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

[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 ???

Yes.

Explain his wrong.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Does "the christian [sic] world" need to reform itself because the Ku Klux Klan exists?

It already did. It was reformed from without by a secular society, and the change was generational. One has only to monitor the support from american chritians of the klan over the last 100 years to see it in sharp relief.

You really couldn't have picked a finer, more salient illustration of my point. Will you be assisting me all weekend?

The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities, uh is a failed attempt by the left to use the klu Klux clan as a means to attack Christianity. Always remember that people aren't dumb about these things, and people know how to discern between the good and the bad within the world. One might think that all blacks are victim's in America, and that because of this thinking that any action taken by a black against his fellow man out of anger, might be justified or an excuse can be made for it, but people are smarter than this crazy notion as well. Doesn't stop the race card from being thrown willy nilly, but whose counting anymore right ??

What makes the KKK any worse than say Democrats who've killed millions, and Republicans who've also killed millions?

As for the KKK, they're more anti- Kosher, typically rather than anti-Islamist.
I can't blame them, either.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Pew Research states otherwise

That is just a lie.
Here is what Pew Research really said:
{...
A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 68% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.
...}
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

You realize that I could write a wiki page?

FACE THE FACTS: Ben Shapiro Busts This Big Leftist Myth About Radical Islam Wide Open | Young America's Foundation

Kosher propaganda.
Most Islamist's don't kill anybody.
Muslims are better than your Kosher tribe.
For so many reasons.

But, let's start with the most important Islam sees Jesus Christ as a prophet.
While
your tribe sees Jesus Christ as boiling in Hell in excrement.

 

[beagle9]

Does "the christian [sic] world" need to reform itself because the Ku Klux Klan exists?

It already did. It was reformed from without by a secular society, and the change was generational. One has only to monitor the support from american chritians of the klan over the last 100 years to see it in sharp relief.

You really couldn't have picked a finer, more salient illustration of my point. Will you be assisting me all weekend?

The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities, uh is a failed attempt by the left to use the klu Klux clan as a means to attack Christianity. Always remember that people aren't dumb about these things, and people know how to discern between the good and the bad within the world. One might think that all blacks are victim's in America, and that because of this thinking that any action taken by a black against his fellow man out of anger, might be justified or an excuse can be made for it, but people are smarter than this crazy notion as well. Doesn't stop the race card from being thrown willy nilly, but whose counting anymore right ??

What makes the KKK any worse than say Democrats who've killed millions, and Republicans who've also killed millions?

As for the KKK, they're more anti- Kosher, typically rather than anti-Islamist.
I can't blame them, either.

You supporting the KKK ??

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

Eh, there's nothing wrong with an alliance between Muslim nations, and Catholic nations, we both believe in anti-Abortion, anti-Gay marriage, and many similar policies.

It's just that just as Muslims should be concerned with millions of Catholics immigrating to their nations, that millions of Muslims immigrating to Catholic nations is concerning.

Italy isn't ruled by the Vatican, even if the Vatican is in Italy, and the Vatican strongly influences policy.
A lot of real Catholics aren't too keen on Pope Francis.
Even so, he's not too bad... Just a bit flaky.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Does "the christian [sic] world" need to reform itself because the Ku Klux Klan exists?

It already did. It was reformed from without by a secular society, and the change was generational. One has only to monitor the support from american chritians of the klan over the last 100 years to see it in sharp relief.

You really couldn't have picked a finer, more salient illustration of my point. Will you be assisting me all weekend?

The klu Klux clan using or attempting to adopt Christianity in order to justify it's beliefs or disgusting activities, uh is a failed attempt by the left to use the klu Klux clan as a means to attack Christianity. Always remember that people aren't dumb about these things, and people know how to discern between the good and the bad within the world. One might think that all blacks are victim's in America, and that because of this thinking that any action taken by a black against his fellow man out of anger, might be justified or an excuse can be made for it, but people are smarter than this crazy notion as well. Doesn't stop the race card from being thrown willy nilly, but whose counting anymore right ??

What makes the KKK any worse than say Democrats who've killed millions, and Republicans who've also killed millions?

As for the KKK, they're more anti- Kosher, typically rather than anti-Islamist.
I can't blame them, either.

You supporting the KKK ??

No, but still they're a lot better than Democrats & Republicans.
Especially, considering they only have a few thousand members.
They have no power,
and everybody especially Globalists / Kosher Liberals tend to kick, and scream about the KKK as some kind of main menace of society.

The main menace of society, are Democrats, and Republicans.
In
recent years, they've caused a millions of deaths in Muslim countries.

All it did was help Iran, and ISIS spread into countries like Iraq, and other places.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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.

Would you mind providing a hyperlink?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The US gov't recognizes it as a religion. You lose again.

So you think you win a debate by claiming that the other guy loses, huh ? Ha ha.

It doesn't matter if the US recognizes Islam to be a religion. Some countries do, some don't. See Post # 75. links

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

Bravo, Slovakia.
Yes, I think Islam is sort of not a religion.
But, at least they revere Jesus Christ, so Islam is probably more of a sub-Religion, sort of right, sort of wrong
unlike the Synagogue of Satan
who killed Christ with Judas Iscariot, and say Jesus Christ is boiling in Hell in excrement.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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?

Unfortunately he is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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)

You keep repeating this stupid idea that Islam is not a religion based on a dictionary definition. How fucking stupid are you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

No, you are the one that is lost. Your senseless claims and ignorance of concepts such as due process, freedom of religion, and religious tests for public office, paint you as a pathetic clueless loud mouthed asshole!

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Haha, what?
The Muslim Arabs of North-Africa invaded & colonized Spain / Portugal for about 800 years.
They did similar in Sicily.

Catholic Charles Martel stopped them in their tracks.

Well... Islamic Ottoman Turks invaded, and colonized the Balkans between Austria & the Byzantine.

Catholic Jan III Sobieski stopped them in their tracks.

There were others.
Islamic Tatars raided Europe for eons, even enslaved 4 million in Eastern Europe.
while
Islamic Ottoman Barbary Pirates of North-Africa raided, and enslaved 1.25 million Western Europeans.

The Golden Horde was largely comprised of Islamic groups of mostly a Turkic background from Central Asia, East Asia, and else where.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Thank you for summarizing your idiocy into one sentence. The Constitution expressly prevents you from doing what you are advocating, dumbass! You are wrong. Dead wrong. It has been shown to you over and over again that you are wrong. End of story.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

No it was not. You even admitted that it was overturned on appeal. That means it was NOT applicable.

 

[Toro]

What a completely and utterly retarded OP.



Not a single brain cell.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

No it was not. You even admitted that it was overturned on appeal. That means it was NOT applicable.

It's pointless to argue with Russian trolls.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Pew Research states otherwise

That is just a lie.
Here is what Pew Research really said:
{...
A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 68% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.
...}
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

You realize that I could write a wiki page?

FACE THE FACTS: Ben Shapiro Busts This Big Leftist Myth About Radical Islam Wide Open | Young America's Foundation

Kosher propaganda.
Most Islamist's don't kill anybody.
Muslims are better than your Kosher tribe.
For so many reasons.

But, let's start with the most important Islam sees Jesus Christ as a prophet.
While
your tribe sees Jesus Christ as boiling in Hell in excrement.

Jesus is an illegal from Mexico? I am not really religious.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

Pew Research states otherwise

That is just a lie.
Here is what Pew Research really said:
{...
A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 68% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.[5] The Pew Research Study did not include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria in the survey, although densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh were included.
...}
Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

You realize that I could write a wiki page?

FACE THE FACTS: Ben Shapiro Busts This Big Leftist Myth About Radical Islam Wide Open | Young America's Foundation

Kosher propaganda.
Most Islamist's don't kill anybody.
Muslims are better than your Kosher tribe.
For so many reasons.

But, let's start with the most important Islam sees Jesus Christ as a prophet.
While
your tribe sees Jesus Christ as boiling in Hell in excrement.

Where did Dante put Muhammad? I believe in Hell's eighth circle.

He deserves it, Jesus not so much.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Bullshit. The US Constitution forbids using religious test questions. That is a simple fact.

The supremacy clause is not violated any more than it is by Christians.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

On at least 2 occasions you used "code of ethics" with no mention of belief or worship. And no, I did not say that "code of ethics" is not in Websters. It was just all that was there. You conveniently edited the definition.

Multiple religions have things in their holy books that approve of slavery, misogynies, murder, rape ect ect. Including the Holy Bible, which has most of those.

But unless the Muslim in question has committed those crimes, they cannot be banned from holding public office. Unless you have proof that an individual has violated the supremacy clause, you have no grounds for banning them. Especially not a ban based on a violation of the US Constitution, namely a religious test.