No, Muslims Should NOT Be Allowed To Serve In Public Office

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do us a favor and update the main post with the main points of the discussion. I'm not going to wade through hundreds of vapid replies from a fringe radical. Be honest about it too, dont cherry pick only the stuff that supports your perspective.

NO, I'm not going to do your work for you., You come in here late, contribute almost nothing and then expect people who have hundreds of posts in this thread, to go to work for you ?

You have a search box, and the search this thread box makes it easier still. Use it. The law is US Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1, the Supremacy Clause. and the founding fathers who wrote it were not "fringe radicals". You have a lot to learn.

The Supremacy Clause is all over this thread. Stop being so lazy.

So where is the supremacy clause in the Koran? I have yet to see you quote where it conflicts with the Constitution.

 

[Lastamender]

Pro-Islamic Bias in Wikipedia

Well what do you know.

Wikipedia mirrors the cultural-at-large in ways that show mainstream biases. Recently I searched for "anti-Islam" on Wiki and was immediately redirected to "Islamophobia." The implication was that any criticism or negative assessment of Islam was a "prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear" of Islam or Muslims. Negative thoughts about Islam are forbidden by the Wikipedia thought police. It works in reverse for America. Search for "Americanophobia" and you are immediately directed to the article on "Anti-Americanism". There can't be an exaggerated or extreme criticism of America. It's only natural that people should hate our nation and its values. Of course, Robert Spencer's work is forbidden as a source of information on Islam and rarely found in related articles. Articles on Islam, Islamism, Muhammad, and Jihad have no references to any of his books. A few articles list his books for further reading but oddly enough these books don't qualify for citations. He is cited in...(Read Full Post)

Blog: Pro-Islamic Bias in Wikipedia

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're right, a doctor is needed. But it is for you.

Yes, there have been radical Muslims committing crimes.

The terrorist/criminals were all either apprehended or died. How many were there? 20? 25? Lets go crazy and say 50. There are rough 3.45 million Muslims in the US, and you want to deny them all the ability to hold public office. So punish all for what 0.001% actually did? That is just sad.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim abide by our laws. They follow our Constitution. And just because of their religion, you want them banned from public office. It has already been shown that the supremacy clause is not violated, since they do not act on the violent commands of the Quran.

Since the supremacy clause is not an issue, Article 6 applies and no religious test can be applied.

Once again, you lose. Just like your plan for the federal gov't to take over MLB.

OBVIOUSLY YOU LOSE.

1. Numbers don't mean much when it comes to Muslim terrorism. 19 guys killed 3000 on 9/11. ONE guy killed 13 at Fort hood. ONE killed 49 in the Pulse Club. And if the nutters were to het a hold of a nuke, just a few of them could kill millions.

2. I don't want anybody banned because of any religion. Islam is not a religion. See post # 75, Mr late arrival.

3. It's not so much that I want Muslims banned from public office, as it is the the Constitution Article 6 Section 2 require they be banned from everything. It bans Islam entirely, as well as any other supremacism. You've seen the Section. Stop talking nonsense.

4. The supremacy clause is not an issue ? The supremacy clause is THE ISSUE.

5. It is obvious that you are not well versed on how much Muslims act or don't act on the Koran. Or much of anything else about Islam in America. Are you familiar with all the Muslim Brotherhood groups in America ? They ALL act on the Koran.

CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA, ICNA, FCNA, MAYA, AEF, UASR, IAP, BMI, IIIT, IMANA, AMSE, ICNA, Islamic Institute, AMC, AMF, Success Foundation, GSISS AKA Cordoba University, NAIF, IIFTIKHAR, AMSS, TIAA, IRO, African Muslim Agency, Safa Trust, SAAR Foundation, MMCT, Dar El-Eiman USA, ADAMS, IANA, GRF, MWL, MYNA, HHT, Islamic Academy of Florida, Fairfax Institute, AMT, IIFSO, AMCE, AMAFVAC, CISNA, Isalmic Media Foundation, et al

They ALL are supremacist. None has ever disavowed the Explanatory Memorandum, despite having been called on it numerous times. There is every reason to believe they follow it 100%. No reason to think they don't.

6. You're still yammering about religion. This subject is not your forte. Maybe you could go back to talking about motorcycles, where you won't be a rib steak for Muslim jihadists. If you want to know how little you know about this, go ahead and take my Isamization Quiz.

7. You've only spoken about laws and terrorism, there's also the subject of Islamization, which you've said nothing about (if you even know what the word means - I've studied it for 18 years)

Your constant references to Post #75 is fucking joke!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Still lying I see.
Here are the countries that do not recognize Islam as a valid religion:

{...
Asia

• Bhutan
  Bhutan , also known as most peaceful country in Asia , officially does not recognise Islam as a religion. It only recognise Buddhism and Hinduism.
• Myanmar
  Officially Myanmar allows to practice any religion , but it emphasise mainly on Theravada Buddhism. Islam face tough persecution from the Government.
• China
  The constitution of China protects what it calls "normal religious activity", defined in practice as activities that take place within government-sanctioned religious organisations and registered places of worship. Muslims in Xinjiang province are banned to keep long beard and covering face(for women) , Ramdan is a banned religious act and Muslims worshiping independently have been detained and charged with conducting "illegal religious activities".
  Recently China also banned certain Islamic name for the new born child. "Muhammad," ''Jihad" and "Islam" are among at least 29 names now banned in the heavily Muslim region of China.
• North Korea
  North Korea does not recognise any religion. Muslims and Christians are persecuted for following religion or conducting religious activities.

Africa

• Angola
  Angolan government does not legally recognize any Muslim organizations , as a result, mosques in the country have faced restrictions and many have been shut down by the government.

Europe

• Slovakia
  Slovakia has recently passed a law which bans construction of mosque , in the country. For more information read Lara Novakov's answer to Are there any countries where Islam is banned, or that might soon ban Islam?.

...}
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-countries-where-Islam-is-banned-or-that-might-soon-ban-Islam

Strange. You call me a liar, yet I see nothing in your post that conflicts with anything I said. Also, you forgot Italy, which does not recognize Islam as a religion.

Italy: Islam Not Recognized as a Religion — Denied Religious Tax Status

Last time I checked, Italy does not abide by the US Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

FactCheck,org says you are lying.

Trump, Carson on 9/11 'Celebrations' - FactCheck.org

{...
The Post story said that Jersey City police detained “a number of people” who were “allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding a tailgate-style party” in Jersey City. That allegation was unattributed and unverified. Even if it did happen, and there is no evidence of it, the celebrating was not on TV and did not involve “thousands and thousands of people.”

The Washington Post Fact Checker talked to both reporters on the Post story cited by Trump, and neither could recall if the allegations about the tailgate-style celebration were verified. “I specifically visited the Jersey City building and neighborhood where the celebrations were purported to have happened,” said Fredrick Kunkle, one of the Post reporters on that story. “But I could never verify that report.”

What’s clear to us — and should be to Trump — is that there were no widespread televised celebrations in New Jersey on 9/11. In fact, what Trump described would have been big news, and the reporters at the Daily News, Star-Ledger and elsewhere who tried and failed to track down rumors of 9/11 celebrations could have just turned on the TV to get their story.
...
Unlike Trump, Carson at least now acknowledges that it’s not true that thousands of Muslims were captured on TV celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11. But in doing so he rewrites the record.
...}

Factcheck ? ha ha ha. Verifications of Muslims celebrating after 9/11 were numerous. Maybe you watch CNN. They probably refer to FactCheck.

Not a single reputable source was able to find any evidence that anyone celebrated the 9/11 attack.
There are lots of fake claims, but they all fail to pan out when checked.

Not a single reputable source

I don't have that problem the Koran and Hadith are my sources. It certainly could have happened according to what I have read in those sources.

The Quran and Hadiths do not contain what you claim.
They are terse translations so easily misunderstood if taken out of context.
But once the surrounding context is supplied, it is clear Islam is totally nonviolent and does not promote anything remotely illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Italy not only has no problem with Islam, but the Pope endorses it.

{...
During his papal tenure, Pope Benedict XVI focused on building on the outreach of his predecessors towards Islam, particularly on the efforts of Pope John Paul II, who experts say established trust and opened opportunities for dialogue with Muslims.[1] One of the important milestones in the Pope's efforts included a religious and peaceful initiative called A Common Word. This was provoked by an ill-conceived 2006 lecture he delivered at a university in Regensburg, Germany, which prompted Muslim leaders to gather and make overtures to their Christian and Jewish counterparts.[2] Later on, Pope Benedict pursued key initiatives that helped foster Christian and Muslim dialogue. These were founded on the Pope's belief that Christians and Muslims have shared religious experience and that Christianity and Islam are both theologically founded in "God's irruptive call ... heard in the midst of man's ordinary daily existence."
...}
Pope Benedict XVI and Islam - Wikipedia

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The reason why Muslims have no right to hold political office is because they are in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and this is why Islam has no right to exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no korans, no Islamic groups and centers. None.

This is what I imagine is meant when it is said that someone knows just enough to be dangerous. Protectionist knows how to copy and paste text, but has no friggin idea how to intepret the things he reads (and posts).

Congress aside (not really) the section of the Constitution you keep quoting doesn't mean what you keep insisting it means. In a nutshell, the Supremacy Clause stiupulates that the U.S. Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, along with applicable U.S. Treaties, is the ultimate law of the land and that all other laws are subordinate to federal law. Supremacy <> Supremists.

In other words, it's talking about laws, not people therefore Muslims nor any other group of people can violate the Supremacy clause in the manner that you're insisting. We the people are not those who have the ability to violate any of the amendments of the Bill of Rights since these emumerated rights are a list of rights that the GOVERNMENT MUST NOT VIOLATE.

You're way out in left field with this goofy theory of yours which had it any merit I'm sure would have been implemented or at least tried by now. Furthermore, you've provided some pretty compelling evidence of a decades long conspiracy attempt to deprive protected class memebers of their constitutional and other rights.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You're right, a doctor is needed. But it is for you.

Yes, there have been radical Muslims committing crimes.

The terrorist/criminals were all either apprehended or died. How many were there? 20? 25? Lets go crazy and say 50. There are rough 3.45 million Muslims in the US, and you want to deny them all the ability to hold public office. So punish all for what 0.001% actually did? That is just sad.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim abide by our laws. They follow our Constitution. And just because of their religion, you want them banned from public office. It has already been shown that the supremacy clause is not violated, since they do not act on the violent commands of the Quran.

Since the supremacy clause is not an issue, Article 6 applies and no religious test can be applied.

Once again, you lose. Just like your plan for the federal gov't to take over MLB.

OBVIOUSLY YOU LOSE.

1. Numbers don't mean much when it comes to Muslim terrorism. 19 guys killed 3000 on 9/11. ONE guy killed 13 at Fort hood. ONE killed 49 in the Pulse Club. And if the nutters were to het a hold of a nuke, just a few of them could kill millions.

2. I don't want anybody banned because of any religion. Islam is not a religion. See post # 75, Mr late arrival.

3. It's not so much that I want Muslims banned from public office, as it is the the Constitution Article 6 Section 2 require they be banned from everything. It bans Islam entirely, as well as any other supremacism. You've seen the Section. Stop talking nonsense.

4. The supremacy clause is not an issue ? The supremacy clause is THE ISSUE.

5. It is obvious that you are not well versed on how much Muslims act or don't act on the Koran. Or much of anything else about Islam in America. Are you familiar with all the Muslim Brotherhood groups in America ? They ALL act on the Koran.

CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA, ICNA, FCNA, MAYA, AEF, UASR, IAP, BMI, IIIT, IMANA, AMSE, ICNA, Islamic Institute, AMC, AMF, Success Foundation, GSISS AKA Cordoba University, NAIF, IIFTIKHAR, AMSS, TIAA, IRO, African Muslim Agency, Safa Trust, SAAR Foundation, MMCT, Dar El-Eiman USA, ADAMS, IANA, GRF, MWL, MYNA, HHT, Islamic Academy of Florida, Fairfax Institute, AMT, IIFSO, AMCE, AMAFVAC, CISNA, Isalmic Media Foundation, et al

They ALL are supremacist. None has ever disavowed the Explanatory Memorandum, despite having been called on it numerous times. There is every reason to believe they follow it 100%. No reason to think they don't.

6. You're still yammering about religion. This subject is not your forte. Maybe you could go back to talking about motorcycles, where you won't be a rib steak for Muslim jihadists. If you want to know how little you know about this, go ahead and take my Isamization Quiz.

7. You've only spoken about laws and terrorism, there's also the subject of Islamization, which you've said nothing about (if you even know what the word means - I've studied it for 18 years)

And you're still as clueless today as you were back then when you began your "studies".

 

[Issa]

Forgot you said 3 ro 7% how did you come up with that ?

Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.

The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”

7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.

The theme of the Esposito-Mogahed book is that most Muslims are just like us, a notion mocked by the title of Satloff’s article: “Just Like Us! Really?” This is most ironic, given that the Weekly Standard is a leading supporter of President Bush and his Islam democratization policy, which is founded on the assumption that Muslims are … just like us. The Standard thus happily takes apart leftists who say that Muslims are just like us, while it remains silent about and keeps supporting the president who says that Muslims are just like us.

Clearly, the right-liberal hand doesn’t know what the left-liberal hand is doing, or, more precisely, the right-liberal hand refuses to recognize that it is doing the same thing as the left-liberal hand, even as it condemns the left-liberal hand.
How many radical Muslims are there in the world?

False.....I dont know of any Muslim that was happy about 9/11...are there some? Of course...there are assholes in every group. I remember clearly how everyone felt Terrible during the events. And everyone sympathized with the US till Bush went to invade Iraq and blew it.

A lot of research. You cannot handle the truth or are obligated to lie about it.

Alternative facts ? Just like the orange who said he saw muslims celebrating in NJ? And it was debunked.

Your supreme leader's first trip outside the US was to a Muslim country, he danced with Saudis and was a happy camper. You might wanna check why during his campaign he said they need to be dealt with, and then he changed his mind after he became president.

Alternative facts ?

Yes that is exactly what "Taqiya" is. You are lying and you know it.

I was brought a Muslim and was never aware of the taqqiyah till I came to the US and heard right wing nuts using it...you guys have your own virgin of Islam.

 

[Issa]

Alternative facts ? Just like the orange who said he saw muslims celebrating in NJ? And it was debunked.

Your supreme leader's first trip outside the US was to a Muslim country, he danced with Saudis and was a happy camper. You might wanna check why during his campaign he said they need to be dealt with, and then he changed his mind after he became president.

Muslims WERE seen celebrating after 9/11 this was not debunked.


1. 9/16/01 - WCBS-TV, Pablo Guzman

2. 9/22/01 - San Francisco Chronicle

3. 9/17/01 - MTV video - Fight for Your Rights: Aftermath of Terror

4. 9/12/01 - the Howard Stern Show

5. 9/14/01 - New York Post, op-ed

6. 9/18/10 - Serge Kovaleski, Washington Post

7. 12/01/15 - Rudy Giuliani, CNN

8. 12/21/15 - Arthur Teeter, Jersey City Police HQ

9. Ibid, 2 civilian witnesses, Ron Knight & Carlos Ferran

10. Ibid, 11 Jersey city police officers, Facebook

And they not only celebrating on rooftops, there even were Muslim FBI agents who celebrated in FBI HQ.

Arab translators cheered Sept. 11 - WND - WND

And Trump DID deal with Muslims immigrating and traveling to the US, by enacting law stopping them, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Stopping muslims from coming ? I though the ban was on 7 or so countries out of 50 some Muslim countries. Get your facts right please.

 

[Issa]

What's new? Those versus came down when muslims were fighting those that wanted to fight them, occupy their land. Just like the bible or the Torah nothing different.

1.7 billion Muslims if they followed what you claim, I dont think you wouldve made it. Don5 forget that muslims ruled for centuries and occupy half of the old world and I'd there were what you say they couldve cleansed other religious groups.
Big example: south of Europe was ruled for 8 centuries by muslims.

Those verses are still in the Koran, and jihadists all over the world attack non-Muslims based on those verses. If you want to claim that the verses no longer apply, then get rid of them, but I know that won't happen. So you support them, as they are part of your Koran.

There are fanatics in all religions....why get rid of versus if we know they dont apply. Crazy people will kill with or without verses....settlers wiped out millions did they need verses? Maybe they used the church for their own ambitions....and Christian's disillusionment did use the church to colonize and wiped out millions of people.
So where was the problem there ?

No problem at all, the goal was achieved, and an American nation was born. The assimilation took years, and many sacrifice's were made, and through it all it United the most of us. Anyone attempting to tear that apart will be met with a huge push back. Now don't be confused, because the push back is coming from traditional America, and not these liberal minded modern day marauders that are attempting to destroy this nation.

United ? Are you sure ? Because you just insulted the majority of Americans.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1 in 4 women experience some sort of domestic violence. Blaming one Muslim is ridiculous.

The population of the US is roughly 320 million. 51% are female. If 1 in 4 suffer from domestic abuse, that means that over 40 million women are abused at one time or another. There are only 3.45 million Muslims in the US. Either they are all abusers and very busy, or domestic abuse is a national problem, not a Muslim problem.

The point is that Islam is a culture that is inconsistent with US law. Koran 4:34 tells Muslim husbands to beat their wives. US law tells us all that is prohibited. Muslims, tend to choose Islamic law over US law. This is why Islam cannot coexist with American society, and certainly cannot have its people in government power.

To give a Muslim government power is to change the law to Islamic law.

As for whether all Muslim husbands are abusers, as I said before, we have no way of knowing. I see no reason why they would not be, when their book is telling them to do that.

Do Christian husbands beat their wives? Does the Bible tell them to do so? Because if it does how is that any different than what you're alleging the Qur'an authorizes? And if the Bible doesn't authorize the beating of their wives, then when that 40% or so that do engage in this criminal activity partake, they're just violent domestc violence abusing Christian assholes?

 

[Issa]

What's new? Those versus came down when muslims were fighting those that wanted to fight them, occupy their land. Just like the bible or the Torah nothing different.

1.7 billion Muslims if they followed what you claim, I dont think you wouldve made it. Don5 forget that muslims ruled for centuries and occupy half of the old world and I'd there were what you say they couldve cleansed other religious groups.
Big example: south of Europe was ruled for 8 centuries by muslims.

Those verses are still in the Koran, and jihadists all over the world attack non-Muslims based on those verses. If you want to claim that the verses no longer apply, then get rid of them, but I know that won't happen. So you support them, as they are part of your Koran.

No Muslims are attacking any non-Muslims, so clearly you are wrong.
Muslim countries like in the Persian Gulf, rely heavily on tourism, so they certainly would not succeed if Islam required them to attack tourists.

Huh ? What logic is that? Which gulf countries rely on tourism other than the city of Dubai ?

Well Dubai is a good example.
But lots of Muslim countries rely heavily on tourism, like Egypt.
Muslim countries are the safest for Jews and Christians, because they have less crime.
That is why there are over 30,000 Jews living in Tehran alone.
They would not be doing that is they felt at all threatened.

Egypt is not a gulf country and Iran doesnt rely on tourism.

 

[IM2]

Fool, Islam and Christianity both derive from Judaism.

HA ha ha. Does this deserve a response ? I ask you. Anyone around here may post. Should I dignify this joke with a response ? mmmm….Nah!

Well I'll give him a break. Hey IM2, a nice hairdo and cancer are both derived from the human body. Get it ?

You are just ignorant. Name one Islamic country that has invaded and colonized a western "Christian" nation.

 

[IM2]

Western "civilization" has not been compatible with liberty. Of course I don't expect the low foreheads here to understand this comment and the simple minded personal attacks will be coming.

Attacking western civilization says it all. No further words need be said.

Can't take the truth old white man?

 

[IM2]

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.

What a stupid comment. Those things weren't done out of or for christianity.

And similar acts done by Islamic fundamentalists weren't done out of or for Islam. Be careful in your response because so called Christians have claimed they were doing gods will for some wicked shit. I know because my ancestors were enslaved because it was God's will to show them the one and only true god.

 

[Snouter]

In all honesty, the real question is should non-Europeans be allowed to serve in public office? The grotesque Negro/Mexican/Chink/Jewish/Whatever POS in Congress HATE European Americans, ya know the folks who created Western civilization. That is the beauty of President Trump's victory. It exposed the racist savages for everyone to see...who is not a TDS retard.

 

[WinterBorn]

In the early part of the 19th century you may have been right. But the latter part, virtually all were put on reservations. And if something valuable were found on the reservation, they had it taken away and moved again. The tribes in the southeast lived peacefully. Until the US gov't decided they wanted their land. Then they made them walk to Oklahoma. The fact that the remaining Native Americans get to watch TV today does not make up for the extreme brutality they faced from the US Gov't.

And I am not using "dime store novels" as my reference. I am talking about historical facts.

And this was just one of many examples of Western Civilization being uncivilized.

I did not say that anything made up for anything. I simply said that European immigration was one of the best things that happed to American Indians, who would still be living in the stone age without it.

90% of them would have still been living a long life, but were cut down early because of the arrival of the European. Being forced on to a reservation, on the worst land, is no prize.

 

[WinterBorn]

You're right, a doctor is needed. But it is for you.

Yes, there have been radical Muslims committing crimes.

The terrorist/criminals were all either apprehended or died. How many were there? 20? 25? Lets go crazy and say 50. There are rough 3.45 million Muslims in the US, and you want to deny them all the ability to hold public office. So punish all for what 0.001% actually did? That is just sad.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim abide by our laws. They follow our Constitution. And just because of their religion, you want them banned from public office. It has already been shown that the supremacy clause is not violated, since they do not act on the violent commands of the Quran.

Since the supremacy clause is not an issue, Article 6 applies and no religious test can be applied.

Once again, you lose. Just like your plan for the federal gov't to take over MLB.

OBVIOUSLY YOU LOSE.

1. Numbers don't mean much when it comes to Muslim terrorism. 19 guys killed 3000 on 9/11. ONE guy killed 13 at Fort hood. ONE killed 49 in the Pulse Club. And if the nutters were to het a hold of a nuke, just a few of them could kill millions.

2. I don't want anybody banned because of any religion. Islam is not a religion. See post # 75, Mr late arrival.

3. It's not so much that I want Muslims banned from public office, as it is the the Constitution Article 6 Section 2 require they be banned from everything. It bans Islam entirely, as well as any other supremacism. You've seen the Section. Stop talking nonsense.

4. The supremacy clause is not an issue ? The supremacy clause is THE ISSUE.

5. It is obvious that you are not well versed on how much Muslims act or don't act on the Koran. Or much of anything else about Islam in America. Are you familiar with all the Muslim Brotherhood groups in America ? They ALL act on the Koran.

CAIR, ISNA, MAS, MSA, ICNA, FCNA, MAYA, AEF, UASR, IAP, BMI, IIIT, IMANA, AMSE, ICNA, Islamic Institute, AMC, AMF, Success Foundation, GSISS AKA Cordoba University, NAIF, IIFTIKHAR, AMSS, TIAA, IRO, African Muslim Agency, Safa Trust, SAAR Foundation, MMCT, Dar El-Eiman USA, ADAMS, IANA, GRF, MWL, MYNA, HHT, Islamic Academy of Florida, Fairfax Institute, AMT, IIFSO, AMCE, AMAFVAC, CISNA, Isalmic Media Foundation, et al

They ALL are supremacist. None has ever disavowed the Explanatory Memorandum, despite having been called on it numerous times. There is every reason to believe they follow it 100%. No reason to think they don't.

6. You're still yammering about religion. This subject is not your forte. Maybe you could go back to talking about motorcycles, where you won't be a rib steak for Muslim jihadists. If you want to know how little you know about this, go ahead and take my Isamization Quiz.

7. You've only spoken about laws and terrorism, there's also the subject of Islamization, which you've said nothing about (if you even know what the word means - I've studied it for 18 years)

The overwhelming majority of Muslims do not follow the Quran to the letter. They do not murder, rape or commit pedophilia. Since you claim that is what is required by the Quran, they have already shown that they accept the laws of the land over the Quran. So the supremacy clause is not violated. The fact that women are elected to office shows that.

Therefore, Article 6 and the denial of a religious test, stands. YOu can claim Islam is not a religion. But the US recognizes it as such. And I have seen no definition of religion that fits other religions and excludes Islam. Your definition you claim to have found is not one I have seen. And you have provided no link.

 

[WinterBorn]

It also outlaws any religious test to hold office.

That is irrelevant to Islam. The only relevant part of the Constitution to Islam is Article 6, Section 2, part 1, the Supremacy Clause.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(Article 6, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause)

The things you accuse Muslims of are crimes. Unless they have committed those crimes, you cannot ban them from holding office.

The claim that Islam is not a religion does not hold water as long as the US recognizes it as a religion and the standard definition of "Religion" fits their faith.