Pro Strict Interpretation, Contra Islam

This article briefly touches on two unrelated items. I lumped them into one article as they are each small.

First, I give an argument in favor of a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Second, I give an argument against Islam.

7 Steps to Strict Interpretation

1. Humans cannot conceive of an infinite list of heterogeneous items.
2. Humans cannot intend anything they cannot conceive of.
3. The Constitution may be interpreted as giving only defined powers or giving only defined restrictions.
4. If the Constitution gives only defined restrictions then it has an infinite list of heterogeneous powers.
5. A contract should be interpreted as meaning that which it was intended to mean, or else it is not valid.
6. Therefore (1, 2, 3, and 4): The Constitution was intended to mean a list of specified powers.
7. Therefore (5 and 6): The Constitution should be interpreted strictly, or else it is not valid. For these purposes, a strict interpretation is one which assumes enumerated powers and an originalist meaning of the Constitution.

A Simple Argument Against Islam

1. Islam condones lying in the forms of Taqiyya, Kitman, and Hiyal.
2. If the religion condones lying, then both the creator of the religion and also the followers condone lying.
3. Therefore, the expected truth value of Islam and of anything spoken by a Muslim is less than the average expected truth value of a human statement.