The U.S. Constitution and the first amendment right of “religious” freedom extended the First Council of Nicaea and its dispensations given to the “Gentiles” or non Jews as well as Lutherans who were the “break-away” factions that allowed these dissenters to in fact form sects and begin the process of recognizing denominations as part of the world Christian kingdom. This pacification allowed the Catholic Church to maintain control of the Christian world around the globe while it increased the missionary zeal to convert non Christians to the dictum. Thus, the Anglican denominations, although separated from the Catholic Church per se, quietly remain under its papal hierarchy for iniquity (Krauss 2019). This outcome secured a vision of permanent control of all “religions” and a fail safe against those “religions” that would challenge the Pope’s power. Specifically, Islam, which is the only sovereign or belief system that contests the dogma of Catholicism and (so called) Christianity. Anglican orthodoxy factionalization secured the Church against future threats by individuals or groups against who would oppose its sovereignty and the guise of Christianity. As the framers drafted their Constitution, they prescribed universal tenants of Judeo-Christian philosophers with some exceptions (deism and reason specifically) emerged from their investigations into the rationale of belief and questions on the existence of god — how, why, and for what He exists; the overarching rulership of the Pope and the solutions founded from the First Council of Nicaea laid the foundation for the description of religion per se as a root of potential factions, these needed to be assimilated into the Christian kingdom as well those who refused needed to be controlled and stifled so that the seeds would not grow and become an issue for the new nation. Seemingly, the founders graciously proscribed “fairness” inferred from the free exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights, but this was not the case since the caveat of “free exercise” is the (no) establishment clause, which bars any religious right of existence beyond rituals. Certainly — as Islam does — universality of religion and theocracy as government cannot abide within the framework of “democracy” and “freedom”.

To affix religion to governing is oppressive — isn’t it? Implant the idea into principle and policy to affirm the proposition and safeguard against the possibility of religion becoming governance regardless of its historical context outside of Anglo-Saxon and papal contexts. If this is the case, then the term must be revised if Islam is to fit the profile identified by the founders.

Feigning justice, the American founders crafted the Bill of Rights, First Amendment clauses, targeted religious freedom to address the de facto state of Islam as presented from text and from history to counterbalance religious freedom for all by reversal terms — exercise (null) establish — to “check” any predictor of an Islamic sovereign arising to challenge those same freedoms. They were protecting their right to own without “checks” upon acquisition prevalent from divine revelation and prophetic narratives. The “religion” clause 1 (exercise) gave right to be Jew, Christian, Muslim without any show of clause 2 (establishment) principles, practices; enforced rules and regulations including the right to defend the same in oppressive wartime events. Every faith was now free to “exercise” the rituals, but imprisoned and impaired from “establishing” a system where those rights may be protected. In this regard, and under the guise of “Securing the Rights of Muslims” (Spellberg 2013) quotes Jefferson who said:

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 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 Mohamedan…, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination (Izadi 2018).

While securing the right of the Jews and the “Mohammandans” (sic) freedom to practice their rituals the language was and is problematic, since the founders nor their constitution are authorized to delineate Islam solely as a “religion” unless linguist accept the literal definition as a “way of life” plus more. The authority of Islam founded a system of governance with a constitutional foundation that has the capacity to fulfill all the functions any government provides its citizens. Islam does not separate exercise from establishment — faith and deeds conjoin into a wholistic way of life with laws that secure the right of all humanity to that life.