Top Menu

Robert Spencer: Muslim Appointees Deserve Special Loyalty Test (Video)

Faith in Public Life (FPL) just interviewed Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer.  I’ve reproduced their excellent article below, which is where you can see the video yourself.  In it, Spencer endorses a special loyalty test for Muslims:

FPL: Do you think Muslim appointees to office deserve a special test or a special kind of investigation before they are appointed?

Spencer: Well, I think it’s entirely reasonable.

In light of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is, in its own words, dedicated to eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house, then certainly any Muslim official that [sic] has ties to the Brotherhood organizations in the United States–of which there are very many–should be vetted very carefully.

FPL: So you think any Muslim that is appointed should be investigated for any of those ties before they are appointed?

Spencer: Yes, certainly.

FPL also points to Robert Spencer’s double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to Islam and his own religion, Christianity (specifically, Catholicism).  Those of you familiar with my writing know that whenever I point this out, Spencer starts crying “tu quoque, tu quoque fallacy!”  That’s because his own religion can’t withstand the same standard he applies to Islam.

FPL asked Spencer if he found it problematic when Muslims called themselves “Muslims first, Americans second.”  Spencer responded emphatically in the affirmative, saying: “It’s a big problem.”  Then, FPL asked Spencer if he himself was American first or a Christian first.  Spencer was caught off-guard and tried to evade answering the question.  When FPL pushed him further on the issue, he refused to answer the question, saying: “Neither one.” Then, he finally admitted that he in fact placed his faith first, even above American law.

Anybody see the glaring hypocrisy here?  It’s in fact the same double standard applied by pro-Israel Islamophobes who attack American Muslims for having “dual loyalty” to their ancestral homelands and “the Ummah”, when in fact they themselves have “dual loyalty” to America and Israel, often placing the latter’s interests above the former.

Spencer tries to justify his double standard by arguing that Christianity “isn’t incompatible with the constitutional freedoms” whereas Islam is “is manifestly incompatible” with them.  In other words, it simply hasn’t been an issue with his Christianity.

Yet, Spencer contradicts himself in the very next sentence:

FPL: So would you describe yourself as an American first and a Christian second, or Christian first and American second?

Spencer: Neither one.  I think it’s a distinction when it comes to Christianity that thus far, there has not been a problematic issue of allegiance. If it comes down to the new Obama directives with the Catholic Church, for example, forcing it to go back on its own policies and its own doctrine…then obviously those are unjust laws that ought not to be passed.

Spencer is here alluding to the issue of abortion.  It should be noted that “the Supreme Court ruled that women had a constitutional right to abortion”, yet Catholics like Robert Spencer want to deny this right to women.  Isn’t this exactly the sort of conflict that Spencer found to be “a big problem” when it comes to Muslims?  Isn’t this, using Spencer’s own standard, “a problematic issue of allegiance” between Catholic doctrine and the Constitution?

But remember: don’t dare apply the standard Spencer does to Islam to his own religion!  Only a leftist dhimmi would do that!

Here is the article:

Robert Spencer’s Double-Standard on Religious Freedom

Anti-Muslim activists often complain that Muslims living in this country don’t effectively assimilate into American culture, that they consider themselves Muslims first and Americans second. Despite the fact that polling has found that Muslim Americans are actually the most loyal religious group in the nation – 93 percent of Muslim Americans say they are loyal to America, and Muslims have the highest confidence in the integrity of the US election process – far-right pundits continue to further the myth that Muslims lack commitment to this country because their faith puts them in conflict with constitutional law.

In fact, the concept of prioritizing faith principles before the law is not unique to Muslims. Prominent Christian figures such as Pat Robertson have publicly remarked that they consider themselves Christians first and Americans second. Perhaps even more telling is the extent to which the current contraception mandate controversy is dominating the political conversation, with some Catholic leaders suggesting they would shut down their hospitals and schools or perform civil disobedience instead of complying with a law they believe conflicts with their faith.

At the recent CPAC conference here in Washington, Nick interviewed prominent anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer and found this exact double standard. Spencer criticizes Muslims for prioritizing Islam over US law, while going on to say he would put his Christian faith first in a situation where Christianity came into conflict with the law:

FPL: A lot of people point to polls that Muslims in various countries suggest that they’re Muslims first and then loyal to that country second – American second, or Spanish second. Do you think that’s a problem and are you worried about that?

Spencer: It’s a big problem, and it’s something that has to be taken into account…when it comes to Islamic law and the constitution, there are many, many ways in which Islamic law contradicts the constitutional freedoms. Then if somebody has a loyalty to Sharia, to Islam first, then that’s very problematic.

FPL: And would you describe yourself as American first, or as a person of faith first?

Spencer: I’m an American and a person of faith. And I believe that my faith, as a Christian, isn’t incompatible with the constitutional freedoms. But Islamic law is manifestly incompatible with constitutional freedoms.

FPL: So would you describe yourself as an American first and a Christian second, or Christian first and American second?

Spencer: Neither one. I think it’s a distinction when it comes to Christianity that thus far, there has not been a problematic issue of allegiance. If it comes down to the new Obama directives with the Catholic Church, for example, forcing it to go back on its own policies and its own doctrine…then obviously those are unjust laws that ought not to be passed.

FPL: So if there was a conflict between your faith and the law, you would choose your faith?

Spencer: Yeah.

The hypocrisy is apparent. If conservatives are concerned with religious liberty, then that liberty ought to be applied to faith traditions across the board, including Islam. At the same conference, conservative paragon Grover Norquist made this same point (around the 2:42 mark):

FPL: So do you think it harms the conservative argument for religious liberty…when [Republican candidates] have previously expressed some similar concerns to extending this [liberty] to Muslim Americans?

Norquist: You can’t be for religious liberty for some people and not others, or the whole thing falls apart. No one in court is going to rule that way. The court will either go with, yes you can ban synagogues, mosques, missionaries and Catholic hospitals– or you can’t do any of that…I’ve noticed that all faith traditions recognize that an attack on one is an attack on all.

As Norquist points out, Spencer’s duplicitous arguments about Islam fall flat. When it comes to religious freedom, the far right cannot have its cake and eat it too.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Christian-friend

    @Lloyd Miller, then what was “Islamic Enlightment?”

  • CriticalDragon1177

    @Lloyd Miller

    Why don’t you do some more research before commenting here. Robert Spencer Is not a scholar and most of what he says in nonsense.

    Robert Spencer’s “Scholarly” Credentials

    Is Robert Spencer a Scholar? On Spencer’s Credentials and Methodology

    Islamification Myth

    Taqiyya & Abrogation

    Anti-Muslim Bigotry since 9/11

    The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle

  • Lloyd Miller

    YES, Islam DOES CALL for the destruction of all other religions.

  • Lloyd Miller

    This article and most of the threaded discussion is nonsense. Robert Spencer is completely right in noting that Islam is in total opposition to the essence and scope of Western Institutions, especially the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution whereas Catholicism has only spotty conflict with the same in this day and age (as opposed to the Middle Ages). Islam Civilization has not gone through a Reformation and Enlightenment, so Islam remains largely in the Dark Ages.

  • Lilly

    Actually.. it was because they thought “Communists” could not say “God”. Look, I agree… God first. But I do not believe in insulting other religions, or calling them down for their differences.. and last I read.. and studied… and listened… Islam did not advocate destruction of other religions… (oops.. sorry… went a little rant-y). :)

  • Can’t stop laughing at ’em

    Oooooh special treatment for Muslims, no can’t have that, can we Bobby boy?

  • Jewishdhimmi

    If believing all religions/cultures/people should be judged equally than I’m just as proud to be a dhimmi as i am to be Jewish.

  • Susanna

    @ Lilly

    Don’t bother to post, I have a great deal of Founding era material. I was simply making a point to the article above. And yes I know that Under God was added in the 50s. We had just started coming back from WWII and the Korean War. It was an attempt to direct us to the One who brought us through. It’s not about faith first, it’s about God first.

  • Lilly

    Susanna – “Under God” was not added till the 50s. If I have time.. I’ll look for the info re: God in references from the Founding era.

  • Susanna

    May I direct you the a phrase we may be forgetting here. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance we say “Under God” What does that mean? Simply, we recognize that God is in control, that God has blessed this country. We recognize that our freedoms and right are endowed by our Creator. The Declaration of Independence declares it and the Constitution that followed it was the document that the government would follow, keeping in mind that individual liberty and equality before the law were to be upheld.

    The Founders realized this, it didn’t matter that they were Deists, Unitarians etc, they agreed that a government and its culture is dependent on the laws and it’s moral character. The moral character they were referring to, was a Judeo-Christian one. But that never meant the government professed one religion to be followed. The moral character of a person is based on faith.

    God, Country, Family in that order. Not faith practice, country, family. To say Under God in the pledge means we honor God as our protector, and honor the One who bestowed our freedoms. But I wonder now how long He will keep His hedge of protection over this country, with what is happening to our society.

  • Pingback: Robert Spencer: Muslim Appointees Deserve Special Loyalty Test (Video) | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • BuddhaShrink

    CriticalDragon got it right-Spencer does make Norquist sound reasonable. And Norquist is reasonable and correct on this particular issue: You can’t be for religious liberty and then treat religions differently.
    I think the Wall Street Republicans are getting nervous about the rising bigotry in their party. They know that bigotry is unbecoming and a losing issue.
    Bigotry towards Islam and its practitioners, Muslims, wasn’t even on the radar screen of those who monitor hate groups until recently. That religious bigotry towards Islam is now on the radar screen is in part due to the good work that is being done by websites like LoonWatch.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 16.69

    you could be right but to do something like that deliberatly………knowing it to be wrong and frankly evil .

  • Géji

    > “Rush Limbaugh Defended Joseph Kony, Leader Of Rebel Militia Accused Of Atrocities”

    So what? it’s would be surprising coming from Rush Limbaugh, it’s not like the guy “hides” his extreme, radical christian views, thus surprising will be him not supporting christianist terrorist groups such as “Lord’s Resistance Army”, the guy is just a hardcore Christianist similar to-(though in the opposition direction)- the likes of Anjem Choudary, but in more powerful position and more followers.

  • JD

    Rush Limbaugh Defended Joseph Kony, Leader Of Rebel Militia Accused Of Atrocities

    “Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God. I was only kidding. Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. And Obama has sent troops, United States troops to remove them from the battlefield, which means kill them. That’s what the lingo means, “to help regional forces remove from the battlefield,” meaning capture or kill.

    So that’s a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and — (interruption) no, I’m not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn’t you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn’t just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they’ve done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they’re criticizing it.

    Lord’s Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people.” Now, again Lord’s Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord’s Resistance Army, what they’re trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: “To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology.” Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield. ”


    /\ People who really need a test done on them real soon make sure they are not mental ill

    The LRA lead by Joseph Kony who is the Christian version of Bin Laden has engaged in a cycle of violence and established a pattern of ‘brutalization of civilians’ by acts including murder, abduction, sexual
    enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements; that abducted civilians, including children, are said to have been forcibly “recruited” as fighters, porters and sex slaves to serve the LRA and to contribute to attacks against the Ugandan army and civilian communities,” the warrant read.

    Here a few pics of there wonderful work…

    These pics are not from bomb explosions or something like that they use a knife and chop lips and noses off.

    Learn more about the LRA here

    also watch

    Kony 2012

  • Believing Atheist

    Sorry I don’t know where to put this.

    I want LW to help me debunk a myth. Many European politicians have used the fear of Muslim migrants to garner votes. I wish to debunk that myth.

    Far more Christian than Muslim migrants worldwide
    By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
    PARIS | Thu Mar 8, 2012 2:36pm EST

    PARIS (Reuters)- Christians far outnumber Muslims as migrants around the world, including in the European Union where debates about immigration usually focus on new Muslim arrivals, according to a new study issued on Thursday.

    Of the world’s 214 million people who have moved from their home country to live in another, about 106 million (49 percent) are Christians while around 60 million (27 percent) are Muslims, the study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.

    Only 3.6 million Jews around the world have moved across international borders, the study said, but that is 25 percent of the world’s Jewish population, by far the highest proportion on the move of any faith group.
    “Many experts think that, on the whole, economic opportunities – better jobs and higher wages – have been the single biggest driver of international migration,” it said.

    “At the same time, religion remains a factor in some people’s decisions to leave their countries of birth and their choices of where to go.”
    The study defined migrants as people living in another country in 2010 for over a year, including estimates of illegal immigrants and long-term refugees including Palestinians and their descendants.

    “Perhaps contrary to popular perception, … Christian immigrants outnumber Muslim immigrants in the European Union as a whole,” the report said, indirectly referring to far-right parties that have long campaigned against Muslim newcomers.

    Of the 47 million migrants in the EU, 26 million (56 percent) are Christians, double the 13 million Muslim migrants, who make up only 27 percent of the total, it said.

    The gap narrows when intra-EU migration – for example, Christian Greeks to Germany or French-born Muslims to Britain – is excluded, but Christians migrating from outside the EU still outnumber non-EU Muslim migrants by about 13 million to 12 million.

  • crow

    Sir David, they’re not mentally ill. A lot of mentally ill people tend to be Religiously tolerant. Spencer, Geller and the rest are just hatefilled, racist bigots

  • Webdawah

    @ Ahmed
    There have been others who have tried with some success to refute Robert Spencer’s arguments, but none with as much audience, as thorough, or as persistent as Danios.

  • Ahmed

    Does anyone else find the articles Danios writes on Spencer totally hilarious? Whenever I read them, I am almost in tears of laughter by the end! I just find it so funny that Spencer used to go around acting like an authority – until Danios came along, and now Danios chases him all over the place, exposing his lies and hypocrisy, and Spencer has no answer!

  • Webdawah

    After this exposé, does anyone need more evidence of the double standards of Robert Spencer and those of his “anti-Jihad” profession? They are all hypocrites.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 16.69

    I hope he takes Pammy with him . What a group therapy session it would be!

  • mindy1

    I wonder why he thinks the way he does-methinks he has paranoia and should see a shrink 😛

  • CriticalDragon1177



  • CriticalDragon1177

    Norquist may well be the voice of reason in the republican party at this point.

  • Garibaldi

    I think “comments were closed” by accident on this article. Feel free to comment now. I’m sure you all have a lot to say on this one. :)

Powered by Loon Watchers