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

[IM2]

Fool, Islam and Christianity both derive from Judaism.

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

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

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

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.

As a note, the American's here have become complacent, and they have become to accepting of all sorts of Anti-American cultural things from a far, and all the while these immigrated anti-American foriegners are hiding in plain sight amongst us these days, and they are using our own Constitution against us.

And worse they are being helped by anti-American's within, who are shockingly Americans that were born here. Go figure.

There is no uniform “American Culture” to assimilate too. Are Bostonians and Louisiana Cajuns culturally similar? Texans aren’t like people from New England. Southerners are different from people in mid-west.

Thank you. Somebody needed to point out the dog whistles.

 

[IM2]

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.

As a note, the American's here have become complacent, and they have become to accepting of all sorts of Anti-American cultural things from a far, and all the while these immigrated anti-American foriegners are hiding in plain sight amongst us these days, and they are using our own Constitution against us.

And worse they are being helped by anti-American's within, who are shockingly Americans that were born here. Go figure.

There is no uniform “American Culture” to assimilate too. Are Bostonians and Louisiana Cajuns culturally similar? Texans aren’t like people from New England. Southerners are different from people in mid-west.

There is no uniform “American Culture” to assimilate too.

That is what people believe. It does not make it true.

It is true.

 

[IM2]

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.

The KKK is not the only white supremacist "Christian" group. And in total those claiming Christianity are fat ahead of Islam when it comes to terrorism in America.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.”

Yes, and no.
The Founding Fathers wanted basically Freedom of Religion for Whites, not necessarily for non-Whites, considering the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Founding Fathers immigration act, was specific in supporting a Whites only citizenship.

 

[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 ??

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.

The KKK at most killed 3,000 something Blacks, because that's how many Blacks were lynched in the matter of 80 years.

The Islamic 9/11 Hijackers killed nearly 3,000 something Whites, Blacks & others in a matter of minutes.

Yeah, sure it's even.

 

[Snouter]

I am not that familiar with the KKK but from the evidence it seemed to have been a "street justice" organization since the court system even back then were taken over by Europhobes.

Posted: Jul 10, 2019 NORWICH, Conn. (WTNH)–The state supreme court has overturned the murder conviction of an illegal immigrant because of how his apartment was searched. Jean Jacques, an illegal Haitian immigrant, is serving a 60-year sentence for killing a Norwich woman 4 years ago.

25-year-old Casey Chadwick was stabbed to death in her apartment. His lawyers won their argument that a police search of Jacques’ apartment was illegal because they only had consent from the landlord.

The court ruled that was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.

Very troubling that a savage Negroid, illegal alien who murdered a human is granted special privileges.

Murder conviction overturned for illegal immigrant who killed Norwich woman

 

[playtime]

sharia law ain't comin' to 'merica, jehro.

get that.

It's already BEEN here uniformed one.

lol.... no it ain't, but you go ahead with your rw pablum fed paranoia to justify yer beliefs.

 

[protectionist]

LOL. Way to turn it around back on him but somehow I expect your comment to sail right over his head.

How could it sail over my head, when I was the one who introduced the notion (supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land) in this thread ? (and many others)

Secondly, dum dum still is trying to push the idea of Islam being a religion, despite it being saturated with vile immoralities.

 

[protectionist]

lol.... no it ain't, but you go ahead with your rw pablum fed paranoia to justify yer beliefs.

Try reading the thread before posting, uninformed one.

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

 

[Snouter]

I don't mean to vent, but I am really sick of darkie retards wasting our time. They are violent savages whose IQs are low and nothing can be done about it. It is unjust for the establishment to attack humans who defend themselves, whether it be citizens or cops. Enough bullshit is enough.

 

[playtime]

lol.... no it ain't, but you go ahead with your rw pablum fed paranoia to justify yer beliefs.

Try reading the thread before posting, uninformed one.

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

now tell me how it was against the law re: marital rape in this country b4 1993? tell me how there aren't any loopholes? if you think that one judge or even a handful of knuckledraggers are the norm & not the exception, then you are fooling yourself. hell, one 'generic' college rapist just got off because he 'he came from a good family'.

the excuses range from religious freedom, to gender inequality, to affluence syndrome. that particular issue is much larger than religious doctrine.

 

[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.

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.”

"Free societies are not safe" is your read ?

You are correct, so why is the left attempting to weaken our society by doing the very thing your posting is speaking against ?

 

[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 ?

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.

So the Christian's required all their flock to be clansman is what you are now saying ??

 

[WinterBorn]

LOL. Way to turn it around back on him but somehow I expect your comment to sail right over his head.

How could it sail over my head, when I was the one who introduced the notion (supremacy clause means the US Constitution is the law of the land) in this thread ? (and many others)

Secondly, dum dum still is trying to push the idea of Islam being a religion, despite it being saturated with vile immoralities.

Sadly, you are trying to push the point that it is not a religion by pointing out Italy's refusal to grant tax exempt status. Italy does the same with the Hindu religion. It is about taxes, not about religion.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.”

"Free societies are not safe" is your read ?

You are correct, so why is the left attempting to weaken our society by doing the very thing your posting is speaking against ?

Because fear mongering is a tried and true method of getting elected. It goes hand in hand with the shift in news coverage from a service to the public to big business. And when do people watch the news? When they are afraid. Scare the public with news stories and they will watch more and more news, which boosts ratings even more, which makes more profits.

Even this thread is a product of the fear mongering. There are 3.45 million Muslims living in the US. But the news and talk shows make it sound as though every Muslim is a blood-thirsty terrorist. So the knee-jerk reaction is to ban them.

 

[beagle9]

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!

Glad you helped your grandson.... Sad situation that is .... Hope he gets well my friend... Said a prayer for you all.

Not sure if I spelled it wrong or this spell correct grabbed it and spelled it incorrectly. It doesn't matter really, just as long as you all get the meaning of my post. No Nazism here.

Just good ole American freedom here is all.

But yes, as you all here have noticed that I ain't the sharpest tool in this shed, but I can live with it if you all can.

 

[beagle9]

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.”

"Free societies are not safe" is your read ?

You are correct, so why is the left attempting to weaken our society by doing the very thing your posting is speaking against ?

Because fear mongering is a tried and true method of getting elected. It goes hand in hand with the shift in news coverage from a service to the public to big business. And when do people watch the news? When they are afraid. Scare the public with news stories and they will watch more and more news, which boosts ratings even more, which makes more profits.

Even this thread is a product of the fear mongering. There are 3.45 million Muslims living in the US. But the news and talk shows make it sound as though every Muslim is a blood-thirsty terrorist. So the knee-jerk reaction is to ban them.

Not to ban them, but just limit their power here until we figure out exactly what their over all political goals are, and to see if said goals run contrary to what we as American's believe as citizen's of this country.

 

[protectionist]

Very troubling that a savage Negroid, illegal alien who murdered a human is granted special privileges.

Murder conviction overturned for illegal immigrant who killed Norwich woman

Shades of the Kate Steinle murder case, and hundreds of others swept under the rug by the mainstream leftist, OMISSION media. Good post, Snouter.

 

[protectionist]

And in total those claiming Christianity are fat ahead of Islam when it comes to terrorism in America.​

Too ludicrous for response. He still needs that doctor. ​

 

[protectionist]

There is no uniform “American Culture” to assimilate too. Are Bostonians and Louisiana Cajuns culturally similar? Texans aren’t like people from New England. Southerners are different from people in mid-west.

This dopey idea has been pushed by low-intellect, leftist fans of multi-culturalism, for years. It takes them a lonnnnng time to figure out how dumb it is.

You apparently are a victim of the US MISeducation system. Here's your deprogramming re-education about AMERICAN culture. >>

Liberals have no sense of American culture. Totally lost ignorance. Ever hear of Rock n Roll ? (AKA Rock music) the Blues? Rhythm & Blues, Bluegrass Music ? Jazz ?

Poets > Walt Whitman, Robert Frost, Bob Dylan, Emily Dickinson, Edgar Allen Poe, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Longfellow, Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Carl Sandberg, WH Auden, Langston Hughes, etc.

Then there's graphic arts, thousands of filmmaking-movies, TV shows, etc etc.

And there is the American English language.

And let's not forget about our US history. Our ex-political leaders. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Eisenhower, etc. The wars we fought. The people we liberated. The soldiers who died.
And of course our US CONSTITUTION.