Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[emilynghiem]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

Sorry I can't process your building permit. You living in sin with your girlfriend violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your divorce papers. That violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your marriage license b/c marrying outside your faith violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your food service license. Being open on Sunday violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your driver's license. Women driving is a violation of my religious beliefs.

What other goverment services should denied as result of one's faith?

Sorry. Goverment agents don't get to decide what services apply to other citizens based on their religious beliefs.

You're talking about civil service workers being paid by the taxpayers. A private entity is a different situation.

The public sector is subject to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the private sector is subject to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where government has the authority to regulate private business.

And one such regulatory measure that is necessary, proper, and Constitutional is public accommodations law, some of which have provisions prohibiting businesses open to the general public from refusing to accommodate gay patrons.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
1. Whether the Commerce Clause or the accommodations laws,
no laws can be enforced where they violate other laws and rights of people.

To be consistently lawful and constitutional ALL principles would have to be followed and standards met.

See Fourteenth Amendment about this:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. This goes both ways: where beliefs are at stake on both sides of the marriage and now the bathroom policies,
people on both sides would have to CONSENT and agree their rights and beliefs are not being discriminated against!

Why are you so allergic to the idea that people have the right to decide for themselves
and represent where their beliefs are being crossed and the law goes too far?

When the transgender people are saying we can't be forced to use the other restroom, you get that part.
Why can't you get the part where people are saying we don't feel safe with policies that don't base
the distinction on gender by birth, but base it on gender identity that can't be proven or policed without violating rights.
What is wrong with neutral and singlestalled restrooms that accommodate ALL these beliefs without exception or forcing anyone to change their beliefs?

It seems you are fixed on only relying on Courts to decide these matters.

I disagree when it comes to matters of beliefs, where it is legally and psychologically necessary
to base decisions on the consent of the people affected it. It causes emotional and legal harm
and damages not to respect the consent of people when it comes to their personal beliefs.

Since people by nature of their beliefs cannot be forced to change these by coercion
but it requires free will and educated choice, pushing one sided decrees through govt is damaging
to people personally, their ability to use democratic due process and conflict resolution to solve problems,
and harms faith in govt being neutral and equally inclusive, and wastes resources over conflicts that
could be invested in solutions.

See also Code of Ethics for Govt Service ethics-commission.net
about
a. not putting party above govt duty to the public
b. seeking to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks
ie neutral gender restrooms would be cheaper than all these legal and legislative
battles over BELIEFS that people on both sides refuse to change especially not by force of govt

 

[emilynghiem]

My posts do not reflect my ‘personal opinions,’ nor how I ‘feel’ or what I might ‘believe’ – all of which are subjective and irrelevant. My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

In the same thread. THE SAME THREAD.

This place is a hoot, you can't make this shit up.
.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones Sorry but I have to agree with Mac1958 catching you again.

This shows you have a personal belief and agenda that explains why you cannot weigh
the other side equally. You see the beliefs of the other side as fueled by bigotry and hatred.
This clouds your judgment emotionally and makes you less objective where you
interpret and apply the Constitution as it meets your political beliefs and bias.

That's fine. There's no way we could remove all people from the process who have a bias,
or else there would be no one left. Maybe the Dalai Lama and even he is biased. Nobody is
perfectly all inclusive and neutral.

That is why we should include all objections and beliefs when we make decisions,
especially involving beliefs.

The same way you project a bias where you DISMISS the opinions of others as irrelevant,
you are not treating people of different beliefs equally. This is not inclusion of diversity,
but still very discriminatory which is only human. All humans do this by our social nature to identify by groups.

This is why it is so important to seek mediation that includes all sides and seeks consensus.
That way you are included as well as others even though you both censor each other out.
The process can still include you even where you fail to include each other.

C_Clayton_Jones my only warning to you is that you
lose power and authority in decision making when you cut people out.
You limit yourself to only those people who agree with your bias.

If you get in conflict with someone of the opposite bias,
you both lose control of the decision and rely on a third party to step in and tell you both how to resolve it.

so you lose equality that way.
that is why I don't recommend that.
I recommend we all learn and practice conflict resolution that includes and empowers people
equally and seek equal say and representation that protects all our beliefs equally. We all benefit that way.

Thank you, I know we think differently, and
I'm glad I'm not you because I believe in equal inclusion,
and your ways would leave out people I strive to work with to resolve conflicts.

 

[Centinel]

Dear Centinel where are you coming from, what state?

I live in the state of pennsylvania, one of the united states of america.

from a liberal or conservative position or what?

Neither. "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", is my position.

I'm in Houston, Texas where people are pretty independent and diverse, both culturally religiously and politically.

Liberals run amok with city govt while Republicans run the State.
Whichever gang people run with, they use those connections to get stuff done.

If you want to do your own thing, go set up a church nonprofit or business.
As long as you don't mess with the IRS.
Anything with govt not checked by the Constitution, watch out.

okay.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Centinel where are you coming from, what state?

I live in the state of pennsylvania, one of the united states of america.

from a liberal or conservative position or what?

Neither. "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff", is my position.

I'm in Houston, Texas where people are pretty independent and diverse, both culturally religiously and politically.

Liberals run amok with city govt while Republicans run the State.
Whichever gang people run with, they use those connections to get stuff done.

If you want to do your own thing, go set up a church nonprofit or business.
As long as you don't mess with the IRS.
Anything with govt not checked by the Constitution, watch out.

okay.

So Pennsylvania used to lean Conservative Republican,
but now it's more run by Democrats, or conservative ones at least?

What issues are you saying the state is hammering or "doing whatever it wants"
Thanks Centinel
In Houston, because the Mayor has strong executive powers, this has led to a seeming tyrannical/"fascist" use of govt to dictate mandates, some even in conflict with state laws, putting city power over state and triggering lawsuits.

C_Clayton_Jones RE: liberals can't be fascist?
Why do you think fascism only applies to the right and not the left.
Are you citing some LITERAL definition of the F word?
Would TYRANNY be a better term that applies to both right and left?

See Machiavelli

“monarchy becomes tyranny,
aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy,
and the popular government lapses readily into licentiousness"
[monarchy when corrupted leads to tyranny,
aristocracy to oligarchy,
democracy to mob rule]

1. which definition are you citing where fascism is only the right not the left?
2. are you okay with substituting tyranny for fascism so it includes all sides?

3. how about this:
tyranny (for the executive branch when orders are abused to issue decrees biased by beliefs)
oligarchy (for the judicial branch where campaigns are run or financed
by aristocrats of the legal profession and bars)
mob rule (for the legislative branch where majority rule trumps Constitutional limits and checks)

 

[Norman]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

Dear Norman the problem with religions is when people abuse it to subvert due process of laws
and start issuing decrees, judgments and punishments based on their beliefs
and thus depriving others of liberty who have committed no crimes to deserve punishment, involuntary servitude, or loss of other rights and protections of law.

So how is this so different if a political party takes their political beliefs and integrates them with govt, such as
* the belief that health care is a right, govt should supervise it, and anyone who doesn't comply with regs should be fined
* the belief that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and/or that homosexual orientation is
"not a choice of behavior" and anyone who believes "homosexuality is a behavior not protected from discrimination"
can face penalties for refusing to comply with biased laws or engage in activities involving homosexual behavior
* beliefs about transgender identity treated unequally, where the beliefs in favor of LGBT policies are endorsed by govt while beliefs against it are penalized and people are harassed and bullied in the very ways even LGBT advocates oppose.

Muslims are the good guys, so government should sponsor them.

Christians are evil, govt should make them pay.

 

[Silhouette]

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell "beyond dispute"?

How about children being deprived via contract of either a mother or father for life (illegal: see "Infant Doctrine/necessities/contracts")? How about there can't be just one sexual orientation guaranteed marriage while other orientations (polyamory) are still denied? How about there's no language in the Constitution guaranteeing behaviors as having rights; if you cite religion, I'll ask LGBT for their tax-exempt status. Otherwise NIL. How about two of the Justices were performing with glee, and publicly, gay marriages while the highly-controversial case was pending to be heard in their Court? (Caperton vs Massey Coal 2009 says if there's a reasonable suspicion that a judge might be biased, that judge is required by law to recuse him/herself from the case).

Shall I go on?

 

[Mac1958]

My posts do not reflect my ‘personal opinions,’ nor how I ‘feel’ or what I might ‘believe’ – all of which are subjective and irrelevant. My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

In the same thread. THE SAME THREAD.

This place is a hoot, you can't make this shit up.
.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones Sorry but I have to agree with Mac1958 catching you again.

This shows you have a personal belief and agenda that explains why you cannot weigh
the other side equally. You see the beliefs of the other side as fueled by bigotry and hatred.
This clouds your judgment emotionally and makes you less objective where you
interpret and apply the Constitution as it meets your political beliefs and bias.

That's fine. There's no way we could remove all people from the process who have a bias,
or else there would be no one left. Maybe the Dalai Lama and even he is biased. Nobody is
perfectly all inclusive and neutral.

That is why we should include all objections and beliefs when we make decisions,
especially involving beliefs.

The same way you project a bias where you DISMISS the opinions of others as irrelevant,
you are not treating people of different beliefs equally. This is not inclusion of diversity,
but still very discriminatory which is only human. All humans do this by our social nature to identify by groups.

This is why it is so important to seek mediation that includes all sides and seeks consensus.
That way you are included as well as others even though you both censor each other out.
The process can still include you even where you fail to include each other.

C_Clayton_Jones my only warning to you is that you
lose power and authority in decision making when you cut people out.
You limit yourself to only those people who agree with your bias.

If you get in conflict with someone of the opposite bias,
you both lose control of the decision and rely on a third party to step in and tell you both how to resolve it.

so you lose equality that way.
that is why I don't recommend that.
I recommend we all learn and practice conflict resolution that includes and empowers people
equally and seek equal say and representation that protects all our beliefs equally. We all benefit that way.

Thank you, I know we think differently, and
I'm glad I'm not you because I believe in equal inclusion,
and your ways would leave out people I strive to work with to resolve conflicts.

Precisely. It's essentially impossible to have a constructive conversation with a person who sees only one side and attacks the other.

This is why I strongly suspect many hardcore partisans are not trying to "resolve conflicts" - they're just trying to beat the other guy.

Whether it's religion or race or wealth or anything else, they have no interest in healing wounds. None.
.

 

[Centinel]

What issues are you saying the state is hammering or "doing whatever it wants"
Thanks

I'm referring to the state in the generic sense. I said that the state can do whatever it wants. There is no legal way to stop it.

 

[rdean]

Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church, "Here's what the Bible says, Leviticus 20:13, 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.' And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along."

 

[mdk]

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell "beyond dispute"?

How about children being deprived via contract of either a mother or father for life (illegal: see "Infant Doctrine/necessities/contracts")? How about there can't be just one sexual orientation guaranteed marriage while other orientations (polyamory) are still denied? How about there's no language in the Constitution guaranteeing behaviors as having rights; if you cite religion, I'll ask LGBT for their tax-exempt status. Otherwise NIL. How about two of the Justices were performing with glee, and publicly, gay marriages while the highly-controversial case was pending to be heard in their Court? (Caperton vs Massey Coal 2009 says if there's a reasonable suspicion that a judge might be biased, that judge is required by law to recuse him/herself from the case).

Shall I go on?

Speech is a behavior. Owning a gun is a behavior. Having a faith is a behavior. Assembling is a behavior. The Constitution protects many behaviors despite your willful ignorance.

Your post is nothing more than a greatest hits of failed legal shit you've thrown against the wall.

Maybe you would be better served worrying about your own family instead of mine. If you did then perhaps you could find a father for your children.

 

[mdk]

So Pennsylvania used to lean Conservative Republican,
but now it's more run by Democrats, or conservative ones at least

Pennsylvania's state house has been pretty much dominated by the GOP for the last two decades. Only the governor is a Democrat and he replaced a Republican. 13 of the 18 Representatives are members of the GOP. To claim PA is run by Democrats is alarmingly false.

 

[Silhouette]

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell "beyond dispute"?

How about children being deprived via contract of either a mother or father for life (illegal: see "Infant Doctrine/necessities/contracts")? How about there can't be just one sexual orientation guaranteed marriage while other orientations (polyamory) are still denied? How about there's no language in the Constitution guaranteeing behaviors as having rights; if you cite religion, I'll ask LGBT for their tax-exempt status. Otherwise NIL. How about two of the Justices were performing with glee, and publicly, gay marriages while the highly-controversial case was pending to be heard in their Court? (Caperton vs Massey Coal 2009 says if there's a reasonable suspicion that a judge might be biased, that judge is required by law to recuse him/herself from the case).

Shall I go on?

Speech is a behavior. Owning a gun is a behavior. Having a faith is a behavior. Assembling is a behavior. The Constitution protects many behaviors despite your willful ignorance.

And all of them have specific language addressing that behavior. Except homosexual behavior, (but not other sexual orientations...a blatant violation of equality a la the 14th) NOTHING is mentioned or even insinuated about homosexual behaviors having rights. Nada. Zip. And that's going to be a problem for Obergefell next year as it fights for its very life..

There a lot of behaviors one could claim as a "right" that aren't provided for or even hinted at in the US. Constitution. What makes homosexuality so special? When did the USSC add that language to the Constitution? Oh, that's right, they didn't (and can't). And neither did Congress... The USSC can neither 1. Add language to the Constitution or 2. Interpret language or intent that doesn't exist AT ALL in the Constitution.

 

[mdk]

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell "beyond dispute"?

How about children being deprived via contract of either a mother or father for life (illegal: see "Infant Doctrine/necessities/contracts")? How about there can't be just one sexual orientation guaranteed marriage while other orientations (polyamory) are still denied? How about there's no language in the Constitution guaranteeing behaviors as having rights; if you cite religion, I'll ask LGBT for their tax-exempt status. Otherwise NIL. How about two of the Justices were performing with glee, and publicly, gay marriages while the highly-controversial case was pending to be heard in their Court? (Caperton vs Massey Coal 2009 says if there's a reasonable suspicion that a judge might be biased, that judge is required by law to recuse him/herself from the case).

Shall I go on?

Speech is a behavior. Owning a gun is a behavior. Having a faith is a behavior. Assembling is a behavior. The Constitution protects many behaviors despite your willful ignorance.

And all of them have specific language addressing that behavior. Except homosexual behavior, (but not other sexual orientations...a blatant violation of equality a la the 14th) NOTHING is mentioned or even insinuated about homosexual behaviors having rights. Nada. Zip. And that's going to be a problem for Obergefell next year as it fights for its very life..

There a lot of behaviors one could claim as a "right" that aren't provided for or even hinted at in the US. Constitution. What makes homosexuality so special? When did the USSC add that language to the Constitution? Oh, that's right, they didn't (and can't). And neither did Congress... The USSC can neither 1. Add language to the Constitution or 2. Interpret language or intent that doesn't exist AT ALL in the Constitution.

You're the fool that keeps claiming behaviors are not protected as rights. You claimed Obgerfell was going to be overtunred by Congress after the GOP impeaches Kagan and Ginsberg. How do that legal prediction work out for you? Stop worrying about your marriage and worry about your own. Oh wait...nobody wants to marry you. lol

 

[Silhouette]

You're the fool that keeps claiming behaviors are not protected as rights.

You're the fool pretending that any behavior not specified with language addressing it in the Constitution is or can be interpreted or "protected" without Congress making a specific Amendment as to that particular behavior. Fool. You took poly-sci. And, even if you didn't know that, you'd surely know that if one sexual orientation was covered, they'd all be. The 5 Justices can't at the same time amend the Constitution and play favorites as to the 14th.. They were so out of line, particularly Ginsburg and Kagan, that they would've been hung for treason back in the day. At a minimum, Obergefell will be overturned.

 

[mdk]

You're the fool that keeps claiming behaviors are not protected as rights.

You're the fool pretending that any behavior not specified with language addressing it in the Constitution is or can be interpreted or "protected" without Congress making a specific Amendment as to that particular behavior. Fool. You took poly-sci. And, even if you didn't know that, you'd surely know that if one sexual orientation was covered, they'd all be. The 5 Justices can't at the same time amend the Constitution and play favorites as to the 14th.. They were so out of line, particularly Ginsburg and Kagan, that they would've been hung for treason back in the day. At a minimum, Obergefell will be overturned.

Any day now Obergefell will be overturned...any day now....

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're the fool pretending that any behavior not specified with language addressing it in the Constitution is or can be interpreted or "protected" without Congress making a specific Amendment as to that particular behavior.

1. Please point to the specific language in the Constitution the referencing a white man marrying a black woman.

2. Congress doesn't "amend" the Constitution, the States amend the Constitution when ratified by 3/4 of the States. Congress can propose an amendment OR they can be proposed through Constitutional Convention without a proposal by Congress.

Fool. You took poly-sci.

That's some balls right there. Calling someone a fool after claiming the Congress amends the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

You don't seem to understand what 'equal treatment under the laws' means. It means the government applies the law equally to everyone no matter who they are. It doesn't meant government goes around trying to make sure we all treat each other equally.

 

[Silhouette]

1. Please point to the specific language in the Constitution the referencing a white man marrying a black woman.


>>>>

14th Amendment. Word = "race". I looked. I didn't see a word about homosexuality there. Nothing about polygamy or any other sexuality either. A black man (race) and a white woman (race) are still a man and a woman and so, only race set them apart from state law being able to marry. So, they could marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

14th Amendment. Word = "race". I looked. I didn't see a word about homosexuality there. Nothing about polygamy or any other sexuality either. A black man (race) and a white woman (race) are still a man and a woman and so, only race set them apart from state law being able to marry. So, they could marry.

1. First of all "race" is a condition based on genetics. White is a race, black is a race. A white man marrying a white black woman is a behavior.

2. Secondly you said "You're the fool pretending that any behavior not specified with language addressing it in the Constitution is or can be interpreted or "protected" without Congress making a specific Amendment as to that particular behavior." There is noting in the Constitution that the behavior of a white man marrying a black woman is protected.

3. Finally you said "I looked". Which means you can't read or you lied. Here is the 14th Amendment, the word "race" isn't in it so you didn't look.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27


>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

Dear Norman the problem with religions is when people abuse it to subvert due process of laws
and start issuing decrees, judgments and punishments based on their beliefs
and thus depriving others of liberty who have committed no crimes to deserve punishment, involuntary servitude, or loss of other rights and protections of law.

So how is this so different if a political party takes their political beliefs and integrates them with govt, such as
* the belief that health care is a right, govt should supervise it, and anyone who doesn't comply with regs should be fined
* the belief that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and/or that homosexual orientation is
"not a choice of behavior" and anyone who believes "homosexuality is a behavior not protected from discrimination"
can face penalties for refusing to comply with biased laws or engage in activities involving homosexual behavior
* beliefs about transgender identity treated unequally, where the beliefs in favor of LGBT policies are endorsed by govt while beliefs against it are penalized and people are harassed and bullied in the very ways even LGBT advocates oppose.

Muslims are the good guys, so government should sponsor them.

Christians are evil, govt should make them pay.

Dear Norman
The peaceful Muslims are at peace and work side by side
with Constitutionalists and Christians. Why? Because
both Constitutional laws and Christian scripture come from GOD
and true Muslims receive and respect ALL that is sent by GOD.

That's how you can tell the difference. There is no conflict.

The Islamists put power of religion mixed with govt above
following God alongside Jews Christians and Muslims who do.
The Jihadists put war and killing in the name of war above all else.
These people do nothing but create conflict, violence and war.

Any real Christian or Muslim would be aggrieved and against this.
That's how you can tell the difference.

Anyone who justifies violence, sure they deserve criticism for that.
The Muslims I know are more like Buddhists who seek a world without
any violence and support police, military and govt in enforcing laws to defend security.

They are no different from other citizens who don't want violence or crime to escalate,
and they are not the type to take their religion and mix it with govt and guns to create violence and war.
That is opposed to their very nature.

I only know American Muslims who are law abiding citizens.
I don't know any of these Jihadist types who declare political wars on even their own Muslim neighbors.
One of the Muslim managers at my work said back home in Nigeria
the radical Islamic types took over some govts and started imposing the hand chopping Sharia rules.
So of course, that is why he stays and works here in the US
and will visit his family there but says it is getting worse in Africa and doesn't want that at all.

Why people cannot make this distinction between the regular Muslim citizens
and the political terrorists is beyond me.

That's like not making a distinction between people who use media to produce Sesame Street
and people who use media to produce child porn and snuff films that are illegal and sick.

Night and day. These two sectors of the population are not in cahoots with each other.
Please do not blame the innocent victims of terrorism just because they are Muslim.
The jihadist terrorists will kill as many Jews Christians or Muslims who refuse to comply with their terrorist regimes.