Is Our Constitution Adequate to Resist Sharia?
The chaos and destruction in France should be a lesson to America: If we don’t deal with the third-world Islamist and Marxist forces operating within our borders, we will — like France — lose our country.
The warning signs are already flashing here.
A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 43 percent of likely voters in America aged 18 to 24 view Islamic Sharia law positively — nearly half the rising generation — while only 21 percent of likely voters overall share that view.
This shows the moral and civilizational conditions our Constitution presupposes are eroding, and any successful defense against the rapid encroachment of Islam must rest on the foundational principles of our constitutional republic.
The two most important are the Christian foundation of our culture and our laws, and the self-governing aspect of our republic that flows from the first.
In 1798, President John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
This underscores that our Constitution depends on Christian principles, most importantly the Christian understanding of the worth and independence of the individual.
For our Constitution to work as intended, our country must be composed of citizens capable of restraining their own appetites and ambitions so that limited government remains possible. As Proverbs teaches, he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city.
A nation may possess the power to conquer its enemies, yet still forfeit its liberty if it loses the moral discipline to govern itself.
In other words, our Constitution is not self-executing. It depends on a citizenry capable of moral self-restraint. Without that, limited government becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.
This raises a practical question: Is our Constitution adequate to resist the onslaught of Islam in America?
Under Islam, the individual has no rights independent of religious law. Islam controls the individual, the family, the state, and the culture through a long list of commands.
Self-government is unknown in the Muslim world. Even in America, the long-standing, near-monolithic Democrat lean of Muslim voters suggests a culture that prioritizes group identity and collective direction over the independent judgment the American system assumes.
History shows that Islam has typically expanded through migration into existing societies, followed by demands for accommodation, social and political intimidation, and, where possible, the assertion of control.
While non-military measures have at times slowed this process, established gains have rarely been reversed except by force of arms. France’s recent unrest, concentrated in immigrant suburbs and accompanied by polling showing nearly half of French Muslims would consider leaving under a more restrictive government, illustrates the pattern in real time.
In contrast, our political order rests on premises that are both Christian and broadly Western: the vote of a self-governing electorate, the peaceful transfer of power between parties that share a common civilizational framework, and a strong presumption against the domestic use of the military except in genuine emergencies.
Islam, understood as a comprehensive political system, shares none of these premises.
Even the most ambitious modern attempt to build a secular democratic state in a Muslim society — Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Republic of Turkey — proved temporary. It lasted only until a leadership committed to Islamic political supremacy returned the country to an explicitly Islamic order.
The question, then, is whether a constitutional order built on Western, Christian assumptions — completely incompatible with Islam — can still be defended when the underlying moral and civilizational conditions weaken.
This is not merely a question of legal doctrine.
The Founders drew on both the classical Greek emphasis on civic ambition, courage, and willingness to defend their civilization, and the Christian conviction that human beings are created with inherent dignity yet require moral restraint.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio observed in Athens, the West has lost much of the thumos — the spiritedness and will to defend its own civilization.
Yet thumos alone is not enough. Athens celebrated the courage to conquer. Mount Sinai established the moral obligation to govern oneself.
Our constitutional order has always presupposed a people capable of both.
When either capacity erodes — when we lose the will to defend our republic or the virtue required to sustain limited government — the Constitution becomes harder to maintain against any competing system that rejects individual self-government.
How then do we fight against the current rapid spread of Islam under our Constitution in hopes of avoiding the military conflicts that have historically been required to roll it back?
Each branch of the federal government, as well as the states, has a role.
Congress can legislate against parallel legal systems, tighten immigration standards to favor assimilation, and clarify that foreign or religious law has no authority in American courts.
The executive can enforce existing immigration and national security laws more rigorously and use the bully pulpit to defend the principle of constitutional supremacy.
The states can refuse to recognize foreign or religious judgments that conflict with their constitutions, restrict public funding for institutions that promote parallel legal systems, and enforce their own laws against practices that undermine equal protection or public order.
The judiciary, however, is likely to remain the primary obstacle. Decades of judicial activism have expanded the scope of religious liberty claims and narrowed the ability of elected branches to draw distinctions based on ideology or patterns of assimilation. Overcoming that obstacle will require both careful legislation that survives judicial review and, over time, a restoration of a more restrained judicial role.
Our constitutional republic is worth the effort — and, if necessary, the suffering — required to preserve it.
The alternative is a slow displacement of the self-governing order the Founders established. A people who cannot govern themselves will eventually invite others to govern them.
We cannot allow that. America must remain America — self-governing and completely free from the influence of Sharia.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
