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

[Pogo]

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 left" didn't do that --- the Klan did. So sitting here trying to pass this documented history as an angle of "the left" is just flat-out dishonest.


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 major difference is the Christian Bible didn't tell Christians (or the Klan) it's OK to mass murder people, to beat their wives, or rape, enslave, commit pedophilia. The Koran DOES say that.

Actually it does tell its readers to do that shit. I gave you an entire list three hundred posts ago (1033) to which you went "lalala, that's inconvenient so I choose not to read it". Which is par for your coarse in this head-up-the-ass bigot thread.

Fun fact: "Mary" the "virgin", if you accept that premise, should have been stoned to death according to the Babble.

>> If a man marries a girl who is claimed to be a virgin, and then finds that she is not, “they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death” (Deut. 22:20)

If a man has relations within the walls of a city with a maiden who is betrothed, “you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death.” (Deut. 22:23) but if they were in the open fields, “the man alone shall die”, because if it was in the open fields, “though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid.” (Deut. 22:25-27)"
​

And of course there's the old "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:9) and the offering of one's own daughters up to a rape squad, that is, when one isn't boinking his own daughters himself....

So that part of your lame argument already went BUH-bye thousands of years ago.

 

[protectionist]

Do you have a "Should MLB be taken over by the federal gov't" quiz?

Or maybe a "Should the police be able to open fire on motorcycle riders?" quiz?

 

[protectionist]

Actually it does tell its readers to do that shit. I gave you an entire list three hundred posts ago (1033) to which you went "lalala, that's inconvenient so I choose not to read it". Which is par for your coarse in this head-up-the-ass bigot thread.

Fun fact: "Mary" the "virgin", if you accept that premise, should have been stoned to death according to the Babble.

>> If a man marries a girl who is claimed to be a virgin, and then finds that she is not, “they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death” (Deut. 22:20)

If a man has relations within the walls of a city with a maiden who is betrothed, “you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death.” (Deut. 22:23) but if they were in the open fields, “the man alone shall die”, because if it was in the open fields, “though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid.” (Deut. 22:25-27)"
​

And of course there's the old "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks" (Psalm 137:9) and the offering of one's own daughters up to a rape squad, that is, when one isn't boinking his own daughters himself....

So that part of your lame argument already went BUH-bye thousands of years ago.

Deuteronomy is Old Testament, written hundreds of years before Christ was born, long before there was any Christianity.

Secondly, you are actually trying to claim that Christianity tells Christians to do the vile things that the Koran tells Muslims to do, huh ? And you think you're going to throw that curve ball past everyone here, do you ? You're even more deranged than I thought (mixed in with a fair amount of ordinary stupidity).

 

[protectionist]

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.

I simply replied to your ignorant post that tried to claim that there was no Sharia law being accepted in America, and so I corrected you. You're welcome.

In schools, people pay for educations like you're getting here.

 

[protectionist]

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

​

Pogo is another one who doesn't rate even talking to. Gone off the cliff a long time ago.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you have a "Should MLB be taken over by the federal gov't" quiz?

Or maybe a "Should the police be able to open fire on motorcycle riders?" quiz?

Not a dodge at all. Simply pointing out that your lunacy is not new.

Whats wrong? Don't you believe that the feds should take over MLB or that cops should shoot motorcyclists anymore?

 

[Pogo]

Well the Christian's are still here, yet you say that now they (the KKK), don't enjoy that alledged level of support these days ?

Correct. Said very clearly. Multiple times.

What changed with the Christian's ??

Reform. It's now 100 years later, and far fewer christians are arguing for white supremacy using their religion. The bible itself did not change.

----- which means, YET AGAIN, that Christianism didn't need to reform anything in order for the KKK to be publicly despised.

And that's because, YET AGAIN, the object of that contempt was the Klan's SOCIAL attitudes, not its RELIGIOUS ones. Christianism had nothing to do with that. The social values were the ones rejected; the religious ones were not.. Matter of fact its religious/moralistic torch continues to be carried by its fellow traveller archconservative very fine people to this day.

It was not "Christianist reform" that condemned the Klan; it was negative publicity. It was D.C. Stephenson's vicious rape/cannibal attack on a schoolteacher. It was Stetson Kennedy using the media to write an undercover exposé after he infiltrated the Klan and wrote a series ridiculing them for the popular radio program "Superman". That's sociocultural pressure, not religious. It was also the IRS slapping a back tax bill to cut its legs off, and the governor of Georgia revoking their charter to exist but again neither of those are "religion" either.

Christianism has been used both to justify and to oppose transAtlantic slavery all the way back to Columbus versus Bartholomé de las Casas. Clearly those are opposing, contradictory ideas. It cannot be true that the same source created both consistently. It CAN be true that both are using the same source to cherrypick the parts they like and ignore the ones they don't. Much like the OP is doing here with both the religious screeds and the United States Constitution.

So once AGAIN -- don't blame the religion for those who hide behind it. Cowards hiding behind something do not make what they're hiding behind, the actor. Assign the fucking responsibility where it belongs. All this diffusion to outside entities of "this religion, that religion" does is diffuse that responsibility, it lets those actors off the hook, and it polarizes the 99% of that religion who resent being lumped in with abhorrent bullshit they never asked for.

 

[protectionist]

Not a dodge at all. Simply pointing out that your lunacy is not new.

Whats wrong? Don't you believe that the feds should take over MLB or that cops should shoot motorcyclists anymore?

I might accuse you of being looney, but actually you might be too dumb to be looney.

There's no need to point out what is new or old. That's just another of your many deflections, Mr DODGE.

 

[Cosmos]

A year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.

First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).

Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)

Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc

Very well said. Thank you.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Och, it's the wee bairn of the No True Scotsman fallacy, the "No True Religion".

What a great argument. Goes down like a lump of warm haggis.

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.

And now a similarly-partisan hack Scotsman picking cherries moves on to the Apples and Oranges fallacy. Fruity, dood.

"KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam", so you can't use the latter.

And either way it's irrelevant anyway since the point is entirely about CAUSATIONS, not fucking "body counts'.

Thought you'd get away with that huh. I clean up, OK?

 

[protectionist]

----- which means, YET AGAIN, that Christianism didn't need to reform anything in order for the KKK to be publicly despised.

And that's because, YET AGAIN, the object of that contempt was the Klan's SOCIAL attitudes, not its RELIGIOUS ones. Christianism had nothing to do with that. The social values were the ones rejected; the religious ones were not.. Matter of fact its religious/moralistic torch continues to be carried by its fellow traveller archconservative very fine people to this day.

It was not "Christianist reform" that condemned the Klan; it was negative publicity. It was D.C. Stephenson's vicious rape/cannibal attack on a schoolteacher. It was Stetson Kennedy using the media to write an undercover exposé after he infiltrated the Klan and wrote a series ridiculing them for the popular radio program "Superman". That's sociocultural pressure, not religious. It was also the IRS slapping a back tax bill to cut its legs off, and the governor of Georgia revoking their charter to exist but again neither of those are "religion" either.

Christianism has been used both to justify and to oppose transAtlantic slavery all the way back to Columbus versus Bartholomé de las Casas. Clearly those are opposing, contradictory ideas. It cannot be true that the same source created both consistently. It CAN be true that both are using the same source to cherrypick the parts they like and ignore the ones they don't. Much like the OP is doing here with both the religious screeds and the United States Constitution.

So once AGAIN -- don't blame the religion for those who hide behind it. Cowards hiding behind something do not make what they're hiding behind, the actor. Assign the fucking responsibility where it belongs. All this diffusion to outside entities of "this religion, that religion" does is diffuse that responsibility, it lets those actors off the hook, and it polarizes the 99% of that religion who resent being lumped in with abhorrent bullshit they never asked for.

The more you bash Christianity, the more support you lose, and the dumber you look. Ho hum.

 

[Cosmos]

How ironic is it that you calling me dumb when you make shit up to justify your idiocy?

You being the dumbest idiot in this whole forum, I have too many real posters to respond to, to waste time bothering to address your babblings.

Uh, no. Communist Dan is the dumbest idiot on the whole forum.

 

[protectionist]

Very well said. Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[protectionist]

Uh, no. Communist Dan is the dumbest idiot on the whole forum.

Beside being a creepy communist, who is that ?

 

[Cosmos]

Uh, no. Communist Dan is the dumbest idiot on the whole forum.

Beside being a creepy communist, who is that ?

eyepublius. You probably don't see much of him. Consider yourself lucky.

 

[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.

Och, it's the wee bairn of the No True Scotsman fallacy, the "No True Religion".

What a great argument. Goes down like a lump of warm haggis.

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.

And now a similarly-partisan hack Scotsman picking cherries moves on to the Apples and Oranges fallacy. Fruity, dood.

"KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam", so you can't use the latter.

And either way it's irrelevant anyway since the point is entirely about CAUSATIONS, not fucking "body counts'.

Thought you'd get away with that huh. I clean up, OK?

Want to try that in English or is your anger getting the best of you ?

 

[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.

​

"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.

When you don't have the stats you think you need, just make 'em up right?

Number one, Spunkles, NOBODY KNOWS how many lynchings might be attributed to Klan elements versus how many by non-Klan elements. You DO NOT have those stats, I guarantee it*. Moreover this childish bullshit about limiting the Klan to "blacks" because that's all your tiny little mind can deal with is further dishonesty. The KKK went after blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, labor unions, drunks, philanderers, "loose women", gamblers, debtors and basically anybody who didn't play the white Euro Christian Protestant role. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.

* see my thread on Lynching in America here​

 

[Pogo]

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.

Och, it's the wee bairn of the No True Scotsman fallacy, the "No True Religion".

What a great argument. Goes down like a lump of warm haggis.

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.

And now a similarly-partisan hack Scotsman picking cherries moves on to the Apples and Oranges fallacy. Fruity, dood.

"KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Qaeda" does not equal the body of "Islam", so you can't use the latter.

And either way it's irrelevant anyway since the point is entirely about CAUSATIONS, not fucking "body counts'.

Thought you'd get away with that huh. I clean up, OK?

Want to try that in English or is your anger getting the best of you ?

So lemme guess. You have no clue what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. Want some haggis?

I love the poorly educated. They're such cat toys.

 

[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.

​

"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.

And now the same Scotsman picking cherries moves to the Apples and Oranges fallacy. Fruity, dood.

"KKK" is not a religion and "Islam" is not a vigilante group. You'd have to either compare political activists, e.g. KKK vs. A Qaeda, or you compare religions, Christianism vs. Islam. And of course the latter is a fallacy anyway since the body of "KKK" does not equal the body of "Christians" just as the body of "Al Q

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.

When you don't have the stats you think you need, just make 'em up right?

Number one, Spunkles, NOBODY KNOWS how many lynchings might be attributed to Klan elements versus how many by non-Klan elements. You DO NOT have those stats, I guarantee it*. Moreover this childish bullshit about limiting the Klan to "blacks" because that's all your tiny little mind can deal with is further dishonesty. The KKK went after blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, labor unions, drunks, philanderers, "loose women", gamblers, debtors and basically anybody who didn't play the white Euro Christian Protestant role. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.

* see my thread on Lynching in America here​

Does this have anything to do with the topic or are you now trying to flood the Ops thread with all kinds of what abouts ????

 

[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 ?

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 ??

Every time I think I've got an idea how fucking stupid you are, you show me that I underestimated.