't a WASP, nor was the Constitution as a whole when it was originally created.

 

Fear is an effective tool to control the local populace. However, it is short term thinking and self destructive.

 

lol fail

 

Except they have video evidence of his incorrect thinking.

 

lol define "incorrect thinking"

 

The first amendment was written for all religions. That includes Muslims.

 

Now, if only the rest of our freedoms didn't (also) conflict with the Islamist world view, we'd be great.

Your average unradicalized Muslim, I'm sure has little trouble with most of our Bill of Rights, or our Constitution.

 

Muslim isn't a race.

 

Islam is more than a religion.

 

The Founders never anticipated a religion like Islam when they wrote the 1st Amendment, that much is true. With what they wrote against tyranny, they would have never given tyrannical belief systems like Islam a pass just because it called itself a religion. Jefferson was so perplexed by what the Barbary Pirates and the Ambassador of Tripoli told him about why they were attacking US ships (that they were following the example and preachings set forth by Muhammad) that he bought a Qur'an to study up on the religion. Islamoapologists use this as an example of the Founders acceptance and tolerance for Islam, but that's not what it was at all.

 

It's a tyrannical political death cult that threatens every American and our freedom. It is in fact both a domestic and foreign enemy simultaneously because the ones we've allowed in want to kill us and the ones worldwide by default want us dead.

Our leaders are constitutionally obligated to protect us against such enemies. And no, our enemies are not protected under the Constitution.

 

Apparently all a group has to do is call itself a religion and it gets carte blanche in the US. We can't do anything about it.

 

I hate to say it, but if this is what people claim the constitution protects then maybe it's time for conservatives to stop worshipping the Constitution.

It's clearly not serving our interests.

 

We don't hear about it because IT IS FALSE. IT IS CRAZY!
What about atheists?
Jews?
Hindus?
Native Americans?
SANE PEOPLE?
This guy is delusional.

 

1. What race is Muslim?

2. What Lutheran or Catholic institution promotes a "convert or kill" philosophy in America? Do Americans support them if you find an example?

It has already been stated that Islam is more than a religion. It's a political cult and it's text goes against the human rights of anybody that disagrees with them and also their own women. I don't agree with "hate crime laws", but we should be using them against Muslims who commit crimes in the name of their religion. I also have no problem keeping Muslims(or anybody) who cannot be vetted out of our country.

 

See #3 above, plus www.salon.com/2013/10/05/our_founding_fathers_included_islam/

"At a time when most Americans were uninformed, misinformed, or simply afraid of Islam, Thomas Jefferson imagined Muslims as future citizens of his new nation. His engagement with the faith began with the purchase of a Qur’an eleven years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
...
"Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL - a good summary & excerpts from the book)

 

His engagement with Islam did not begin with the purchase of a Qur'an. He purchased the Qur'an in response to attacks committed against the US by Muslims.