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

[protectionist]

What's "too many"?

ONE.

 

[WinterBorn]

It certainly does matter that the US recognizes it as a religion. And your personal definition of "Religion" is what does not matter. I am still asking for a credible, documentable definition of "Religion" that excludes Islam and covers other religions.

Article 6 states there can be no religious test. What other countries say about Islam is irrelevant.

It's not my " personal definition of "Religion" , it is a definition taken from a very authoritative dictionary, and you know it. I've posted the source twice.

NO, you're NOT "asking for a credible, documentable definition of "Religion" that excludes Islam and covers other religions.", because I've already given it to you twice. One that carries a code of ethics with a specific system of belief and worship. And for the 3rd time >> Webster's New World College Dictionary, 5th ed.

The USA's recognition of Islam as a religion is just wrong, and it doesn't matter if it does or not. Even if Islam was a religion, it would still be unconstitutional by virtue of its supremacism, in violation of the Constitution (article 6, Section 2, part 1), as well as its advocacy of things that violate US laws.

Yes, I know you have posted it. But you claim to have gotten it from a dictionary you have in your hand. You could have said anything and made that claim.

Prior to this, you claimed the definition of "religion" was "a code of ethics". Now it is "One that carries a code of ethics with a specific system of belief and worship". And the way that sentence is structured leads me to belief you omitted something. And yes, Islam fits the definition of "One that carries a code of ethics with a specific system of belief and worship".

And since the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not violate US law, there is no reason to ban them from holding public office. Those who do violate US law and claim it is their religious right can be banned from holding office while they are in jail.

 

[Unkotare]

What's "too many"?

ONE.



...

So, you want to ban Christianity as well? Not in my country, jackass.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that 40 million women are abused by their spouses and significant others shows that a huge number of people are not compatible with US law. But US law does not look at groups. It looks at the individual. Unless the individual has committed domestic abuse, they are allowed for run for and hold office.

The fact that most Muslims do not beat their wives shows the supremacy clause to be irrelevant to their serving in public office.

WHERE/HOW do you come up with the extraordinary claim that "most Muslims do not beat their wives". You have absolutely no basis upon which to make such a preposterous (and probably wrong) statement.

I've seen you post some pretty wild things WB, but this one might take the cake.

The fact that the Koran contains a verse (4:34) that commands Muslim husbands to beat their wives, shows (among many other things) that Muslims are unfit to serve in pubic office, by belonging to a creed that is criminal.

One part of my answer is about context. And that has been explained several times in this thread.

The other is that there is no evidence that most Muslims beat their wives. None. Without evidence of such, there is no reason to take steps to ban them from holding office.

And we are back to Article 6 and the constitutional ban on having religious tests for public office.

 

[protectionist]

Yep, many communities practice their own laws and traditions, and they just call the city/state/law enforcement when they need an added intervention. Also there is that little thing called no go zones now. These are dangerous area's that gangs control, drug runners/king pins run or the police don't want to go into for fear of being set up. Religious lines also gain respect among government to which it doesn't intervene in traditional practices that don't violate state or federal laws. Then we have reservation justice, and their laws where as the Indian tribes in a bid to stay free and independent, chose their own way also.

There have been court cases where imbecile US judges have ruked in favor of criminal Mualims, based on Sharia law (the Koran. One such case was the New Jersey rape/wife-beating case where idiot Judge Joseph Charles ruled in favor of a Muslim husband based on his claim of exemption from US law based on Sharia law (Koran 4:34).

Sure the appeal court nullified Charles' moronic decision (in one minute), but the wife had to go without the restraining order she requested for a year, while the case dragged.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It certainly does matter that the US recognizes it as a religion. And your personal definition of "Religion" is what does not matter. I am still asking for a credible, documentable definition of "Religion" that excludes Islam and covers other religions.

Article 6 states there can be no religious test. What other countries say about Islam is irrelevant.

It's not my " personal definition of "Religion" , it is a definition taken from a very authoritative dictionary, and you know it. I've posted the source twice.

NO, you're NOT "asking for a credible, documentable definition of "Religion" that excludes Islam and covers other religions.", because I've already given it to you twice. One that carries a code of ethics with a specific system of belief and worship. And for the 3rd time >> Webster's New World College Dictionary, 5th ed.

The USA's recognition of Islam as a religion is just wrong, and it doesn't matter if it does or not. Even if Islam was a religion, it would still be unconstitutional by virtue of its supremacism, in violation of the Constitution (article 6, Section 2, part 1), as well as its advocacy of things that violate US laws.

Newsflash: Dictionaries are not laws, dumbass!

 

[protectionist]

Yep, many communities practice their own laws and traditions, and they just call the city/state/law enforcement when they need an added intervention. Also there is that little thing called no go zones now. These are dangerous area's that gangs control, drug runners/king pins run or the police don't want to go into for fear of being set up. Religious lines also gain respect among government to which it doesn't intervene in traditional practices that don't violate state or federal laws. Then we have reservation justice, and their laws where as the Indian tribes in a bid to stay free and independent, chose their own way also.

There have been court cases where imbecile US judges have ruled in favor of criminal Muslims, based on Sharia law (the Koran. One such case was the New Jersey rape and wife-beating case, where the wife was seeking a restraining order.

Dumbass Judge Joseph Charles denied the request based on Koran 4:34 (he put it above US law). Yes, the appeal court overruled Charles' ludicrous decision (it took them one minute) but the wife had to go without the restraining order for a year, while the appeal worked its way up on the judicial calender.

NJ Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape As Religious Freedom Is this really America, anymore?

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

 

[protectionist]

Newsflash: Dictionaries are not laws, dumbass!

That makes ZERO SENSE, relative to what was being discussed. Maybe you'd be better off spending your time with table tennis. Pheeeeew! (high-pitched whistle)

 

[beagle9]

What's "too many"?

ONE.

View attachment 269228

Unbelievable ain't it ?? Then this stupid nation under Obama at the time, was worried about this heinous criminals religious tenants concerning the cutting of his beard while in prison. You have got to be kidding me right ??

 

[beagle9]

Newsflash: Dictionaries are not laws, dumbass!

That makes ZERO SENSE, relative to what was being discussed. Maybe you'd be better off spending your time with table tennis. Pheeeeew! (high-pitched whistle)

Dictionaries aren't law that is true, but they are filled with references and definitions pertaining to law if looking that sort of thing up.

 

[protectionist]

One part of my answer is about context. And that has been explained several times in this thread.

The other is that there is no evidence that most Muslims beat their wives. None. Without evidence of such, there is no reason to take steps to ban them from holding office.

And we are back to Article 6 and the constitutional ban on having religious tests for public office.

I'll ask the question again Mr Dodge. "WHERE/HOW do you come up with the extraordinary claim that "most Muslims do not beat their wives". ?

The reason to ban from holding public office is the MUCH unlawful content of Islam. With one belonging to such an unlawful creed, it is reckless and stupid to allow such people to hold public office. The list of possible disqualifications from public office, likely contain a number of things less dangerous/damaging than belonging to Islam.

As for religion, it has nothing to do with Islam, except that Islam, as always, uses it as a shield from pubic criticism and punishment, as in the infamous New Jersey Muslim rape case (see link below)

And the only way that Article 6 of the Constitution comes into play, is its ban on Islam, among all other supremacisms.

NJ Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape As Religious Freedom Is this really America, anymore?

 

[beagle9]

The bottom line is that if anyone is allowed to serve in the American government, then they absolutely cannot be anti-American period.

If found to be undermining the government in any way while working within it, then they should be dismissed from that post immediately after a speedy trial. No pay, no benefits, and no pension during or after the verdict of guilt is rendered.

 

[protectionist]

aren't law that is true, but they are filled with references and definitions pertaining to law if looking that sort of thing up.

The dictionary point was about religion, not law. Admiral Rockwell lost his place once again.

 

[protectionist]

The bottom line is that if anyone is allowed to serve in the American government, then they absolutely cannot be anti-American period.

If found to be undermining the government in any way while working within it, then they should be dismissed from that post immediately after a speedy trial. No pay, no benefits, and no pension during or after the verdict of guilt is rendered.

There is no way that anyone who admits to being a Muslim, can simultaneously claim to not be anti-American.

When Islam was created, there was no USA then. But if someone was devising an ideology that was meant to be anti-American, they couldn't have done a better job than what Mo the Pedophile did with Islam.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep, many communities practice their own laws and traditions, and they just call the city/state/law enforcement when they need an added intervention. Also there is that little thing called no go zones now. These are dangerous area's that gangs control, drug runners/king pins run or the police don't want to go into for fear of being set up. Religious lines also gain respect among government to which it doesn't intervene in traditional practices that don't violate state or federal laws. Then we have reservation justice, and their laws where as the Indian tribes in a bid to stay free and independent, chose their own way also.

There have been court cases where imbecile US judges have ruled in favor of criminal Muslims, based on Sharia law (the Koran. One such case was the New Jersey rape and wife-beating case, where the wife was seeking a restraining order.

Dumbass Judge Joseph Charles denied the request based on Koran 4:34 (he put it above US law). Yes, the appeal court overruled Charles' ludicrous decision (it took them one minute) but the wife had to go without the restraining order for a year, while the appeal worked its way up on the judicial calender.

NJ Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape As Religious Freedom Is this really America, anymore?

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

And there have been cases where rapists who were NOT Muslims got off with a slap on the wrist. Individual cases don't prove anything.

 

[beagle9]

aren't law that is true, but they are filled with references and definitions pertaining to law if looking that sort of thing up.

The dictionary point was about religion, not law. Admiral Rockwell lost his place once again.

Yes, it's not good to just jump in some times. LOL.

 

[WinterBorn]

aren't law that is true, but they are filled with references and definitions pertaining to law if looking that sort of thing up.

The dictionary point was about religion, not law. Admiral Rockwell lost his place once again.

Well, perhaps if you tell him that the definition of religion is a code of ethics he will understand. Actually, I think Admiral Rockwell might get a laugh out of that.

 

[beagle9]

Yep, many communities practice their own laws and traditions, and they just call the city/state/law enforcement when they need an added intervention. Also there is that little thing called no go zones now. These are dangerous area's that gangs control, drug runners/king pins run or the police don't want to go into for fear of being set up. Religious lines also gain respect among government to which it doesn't intervene in traditional practices that don't violate state or federal laws. Then we have reservation justice, and their laws where as the Indian tribes in a bid to stay free and independent, chose their own way also.

There have been court cases where imbecile US judges have ruled in favor of criminal Muslims, based on Sharia law (the Koran. One such case was the New Jersey rape and wife-beating case, where the wife was seeking a restraining order.

Dumbass Judge Joseph Charles denied the request based on Koran 4:34 (he put it above US law). Yes, the appeal court overruled Charles' ludicrous decision (it took them one minute) but the wife had to go without the restraining order for a year, while the appeal worked its way up on the judicial calender.

NJ Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape As Religious Freedom Is this really America, anymore?

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling

And there have been cases where rapists who were NOT Muslims got off with a slap on the wrist. Individual cases don't prove anything.

Are you on topic ?

 

[WinterBorn]

The bottom line is that if anyone is allowed to serve in the American government, then they absolutely cannot be anti-American period.

If found to be undermining the government in any way while working within it, then they should be dismissed from that post immediately after a speedy trial. No pay, no benefits, and no pension during or after the verdict of guilt is rendered.

There is no way that anyone who admits to being a Muslim, can simultaneously claim to not be anti-American.

When Islam was created, there was no USA then. But if someone was devising an ideology that was meant to be anti-American, they couldn't have done a better job than what Mo the Pedophile did with Islam.

And there is no way that anyone claiming to support the US Constitution can advocate banning Muslims from holding office.

 

[beagle9]

The bottom line is that if anyone is allowed to serve in the American government, then they absolutely cannot be anti-American period.

If found to be undermining the government in any way while working within it, then they should be dismissed from that post immediately after a speedy trial. No pay, no benefits, and no pension during or after the verdict of guilt is rendered.

There is no way that anyone who admits to being a Muslim, can simultaneously claim to not be anti-American.

When Islam was created, there was no USA then. But if someone was devising an ideology that was meant to be anti-American, they couldn't have done a better job than what Mo the Pedophile did with Islam.

And there is no way that anyone claiming to support the US Constitution can advocate banning Muslims from holding office.

Well it depends on the violations of those holding the office. Already seen some violations possibly, even though others might interpret things in their way. It's all about interpretations these days, and so the great war lay within those area's today. If you get enough people saying that the sky ain't blue, but instead these days it's black, well Houston we got a huge problem on our hands. This is what the nation is seeing today.