注释：

[1] Suhail A. Khan was born in Boulder, Colorado, to parents who emigrated to Wyoming and Colorado from southern India. The oldest of five children, Suhail grew up in California and earned his B.A. in political science from University of California at Berkeley in 1991 and his J.D. from University of Iowa in 1995.

Suhail served as Policy Director and Press Secretary for U.S. Congressman Tom Campbell (R-CA) where he worked closely on legislation relating to health antitrust reform, religious freedom, the preservation of the Second Amendment, tort reform, the reform of race-based affirmative action, and the 1998 impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives.  After the 2000 elections, he aided the White House Office of Public Liaison in the President’s outreach to the conservative, think-tank, military & veteran and Asian-American communities. 

He is currently serving as Counselor under U.S. Secretary Mary Peters at the U.S. Department of Transportation where he was awarded the Secretary’s Team Award in 2005 and the Secretary’s Gold Medal for Outstanding Achievement in 2007.

In a volunteer capacity, Suhail is an active participant in the RNC’s 72-hour program and has deployed to key races in states including Colorado, Washington, Iowa, Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Suhail serves on the Board of the American Conservative Union, the Indian American Republican Council, and the Islamic Free Market Institute.

Suhail lives in Washington, DC and enjoys movies, WWII history, and restoring and riding vintage Harley-Davidsons.      

[2] Ellison is also the first African-American to represent the state of Minnesota in Congress.   Andre Carson, the second Muslim elected to Congress in U.S. history, was the elected March 11, 2008, representing the Indianapolis, Indiana seat held by his late grandmother, Rep. Julia Carson.

[3] "The Senators and Representatives ... and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[4] The Constitution, as originally drafted, did not afford women and African Americans the right to vote.  Indeed, in allowing the institution of slavery to continue, the Framers further agreed to count African Americans as less than free persons for the purposes of apportioned representation:  "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution).

[5] In a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson assured the religious minority of Connecticut that it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to undertake any action that may be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

[6] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[7] Both Martin Luther and John Calvin, to limited degree, wrote of religious tolerance and freedom of personal conscience.

[8] In Memorial and Remonstrance (1786), Madison writes: 1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. . . .

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. . . . We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

[9] Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786)

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do. . . .

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. . . . We are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

[10] One typical example would be the discussion that took place on the floor of the North Carolina State Convention that met to debate ratification of the U.S. Constitution in July of 1788.  Some delegates articulated concerns that the U.S. Constitution did not provide the same guarantees as the state constitution to practice Christianity according to their own interpretation of the Bible without interference from the federal government.  Some were further concerned that the guarantee of religious freedom and the exclusion of fixed religious test oaths would allow non-Christians to serve in public office.  Mr. Henry Abbot (a minister) stated:  Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties.... The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.... I would be glad [if] some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society (Elliot, 1836, 4:191-192).       

A response was offered by James Iredell, who had served the state of North Carolina both as a judge on the State Superior Court as well as State Attorney-General, and was soon to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington: “Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect” (Elliot, 4:192). He proceeded to explain at length that the establishment of one Christian sect above another has always led to persecution and war—as evidenced in Catholic countries as well as by the Church of England, from whence they had only recently extricated themselves. Consequently, the restriction placed on Congress in the federal Constitution would prevent the government from interfering with the free practice of the Christian religion. He then remarked:  But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagan and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels (Elliot, 4:494).  Iredell concluded his remarks insisting that any oath of office should contain a stated belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.  

The next to speak was the Governor of North Carolina, Samuel Johnston, who had previously served as a member of the Continental Congress:  I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk [now obsolete term for Ottoman Empire Muslim leader—DM], could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow.  It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199).

[11] Argument of counsel in defense of seal of confession:  I shall proceed to examine the first proposition which I undertook to maintain, that is, that the 38th Article of the [New York State] Constitution, protects the Reverend Pastor in the exemption which he claims, independent of every other consideration.

The whole article is in the words following:

"And whereas we are required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance, wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind: This convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ORDAIN, DETERMINE AND DECLARE, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all mankind. Provided, that the liberty of conscience hereby granted, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State."

Now we cannot easily conceive of more broad and comprehensive terms, than the convention have used. Religious liberty was the great object which they had in view. They felt, that it was the right of every human being, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. They intended to secure, forever, to all mankind, without distinction or preference, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. They employed language commensurate with that object. It is what they have said.

Again there is no doubt that the convention intended to secure the liberty of conscience. Now, where is the liberty of conscience to the Catholic, if the priest and the penitent, be thus exposed? Has the priest, the liberty of conscience, if he be thus coerced? Has the penitent the liberty of conscience, if he is to be dragged into a court of justice, to answer for what has passed in confession? Have either the privilege of auricular confession? Do they freely enjoy the sacrament of penance? If this be the religious liberty, which the constitution intended to secure — it is as perplexing as the liberty which, in former times, a man had of being tried by the water ordeal, where, if he floated he was guilty — if he sunk he was innocent.

[12] Thomas Kennedy seeking equal rights for the Jews of Maryland stated:  “And, if I am asked why I take so much interest in favour of the passage of this Bill — to this I would simply answer, because I consider it my DUTY to do so. There are no Jews in the county from which I come, nor have I the slightest acquaintance with any Jews in the world. It was not at their request; it was not even known to any of them, that the subject would be brought forward at this time.  There is only one opponent that I fear at this time, and that is PREJUDICE — our prejudices, Mr. Speaker, are dear to us, we all know and feel the force of our political prejudices, but our religious prejudices are still more strong, still more dear; they cling to us through life, and scarcely leave us on the bed of death, and it is not the prejudice of a generation, of an age or a century, that we have now to encounter. No, it is the prejudice which has passed from father to son, for almost eighteen hundred years.  There are very few Jews in the United States; in Maryland there are very few, but if there was only one — to that one, we ought to do justice.“

[13] In a 1790 response to a letter from Moses Seixas, the warden of Congregation Kahal Kadosh Yeshuat Israel, better known as the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, George Washington wrote, “the Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.”   Washington’s concluded, “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”  Washington closed with an invocation: “May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.”

[14] John F. Kennedy on church and state:  “Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again — not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. . . .

This is the kind of America I believe in — and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty" or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom-and when they fought at the shrine I visited today — the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey — but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there. I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.”

[15] Julia Duin, “U.S. Muslims Use Growing Numbers to Flex Political Muscle,” The Washington Times, July 11, 2000.

[16] Holy Qu’ran (2:191). 

[17] “Jihad in the Modern World,” Seasons, Spring/Summer 2003, Dr. Abdul Hakim Sherman Jackson, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies, Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan. 

[18] (A Better Idea, August 14, 2006, Townhall.com, http://abetteridea.townhall.com/)

[19] "And do not kill yourselves" Holy Qu’ran (4:29).

[20] "Do not go to excess in your religion" Holy Qu’ran (4:71);  “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).

Indeed, author Dinesh D’Souza, a native of India and a Catholic, recently pointed out that, while India was under Muslim rule for centuries, the majority of the population remained non-Muslim, and do so to this day.

[21] You may fight in the cause of God against those who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors” (2:190).

[22] National Day of Prayer and Remembrance, Prayer Service at The National Cathedral, Washington, September 14, 2001, A Muslim Prayer by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi
(Imam, The Islamic Society of North America) “In the Name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful. Lord, you said and your words are true:  If any do seek for glory and power, to God belong all glory and power. To Him mount up all words of purity. He exalts all righteous deeds. But those that lay the plots of evil, for them is a terrible penalty; and the plotting of such shall not abide” Holy Qur'an, (35:10).     

 

 

         （本文为作者在2008年北京“宗教与法治”国际学术探讨会上的发言，普世网首发）