# In Search Of A Constitutional Definition For Islam



## Flanders (Nov 21, 2016)

Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​
*XXXXX*​
Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him​ 
*Bill Federer calls Islam a “religious system” while I always defined Islam as a political movement. Federer points out something that I never considered: Islam is also a “political-military system”.*

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.​*
Federer is slightly off course on this one:*

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.​
*Our federal government does not have worldwide authority, but our Congress and our Courts do have the authority to define Islam as a political movement. To date, our LAWYERS promoted to the bench lacked the courage to face the threat from Islam. Perhaps  Federer’s “political-military” definition will put some starch in their backbones. After all, the Constitution already protects Americans from Islam when the Constitution is enforced; so nobody is asking lawyers to legislate the same way 7 lawyers legislated infanticide. * 

Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.

A Course Change Is Unlikely​
*Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:*

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”​
*Finally, I have no use for the United Nations, or for its Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they have to be paid for with tax dollars. There is a long list of logical reasons for scrapping the United Nations. This excerpt adds Islam to the list —— not because Muslims rejected the UN’s Declaration, but because Muslims despise the very Rights our Constitution guarantees: * 

The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:​
Freedom of opinion and expression
           Freedom to change religions
           Right to education
           No slavery
           No forced marriages
           No torture
           No inhumane punishment​
The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

   The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:​ 
the death penalty for those leaving Islam
           punishing women who are victims of rape
           allowing men to be polygamous
           permitting wife beating
           censoring speech insulting Islam​
*The answer to this question is YES:*

Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech?​
*The answer to this question is NO because a political movement is not a religion: *

Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion?​
*The answer to this question is obviously YES: *

Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?​
*It all comes down to one thing. No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible. Irrespective of Islam’s inherent brutality, rejecting the evils of theocracy is more than enough reason to answer YES to the title question:* 

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
   Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?​
*Please read Bill Federer’s entire piece to get so much more than I excerpted. He includes a lot about our Constitution, and details about Muslim slavery dating back to the 1600s. *


----------



## pinqy (Nov 21, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​
> *XXXXX*​
> ...


Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 21, 2016)

i have heard it that is both a religious and political institution


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 21, 2016)

And why would Islam be asked to do something different than all religions?  Could it be bigotry and hate, the new America motto for the un-American American. 

Sermons on Trump:  http://nyti.ms/2eU3EXC

"The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. *Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. *We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election."

Noam Chomsky called this political moment 6 years ago


----------



## Flanders (Nov 21, 2016)

pinqy said:


> Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.


*To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment. Basically, a Christian goes to jail when they break a criminal law. No matter what a Muslim does to a non-Muslim they get away with it under Sharia law. Hell, brutalizing their own women and children in Muslim Countries is not even a crime.     *


midcan5 said:


> And why would Islam be asked to do something different than all religions?


*To Midca5: Because their political movement political-military system is engaging in war against America for openers.*


----------



## hazlnut (Nov 29, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​
> *XXXXX*​
> ...




Fuck off.

You christian phonies push all kinds of agendas.

You fuckers have it both ways.

Fucking ban your asses.


----------



## Flanders (Nov 30, 2016)

hazlnut said:


> You christian phonies push all kinds of agendas.


*To hazlnut: Asshole. Research my messages to find out what I think about every organized religion. *


----------



## pinqy (Nov 30, 2016)

Flanders said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.
> ...


Oh, like when Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis/St Paul refused to transport people with alcohol or dogs due to their religious beliefs and were fined and sanctioned versus Christians who refuse to serve homosexuals and get a political movement and legislation to protect their right to discriminate.


----------



## Flanders (Feb 1, 2017)

*I do not want to put a damper on the dreams and aspirations conservatives are placing in Neil Gorsuch, but I am reminded of the euphoria Chief Justice John Roberts spread like butter on a hot bagel. Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA. Instead, Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine. And let us not forget Earl Warren, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, conservatives all. My point. The Supreme Court is a crap shoot at best.

I freely admit that Gorsuch sounds good:*

​
*so what is to fear from Neil Gorsuch? Answer: He is just another lawyer, and a Harvard lawyer on top of it.

Parenthetically, I am always curious as to way wannabes never learn the Constitution from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Instead, they appear to learn from 20th century lawyers. Gorsuch cited Scalia and Thomas Jackson which is okay, but I would like to know why he reached into the grab bag and pulled out Jackson.*

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.​
*Frankly, conservatives should ask Gorlsuch if he admires international tribunals? A yes answer is enough to vote against his confirmation:* 


Flanders said:


> Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:


----------



## LuckyDuck (Feb 14, 2017)

Bottom line in all of this is that the clause in our First Amendment whereby it cites that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion," is the weak link in our armor.  Our founding fathers, not being familiar with Islam, didn't consider that a religion would be a combination of politics, religion and military aspirations and thus a force determined to wipe out all humans not bowing to it.  
The only solution to this problem, at least that I can see, is sadly, a civil war.
A president can declare a national state of emergency and on doing so, suspend the Constitution.  All that is needed would be multiple terrorist attacks committed simultaneously.  Once the Constitution is suspended, troops can be dispersed to round up Muslims (excluding those who have lived here through several generations and are westernized) and forcibly remove them.  Those that fight along with those that fight in support of them, wipe them out.  After that, change the Constitution regarding that clause on religion.


----------



## Flanders (Feb 14, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> Bottom line in all of this is that the clause in our First Amendment whereby it cites that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion," is the weak link in our armor.


*To LuckyDuck: Not so. Those words are the only barricade standing against every form of totalitarian government.

Government and organized religion will always plague mankind. The trick is to limit government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

The first 16 words in the First Amendment were designed to prevent any one religion dominating the others. No other country has, or ever had, such a powerful guard against the evils of human nature. In short: There will always be a legion of fools and parasites who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.*


LuckyDuck said:


> Our founding fathers, not being familiar with Islam, didn't consider that a religion would be a combination of politics, religion and military aspirations and thus a force determined to wipe out all humans not bowing to it.


*To LuckyDuck: Again, not so. Our Founders understood Islam much better than the clowns in Washington today. These two links offer enough to prove my case:*

Founding Fathers rip Obama’s Muslim ‘fabric’

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam


LuckyDuck said:


> The only solution to this problem, at least that I can see, is sadly, a civil war.


*To LuckyDuck: A civil war is more than possible, only the America-haters will start it.*

There is not a chance that an attack will be planned and executed by ISIS or any Muslim military so long as he is president. The Muslim military has every reason to make Taqiyya the Liar & Company look like he is defending the country while between them they put their fifth column in place.

   Just consider this if you are not convinced:

   1. A Muslim fifth column is much more comprehensive than was the Soviet Union’s sleeper cells and Nazi Germany’s espionage agents.

   2. There is not a chance Taqiyya the Liar will be accused of betraying the country after he is out of office. Not getting caught is an important component of his fifth column strategy.

   3. Muslims pouring into this country will not be placed in internment camps as were Japanese Americans who were loyal Americans. Taqiyya the Liar’s Muslim immigrants, along with UN refugees, will have no loyalty to this country. As a matter of fact, some years ago, a thousand or so Muslims serving in the US military pledged that they would not kill another Muslim in battle. Today, they would desert faster than did Bowe Bergdahl.

   4. Administration traitors are not the least bit concerned about lone wolf attacks like the Boston Bombers and Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The Chicago sewer rat will even look good when the intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials thwart an attack. So long as the public accepts lone wolf attacks the fifth column strategy remains hidden.​
Breaking The Nuclear Monopoly


LuckyDuck said:


> Those that fight along with those that fight in support of them, wipe them out.


*To LuckyDuck: You got that right.*


LuckyDuck said:


> After that, change the Constitution regarding that clause on religion.


*To LuckyDuck: Enforcing it is easier. Reread the part about a political movement in #1 permalink.*


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 20, 2017)

Islam and The Constitution are not compatible. You can not have and serve to masters.


----------



## pinqy (Feb 20, 2017)

Paparock said:


> Islam and The Constitution are not compatible. You can not have and serve to masters.


By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 20, 2017)

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?


----------



## Flanders (Feb 20, 2017)

pinqy said:


> By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.





Flanders said:


> To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment.


*To pingy: Bottom Line: Every priesthood is incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, every do-gooder who strives to live on tax dollars for doing nothing more than tell everybody how to behave is incompatible with the Constitution.*


Paparock said:


> Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?


*To Paparock: Colonial Americas were wise enough to separate religion from government.*


Flanders said:


> No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 20, 2017)

Protestant Christianity was the influence on the Founders.


----------



## pinqy (Feb 20, 2017)

Paparock said:


> Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?


i have. I didn't say *I* thought it incompatible. *Your* claim was that one could not serve two masters: the Constitution and one's religion. Many Christians would say Jesus first, then the Constitution.


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 21, 2017)

Flanders said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.
> ...



You are not educated in the history of the United States or you would know the prominent and central role that Christianity in the writing and formation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. The writings of the Founding Fathers speak about this often and in depth for anyone who takes the time to study the subject. Congress authorized the first American printed English Bible in 1782. The Colonial Americans set forth Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion. You really should study and read the actual documents and the actual history; not talking points as I have..


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 21, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?
> ...



Jesus himself said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G_d what is G_d's. I for one think I can differentiate the difference having walked that path firsthand for the last 67 years and having served in the U.S. Army from 1971-1973 in Air Defense and again in the only.Texas National Guard U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Unit in the United States.


----------



## pinqy (Feb 21, 2017)

Paparock said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...


And you have never encountered nor heard of Christians who thought that Jesus should come first? Especially in Texas?


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 21, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...




People are people and they are not always right. I have met many who call themselves "Christians" who have no real consept of the meaning of the word just like there are Muslims in name only. That is the way of the world. If you can do better lead by example!

Talking is easy leading by example if hard. Justifying bad behavior by pointing out others bad behavior is a copout and you know it.  Hypocrites are a dime a dozen and Washington D.C. is full of them. They talk out both sides of their mouths and lean toward what ever side the wind blows. When trials comes like it has to Christians in the Middle East and they are being crucified, beheaded, sold into sex slavery and burned alive; could you stand as strong as most of them have or would you recant your faith? Talk is cheap the Christians in the Middle East know what suffering is and yet the Obama Administration refused to allow them into the United States. Where was his "Christian Fruit" for by their fruit you will know them? Obama showed his fruit for only one side and yet no one has ever held him accountable for it!!! WHY?


----------



## Flanders (Feb 21, 2017)

Paparock said:


> The Colonial Americans set forth Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion.


*To Paparock: Freedom FROM religion is exactly what they had in mind. They sure as hell meant freedom from Islam, or do you believe that freedom of religion only applies to Christianity?*

Freedom FROM religion was the objective. In practical terms FREEDOM FROM PRIESTHOODS was the desired results. Not one of the Founding Fathers would be considered a constitutional expert in an academy where countless liberals are the experts. Try to imagine Jefferson, or Madison, arguing a case before judges like Ruth Ginsburg who would abandon the Constitution altogether. Nevertheless, Jefferson’s reasoning on religion and the public purse is faultless:​
*XXXXX*​
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. _Thomas Jefferson_

*XXXXX*​
       In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. _Thomas Jefferson_

*XXXXX*​ 
       History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. _Thomas Jefferson_ --Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813​
Bottom line: Thomas Jefferson clearly wanted to separate priesthoods from the public purse permanently when he  coined the phrase “. . . a wall of separation between Church & State.” in a letter:

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net​
*XXXXX*​
There is no doubt the Founders intended an impenetrable wall separating church from the public purse.  In addition to the Founding Fathers everybody in Colonial America wanted freedom of religion, but nobody wanted public funds going to somebody else’s religion. The question then becomes: What was the wall separating church & state made of in colonial times? The answer is obvious: A closed public purse.

A Passive Monument?​
*FREEDOM FROM RELIGION IS BUILT INTO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. This is the only question Was it put there intentionally? YES is my answer. *


Paparock said:


> You really should study and read the actual documents and the actual history; not talking points as I have..


*To Paparock: You are wasting your time pushing your organized religion talking points on me. Find another thread if you want to thump on the Bible: *


Flanders said:


> The first 16 words in the First Amendment were designed to prevent any one religion dominating the others. No other country has, or ever had, such a powerful guard against the evils of human nature. In short: There will always be a legion of fools and parasites who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.





Paparock said:


> Jesus himself said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G_d what is G_d's. I for one think I can differentiate the difference having walked that path firsthand for the last 67 years and having served in the U.S. Army from 1971-1973 in Air Defense and again in the only.Texas National Guard U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Unit in the United States.


*To Paparock: See #3 permalink in this thread:*

Emphasis Is The New Game In Town


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 21, 2017)

Flanders said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > The Colonial Americans set forth Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion.
> ...




You make me laugh! You seem to be a very paranoid individual. I state my own beliefs and you are free to state your own. You seem to feel threatened by what I believe. Too bad, so sad, grow up as I am not PUSHING anything but quoting scripture and stating my opinion. The Constitution guarantees there will be no laws respecting an establishment of *religion*, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof nowhere does it say there is a guarantee from religion. If otherwise then quote it here chapter and verse!


----------



## Flanders (Feb 21, 2017)

Paparock said:


> You make me laugh!


*To Paparock: And you make me sick. I cannot count the number of Bible-thumpers that found my threads in 17 years. Live and let live is the only thing I ever wanted from Bible-thumpers, while you and your kind are all the same. You all preach the same sermon to infidels:*

*infidel* (_noun_)

*1.* An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

*2.* One who has no religious beliefs.

*3.* One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle: an infidel to the prohibitionist cause.​
*NOTE: The definition of infidel is why:*

Americans must defeat Islam as a matter of self-defense, but they must not do it for Christianity, Communism/Socialism, democracy, and certainly not for global government.

Maybe This Democrat Will Tell Me How​
*The thing that makes me is sick is the way every dirty little moralist is convinced their blinding wisdom can convert infidels. The fact is that I do not give a shit what you believe. Hoffer surely had you in mind when he wrote in The True Believer:  *

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. _Eric Hoffer_

*XXXXX*​
   A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding, When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. _Eric Hoffer_​


Paparock said:


> nowhere does it say there is a guarantee from religion. If otherwise then quote it here chapter and verse!


*To Paparock: You are not that clever. Obviously, you do not know that Madison and Jefferson would never have included freedom from religion in their constitution for obvious reasons. Their caution proved accurate when the XVI Amendment gave priesthoods keys to the public purse.

My own proof of FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is in my previous response.

Now you quote chapter and verse that says everybody must belong to an organized religion. If you cannot do it at least tell me why you believe the Constitution says —— or even implies —— that everybody must belong to an organized religion.*


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 21, 2017)

You seem to be suffering from what is known as "projection".  I am a proud "infidel" myself and in fact I am a Christian Zionist that supports Israel against many so called Christians that know very little about about the Foundations of Christianity or its relationship to Judaism.

You have me confused with someone else as I state by beliefs but you are more than free to your own. Disagree with me all you want as I don't care. If your feelings are hurt I will play two tiny twin violins for you playing "my heart bleeds for you" for a few seconds.  Radical Muslims are slaughtering Christians in Syria and Iraq along with Yazidis, atheists, and fellow Muslims who refuse to follow their edicts and your feelings are hurt, oh boo hoo. Cry me a river because you can't prove your point! Facts are facts and history is history even if it is NOT what you want to hear or face! GROW UP! I used to be a moderator for an Israel Military Website and I have heard all this crying so many times and I am not Jewish. I did train with both Israeli and Syrian military officers while I was on active duty in the U.S. Army. I came to respect the Israeli's and despise the Syrians due to their actions not just their words. Life teaches you things if you are open to learn them. I don't know how old you are but you seem very closed to learning.

Thomas Jefferson established the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to fight the Muslim Marauders on the Barbary Coast so learn all your American History!


----------



## Flanders (Feb 22, 2017)

Paparock said:


> I am a proud "infidel" myself and in fact I am a Christian Zionist that supports Israel against many so called Christians that know very little about about the Foundations of Christianity or its relationship to Judaism.


*To Paparock: You believe in religion. Tell me something I do not know. Try believing in God.*

Basically, religious fanatics hate alien religious fanatics more than they hate atheists.

*XXXXX*​ 
   Incidentally, people who believe in God, but not religion, do not give a rat’s ass what others believe.​
Emphasis Is The New Game In Town


Paparock said:


> I don't know how old you are but you seem very closed to learning.


*To Paparock: Old enough to prefer making my own mistakes.*


Paparock said:


> Thomas Jefferson established the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to fight the Muslim Marauders on the Barbary Coast so learn all your American History!


*To Paparock: Research my messages before you presume to teach me anything:* 

“It was Jefferson who fought the first war on terror,” said Barton. “Jefferson never believed [Islam] was a religion of peace. He did not believe we should fight terrorism by drawing back from it but by confronting it. Exactly the opposite of what we do today.”​
Historian: Thomas Jefferson was pro-religion
           Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 01/18/2016 @ 10:20 pm

Historian: Thomas Jefferson was pro-religion​
Be clear on one thing. Priests make the decisions for every religion. President Jefferson had no more trust for Islam’s clerics than he had for the priesthood in his own country. Whatever funds T. J. gave to Christian churches was not paid in tribute. This time the war against Islam might end differently.

   Bottom line: Two centuries after the Barbary Coast War, the United Nations made Islam’s clerics strong enough to demand ——— and get —— tribute.​
Paying Tribute For The United Nations


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 22, 2017)

Wrong again Flanders I do not believe in religion but quite the opposite! So many of the organized religious groups be it the Catholic Church, or many others especially in Europe took part in the greatest slaughter of mankind under the Nazis refusing to stand up against their brutal regime and even before that practiced a "kill a Jew and save your soul" philosophy. I believe in seeking G_d and establishing a personal relationship with Him and I have. I don't depend on what anyone tells me about G_d's word as I am studied enough to do my own research both in the Greek and Hebrew. I also have enough life experience and education in the fields of psychology and sociology to understand a lot of what and how men are motivated and manipulated from my years in universities. I chose to withdraw from society in general read and study only to interact with with those I trust and those I thought I could help. It has not been an easy path to follow and most likely not the wisest. I lost my faith in my country and in its leaders ability to faithfully and justly administer its laws and their oaths due to what I experienced in the U.S. Army. I understand all too well what it means to be jaded and trying to overcome that view when you can't trust anyone until they prove to you they are trustworthy because you have been betrayed so many times by so many people in positions on authority.


----------



## Flanders (Feb 22, 2017)

Paparock said:


> Wrong again Flanders I do not believe in religion but quite the opposite!


*To Paparock:Based on everything you said in this thread I suggest you analyze your responses from an unbiased perspective.*


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Feb 22, 2017)

Flanders said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again Flanders I do not believe in religion but quite the opposite!
> ...



Oh, I have many many times over the years. I have had a few very close friends over the years but they are all dead now. Maybe I will find another soon G_d willing. The last one was eating breakfast and when his wife came back into the kitchen he was dead face down in his cereal bowl. I miss him. Good friends are hard to find.


----------



## Flanders (Jul 1, 2017)

Flanders said:


> Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA.


*Only a fool believes the High Court is now conservative let alone in the hands of strict constitutionalists:*

John Roberts Quietly Bows To Gay Marriage Ruling
   Kevin Daley
   Legal Affairs Reporter
   10:18 PM 06/30/2017

John Roberts Quietly Bows To Gay Marriage Ruling​
*How many more issues will make Roberts vote with the FIVE liberals? 

1. Ginsburg

2.  Sotomayor.  

3. Kagan. 

4. Breyer.

5. Kennedy. *


----------

