Theocracy Loses One

[Flanders]

Islam is a political movement that enjoys First Amendment protection. A recent court decision could be the first crack in that protection. Admittedly, it’s a hairline crack, but it could evolve into the hammer that shatters Islam’s perversion of the First Amendment:

Judge William Martini, sitting in the US district court for the district of New Jersey, threw out a lawsuit brought by eight Muslim individuals and local businesses who alleged their constitutional rights were violated when the NYPD’s mass surveillance was based on religious affiliation alone. The legal action was the first of its type flowing from the secret NYPD project to map and monitor Muslim communities across the east coast that was exposed by a Pulitzer prize-winning series of articles in 2011 by the Associated Press.

In his judgment, released on Thursday, Martini dismisses the complaint made by the plaintiffs that they had been targeted for police monitoring solely because of their religion. He writes: “The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself.”

Federal judge tosses out legal challenge over NYPD surveillance of Muslims
William Martini declares Muslims’ constitutional rights were not violated in ruling described by plaintiffs’ lawyers as preposterous
Ed Pilkington in New York
Friday 21 February 2014 13.52 EST

Federal judge tosses out legal challenge over NYPD surveillance of Muslims | World news | theguardian.com​

Islam thrives in theocracies. Without theocracy Islam is just another religion that could lose its tax exempt status when it engages in pure politics clearly designed to turn America into a theocracy. Sharia law is one of the wedges Muslims use to transform America, and European countries, into Islamic theocracies.

You’ll find a lot about Sharia law in America at this link:

AOL Search

The article I selected is pro-Sharia law and the most telling:

From a legal perspective, the wave of anti-Sharia legislation should be much ado about nothing. Sharia is as much a threat to our Constitution as Bible verses calling for the stoning of adulterers or the genocidal directive in Deuteronomy to leave “alive nothing that breathes.” Like the Old and New Testaments, Sharia has its own conflicts and tensions with modern conceptions of gender equality and citizenship. To suggest that banning Sharia or the Bible is the only way to ward off the stoning of women or the execution of apostates is clearly, maliciously false.

Sharia law is not a threat when Muslims separate it from their ultimate goal of theocracy. That political separation should not be tolerated in American courts. If Muslims cannot separate their religion from government then neither should the courts.

Abed Awad’s article gives a perfect example of Muslim political doublespeak circumventing the First Amendment:

Sharia, or Islamic law, is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of Muslim life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Muslims engage with foundational religious texts to search for the divine will. For devout Muslims, Sharia governs everything from the way they eat to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to how they do business, how they marry and how their estate is distributed after death. Although the emergence of the nation-state did away with the premodern methodology of Sharia, its current manifestations are either a source of legislation or actual state law in many Muslim countries.

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts
Sharia is as unthreatening to the US legal system as the ideas in the Old Testament. Yet bigoted hysteria is fueling legislation that actually undermines our courts.
June 13, 2012

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts | The Nation​

The First Amendment prohibits a state religion; so it follows that the First Amendment also prohibits a theocracy. Let me strengthen my case by rewriting Awad’s telling paragraph the way a Socialist would write it:

Socialist law is a complex system of moral codes that governs all aspects of everyday life. More than simply “law” in the prescriptive sense, it is also the methodology through which Socialists engage with foundational religious texts searching for a way to implement collectivist obedience. For devout Socialists, Socialism governs everything from the way they eat to how they treat animals and protect the environment, to how they do business, how they marry and how their estate is distributed after death. Although the continued existence of national sovereignty challenges the premodern methodology of Communism, its current manifestations are either a source of legislation or actual law in many Christian countries and American states.

Question: Why would any American believe Muslims or Socialists? Both are working toward a totalitarian theocracy administered by their priests. To believe either is to disavow individual liberty.

As I’ve said countless times, Islam should be legally defined as a political movement in order to deny First Amendment protection, while Socialism should be legally defined as a religion so the First Amendment’s prohibition against a state religion can kick in.

 

[DriftingSand]

Good article and post. Lots of groups these days have aggressive agendas. Sooner or later things will come to a head and the result won't be pretty.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Islam is a religion. Period. That some Muslims are political involved is no different than Jews or Christians. If any religion's seeking to impose its values or theology onto government though it isn't Islam but Christianity. But unlike Islam, Christianity has already succeeded. Christianity denounces and persecutes Islam because it's threatening their strangle hold on government.

 

[hobelim]

Islam is a religion. Period. That some Muslims are political involved is no different than Jews or Christians. If any religion's seeking to impose its values or theology onto government though it isn't Islam but Christianity. But unlike Islam, Christianity has already succeeded. Christianity denounces and persecutes Islam because it's threatening their strangle hold on government.

Is it possible that Christianity, in spite of what is wrong with Christianity, denounces Islam because it is inherently evil, a violent, repressive, and barbaric religion based on the teachings of a false prophet who was a psychotic pedophile and delusional megalomaniac??

Its easy to see what is wrong, but can you see what is right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is good as long as the law permits all religions in this manner being subject to scrutiny in the public place.

 

[Flanders]

Islam is a religion. Period.

To Delta4Embassey: Were that true Islam would be voluntary and there would be no conflict between Muslims and Americans.

That some Muslims are political involved is no different than Jews or Christians.

To Delta4Embassey: It’s very telling that you singled out Christianity and Judaism. It’s nice misdirection, but the conflict for Americans is between Islam and the Constitution:

theocracy (noun)
plural theocracies

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

2. A state so governed.

In short, no American can believe in Islam and the:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If any religion's seeking to impose its values or theology onto government though it isn't Islam but Christianity. But unlike Islam, Christianity has already succeeded.

To Delta4Embassey: Practitioners of Christianity, Judaism, and so on have no trouble with the First Amendment, nor do they force participation in their religion.

Christianity denounces and persecutes Islam because it's threatening their strangle hold on government.

To Delta4Embassey: That’s a convoluted excuse for justifying theocracy.

Instead of demanding freedom of religion you accuse another religion of controlling the government. In so doing you all but admitted that controlling the government is what Muslims are after?

Also, non-Christians have as much, or more, input into our government than all of the Christian sects combined. That’s more than true when you factor in Anti-Christian Socialists.

Rather than persecute Islam, American Christians have shown a reluctance to fight the war Muslims started.

Incidentally, can you identify one place in the world where Christians, or Jews, are killing Muslims. And don’t cite the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There would be no bloodshed if Muslims stopped attacking Israelis. Instead of killing one another, just stay away from each other. Of course, Muslims cannot live with that solution.

One final observation. Were it not for petroleum wealth Muslims would be stuck in the twelfth century which is where they were until after WWI ended. They have nothing else to offer the civilised world. Parenthetically, energy-independence for America is another way of telling Muslims to take their oil and shove it.

This is good as long as the law permits all religions in this manner being subject to scrutiny in the public place.

To JakeStarkey: Please clarify your thoughts. I cannot make sense out of your response. I can’t even determine who your response is aimed at.

 

[bodecea]

This is good as long as the law permits all religions in this manner being subject to scrutiny in the public place.

Blue laws come to mind there.

 

[longknife]

I have a question:

Can anyone post a single POSITIVE about Islam?

 

[Flanders]

Blue laws come to mind there.

To bodecea: Where is there?

blue law (noun)

1. A law designed to regulate Sunday activities, such as shopping in retail stores.

2. One of a body of laws in colonial New England designed to enforce certain moral standards and particularly to prohibit specified forms of entertainment or recreation on Sundays.

Most blue laws in America were written before 1789. The First Amendment (1791) pretty much stopped Puritans from establishing a theocracy in America with more blue laws.

Socialists and Muslims write laws to enforce their moral standards. Those laws require absolute control of the government because they tell people what they must do rather than what they must not do as did puritanical blue laws of olde.

Except for alcohol, few Americans objected to retail stores doing business on Sundays. The history of the 20th century shows that Socialists have been replacing society’s fading blue laws with more stringent laws of their own. Basically, politically correct speech is a blue law in that politically incorrect speech is punishable.

When it comes to laws in this country Muslims are Johnnies-come-lately with their Sharia law.

I have a question:

Can anyone post a single POSITIVE about Islam?

To longknife: Muslims think they can!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Islam is a political movement...Islam thrives in theocracies.

Wrong again, as usual.

Islam thrives in the United States, which is not a theocracy – although you and many others on the right seek to make it one.

And as already correctly noted, Islam is indeed a religion, entitled to the same Constitutional protections as any other faith, where this ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.

 

[Mertex]

I have a question:

Can anyone post a single POSITIVE about Islam?

They pay taxes?

 

[Flanders]

Wrong again, as usual.

To C_Clayton_Jones: As usual, a halfwit makes his case by saying I’m wrong. Try showing why Islam is only a religion.

Islam thrives in the United States,

To C_Clayton_Jones: Infiltration is not the same as thriving.

And if it thrives as you claim why are Muslims always whining about discrimination?

which is not a theocracy –

To C_Clayton_Jones: It will be if Muslims get their way over time.

although you and many others on the right seek to make it one.

To C_Clayton_Jones: I, and many others, are committed to limited government; the separation of church and state, and individual liberties. Hardly the ingredients for a theocracy. Can a devout Muslim say the same?

And as already correctly noted, Islam is indeed a religion,

To C_Clayton_Jones: As already noted, Islam is a political movement more than it is a religion. Jihad, ending in a worldwide caliphate prove my case. That’s not an unfounded accusation. Muslim leaders openly state their goal.

I’m including this link for anyone who is interested in seeing how your “religion” operates politically under the First Amendment’s protection:

The American Caliphate
August 27, 2013 by Jim Fletcher

The American Caliphate | FrontPage Magazine

entitled to the same Constitutional protections as any other faith,

To C_Clayton_Jones: Political movements are not entitled to First Amendment protections.

where this ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.

To C_Clayton_Jones: I hope it is overturned by the lower courts so it can make its way to the Supreme Court where it stands a good chance of being defined as part of Islam’s political movement.

They pay taxes?

To Mertex: Not always:

If you are Muslim you can opt out of the Obamacare health care reform laws with no penalties
Gil Guignat

If you are Muslim you can opt out of the Obamacare health care reform laws with no penalties - Phoenix Small Business Management | Examiner.com

If you read this article you’ll see that the answer is yes:

Do Muslim Nonprofits Have it Easier Than Tea Party Groups? IRS Cracks Down on Tea Party Nonprofits
BY Maryam Khan Ansari
May 13, 2013

Do Muslim Nonprofits Have it Easier Than Tea Party Groups? IRS Cracks Down on Tea Party Nonprofits

 

[Flanders]

Note the “religion’s” politics and the infiltration (my emphasis):

“There is enough evidence to indict CAIR, but the government chose not to do so at this time,” said former FBI official John Guandolo, author of “Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America.”

He suggests the government balked at throwing the book at CAIR for political reasons.

CAIR has cultivated a number of political supporters, mainly among leading Democrats in Washington – including senior White House officials.

XXXXX​

Moreover, a controversial new rule issued earlier this month by the departments of State and Homeland Security to relax U.S. immigration for Palestinian and other foreign “refugees” who have provided “limited” material support to terrorists also dovetails with CAIR lobbying.

XXXXX​

. . . CAIR was created in 1994 by the U.S. branch of Hamas, known as the “Palestine Committee,” to function as the “political arm” of the Palestinian terrorist group.

And here comes the religion:

CAIR denies any ties to terrorism and slams Guandolo as an “Islamophobe” who seeks to deny constitutional rights for Muslim-Americans.

XXXXX​

In 2006, Guandolo developed the FBI’s first counter-terrorism training program focusing on the global Islamic jihad movement.

FBI agent: U.S. has evidence to indict CAIR for terror
Contends feds won't prosecute due to political reasons
Published: 6 hours ago

FBI agent: U.S. has evidence to indict CAIR for terror​

 

[DriftingSand]

Islam is a religion. Period. That some Muslims are political involved is no different than Jews or Christians. If any religion's seeking to impose its values or theology onto government though it isn't Islam but Christianity. But unlike Islam, Christianity has already succeeded. Christianity denounces and persecutes Islam because it's threatening their strangle hold on government.

LOL. Christianity has a "stranglehold" on Washington D.C.? You are kidding ... right? Are you talking about the Washington that forces states to accept "gay marriage" even when many states have voted it down or are you talking about the Washington that allows and promotes abortions for young, scared, and impressionable women? Perhaps you're talking about the Washington that forces certain institutions to remove any and all Christian symbolism from their lawns. Is that the sort of Christian "stranglehold" you're talking about?

 

[DriftingSand]

I have a question:

Can anyone post a single POSITIVE about Islam?

They pay taxes?

And they vote. A politician loves ANYONE who pays their salary and votes them into office regardless of beliefs or ideology. A politician needs a job so he's anything and everything to anyone and everyone.