Islam, politicians and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark Act (the Act of the Constitution).

By P.H. Bering 

This is something which makes us particularly angry.  The Danish politicians violate the Act of the Constitution when ever it suits them although they have given their word of honour to keep it. But they seldom violate the Act of the Constitution so openly, shamelessly, and persistently as they do in connection with the increasing islamisation of our country. As we know the moslems maintain that politics and religion cannot be separated and that the Koran is the holy and unchanging statute book of Allah. Consequently, Islam is a religion as well as a political program which can be described as totalitarian, without infringing anybody by saying that. 

Well, as regards the religious part section 69 of the Act of the Constitution very clearly states as quoted:   “The conditions of religious communities diverging from Folkekirken (the national established church in Denmark) must be prescribed by law.” These conditions are also provided for in section 67 of the Act stating the following:  “The citizens have the right to assemble in a community to worship God in a way that corresponds with their conviction .However, nothing must be taught or done which is against moral conduct or public order.” If the parliamentarians will keep the Act of the Constitution there is no way out: They must by Jove handle a community diverging from Folkekirken by law, and that would better be today than tomorrow. Of course this law must state such conditions which ensure the keeping of the law and the sanctions provided for in case of infringement of moral conduct and public order. Add to this that attention should be drawn to the fact that the right to assemble in order to worship God is strictly speaking only guaranteed the Danish citizens. The Act of the Constitution does not guarantee the right to assemble to any foreign crowd coming running into the country. Of course not.  Moral conduct (sædelighed) is an antiquated expression. It means what the majority of the citizens will find an acceptable conduct.
Readings of stanza from the Koran urging to murder of non believers and offending talk about other nations and religions will be examples of scriptural passages from the Koran which every imam (leader of the prayer) should be obliged to abjure before he obtains permission to keep a mosque.  Then, perhaps, there would not be so much left of the Koran which the moslems then had to accept if they want to live in Denmark. As to the political part of Islam the politicians ought to look closer at the Act of the Constitution they have promised to observe. Section 78, subsection 2 states as follows:     “Associations which act or try to reach their goal by violence, urge to violence or similar criminal influence on people of different opinions should be dissolved by law.” (Bliver at opløse)  The Act of the Constitution is quite unambiguous.  The expression “Bliver at opløse” is in the subjunctive (gram.) in Danish and means that it is an order. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to bring an action in such cases, and if the legislation is too weak in relation to the unambiguous wording of the Act of the Constitution then the Minister of Justice must endeavour to tighten up the rules. Obviously, we cannot accept associations within our country, in the name of tolerance, which urge unambiguously to kill Jews “where ever you see them” even though the Koran tell moslems to do so ever so much. 

Moslems who want to be members of such associations must go back to their own countries. Better today than tomorrow.