Trump said he might have to close Mosques :D

[oreo]

So you are that dumb.

The Supremacy Clause has nothing whatsoever to donwith religion. Nothing at all. It certainly in no way shape or form makes any religion, including islam, illegal and it certainly does not allow for the closing of mosques.
That you somehow think it does is just idiotic. You would fail any civics class with ridiculous notions like that

I didn't say it had anything to do with religion. I said it has to do with SUPREMACISMS (of which Islam is by far, the largest), most well known, and longest running. You get a ZERO in Constitutional law.

PS-Most people around the world do not accept Islam to be a religion. Neither do some countries (Ex. Italy)

There's no doubt there is a problem with Islam. Here is a very good article on this that everyone should read.

In detail: Sunnis vs. Shiites

 

[ogibillm]

i'm not comfortable speaking for other's faiths, but i do believe that muslims believe that god's laws are above those of man.

however, shariah law is not universal in its content or application. i do believe that muslims believe everyone should be a muslim - just like christians believe everyone should be christian.
your turn.

So you admit that "muslims believe that god's laws are above those of man" That's what I've been saying all along. Muslims insist on their Sharia law as being above the laws of man (the US Constitution) That's what makes Islam illegal. In America, NOTHING is allowed to be above the Constitution.

"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6, Section 2)

How is that different than my belief as a Christian that God's laws are above man's?

Is Christianity illegal too?

 

[protectionist]

How is that different than my belief as a Christian that God's laws are above man's?

Is Christianity illegal too?

If Christianity was supremacist it would be. But it's not.

 

[amrchaos]

...Any refugee that is against ISIS or Assad's regime can be accepted...

Which is not the same as MUST be accepted.

It's our country - we can let-in whomever-the-hell we want - and we can keep out whomever-the-hell we want.

Why?

Because it's ours.

No other reasoning is required.

I was talking about the error in suggesting that a religious test is necessary to accept refugees. What are you talking about?

 

[amrchaos]

A number of European socialist government are considering shutting mosques where radical sentiments have been voiced, urging jihad. They are also considering deportation of clerics known to preach jihad and demand Sharia be the rule of the land.

They are also considering moving into "no go" zones to open them up to reestablish law and order within them.

Some Constitutions of nations are flexible enough to do that.

Bill of rights--that is an American innovation! Not ever Republic has a a bill of rights or list the exact same rights.

Bill of Rights doesn't trump the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause trumps everything in the Constitution.

Does the Supremacy Clause exist in the Constitution of every Republic? No.


Then you should avoid using other Republics as an example for ours.

 

[ogibillm]

How is that different than my belief as a Christian that God's laws are above man's?

Is Christianity illegal too?

If Christianity was supremacist it would be. But it's not.

I just told you that as a Christian i believe god's laws are superior and avove the laws of man.

Isn't that why you say muslims are supremacists?

 

[protectionist]

Does the Supremacy Clause exist in the Constitution of every Republic? No.

Then you should avoid using other Republics as an example for ours.

I don't know what you're talking about .

 

[protectionist]

I just told you that as a Christian i believe god's laws are superior and avove the laws of man.

Isn't that why you say muslims are supremacists?

No. It is because, unlike the Christians, the Muslims" DOCTRINE is supremacist (the Koran, fatwas, the Project, Explanatory Memorandum, etc)

 

[Flopper]

How is that different than my belief as a Christian that God's laws are above man's?

Is Christianity illegal too?

If Christianity was supremacist it would be. But it's not.

I think there are number of biblical scholars that argue with you on that point.

 

[protectionist]

I think there are number of biblical scholars that argue with you on that point.

Yeah ? So let's hear their argument, then.

 

[ogibillm]

I think there are number of biblical scholars that argue with you on that point.

Yeah ? So let's hear their argument, then.

Acts 5:29

 

[NYcarbineer]

I just told you that as a Christian i believe god's laws are superior and avove the laws of man.

Isn't that why you say muslims are supremacists?

No. It is because, unlike the Christians, the Muslims" DOCTRINE is supremacist (the Koran, fatwas, the Project, Explanatory Memorandum, etc)

The Koran is a storybook, just like the Bible. Few people take either literally.

 

[Boss]

By refuting you mean completely ignored, yeah sure you refuted it.

But if you are using the actual definition then nowhere in your insane ramblings have you refuted it. You cannot deny first amendment protection. Period.

I don't know what you're even talking about. Doesn't make any sense. You think the 1st Amendement stops the Supremacy Clause from outlawing supremacisms ? You think it doesn't do that ? What's the matter ? You don't understand English ? It says > This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (Not Islam or its Sharia law)

I most certainly CAN cannot deny first amendment protection, and most certainly do just that, when the first amendment activity is illegal and unconstitutional. You are trying to push a very weak argument, which I already thoroughly refuted earlier in the thread. You seem to have not read the earlier posts, or you wouldn't be making such foolish statements. As I said before, (since you're too lazy to read the earlier posts >>

The very weak 1st amendment has numerous exceptions to it, and the main exception to it, is from the Supremacy Clause, that does not allow religion (or anything else) to be supreme over the Constitution. Amendment One - Religion, also is exceeded by US Codes 2384 & 2385, which forbid sedition and overthrowing govt (religion or no religion).

Overall, Amendment One is a joke, compared to the Supremacy Clause. Amendment One is riddled with exceptions every step of the way. Just look at free speech. Exceptions >> Slander, libel, perjury, inciting a riot, yelling fire in a crowded theater, disturbing the peace, fighting words, threats, obscenity laws, child pornography, etc, etc. In contrast, to this very weak part of the Constitution, the strongest part of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), has NEVER had a single exception to it, in all 226 years of its existence.

All you're doing here is adding to the stupidity of other posters who also tried to say the same thing you're saying now. You carry no weight here.

There is only one opinion that really matters in interpreting the constitution and that's the Supreme Court. One would have to be totally disconnected from reality to believe the court would not block closing American Mosques because they may harbor terrorist.

That's the really cool thing about Executive Orders. They can be implemented immediately while SCOTUS cases can take years to work their way up. It's how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and FDR interned the Japanese... read some fucking history, ass munch.

This is a tiny bit different, colon chewer. Rump is not a POTUS, he's a (pretend) candidate. And by flagrantly exhibiting this level of contempt for as basic a foundation of this country as the First Amendment is, he's just eliminated himself from any legitimate chance of having the office.

Imagine a candidate who declared he might have to have government take over the media (including this message board). Same thing. Or a candidate who declared he'd suspend the Second Amendment and make all guns illegal. Again, same thing. Run down the document anywhere you like -- a candidate that says he would bring back slavery. Or make alcohol illegal again. Or take away the right to vote for women. Etc etc etc.

The first thing, literally the first thing a POTUS has to do is swear to uphold the Constitution; in this statement Rump admits he can't even take the fucking oath of office. And that's literally Day One.

I am dreadfully sorry you misunderstand how the political process works in America. I actually like your idea though... we should appoint presidents on the basis of their exhibition of knowledge on the Constitution. Of course, Obama and Hillary along with most every liberal would never get anywhere near the Oval Office... but... good idea nonetheless! No more voting in lockstep for your ideological hacks... just mandatory and rigorous constitutional testing.

In Trump's defense, the Constitution does not grant religion the right to advocate violence. It's not a violation of the 1st to prohibit the Waki-Waki from sacrificing virgins to the volcano. You are only free to exercise your religion as long as it doesn't directly violate someone else's constitutional rights. Advocating death to Jews and Infidels kind of violates some constitutional rights. If mosques are preaching Sharia and anti-American vitriol they need to be shut down and run out of this country... and if pissants like you want to defend them, you need to go too.

 

[Pogo]

n Trump's defense, the Constitution does not grant religion the right to advocate violence. It's not a violation of the 1st to prohibit the Waki-Waki from sacrificing virgins to the volcano. You are only free to exercise your religion as long as it doesn't directly violate someone else's constitutional rights. Advocating death to Jews and Infidels kind of violates some constitutional rights. If mosques are preaching Sharia and anti-American vitriol they need to be shut down and run out of this country... and if pissants like you want to defend them, you need to go too.

Too bad none of that is relevant to this issue. The thread's about mosques, not "Waki Waki" and not hair-on-fire bullshit you pedantically parrot from the Pam Gellers.

I defend my Constitution and especially my First Amendment. If you have a prob with that, you should go, not me.

 

[ogibillm]

Come on protectionist, tell me why Acts 5:29 doesn't mean Christianity holds God's laws above those of man

 

[protectionist]

The Koran is a storybook, just like the Bible. Few people take either literally.

That couldn't be more wrong. At least 60% of all Muslims have the potential to be jihadists by way of their fundamentalist voting patterns. That is to say, Islam has grown substantially closer to its salafi, and thus terrorist, roots over the past decade. It is safe to say that 750 million Muslims are fundamentalists trying to follow Allah's orders and Muhammad's example. And as fundamentalists, they are potential jihadists.

 

[protectionist]

Come on protectionist, tell me why Acts 5:29 doesn't mean Christianity holds God's laws above those of man

Christianity is a religion (separate from man's political system) Islam is a political ideology, with the goal of replacing the current political system (Ex. the Muslim Brohterhood's Explanatory Memorandum)

 

[protectionist]

Too bad none of that is relevant to this issue. The thread's about mosques, not "Waki Waki" and not hair-on-fire bullshit you pedantically parrot from the Pam Gellers.

I defend my Constitution and especially my First Amendment. If you have a prob with that, you should go, not me.

You don't seem to be defending the Supremacy Clause, while being OK with the existence of supremacisms.

 

[ogibillm]

Come on protectionist, tell me why Acts 5:29 doesn't mean Christianity holds God's laws above those of man

Christianity is a religion (separate from man's political system) Islam is a political ideology, with the goal of replacing the current political system (Ex. the Muslim Brohterhood's Explanatory Memorandum)

that's your opinion, and the opinion is irrelevant. you were claiming that islam supremacist in that the followers believe god's laws to be above man's. i've shown you that christians believe the same thing.

why do you think then that islam somehow violates your bizarre interpretation of the supremacy clause but christianity does not?

also political speech is protected by the first amendment - even speech that calls for changes to or even replacement of the constitution

 

[protectionist]

Come on protectionist, tell me why Acts 5:29 doesn't mean Christianity holds God's laws above those of man

Christianity is a religion (separate from man's political system) Islam is a political ideology, with the goal of replacing the current political system (Ex. the Muslim Brohterhood's Explanatory Memorandum)

that's your opinion, and the opinion is irrelevant. you were claiming that islam supremacist in that the followers believe god's laws to be above man's. i've shown you that christians believe the same thing.

why do you think then that islam somehow violates your bizarre interpretation of the supremacy clause but christianity does not?

also political speech is protected by the first amendment - even speech that calls for changes to or even replacement of the constitution

Didn't read your post.

All I'm interested in now is THIS >> Dog Reunited With Owners - Was Lost 2.5 Years | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum