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

[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.

Are you on topic ?

My comment was an accurate reply to the post I quoted.

 

[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.

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.

That I have no problem with. If the elected official violates the US Constitution, remove them from office. And that goes for any elected official. It won't take long before the politicians toe the line.

 

[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 ?

My comment was an accurate reply to the post I quoted.

More of a deflection if you ask me.

 

[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.

Are you on topic ?

My comment was an accurate reply to the post I quoted.

More of a deflection if you ask me.

I disagree. Protectionist is trying to ban 3.45 million Muslims from holding public office and is using the court rulings of a handful of judges to do so. My comments stands to show that kind of lenient ruling from the bench happens in other areas.

 

[protectionist]

I disagree. Protectionist is trying to ban 3.45 million Muslims from holding public office and is using the court rulings of a handful of judges to do so. My comments stands to show that kind of lenient ruling from the bench happens in other areas.

No, I am not "using" anything. The Constitution is what bans Muslims from holding office, as well as banning Islam itself, entirely. Stop deflecting.

 

[beagle9]

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 ?

My comment was an accurate reply to the post I quoted.

More of a deflection if you ask me.

I disagree. Protectionist is trying to ban 3.45 million Muslims from holding public office and is using the court rulings of a handful of judges to do so. My comments stands to show that kind of lenient ruling from the bench happens in other areas.

Well Pro is just being proactive. Nothing wrong with that. Helps to stop Ft.Hood situation's, because as has been proven, it is that you can't depend on a Democrat to do it. Democrat might make an excuse or two for a violator, but we can only hope not.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Don't get a rash. They prove what I proved in a previous post that was in response to Playtime, who said >> "sharia law ain't comin' to 'merica, jehro."

The New Jersey case (et al) was an example of Sharia law already having come to America.

Also, rapists getting off with wristslaps who were not Muslims, doesn't mean that there aren't or cant be Muslims getting away with rape (or other crimes), based on being Muslims. This is aggregious Islamization, that we must all be vigilant against.

 

[protectionist]

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

There are quite a few ways. They can be found cover to cover in the Koran.

The one most simple and POSITIVE way is >> Constitution 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. "

 

[protectionist]

That I have no problem with. If the elected official violates the US Constitution, remove them from office. And that goes for any elected official. It won't take long before the politicians toe the line.

This is the mindset of a person who is oblivious to the dozens (if not hundreds) of instances of Islamization in America, and is simply unaware of the war going on between the USA and the stealth jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood's many US front groups.

 

[protectionist]

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.

1. So are you saying that the words "code of ethics" is NOT in Webster's New World Dictionary, 5th ed. ?

2. I didn't say "code of ethics" was the entire definition. It is just part (but a very significant part) of the whole definition, given by the dictionary.

3. You are insane if you think that Islam fits the definition of "One that carries a code of ethics.." It carries the worst code of UNethic of anything ever written. How you could call mass genocidal murder, rape, wife-beating, many misogynies, slavery, pedophilia, torture, animal cruelty, "ethics" is beyond the imagination. Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist ?

4. There have been enough major attacks against Americans, based on islam, to consider Islam to be too dangerous to be given government power. And this is without even considering the supremacism factor, as well as the numerous US laws involved as well.

5. I don't know if you are a poor reader or are just conveniently forgetting what I said about numbers or "overwhelming majority". Maybe a reminder is applicable >>

Majority and minority don't factor in here. Unless ALL Islam is eradicated from the USA (as the Constitution demands), we are unecessarily risking catastrophes. It doesn't take a majority of Muslims to wreak havoc. 19 of them did 9/11. TWO did the San Bernardino attack. ONE did Fort Hood, the Pulse Club, Manchester, New York Bike path, LAX, Moore, OK, etc etc

This is a matter of quality, rather than quantity.

 

[protectionist]

That I have no problem with. If the elected official violates the US Constitution, remove them from office. And that goes for any elected official. It won't take long before the politicians toe the line.

You don't seem to understand Islam and its proponents. They are nit going to toe any American "line". Whether they are elected to US political office or not, there is no such thing as an American Muslim (who will toe the line for AMERICA)

Generally, Muslims do not have nationalities. They owe allegiance to one entity and one only > the Ummah (worldwide community of Muslims). This is another reason why Muslims should be excluded from political office.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Where's your quiz? Or did you make that up too?

 

[protectionist]

That I have no problem with. If the elected official violates the US Constitution, remove them from office. And that goes for any elected official. It won't take long before the politicians toe the line.

Muslims will not toe any American "line" because generally they are not Americans. Muslims do not have nationalities. The only entity they connect to, is the Ummah (worldwide community of Muslims)

As such, for example, a Muslim in the USA, would have more loyalty, kinship, allegiance to another Muslim in France, Russia, Somalia, Pakistan, or Australia (or anywhere) than to a fellow American, living here in the USA.

Or a Muslim in Poland would have more allegiance to a fellow Muslim in Brazil, than any fellow Pole. A Muslim in Denmark would have more allegiance to a fellow Muslim in China, than a fellow Dane, living right next door. They have only one nation >> the Ummah (worldwide community of Muslims)

It's obvious that you are not well versed on this subject (nor are most people in this thread) and are easily duped by the likes of Keith Ellison, Andre Carson, Ilhan Omar and other Muslims deceitfully (by taqiyya) weaseling their way into the US government, to carry out the now 28 year old Muslim Brotherhood plan (the Explanatory Memorandum) to destroy America FROM WITHIN >>


The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

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]

Where's your quiz? Or did you make that up too?

It's here in the forum. In a number of threads. Yes, I made it up entirely from books that I have read, + their footnote reports.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Ridiculous rightwing sophistry.

Attempting to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Indeed, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause recognize citizens who are free from religion, where to practice no religion at all is protected by the First Amendment.

Also wrong is your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, having nothing whatsoever to do with “supremacism” or it being ‘un-Constitutional.’

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) codifies the fact that Federal laws and decisions by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, and the states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to those laws and rulings.

The thread premise is nothing more than an example of the bigotry and hate common to most conservatives.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Ridiculous rightwing sophistry.

Attempting to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Indeed, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause recognize citizens who are free from religion, where to practice no religion at all is protected by the First Amendment.

Also wrong is your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, having nothing whatsoever to do with “supremacism” or it being ‘un-Constitutional.’

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) codifies the fact that Federal laws and decisions by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, and the states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to those laws and rulings.

The thread premise is nothing more than an example of the bigotry and hate common to most conservatives.

Is he wrong that Muslims(?) have killed scores of American's on American soil in the name of Allah ???

 

[IM2]

The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities

*was an absolute fact in the year 1920. And it worked,and they enjoyed great support from American Christians, who agreed with them that they were doing God's work.

They no longer enjoy so much support from christians.

What changed? Not the Bible. Our society changed.

Our society has never lived according to gods law.

 

[IM2]

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.

Ridiculous rightwing sophistry.

Attempting to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Indeed, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause recognize citizens who are free from religion, where to practice no religion at all is protected by the First Amendment.

Also wrong is your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, having nothing whatsoever to do with “supremacism” or it being ‘un-Constitutional.’

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) codifies the fact that Federal laws and decisions by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, and the states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to those laws and rulings.

The thread premise is nothing more than an example of the bigotry and hate common to most conservatives.

Is he wrong that Muslims(?) have killed scores of American's on American soil in the name of Allah ???

Yes.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Ridiculous rightwing sophistry.

Attempting to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Indeed, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause recognize citizens who are free from religion, where to practice no religion at all is protected by the First Amendment.

Also wrong is your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, having nothing whatsoever to do with “supremacism” or it being ‘un-Constitutional.’

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) codifies the fact that Federal laws and decisions by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, and the states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to those laws and rulings.

The thread premise is nothing more than an example of the bigotry and hate common to most conservatives.

This post is nothing more than an example of the IGNORANCE and BRAINWASHING from leftist media, common to most liberals,

1. The fact of Islam's masquerade as a religion, to shield themselves from criticism was already well explained in Post # 75 with no less than 25 links in support. Read and learn.

2. The claim that Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution is only about federal power vs state is obviously wrong. That is in part 2 of Section 2. I referred to part 1 of the section (before the semicolon). That part of the section is EXACTLY about supremacism, which is why it contains the word "supreme"

For those too dumb (or too brainwashed ) to understand, I will separate Article 6, section 2's two parts (which contain 2 separate ideas) into different colors > Red for part 1, and blue for part 2

The use of the word "and" shows that 2 separate ideas are being expressed.

"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."

 

[IM2]

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.

Ridiculous rightwing sophistry.

Attempting to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Indeed, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause recognize citizens who are free from religion, where to practice no religion at all is protected by the First Amendment.

Also wrong is your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, having nothing whatsoever to do with “supremacism” or it being ‘un-Constitutional.’

Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) codifies the fact that Federal laws and decisions by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, and the states and local jurisdictions are subordinate to those laws and rulings.

The thread premise is nothing more than an example of the bigotry and hate common to most conservatives.

This post is nothing more than an example of the IGNORANCE and BRAINWASHING from leftist media, common to most liberals,

1. The fact of Islam's masquerade as a religion, to shield themselves from criticism was already well explained in Post # 75 with no less than 25 links in support. Read and learn.

2. The claim that Article 6 Section 2 of the constitution is only about federal power vs state is obvious wrong. That is in part 2 of Section 2. I referred to part 1 of the section (before the semicolon. That part of the section is EXACTLY about supremacism, which is why it contains the word "supreme"

For those too dumb (or too brainwashed ) to understand, I will separate Article 6, section 2's two parts (which contain 2 separate ideas) into different colors > Red for part 1, and blue for part 2

The use of the word "and" shows that 2 separate ideas are being expressed.

"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."

Are you serious?