In any case, it seems clear we must change, in a constitutional sense, how we view Islam. Islam is not merely a religion, the free exercise of which the Free Exercise Clause protects. It is also a religious government, the establishment of which the Establishment Clause prohibits. We see building blocks for incrementally establishing Islamic theocracy laid daily in the form of Shariah courts, Shariah financing, food regulation, government sanctioned prayer, etc. It is time to start thinking about the constitutional considerations of such actions. At the very least, legal and public policy strategies formulated to defend religious liberty must no longer presuppose a singular secular foe. 23 Since Islam claims law, Islam, and the state are one, we must, whether in academia, the legislatures or the courts, focus some of our attention here. We must not be afraid to ask if any one of the official incremental efforts implementing the Shariah is respecting an establishment of a theocracy -- and evaluate our litigation and policy strategies accordingly.
On January 6, 2010 the LDS Church issued the following statement on its Newsroom blogsite : “The so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.” The claim that it is not “embraced as Church doctrine” does not explain why so many LDS leaders have referred to it. Would these leaders even bother to speak of the prophecy if they really didn’t believe at least portions were true? Words like “doctrine” and “official” have little meaning given the fact that many aspects of Mormonism are believed to be true by members even though a particular teaching may never be described as “binding” or “official.”