The US should be anti-Sharia, period.

The United States of America is supposed to be fundamentally about its Bill of Rights.

It's real founding document is its Declaration of Independence. It's Constitution required amending to include the Bill of Rights before that Constitution was acceptable to the People.

Perhaps the most central tenet in that Bill of Rights is the first part of the First Amendment, which part enshrines as much freedom of religion as the Founders were able to word: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Sharia stands exactly opposed to that. When the US government supports those who violently fight for the establishment of sharia anywhere, that government is serving to undermine the very essence of its own foundation.

What is sharia? It is Islamic theocracy. It is the position that Islam is the one and only law. With sharia, there is no secular government. There is only rule by Muslim clerics.

Right now, Russia has been pressing the "West" to designate "Ahrar al-Sham" as a terrorist group.

Reported Ahrar Al Sham members stepping on the corpses of women they killed in Zara near Aleppo, Syria. (Source: Mimi Al Laham)

Reported Ahrar Al Sham members stepping on the corpses of women they killed in Zara near Aleppo, Syria. (Source: Mimi Al Laham)

The Obama administration has refused. What is Ahrar al-Sham?

The contents of this link are a bit dated, but you should get a decent background understanding of the group by reading it: Ahrar al-Sham.

Why has Russia ask for Ahrar al-Sham to be designated a terrorist group? Syrian villagers describe massacre by militant group spared from UN terror blacklist (EXCLUSIVE).

This is important to understand:

The Alawites - followers of an offshoot of Shia Islam who are mainly concentrated in the Mediterranean coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus - are considered heretics by some Sunni Muslims. (Source: Alawite civilians 'killed in homes' in opposition attack on Hama village)

Ahrar al-Sham members oppose the Alawites because of the Alawites' theology. Alawites would not be allowed to practice their religion under Ahrar al-Sham's sharia.

You need to also understand that President Assad of Syria is the leader of a secular government. It hasn't had a perfect track record on freedom of religion, but none of the significant powers fighting against Assad on the ground would be better in that regard, not even close.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.