Mamdani Proves Migration Without Assimilation Is Just Conquest
The article discusses a remark made by socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani during a New York City mayoral debate,were he suggested that former governor Andrew Cuomo was unqualified for mayor because he had not visited any mosques in his decade of public service. The piece criticizes this expectation, arguing that requiring American politicians to demonstrate allegiance or homage to specific religious institutions-notably Islam-undermines the founding principles of the United States, which are rooted in a Christian understanding of natural rights and equality.
The author emphasizes that America’s republic is based on a legal and moral framework derived from Christian-influenced natural law, as explained by founding figures like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The article warns that mass migration without assimilation poses a risk to this framework by pressuring political leaders to conform to religious and cultural norms that conflict with America’s foundational values.
Historical references are made to early American interactions with Islamic states, highlighting perceived incompatibilities between Islamic doctrine and republican ideals, especially concerning religious freedom and self-governance.The piece also notes the ongoing persecution of Christians in many Muslim-majority countries as evidence of broader ideological differences.
the article contends that political legitimacy shoudl not be contingent upon pandering to religious groups with fundamentally different worldviews, as doing so could gradually reshape american political and cultural norms in ways that threaten the country’s constitutional foundations.
During Thursday’s New York City mayoral debate, socialist Zohran Mamdani implied former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is unqualified to be mayor because he hadn’t visited a mosque.
“He had more than 10 years and he couldn’t name a single mosque at the last debate we had that he visited,” Mamdani said, before going on to say that “Muslims … want equality and they want respect! … Can you name a single mosque you went to in 10 years?”
Whether Cuomo has been to a dozen mosques or no mosques matters naught. What matters is that an American politician — in a city that was attacked by radical Islamists less than 25 years ago — apparently has to prove his worth by logging mosque visits.
But this type of pandering requirement is a slap in the face to the founding principles of the nation.
America was founded as nation grounded in a distinctly Christian understanding of human nature: All men are created equal because they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. This claim is rooted in a specifically Christian belief that comes from Genesis 1:27.
John Adams explained why this Christian foundation was so crucial: “One great Advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations … to the Knowledge, Belief and Veneration of the whole People.”
The founders understood that our republic requires a governing framework derived from the “law of nature,” and as Adams pointed out, Christianity is the basis for that framework.
That means mass migration from societies with fundamentally different religious and cultural frameworks creates a challenge for the republic. Mamdani’s mosque test applied broadly would force all American politicians to ingratiate themselves with groups whose beliefs are grounded in systems incompatible with the system that sustains self-governance.
Today this may mean visiting a mosque. Tomorrow that could mean adopting policies or positions that conflict with the moral and legal frameworks that underpin the nation. Mass migration, combined with limited to no assimilation, risks gradually bending political norms to accommodate values and belief systems that were never intended to govern America.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams hinted at the incompatibility of America’s republican virtues with the values of Muslim nations after meeting with the Islamic ambassador about the Barbary states’ inclination to make war upon nations that did them no wrong, after they were informed it was a requirement of the Quran.
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation,” the duo wrote in a report to Congress.
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Nowhere is the contrast between the American and Islamic worldviews more apparent than in the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority nations. According to the Hoover Institute, of the top 50 countries persecuting Christians, “forty-two have either a Muslim majority or have a sizable Muslim populations.” Saudi Arabia prohibits by law the public practice of Christian worship. These countries demonstrate not merely an apathy but a hostility to the free speech, religious freedom, and self-government so essential to the American republic the founders established.
Measuring political legitimacy by a prerequisite of pandering to religious frameworks that are incompatible with republican self-government illustrates how mass migration without assimilation can create systemic pressure on the very foundations of our country.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
