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

[Lastamender]

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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

"Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing.

Again? Terrorists excuse terrorism? Once again the body count for the KKK is sadly lacking compared to Islam.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The article made it very clear how TR felt about Muslims. Is that what you say to ignore that fact?

No, but nevertheless, that was a part of the larger effort in the country at the time to ban polygamy. Stinging the Caliphate was just a bonus.

 

[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.

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

OK, dipshit! If you want anyone to read your posts, I suggest going back to third grade and learn the difference in possessive and plural forms of words

BTW, you would have failed my 9th grade American Government class with stupid statements like those in your post.

 

[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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

 

[skye]

Like I said... in my opinion, and I'm no expert,...some secular, not fanatic, educated Muslims are ok ... nice people, lovely family .. (great food too) very kind.....

But then............ I am talking about the minority.....not the monsters and murderers and low classes Islamist's of nowadays.

 

[beagle9]

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

OK, dipshit! If you want anyone to read your posts, I suggest going back to third grade and learn the difference in possessive and plural forms of words

BTW, you would have failed my 0th grade American Government class with stupid statements like that.

Oh no, it's the Grammer Nazi. Run away, run away everybody. What grade was that by the way ? The 0th.

 

[Pogo]

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?

You already lost that point the other day. Thanks for playin'. As you hinted at here it wasn't necessary for "american [sic] chritians [sic] to do a damn thing, since the Klan hadn't been their doing to begin with.

And yes, I thought it was a fine parallel, thanks for that too.

Or, here's another parallel. David Duke keeps running for various offices as a Republican. Doesn't mean the Republican Party wants anything to do with him.

 

[beagle9]

Like I said... in my opinion, and I'm no expert,...some secular, not fanatic, educated Muslims are ok ... nice people, lovely family .. (great food too) very kind.....

But then............ I am talking about the minority.....not the monsters and murderers and low classes Islamist's of nowadays.

True, the nation has it's radical, racial, cultural, groups or family members that make up that which exist within the categories. Their are those whom don't do well in life with others in which exist in or amongst the groups. And one has to look and study the groups ways, character, and actions in order to really know of their unity in thought and/or of their unity in there belief systems.

 

[Pogo]

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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

Correct. But the Klan did require their members to be Christians.

If I need to put it in even smaller words, the religion isn't responsible for the terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for the terrorism.

Sounds easy, doesn't it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

You already lost that point the other day. Thanks for playin'. As you hinted at here it wasn't necessary for "american [sic] chritians [sic] to do a damn thing, since the Klan hadn't been their doing to begin with.

And yes, I thought it was a fine parallel, thanks for that too.

Hmm, no , the point stands quite well. It is an illustration of reform. I'm sure you can think of others. You can even think of some regarding Islam.

 

[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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

Correct. But the Klan did require their members to be Christians.

If I need to put it in even smaller words, the religion isn't responsible for the terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for the terrorism.

Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Can't make that claim until the facts say so. People are to quick to blame something due to biased or political reasoning even though they know better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

Correct. But the Klan did require their members to be Christians.

If I need to put it in even smaller words, the religion isn't responsible for the terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for the terrorism.

Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Hmm, no, that's wrong, too. We can also put some blame on the religion. It's not an all or nothing proposal.

 

[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.

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

Claiming that the times were different is the same as claiming the times were different for the 2nd Amendment.

This nation was founded on principles of religious freedom. That is why they came here.

Here is the issue. This is a nation founded on the ideals of freedom. Free societies are not safe. They never will be. There will always be risks involved in free societies.

It brings to mind a quote by Samuel Adams:
"“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

OK, dipshit! If you want anyone to read your posts, I suggest going back to third grade and learn the difference in possessive and plural forms of words

BTW, you would have failed my 0th grade American Government class with stupid statements like that.

Oh no, it's the Grammer Nazi. Run away, run away everybody. What grade was that by the way ? The 0th.

I'm sorry! I was distracted by my grandson who has leukemia. He has a little bit higher priority than dumbasses like you.

BTW, you spelled "grammar" incorrectly!

 

[Pogo]

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

OK, dipshit! If you want anyone to read your posts, I suggest going back to third grade and learn the difference in possessive and plural forms of words

BTW, you would have failed my 9th grade American Government class with stupid statements like those in your post.

He's ^^ right you know. We NEVER, EVER use an apostrophe to form a plural in English EVER. What that passage above says is "to exclude those who were religious as American is. Foreigner is is an entire [sic] different situation".

That ain't even English. If a poster can't be bothered to construct a valid sentence, why should anyone think he's capable of constructing a valid point?

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."

The links in Post #75 are mostly meaningless. There are a handful of small or inconsequential nations that do not recognnize Islam as a religion. The only one of any significance is Italy. And that lack of recognition has nothing to do with Islam not being a religion and everything to do with denying Islam tax exempt status. Italy does not recognize the Hindu religion either. They do not deny either is a religion. They simply deny them religious tax exemptions.

Our constitution forbids having a religious test for holding office. And remember, the supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land.

Forbids a religious test sure, but that period in which that was written only encompassed religions that were compatible to our nation, and not any that were not compatible to our nation. So for Americans of the period there would be no religious test or challenge to the religions of the time by government to be brought against them, otherwise by using some sort of test to exclude those who were religious as American's. Foreigner's is an entire different situation, where as we aren't supposed to allow them to come here seeking to change our beliefs or religions or to push a religion upon us that is not compatible to our culture, beliefs or system here.

OK, dipshit! If you want anyone to read your posts, I suggest going back to third grade and learn the difference in possessive and plural forms of words

BTW, you would have failed my 0th grade American Government class with stupid statements like that.

Oh no, it's the Grammer Nazi. Run away, run away everybody. What grade was that by the way ? The 0th.

I'm sorry! I was distracted by my grandson who has leukemia. He has a little bit higher priority than dumbasses like you.

BTW, you spelled "grammar" incorrectly!

Yeah I saw that too. Thought maybe he was being ironic.

 

[Pogo]

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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

Correct. But the Klan did require their members to be Christians.

If I need to put it in even smaller words, the religion isn't responsible for the terrorism. The terrorists are responsible for the terrorism.

Sounds easy, doesn't it?

Hmm, no, that's wrong, too. We can also put some blame on the religion. It's not an all or nothing proposal.

No, we cannot do that, squirm to get out of losing the point though you may. Christianism never told the Klan to "go ye forth and lynch the black people". Nor did it tell them to "smite the labor unions", "dash the alcoholics' heads against the rocks", or "whippeth ye yon maiden for she does not go to church". They came up with that shit..

As I also said above, David Duke keeps running as a Republican. That doesn't mean the Republican Party went and asked him to.

In both cases they're trying to ride a horse they think will get them places. Nobody asked the horse.

HO ly FUCKing SHIT summa y'all are dense as a box o' rocks.

 

[Pogo]

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 ??

Actually the Klan required that any incoming member be a Christian, and specifically a Protestant one.

The big Klan, the one we have all the pictures of, the one that spread nationwide, was founded by an ex-Methodist minister, using a bible, an unsheathed sword and an American flag. Stone Mountain Georgia, Thanksgiving 1915.

It's right here on the application forms.

​

Klanners would often walk into church services, in full regalia, and make donations.

There was at least one occasion they pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for the 'crime' of "not going to church". When her fifteen year old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too. They were heavy into the flagellation thing. "Christian terrorism" if you like. Their targets included Jews, Catholics, immigrants in general, labor unions, blacks, drunks (Klan were strongly pro-Prohibition) and adulterers, philanderers and "loose women". I call 'em a Christian Taliban.


The ultimate point being, the fact that the Klan held up the Holey Babble as its mascot, does not mean the Holey Babble offered itself to the Klan for that purpose. So while we can accurately describe them as "Christian terrorists", we cannot reverse-engineer that and claim Christianism therefore was their causation.

Same thing with Islam and spectacular political acts.

In short, correlation does not equal causation.

The Christian's didn't require their members to be only of the klansman duh.... See how that works ? So it is that some denominations get weird or stupid. What Cha gonna do right ?

OH YES THEY DID. I posted proof if it right above, and you're going to sit here and go "LA LA LA I DON'T SEE ANYTHING"?

Don't waste everybody's time, Peewee.

 

[Pogo]

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?

You already lost that point the other day. Thanks for playin'. As you hinted at here it wasn't necessary for "american [sic] chritians [sic] to do a damn thing, since the Klan hadn't been their doing to begin with.

And yes, I thought it was a fine parallel, thanks for that too.

Hmm, no , the point stands quite well. It is an illustration of reform. I'm sure you can think of others. You can even think of some regarding Islam.

Again, NO it is NOT "an illustration of reform" by Christianism, since, ONCE AGAIN, Christianism didn't invent the Klan.

If the movement doesn't belong to the religion, then it's not the religion's thing to reform, IS IT.

 

[Dragonlady]

Like I said... in my opinion, and I'm no expert,...some secular, not fanatic, educated Muslims are ok ... nice people, lovely family .. (great food too) very kind.....

But then............ I am talking about the minority.....not the monsters and murderers and low classes Islamist's of nowadays.

I am disgusted by you and the way you talk about “others”, while claiming to be a Christian.

 

[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?

Unfortunately he is.

He has certified his lunacy.