Multiculturalism and Sharia

[PoliticalChic]

Little one, I've never said you were correct about anything other than the date they signed it and the way they signed it. If you were correct the US Senate wouldn't have forgotten to included the actual words of Article VII, which reads, in total: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

That's it. No year, no date, no signers, no Jesus, no nothin' else.

Liar.

No little one, I'm not.

Here: https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

The very nice government people have it all written down for you. This is what is actually matters, in court and everywhere else. There might be a coffee ring on the original version but that doesn't make it law, nor does it mean coffee is the official beverage of the US.

No, little IQ, you are.


Let's demonstrate that for all:

1. You made the claim "For a Christian nation, it's odd how how they never mentioned God?" In your post #303

2. My response: "Jesus Christ is referred to in the Constitution.." Post #313

3. You took the bait, in your post #316: "No little one, He isn't."

4. I set the hook: "Shall we wager?" Post #319

5. You: "Anything you got..." Post #320

6. And I reeled you in, post #324: "Second paragraph of Article VII.
Post it, please.
And never make that mistake again."




7. You were forced to post this: "...done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,..." Post #327.

That was your post.
Nor did you try to deny the reference 'in the Year of our Lord.'

It is in every copy of the Constitution.

But you did try to spin it as having no meaning.



8. You wrote "You are right about the date that they signed it, and what was then common usage for designating the year." In post #335.




9. Establishing your distinctions as a liar and a cur, you attempted to backtrack, here: "...right, and I am in this case just like I was when you tried to say Jesus was in the Constitution because you can't tell the difference between the Articles and where people sign the damn document." Post #348.

One can sense your frustration at being pilloried. Good.

But you have no way to deny that the reference is included in the Constitution, and that it refers to Jesus Christ.




10. And you wrote this: "When I post I post to everyone." In # 269
And so you are hoist by your own petard.

All will see and note that you are a lying cur.



All of your posts should, and will, be judged in that light.

So, ....there is a Heaven.

 

[Machaut]

1. "Is that all this site is, just petty insults being hurled around in nearly every post? I can't think of a single thread I've viewed here that hasn't degenerated into this kind of senseless mudslinging."

Consider this: you deserve what you have received.

In fact, if things are as you describe them, it is a compliment to other posters who clearly and quickly identified you as being a dolt.

Actually, you're the only one that's been directly rude to me. And over what? Apparently this:

As far as I am concerned, your snarkie opening salvo had put you squarely in my sights. And there you will remain.

You will get the punishment you deserve for being less than civil.

A pity that no one in your past ever loved you enough to teach you manners.

You must be the single most thin-skinned person on the entire site if my "snarkie opening salvo" got you this butthurt. Your lack of decorum is not "punishment," it's just boring and shows you don't know how to argue or handle dissent. Thus far, every post of yours I've seen has consisted of a few short, simple sentences giving your almost-opinions, backed up by walls of text copied and pasted from someone else's writings, and sandwiched by venomous, and largely juvenile, comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you.

2. ""I don't hate Islam, so I'll prove it blah blah blah...."


Again you misunderstand.
I don't intend to prove anything to you.

3. In summary, each of us has proven something.

Congrats on thinking you proved that thing you thought you didn't want to prove, I guess.

I, that the religion of Islam gives leeway to adherents to lie when it benefits the faith.

I debunked every single one of the verses you used as "proof" for your argument. Or rather, I debunked someone else's arguments and someone else's proof, as you have some sort of aversion to being your own person defending your own opinions.

You, that you need return to the function for which you are best equipped: bobbing for french fries.

You got called out on your lack of reasoning and now you're butthurt that you can't even dispute a single thing I've said, so you just fall back on childish insults. I now understand why they made the Clean Debate Zone.

Pay attention to the success of sharia insinuating itself into this culture.

18. In Islam, insurance is forbidden. All types.

The AIG insurance company is partially owned by the United States government.

a. "Shaitân (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allâh and from As-Salât (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain? [Surat Al-Mai'dah 5:91]
Moreover, the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade Gharar sale [Muslim, Book on transactions, No. 1513].
Source: Insurance
Al-Gharar is something that involves uncertainty, risk or speculation.
Narrated by Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him):
“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade transactions determined by throwing a stone and transactions which involved some uncertainty.” (Narrated by Muslim).
sharia - Why is Life insurance considered un-Islamic - Islam Stack Exchange

What utter nonsense. First, your link only addresses life insurance, whereas you claim that Islam bans all types of insurance. Second, Islam has no such ban. The verse you quoted, 5:91, bans gambling. Even assuming those two Hadith you cited are accurate, Islam clearly does not ban insurance, but "transactions which involved some uncertainty". To the common man, this means games of chance, i.e. something "determined by throwing a stone"--or perhaps in modern terms, a roll of the dice. Insurance policies do not involve uncertainty in the least; one party pays another a set amount of money, in exchange for the second party agreeing to pay the first a certain amount should certain circumstances arise--death, severe injury, the destruction of a house by a flood, etc.

b. "This month, AIG announced that it would offer Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries.

You literally just said that all types of insurance are banned by Islam, and now you're saying that there is a type of Shariah-compliant insurance? Which is it?

To be Shariah compliant, companies cannot earn interest and must agree to send a percentage of their revenue to Islamic charitable groups..... by subsidizing AIG, the federal government is conveying "...a message of endorsement and promotion of Shariah-based Islam ... and [a] message of disfavor of and hostility toward Christianity and Judaism." In September, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve took a nearly 80-percent stake in AIG when it injected $150 billion to help prop up the troubled company."
AIG Bailout Promotes Shariah Law, Lawsuit Claims | Fox News

First, the AIG bailout took place in September 2008; AIG didn't begin its "Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance" until December. Second, AIG is a business entity that sees a valuable niche in the market. They view themselves as being able to make a profit off of Muslims looking to buy insurance (because it's not un-Islamic, despite your claims to the contrary), and they clearly are. While I was and am opposed to the bailout of AIG or any other company, it is a private entity and should be free to market to whomever it feels it can.

19. In December 2008, Mr. Wolf and Representative Sue Myrick wrote to the American International Group –

“Since Americans are now de facto stockholders in your company, we feel it is our duty to inform them that your press release ignores the fact the AIG is marketing products that support a radical political ideology, Shariah law.

Shariah law is a politicized and radical doctrine created in the 1920s, by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan Al-Banna, to compete against Western economics and values. Due to radical ideas put forth by the Brotherhood, the Egyptian government banned the group, but it flourishes elsewhere. Today, Shariah law uses the same legal code championed by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s al Queda. It promotes Stone Age family laws that that amount to making women property, and enshrines horrific human rights abuses.”
BlueRidgeForum » David Ramadan: Are Virginia GOP Eyes ?Wide Shut??

AIG's products support AIG turning a profit. Additionally, shariah law was not created in the 1920's, nor was it a product of anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Making this claim is the equivalent of saying that Pat Robertson created Christian values. The Taliban and al-Qaeda blatantly misquote the Qur'an to support their ends, and their skewed interpretation of Islam is supported by the U.S. government and high-profile anti-Islam activists. The U.S. props up dictatorships and monarchies in Muslim countries, at times even overthrowing democratically-elected governments to do so, and those dictatorships and monarchies use state TV to propagate their version of what Islam is. In effect, Islamists/jihadis/etc. are the product of U.S. foreign aid and interventions that support their creation. These "Stone Age family laws" are the result of Western activities in the Middle East. The best way to do away with them is to end the support countries like the US and UK give to authoritarian governments abroad.

a. The above mentions that sharia competes against American values.

In the letter to AIG, the Representative made these points:

".... under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries:
• A woman cannot leave the house without her husband’s permission.
• Men can beat their “insubordinate” wives.
• Women who are convicted of adultery are punished by death by stoning.
• Apostasy from Islam is punished by death without trial.
• Non-Muslims under Shariah law are second-class citizens.
• Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed.
• Slavery is permitted and deemed legitimate.
“It is disheartening to think that your products are helping Shariah to gain a foothold in the United States,” the Republican members of Congress wrote. U.S. lawmakers scold AIG over Shariah finance

I'll requote a portion of that since you apparently missed it: "under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia". The claims they make--again, claims THEY make, not supported, objective facts--are relevant only to foreign countries. None of the quoted points here are a) Backed up at all, so far as I can tell by your source; nor are they b) Relevant at all to this case. You're whining about Shariah law and insurance, and none of the points listed here address insurance.

And no, Sharia does not innately compete with Western values or laws. The only Muslims that whine for special treatment in non-Muslim majority countries are butthurt liberals of the breed we see among nearly all minority groups. Having laws against murder, theft, etc. automatically means that a country's legal system is Sharia compliant. The one and only reason why they're able to get their way so often with these "discrimination" cases is the complete and utter lack of critical thinking on the part of judges, school districts, employers, etc. and their unwillingness to stick to what is objectively right when it means risking being falsely labelled as a bigot. All this "creeping Shariah" BS is literally 100% the fault of liberal non-Muslims who white guilt themselves into bowing to the demands of an overly vocal minority on the hunt for something to be offended by.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

That's a fact.

First define "the Left",

In this nation, the fascist democratic party.

next provide evidence that "the Left" desires power at any cost.

Barack Obama.

Has PC only read her own posts? "slights" and "imagined victimization"? Maybe she should walk in the shoes of others before judging their feelings as inconsequential.

I'd go on, but it doesn't pay to feed a narcissist.

Do you deny that Balkanizing the nation has and is a major goal of the democrats? The division is the primary message that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi preach? "They" are your enemy is the message that your shameful party preaches - where they may be "the rich, whites, men, Christians, business owners, English speakers, etc."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, ....there is a Heaven.

There might be a Heaven but there is no second paragraph of Article VII. Which means little one, you lie like a rug.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

 

[jillian]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

But nobody is denying First Amendment rights to Muslims. What we wish to deny Muslims is their ability to deny us our First Amendment rights as well as numerous other unalienable rights. The concept of the OP, as I understand it, is that in the militant Muslim world, multiculturalism is used as a weapon to achieved specifically Muslim goals, and that presents a threat to all of us.

This isn't a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue, though it does seem to be mostly left leaning people who are attacking the OP as somehow wanting to deny rights to Muslims and/or who won't see Muslims, no matter how militant, as any problem to anybody.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

You really should get someone who understands a thread to explain it to you before you embarrass yourself.


Case in point.

It is clear in the thread that the juxtaposition is those who believe that the nation is ruled by the principles of the Constitution....and that there is a threat to same by those who would depose the Constitution and be ruled by sharia.


Now then,.....where do you stand?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, ....there is a Heaven.

There might be a Heaven but there is no second paragraph of Article VII. Which means little one, you lie like a rug.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

But nobody is denying First Amendment rights to Muslims. What we wish to deny Muslims is their ability to deny us our First Amendment rights as well as numerous other unalienable rights. The concept of the OP, as I understand it, is that in the militant Muslim world, multiculturalism is used as a weapon to achieved specifically Muslim goals, and that presents a threat to all of us.

This isn't a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue, though it does seem to be mostly left leaning people who are attacking the OP as somehow wanting to deny rights to Muslims and/or who won't see Muslims, no matter how militant, as any problem to anybody.

Neither Muslim nor Christian laws will rule here. Only one part of that do they approve of. Guess which part?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, ....there is a Heaven.

There might be a Heaven but there is no second paragraph of Article VII. Which means little one, you lie like a rug.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Is that all this site is, just petty insults being hurled around in nearly every post? I can't think of a single thread I've viewed here that hasn't degenerated into this kind of senseless mudslinging."

Consider this: you deserve what you have received.

In fact, if things are as you describe them, it is a compliment to other posters who clearly and quickly identified you as being a dolt.

Actually, you're the only one that's been directly rude to me. And over what? Apparently this:

As far as I am concerned, your snarkie opening salvo had put you squarely in my sights. And there you will remain.

You will get the punishment you deserve for being less than civil.

A pity that no one in your past ever loved you enough to teach you manners.

You must be the single most thin-skinned person on the entire site if my "snarkie opening salvo" got you this butthurt. Your lack of decorum is not "punishment," it's just boring and shows you don't know how to argue or handle dissent. Thus far, every post of yours I've seen has consisted of a few short, simple sentences giving your almost-opinions, backed up by walls of text copied and pasted from someone else's writings, and sandwiched by venomous, and largely juvenile, comments directed at anyone who disagrees with you.



Congrats on thinking you proved that thing you thought you didn't want to prove, I guess.


I debunked every single one of the verses you used as "proof" for your argument. Or rather, I debunked someone else's arguments and someone else's proof, as you have some sort of aversion to being your own person defending your own opinions.


You got called out on your lack of reasoning and now you're butthurt that you can't even dispute a single thing I've said, so you just fall back on childish insults. I now understand why they made the Clean Debate Zone.


What utter nonsense. First, your link only addresses life insurance, whereas you claim that Islam bans all types of insurance. Second, Islam has no such ban. The verse you quoted, 5:91, bans gambling. Even assuming those two Hadith you cited are accurate, Islam clearly does not ban insurance, but "transactions which involved some uncertainty". To the common man, this means games of chance, i.e. something "determined by throwing a stone"--or perhaps in modern terms, a roll of the dice. Insurance policies do not involve uncertainty in the least; one party pays another a set amount of money, in exchange for the second party agreeing to pay the first a certain amount should certain circumstances arise--death, severe injury, the destruction of a house by a flood, etc.


You literally just said that all types of insurance are banned by Islam, and now you're saying that there is a type of Shariah-compliant insurance? Which is it?


First, the AIG bailout took place in September 2008; AIG didn't begin its "Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance" until December. Second, AIG is a business entity that sees a valuable niche in the market. They view themselves as being able to make a profit off of Muslims looking to buy insurance (because it's not un-Islamic, despite your claims to the contrary), and they clearly are. While I was and am opposed to the bailout of AIG or any other company, it is a private entity and should be free to market to whomever it feels it can.

19. In December 2008, Mr. Wolf and Representative Sue Myrick wrote to the American International Group –

“Since Americans are now de facto stockholders in your company, we feel it is our duty to inform them that your press release ignores the fact the AIG is marketing products that support a radical political ideology, Shariah law.

Shariah law is a politicized and radical doctrine created in the 1920s, by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan Al-Banna, to compete against Western economics and values. Due to radical ideas put forth by the Brotherhood, the Egyptian government banned the group, but it flourishes elsewhere. Today, Shariah law uses the same legal code championed by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s al Queda. It promotes Stone Age family laws that that amount to making women property, and enshrines horrific human rights abuses.”
BlueRidgeForum » David Ramadan: Are Virginia GOP Eyes ?Wide Shut??

AIG's products support AIG turning a profit. Additionally, shariah law was not created in the 1920's, nor was it a product of anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Making this claim is the equivalent of saying that Pat Robertson created Christian values. The Taliban and al-Qaeda blatantly misquote the Qur'an to support their ends, and their skewed interpretation of Islam is supported by the U.S. government and high-profile anti-Islam activists. The U.S. props up dictatorships and monarchies in Muslim countries, at times even overthrowing democratically-elected governments to do so, and those dictatorships and monarchies use state TV to propagate their version of what Islam is. In effect, Islamists/jihadis/etc. are the product of U.S. foreign aid and interventions that support their creation. These "Stone Age family laws" are the result of Western activities in the Middle East. The best way to do away with them is to end the support countries like the US and UK give to authoritarian governments abroad.

a. The above mentions that sharia competes against American values.

In the letter to AIG, the Representative made these points:

".... under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries:
• A woman cannot leave the house without her husband’s permission.
• Men can beat their “insubordinate” wives.
• Women who are convicted of adultery are punished by death by stoning.
• Apostasy from Islam is punished by death without trial.
• Non-Muslims under Shariah law are second-class citizens.
• Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed.
• Slavery is permitted and deemed legitimate.
“It is disheartening to think that your products are helping Shariah to gain a foothold in the United States,” the Republican members of Congress wrote. U.S. lawmakers scold AIG over Shariah finance

I'll requote a portion of that since you apparently missed it: "under Shariah law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia". The claims they make--again, claims THEY make, not supported, objective facts--are relevant only to foreign countries. None of the quoted points here are a) Backed up at all, so far as I can tell by your source; nor are they b) Relevant at all to this case. You're whining about Shariah law and insurance, and none of the points listed here address insurance.

And no, Sharia does not innately compete with Western values or laws. The only Muslims that whine for special treatment in non-Muslim majority countries are butthurt liberals of the breed we see among nearly all minority groups. Having laws against murder, theft, etc. automatically means that a country's legal system is Sharia compliant. The one and only reason why they're able to get their way so often with these "discrimination" cases is the complete and utter lack of critical thinking on the part of judges, school districts, employers, etc. and their unwillingness to stick to what is objectively right when it means risking being falsely labelled as a bigot. All this "creeping Shariah" BS is literally 100% the fault of liberal non-Muslims who white guilt themselves into bowing to the demands of an overly vocal minority on the hunt for something to be offended by.

You have a point there. But, if you part your hair right no one will notice.


"Question: What do Muslims believe about insurance?
Is it acceptable in Islam to take out health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, etc.? Are there Islamic alternatives to conventional insurance programs? Would Muslims seek a religious exemption if the purchase of insurance were required by law?

Answer: Under common interpretations of Islamic law, conventional insurance is forbidden in Islam.

In Muslim-majority countries, and in some non-Muslim countries, there is often an alternative to insurance available, called takaful. It is based on a cooperative, shared-risk model."
Insurance in Islam - What Muslims Believe About Insurance in Islam

 

[Foxfyre]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

But nobody is denying First Amendment rights to Muslims. What we wish to deny Muslims is their ability to deny us our First Amendment rights as well as numerous other unalienable rights. The concept of the OP, as I understand it, is that in the militant Muslim world, multiculturalism is used as a weapon to achieved specifically Muslim goals, and that presents a threat to all of us.

This isn't a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue, though it does seem to be mostly left leaning people who are attacking the OP as somehow wanting to deny rights to Muslims and/or who won't see Muslims, no matter how militant, as any problem to anybody.

Neither Muslim nor Christian laws will rule here. Only one part of that do they approve of. Guess which part?

Sorry, but my decoder ring is broken at the moment. I'm not sure how your comment here relates in any way to my post. Please explain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

Can you demonstrate where Muslims have been denied 1st Amendment rights?

Didn't think so...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But nobody is denying First Amendment rights to Muslims. What we wish to deny Muslims is their ability to deny us our First Amendment rights as well as numerous other unalienable rights. The concept of the OP, as I understand it, is that in the militant Muslim world, multiculturalism is used as a weapon to achieved specifically Muslim goals, and that presents a threat to all of us.

This isn't a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue, though it does seem to be mostly left leaning people who are attacking the OP as somehow wanting to deny rights to Muslims and/or who won't see Muslims, no matter how militant, as any problem to anybody.

Neither Muslim nor Christian laws will rule here. Only one part of that do they approve of. Guess which part?

Sorry, but my decoder ring is broken at the moment. I'm not sure how your comment here relates in any way to my post. Please explain.

It's not your ring that's broken, it's your head. Use it a little.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There might be a Heaven but there is no second paragraph of Article VII. Which means little one, you lie like a rug.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

How stupid does one have to be to deny such an easily verifiable fact?

Well, as stupid as you are, it seems.

Yup....the phrase is right there.





1. In 1915 there was actually one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ!

Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Where is God in the Constitution?


2. An 1854 decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri affirming Peter Ambs’ double
conviction for selling ale and keeping an alehouse open on Sunday captures the flavor of the Christian Nation that was not “composed of strangers collected from all quarters of the globe, each with a religion of his own” but was significantly created in the “year of our Lord”
From same: "At the conclusion of that instrument, it is solemnly affirmed by its authors, under their hands, that it was done in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty—a form adopted by all Christian nations, in solemn public acts, to manifest the religion to which they adhere."
State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214 (1854).

Above from http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/lgriffin/recent-writings/RelCourts.pdf

 

[Spoonman]

I do love how the pretend constitutionalists forget the first amendment applies to everyone.... not everyone except muslims.

and judging by the actions of those in power today we would have to include christians and gun owners

 

[Machaut]

You have a point there. But, if you part your hair right no one will notice.

"Question: What do Muslims believe about insurance?
Is it acceptable in Islam to take out health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, etc.? Are there Islamic alternatives to conventional insurance programs? Would Muslims seek a religious exemption if the purchase of insurance were required by law?

Answer: Under common interpretations of Islamic law, conventional insurance is forbidden in Islam.

In Muslim-majority countries, and in some non-Muslim countries, there is often an alternative to insurance available, called takaful. It is based on a cooperative, shared-risk model."
Insurance in Islam - What Muslims Believe About Insurance in Islam

Again with the formulaic childish insult accompanied by a longer quote from someone else. Why do you do this?

The lines you've cited are contradictory. The About.com article says that "conventional insurance is forbidden in Islam," yet offers takaful as an Islamic alternative, describing it as a "shared-risk model." If, IF, one were to take the Qur'an as banning insurance on the provision that the verse that bans gambling also bans any form of risk-taking, the risk would lie in not having insurance rather than taking out a policy. In any case, their argument that insurance is a form of risk-taking undercuts their own notion that takaful is Islamic, as by their own admission, it too is a risk. The only people stupid enough to think that Islam bans insurance have obviously never read an actual insurance policy, and likely haven't had any experience with business contracts at all.

 

[Machaut]

There might be a Heaven but there is no second paragraph of Article VII. Which means little one, you lie like a rug.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

How stupid does one have to be to deny such an easily verifiable fact?

Well, as stupid as you are, it seems.

Yup....the phrase is right there.

I believe your disagreement is based upon who classifies which paragraph as belonging to which distinct part of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

U.S. Constitution - Signatories - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

I believe that the separation of the "Done in Convention" line from Article VII is correct, but the Constitution nevertheless makes a reference to God.

At the very least, I think it can be agreed that the signatories of the Constitution did not shy away from and protest the public acknowledgement of anything remotely religious.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Any can simply open their copy of the Constitution and verify that you are the lowest of the low.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

When they do they will discover that you are lying. Their opinion of me does not concern me but the truth about the Constitution does.

How stupid does one have to be to deny such an easily verifiable fact?

Well, as stupid as you are, it seems.

Yup....the phrase is right there.

I believe your disagreement is based upon who classifies which paragraph as belonging to which distinct part of the Constitution.

U.S. Constitution - Article 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

U.S. Constitution - Signatories - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

I believe that the separation of the "Done in Convention" line from Article VII is correct, but the Constitution nevertheless makes a reference to God.

At the very least, I think it can be agreed that the signatories of the Constitution did not shy away from and protest the public acknowledgement of anything remotely religious.

I could care less about the Year of Our Lord crap. Article VII is One Paragraph. The fact that Christian men noted the date and year the way they did has nothing to do with Jesus being In the Constitution. He isn't. No god or gods are in the Constitution, period. The little liar is exactly what I said she was, a liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The Left desires power at any cost: even at the cost of the death of this nation."

That's a fact.

First define "the Left",

In this nation, the fascist democratic party.

next provide evidence that "the Left" desires power at any cost.

Barack Obama.

Has PC only read her own posts? "slights" and "imagined victimization"? Maybe she should walk in the shoes of others before judging their feelings as inconsequential.

I'd go on, but it doesn't pay to feed a narcissist.

Do you deny that Balkanizing the nation has and is a major goal of the democrats? The division is the primary message that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi preach? "They" are your enemy is the message that your shameful party preaches - where they may be "the rich, whites, men, Christians, business owners, English speakers, etc."

The only Balkanizing that's going on is the conservative efforts to push more and more power down to the states,

having the effect of creating 50 small countries as opposed to 1 big one.