How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[Coyote]

Anyone who is going to argue that the Constitution bans Islam should be simply ignored, in business, in society, at church, by the family. Absolute nutcase thinking.

Does the fact that islam specifically states it wants to overthrow the government count?

Show me where the Constitution bans Islam, please.

We have far right social conservative Christians that would subordinate our government to the Bible and their councils. We are not going to ban Christianity.

But Christianity does not specifically say it should overthrow the government. You dodged the question.

Neither does Islam.

 

[protectionist]

I am on topic. The question is not hats, it is religious wear. SCOTUS will rule at the appropriate time. Here is your next target.

That is not my target or anything else.

 

[protectionist]

The big picture is religious discrimination.

Religion has nothing to do with this. You are off topic.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Darn that pesky Constitution.

Shure does get in the way, doesn't it.

Really? The constitution says people must conform to specific religious practices? Where?

Yes it does.

See the OP.

That is unconstitutional. The government can't force religion on people. That would be the establishment of a gov-recognized religion.

No one forced any religion on anyone.

In this case acquiescence to Islam is being forced.

 

[protectionist]

The stupidity of your post is epic in its risibility.

Not surprising that you fall for it too, Or participate in the Anti-America SCAM.

 

[RandomVariable]

Anyone who is going to argue that the Constitution bans Islam should be simply ignored, in business, in society, at church, by the family. Absolute nutcase thinking.

Does the fact that islam specifically states it wants to overthrow the government count?

Show me where the Constitution bans Islam, please.

We have far right social conservative Christians that would subordinate our government to the Bible and their councils. We are not going to ban Christianity.

But Christianity does not specifically say it should overthrow the government. You dodged the question.

Neither does Islam.

With a comment like that I just have to ask, what is your background in islam?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am on topic. The question is not hats, it is religious wear. SCOTUS will rule at the appropriate time. Here is your next target.

That is not my target or anything else.

Of course she and all true believers are your target. You dare judge others as to religion. What a fool and I have no doubt you will rue the day when it is too late.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am on topic. The question is not hats, it is religious wear. SCOTUS will rule at the appropriate time. Here is your next target.

That is not my target or anything else.

Of course she and all true believers are your target. You dare judge others as to religion. What a fool and I have no doubt you will rue the day when it is too late.

And the fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would overthrow the secular governments if the could. The history of all three prove that.

 

[protectionist]

There have been quite a few religious discrimination lawsuits over the years. But it seems that folks only get incensed when it's a Muslim plaintiff.

I can't find a single thread bitching about other religions.

What you call other religions, aren't supremacist, don't have a heavily organized stealth war going on against America, aren't seditious trying to destroy America, and haven't engaged in thousands of instances of trying to impose (Islamize) their insane ideology (masquerading as a religion) upon us Americans.

Got it now ?

 

[Asclepias]

The stupidity of your post is epic in its risibility.

Not surprising that you fall for it too, Or participate in the Anti-America SCAM.

Not surprising you are an idiot. Or that you are emotionally frightened by people you discern to be different than you.

 

[Asclepias]

There have been quite a few religious discrimination lawsuits over the years. But it seems that folks only get incensed when it's a Muslim plaintiff.

I can't find a single thread bitching about other religions.

What you call other religions, aren't supremacist, don't have a heavily organized stealth war going on against America, aren't seditious trying to destroy America, and haven't engaged in thousands of instances of trying to impose (Islamize) their insane ideology (masquerading as a religion) upon us Americans.

Got it now ?

Yes you have made it clear you are clinically insane.

 

[RandomVariable]

Link anything you want. Islam is a religion, and you are the board fool to insist otherwise.

YOU are the one of a number of board fools to insist that it is a religion. Nothing could be dumber than to call a vile abomination like Islam, a "religion". This is mass insanity.

I agree with you to an extent. I believe islam is a religion but that is only part of the picture. Most of islam is not religion. What the SCOTUS decision accomplished was that the argument of religion was used to advance that part of islam that has nothing to do with with what should be covered under religious freedom.

 

[protectionist]

Islam is not a religion?

What more evidence do you need of conservative Christian bigotry and hypocrisy as it relates to their rants about constitutionally protected religious freedom?

That makes no sense. Seeing something for what it is, isn't bigotry or hypocrisy. Islam is not a religion. Of course not. Only an idiot would fall for the scam, and think it is, As for "constitutionally protected religious freedom", that is the first thing the jihadists propose eliminate if they were to gain power.

"The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

(Mohamed Akram, An Explanatory Memorandum on the Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, May 22. 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

 

[JakeStarkey]

"constitutionally protected religious freedom" is what Protectionist proposes to eliminate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some here, I believe, are hidden Christian dominionists. Whether Protectionist is one or an unknowing tool does not matter. His masters see SCOTUS ruling injuring their goal.

Definitions description of Christian Reconstructionism etc.

Dominionism & Dominion Theology are is partly based on Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament): "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground'."(NIV)

Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. Dominion theologians believe that that this verse commands Christians to bring all governments, societies, and cultures worldwide, under the rule of the Word of the Judeo-Christian God as they interpret it to be.

 

[Coyote]

"constitutionally protected religious freedom" is what Protectionist proposes to eliminate.

He's a bit OCD about it too.

 

[RandomVariable]

I am on topic. The question is not hats, it is religious wear. SCOTUS will rule at the appropriate time. Here is your next target.

That is not my target or anything else.

Of course she and all true believers are your target. You dare judge others as to religion. What a fool and I have no doubt you will rue the day when it is too late.

And the fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would overthrow the secular governments if the could. The history of all three prove that.

You're losing it. Give it a rest.

 

[protectionist]

"constitutionally protected religious freedom" is what Protectionist proposes to eliminate.

I just refuted that in Post # 193. Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood refuted it. I just quoted their words.

 

[Coyote]

"constitutionally protected religious freedom" is what Protectionist proposes to eliminate.

I just refuted that in the previous post. Actually, the Muslim Brotherhood refuted it. I just quoted their words.

The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with this. It's a Supreme Court case on religious discrimmination.

 

[protectionist]

"constitutionally protected religious freedom" is what Protectionist proposes to eliminate.

He's a bit OCD about it too.

What's OCD ?