The Bill of Rights has not been interpreted by the Court to be without some reasonable restrictions. Freedom of speech stops at libel, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), etc. A logical limitation on the 2nd Amendment would be the exclusion of criminals and the mentally insane from the right to keep and bear arms.
Libel is speech that directly infringes upon the rights of others.
Slander is speech that directly infringes upon the rights of others.
Yelling fire when there is none is speech that directly infringes upon the righst of others.
The act of writing down that someone is a pedophile is not restricted by the constitution. If you then spread that out to a multitude of people in hopes of defaming the other person, then it is.
The act of saying a person is a pedophile is not restricted by the constitution. If you say it in a way that spreads it through multiple people in hopes of defaming the other person, it is.
Saying "Fire" in a crowded theater when there actually is one is not restricted by the constitution. When you say it when there isn't one in order to create a riot, then it is.
Notice, these restrictions comes into play when someones action directly has an effect damaging to someone elses rights.
For the same reason, I think there can be a reasonable restriction on freedom of religion. If you worship Quetzelcoatl, you aren't going to be allowed to cut out someone's heart for a sacrifice. A Kali worshipper can't strangle a sacrifical victim and the druids can't burn a man in a basket at Samhain.
The worship of Quetzelcoatl is not banned, however cutting someones hearts out for sacrifice IS banned because it directly infringes upon someone elses rights.
The worship of Kali is not banned, the strangling of someone is because it infringes upon someone elses rights.
The worship of Samhaim is not banned, the burning of a man is however because it infringes upon someone elses rights.
Notice a pattern here.
For the same reason, I think that sooner or later, we must prohibit Islam in this country.
Notice how your suggestion BREAKS said pattern. Rather than banning the actions that infringes upon others rights you suggest the outright banning of an entire religion.
The Koran and Hadith commands Muslims to convert the world to Islam by peaceful means if possible,
Which is perfectly reasonable and allowable under the constitution just as it is for every other religion that preaches its message in hopes of gaining converts.
by deception and violence if necessary.
Which is illegal and not protected under the constitution. Deception is tricky, for Islam as it is for Christianity, as one must prove there's actual deception there. However violence is point blank and obvious, and if one commits violence in hopes of converting people then they can expect to be arrested.
The options are to pay a dhimmi tax if you are Jewish or Christian, convert to Islam or die.
And the forceful collection of said tax would not be protected under the constitution because it infringes upon others rights, that doesn't mean the religion should be banned.
If their numbers were small, or they were otherwise incapable of making good on their commandment, then it wouldn't be much of an issue. But their numbers continue to grow both in this country and in others and their means of waging war now constitute a clear and present danger to the US.
You don't get to violate the constitution simply because there are lots of them.
