Sunday, May 16, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Spencer Watch

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

9 March 2012 Spencer Watch 35 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

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.


  1. lmao… Sheikh Robert spencer needs to shave his beard off because it makes him look like a Muslim more then an anti Muslim.

  2. Unconstitutional.

  3. (groan)

  4. “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” –U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3.

  5. Um… I think it’s not reasonable guy!

  6. Deplorable.

  7. ALL appointees deserve a special test or investigation: It’s called vetting. But to single out a particular group above and beyond others is un-American.

  8. Connie…what are your feelings on Sharia Law

  9. I think all Republicans need a loyalty test!

  10. Neo-McCarthyism.

  11. Ridiculous!

  12. I have no feelings on it, since I’m not subject to it, just like I’m not subject to Orthodox Jewish law.

  13. No religious tests. It’s specificially called out in the Constitution, if memory serves me.

  14. I guess they didn’t factor in that many of the muslims in America were born there. Argh…

  15. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” – Sinclair Lewis

  16. Well of course. And Mormons and Jews and Protestants and Catholics and Wiccans and Atheists and…oh wait, I guess that means everyone!

  17. Sure, as long as we can test CEOs and politicians to see if they are psychopaths too…

  18. Why the heck would they require a test or investigation? What is this some kind of police state now?

  19. yes they should have intelligence tests. islam is known to cause brain damage making people believe there is a god in the sky that is bothered about what you are doing.

  20. The Constitution clearly says no religious test duh. Spencer and King and others have clearly broken their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

  21. As far as intelligence test maybe those who do not believe in God need one. Anyway remember we are to separate church and state in this country. Most Muslims who will bother to accept an appointment to any position in this country is going to be loyal due to the unloyal ones (very few) are not going to bother.

  22. Sally for an atheist you are making the rest of us look bad. Shut up and disappear already.

  23. Hadayai, that wasn’t very nice. Comments like yours only serve as excuses for fanatical atheists like Sally there. I resent your remark that I am stupid because I choose to not bother myself with rules and regulations that I probably will not follow. If religion works for you, good. But it is not a prerequisite for being a good person. I know a lot of atheists, Christians, and Muslims. Most are in my family, and they are good people. That said, some of the worst people I know are atheists, Christians, and Muslims.

  24. Yeah. About as reasonable as Santorum thinking that a president ought to be an evangelical Christian. Do you know what “evangelical” means? Used to mean literally relating to the Good News of God’s love and grace. Today it seems to mean more like agreeing with Santorum’s narrowly defined brand of Christianity.

  25. Spencer is an idiot.

  26. Didn’t the try this stuff when the African. Americans to vote?

  27. Gaza is under attack right now

  28. Who cares about the Constitution?

  29. Spencer is a consummate ass. He’s really good at it.

  30. why should we worry about the muslims special test when we have people in the ranks now who have displayed their loyalty and prove to be traitors to this white american,if the muslim would just sell out to $ he or she would certainly fit right in!

  31. Jesus wept.

  32. seriously..are you…did santuram have a special test,,,

  33. US Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 3!
    What is it with these idiots, that they csn’t read plain English?

  34. Maybe he should read the Constitution.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>