Given America’s First Amendment freedom of religion, should American Muslims be limited in any way in terms of their beliefs and practices?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #242 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
In the 21st Century, Muslim immigration to the West, including the United States, has skyrocketed, and many of these immigrants are Muslims from distinctly Muslim-dominated countries and cultures.
Like all immigrants, they bring with them their religious worldviews and their cultures. Some, like millions of immigrants before them, have eagerly sought a better life and worked to assimilate in classic melting pot fashion. Others have resisted assimilation and acculturation, have consciously sought to perpetuate their cultural and religious practices they brought from home, and tend to live in balkanized communities separated from other citizens. The estimated 10 million immigrants who came to the US during the recent Biden Administration, many but not all Muslim, are part of this story.
In this piece, I want to think with you about freedom of religion, and when, if ever, it can or should be restricted.
The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment: “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.”
This is a precious, and in world history, unprecedented guarantee of human rights. We do not ever want to treat it lightly or deny it’s protection of freedom of religion without considerable due process and careful thinking about community standards in a truly free society.
Numerous American voices are becoming concerned about not simply the number of Muslim immigrants who’ve come to the US, but
a) whether they will assimilate, and
b) whether their religious beliefs are compatible with a free society.
The challenge of Islam is that it is both a religion and a political ideology, one that seeks political control when it becomes dominant. Muslim adherents embrace Islam along a continuum of theological, political, and cultural ideas, some radical or extremist, some moderate. So, your conclusions about “what is a Muslim and what do they believe” depend upon which subgroup you may be examining along this continuum.
“Muslims” are but followers of their religion, which is Islam. They are just people, who, like all other human beings, carry their beliefs in a complex and confusing, sometimes contradictory, manner. There are indeed “moderate” or simply nominal Muslims the world over, ones who are not radical, do not act on religious violence, and simply seek to live their lives in peace. But there are many others who act out—often dangerously—extreme ideological views.
With increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants flooding the country during the Biden Administration, some American commentators began to suggest Islam be banned in the US, while others focused upon banning specifically Sharia law or radical Islam.
Some commentators argue Muslims intentionally use American human rights protections to advance their belief systems in the US, beliefs that are anti-freedom.
Charlie Kirk famously tweeted, “Islam is not compatible with western civilization.” Some argue Islam is the #1 enemy of the civilized world. In other words, Islam as a religion is an existential threat to the values upon which American experience was built and flourished.
Islam and distinguished Middle East expert, author Raymond Ibrahim, argues Islam is not free. Islam as presented in the Quran is totalitarian, inherently expansionist, i.e., Jihad, adherents are prepared to kill to achieve its aims - antithetical to everything Western society stands for—opposes free speech, free enterprise, freedom to practice or not to practice any religion, freedom of assembly, free press, fundamental human and civil rights; hatred of non-Muslims, “infidels,” is commanded, the Quran allows deception of infidels as needed, i.e., lying, and the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the Quran. In Professor Ibrahim’s view, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam is not moderate.
Let’s take a step back a moment for perspective. Throughout American history various religious groups have attempted to practice certain beliefs that, eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States disallowed, saying one can believe anything religiously, but not every action motivated by religion is immune from regulation.
For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), Mormon defendants argued plural marriage, i.e., bigamy, was required by their faith. But the Supreme Court drew a sharp line:
- Religious belief → fully protected
- Religious conduct → may be regulated
The Court noted that if religious belief excused illegal conduct, “each citizen would become a law unto himself.”
In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme court reviewed numerous lower-court blood transfusion cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court said, parents may be martyrs themselves, but they may not make martyrs of their children. In other words, adults generally may refuse blood transfusions for themselves on religious grounds. But courts may override parents’ refusals for their children. The bottom line is the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized like this:
- Religious belief is inviolable
- Religious conduct may be limited when:
- Laws are neutral and generally applicable
- Third parties (especially children) are harmed
- Compelling state interests are at stake
- The practice has never been historically protected.
Should The Muslim "Call to Prayer" be banned from public spaces in America? And should Muslims be stopped from blocking public roadways in order to bow in prayer five times per day? Dearborn, Michigan, nearby Hamtramck, considered to be America’s first majority-Muslim city, Paterson, NJ have authorized the call to prayer. Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first major U.S. city to allow the call to prayer five times daily, modifying its noise ordinance in 2023.
Loud "Allahu Akbar" calls blasting from speakers can be disturbing to public spaces. No other religion demands this — churches don't shut down roads for prayer or bells, synagogues don't amplify services over neighborhoods. Bans aren't official city-wide policies but rather the result of applying general noise ordinances to religious practices. Blocking public thoroughfares has long been denied back to the protests of the 1960s.
So, what does this mean for Islam in the USA? It means that Muslims who have become American citizens enjoy and should enjoy the same rights and protections regarding freedom of religion as any other American. It also means that certain Islamist religious practices, should they become threatening to third parties or should the state develop a compelling interest in the outcomes, may be regulated without violating Muslim American’s First Amendment rights and certainly without banning Islam.
I have no desire to deny American citizen Muslims their right to freedom of religion. While I am not Muslim and while I disagree with what Islam proclaims and while I certainly reject radical Islam or Islamist views, I do not want to deny construction of mosques. I do not believe the Quran supersedes the Bible, but I do not want to ban this book.
In my view, freedom of religion was inaugurated in the Garden of Eden when God created Adam and Eve in his image with reasoning capacity and a moral consciousness, then permitted them to decide. God commanded them to obey and left them to choose, to exercise their freedom to believe and obey God, or not.
I do believe, though, that certain Islamist beliefs are inimical to free society and should be prohibited in Western civilization, specifically the USA, e.g., honor killings, female genital mutilation, child marriage, bigamy, jihad, forced religious conversion, misogyny, or obviously religiously motivated rape gangs like those occurring in Europe.
I also believe restricting others’ religious or cultural practices, which ostensibly offend some Muslims, e.g., not permitting dogs in neighborhoods where Muslims may live or shutting down Christmas celebrations or making haram foods like pork or alcohol illegal at local supermarkets near Muslim populations, are unnecessary religious impositions upon a pluralistic culture.
For e pluribus unum to work, we must be able to debate religious ideas in the civic public square and determine truth based upon the merits of views, not coercion or silencing. This is the essence of a free society. All Americans are welcome to join this conversation.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.