How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[JakeStarkey]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

You admit that you have failed. What did SCOTUS say about it? You have no idea.

Try scotusblog.

 

[protectionist]

Yup, it is, and the hijab is accepted as appropriate religious expression by devout Muslim women.

Nope, it isn't, and when is a Mr Islamization Zero, going to learn to not argue Islamization, with the Islamization expert, the Protectionist ? The closest the Koran comes to the subject of women covering themselves is in Sura 24:30 amd 24:31. All these say is that men should lower their gaze when approaching women, and women should cover their breasts. It says nothing of covering hair. No charge for the correction.

Since neither you nor RV are experts or even informed on Islam, your statements are meaningless.

Chowderheads such as RV and Protectionist don't define what is meaningful in any religion.

You made an incorrect statement, and you got corrected. I don't define what is meaningful in a relgion. I reported what isn't in Islam Iwhich isn;t a religion)

 

[protectionist]

You admit that you have failed. What did SCOTUS say about it? You have no idea.

Try scotusblog.

I don't even know what your question is, but the SCOTUS are 8 SCAMMED fools, out of 9. And all your pretending about my posts is laughable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, it is, and the hijab is accepted as appropriate religious expression by devout Muslim women.

Nope, it isn't, and when is a Mr Islamization Zero, going to learn to not argue Islamization, with the Islamization expert, the Protectionist ? The closest the Koran comes to the subject of women covering themselves is in Sura 24:30 amd 24:31. All these say is that men should lower their gaze when approaching women, and women should cover their breasts. It says nothing of covering hair. No charge for the correction.

Since neither you nor RV are experts or even informed on Islam, your statements are meaningless.

Chowderheads such as RV and Protectionist don't define what is meaningful in any religion.

You made an incorrect statement, and you got corrected. I don't define what is meaningful in a relgion. I reported what isn't in Islam Iwhich isn;t a religion)

You are no expert on Islam, only a bumbler, which has been demonstrated so many times in this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You admit that you have failed. What did SCOTUS say about it? You have no idea.

Try scotusblog.

I don't even know what your question is, but the SCOTUS are 8 SCAMMED fools, out of 9. And all your pretending about my posts is laughable.

Yes, you are laughable and no expert on Islam.

 

[protectionist]

You are no expert on Islam, only a bumbler, which has been demonstrated so many times in this thread.

You are a ZERO on my Islamization Quiz. I am the teacher. You are the FLUNK. Now, I have about 40 posts to catch up on, so stop talking to me, or I'm going to semi-QUIZ you right now.

 

[protectionist]

The question is immaterial to this OP, RV. Your types of comment demonstrate how little you understand about religion and our Constitution.

Your comment is immaterial to this OP. Islam is not a religion. And history will show that these 8 justices are bungling idiots, who understand neither the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2) or Islam.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The question is immaterial to this OP, RV. Your types of comment demonstrate how little you understand about religion and our Constitution.

Your comment is immaterial to this OP. Islam is not a religion. And history will show that these 8 justices are bungling idiots, who understand neither the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2) or Islam.

My comment is right on. SCOTUS has the right of it, you have the wrong of it, and no one gives any credence to your silly belief.

 

[protectionist]

My comment is right on. SCOTUS has the right of it, you have the wrong of it, and no one gives any credence to your silly belief.

I warned you to stop talking to me while I try to catch up. Here is your semi-Islamization Quiz.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

 

[protectionist]

Like I said. It's about a Supreme Court Decision.

Like I said. It's about an Islamized Supreme Court Decision.

 

[protectionist]

Hamas has nothing to do with this. What an idiotic Opinion Piece.

Sure they do. Hamas is a jihadist organization, longtime (1987) entrenched inside of America. They are closely related to CAIR (right arm of Hamas), and have a lot to do with Islamization in America. Read American Jihad by the great long-time protectionist ,Steven Emerson, (chapter 5). It was written in 2002. I read it 13 years ago. You're very late, but better late than never.

 

[protectionist]

If she had been a Jew wearing a yamulka, and had been denied based on that - she would have had a case and the Scotus would have ruled the same.

She would NOT have had a case, because either way, she would not be conforming to their "look policy" for sales people (no headwear).

 

[protectionist]

I do not have you on ignore but I am ignoring you. Is there some reason in particular you feel the need to troll this thread?

He feels a need to troll all my threads. He is in great fear of my vast knowledge of Islamization, because as a liberal who watches liberal media (which never reports it), he, like all liberals, knows nothing about it.

 

[protectionist]

Amish, and Mennonites are not Christian? Headcoverings used to be the norm among Christian women, and some still require it in Church (particularly Orthodox), though most don't except for the Amish and some orders of Mennonites.
More Christians, infamously now the Duggar family and their co-religionists, believe in modest dress for women and do not allow them to wear pants....only dresses or skirts.

OFF TOPIC!!!

 

[protectionist]

,,

Muslim men are also required to dress modestly.

I wouldn't call their big, stupid, bacteria-catching beards exactly "modest"

 

[protectionist]

We have some simples like P and RV trying to explain Islamic and Christian religious symbolism and culture. Reason stares!

The student disparaging his teacher.

 

[protectionist]

That will now change.

Are you happy about that ? About advances of the Muslim Brotherhood's scheme to destroy America from within, by America's own (SCOTUS) hands ?

What are you ? A jihadist ? A member of one of the MB front groups ? (CAIR ? ISNA ? MSA ?)

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] 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…”

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

 

[protectionist]

Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male. That is why Marriage Equality so threatens the far right Christians (or Muslims for that matter): it is the demise of the male as traditional Head and Master of the wife. RV, you are blabbering. Step up.

Here is just one documented example (of many) where Islam has historically subordinated the female to the male. >>>

Koran 4:34 -

Shakir: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Now let's see your evidence of where Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male.

 

[danielpalos]

Everyone knows that wo-men were created from man; and, that Only good men of morals should always strive to practice the Art of the Husbandman on Earth regardless of any wifery.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Darn that pesky Constitution.

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

It's not the Constitution though. It's a group of nine men and women wiping their ass with the Constitution just like they've done for scores of years now.