WorldNetDaily columnist Lord Christopher Monckton suggested yesterday that in response to the Paris terrorist attacks, the U.S. should consider prohibiting Muslims from holding public office “on grounds of a grievous and life-threatening conflict of interest.”

According to Monckton, this ban will include President Obama. While the Constitution prohibits such a religious test, Monckton says that people should weigh “whether we should any long regard Islam as a religion at all.”

“For while one may tolerate another’s religion, if that ‘religion’ increasingly seems to be the wellspring of terrorism, and if that ‘religion’s’ leaders say and do nothing to deter the terrorists, and if that ‘religion’s’ adherents, such as Mr. Obama, are also sullenly silent, then perhaps, after all, it is Islam itself that should no longer be tolerated,” he wrote.

Monckton claims that Obama is trying to distract people from the problem of terrorist attacks not only because he’s a secret Muslim but also in order to push policies combatting climate change, which Monckton says is “a pretext for inflicting totalitarian control on those who would prefer to be free.”

As usual, there has been near-total silence from those Islamic mullahs who, we are told, are “moderates.” It is their silence that is leading me, among others, to wonder whether we should any longer regard Islam as a religion at all.

And that is a shame: for it was the formidable scholarship of Islam, in the Damascus and Baghdad of the 9th to the 12th centuries, that kept civilization alive while Christian Europe was in the intellectual doldrums of the Dark Ages. Also, Islam upholds some of the Christian teachings – on abortion and homosexuality, for instance – that Christian bishops nowadays seem too politically correct to defend.

However, the conclusion can no longer be avoided: Today, except perhaps in the Ahmadiyya sect, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. And even the Ahmadiyya Muslims seem not to have spoken out in condemnation of the latest atrocity perpetrated in the name of Allah.

What does the “leader” of the free world have to say about these events? Mr. Obama made the usual ritualistic noises of outrage, but at no time did he mention the inconvenient truth that the terrorism that destroyed 3,000 of his fellow citizens in New York in 2001, and that has been responsible for numerous outrages before and since, is Islamic.

Instead, Mr. Obama has said, over and over again, that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism. He began saying this in January 2008, during a campaign speech, when he asserted that the “immediate danger” from oil-funded terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine.”

…

Why, then, does Mr. Obama state, over and over again, that non-existent global warming is a greater threat than Islamic terror? One reason is that the eco-fascists, like their predecessors in Nazi Germany, have adopted environmentalism as a pretext for inflicting totalitarian control on those who would prefer to be free.

They clambered on to the bandwagon without checking the science first. They did not care whether the small clique of fellow-extremists in academia who fabricated the global-warming scare were right. All they cared about was the opportunity to set up a global new world order, the most conspicuous feature of which is that none of its leaders will be elected.

…

As for Mr. Obama, who is on record as having spoken of “my Muslim faith,” he must redeem his failing “presidency” by making it quite clear that he is not a terrorist sympathizer. He is, of course, entitled to his “Muslim faith,” for your nation was born of a desire to replace the Catholic and then Protestant intolerance of Europe with a more open-minded approach to other people’s faith.

Yet a true leader has to get his priorities right. And Mr. Obama’s whining about the non-threat of global warming and his culpable silence on the fact that people who call themselves Muslims are responsible for nearly all terrorist acts around the world are no longer acceptable.

For while one may tolerate another’s religion, if that “religion” increasingly seems to be the wellspring of terrorism, and if that “religion’s” leaders say and do nothing to deter the terrorists, and if that “religion’s” adherents, such as Mr. Obama, are also sullenly silent, then perhaps, after all, it is Islam itself that should no longer be tolerated.

Perhaps Mr. Obama and others who share his Muslim faith should be debarred from holding any public office on grounds of a grievous and life-threatening conflict of interest. To be silent in the face of Islamic terror is to be a sympathizer with that terror.