CDZ Could using Islam as a political philosophy make trumps ban constitutional?

[Syriusly]

Yea it is a religion. But it is also a political system. A political system, that in its entirety, must conquer anything that opposes it.
This thread is about a way to diminish the first amendment argument.

TY for the clarification. Let me think about that for a while. For now, I need to finish reading the two documents I noted earlier.

The 1st Amendment cannot be diminished without a Declaration of War. However, make all immigrants to accept in statement and writing that shari'a is inferior to American law. That we can do.

Why ask Jewish immigrants to sign a statement saying that Sharia is inferior to American law?

Instead- ask all immigrants to confirm that they accept that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law in the United States and that they will not act in anyway contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, immigrants to the U.S. already swear to do what your asking as follows:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
​

What more can they swear to that has any worth?

Thank you- I agree.

 

[320 Years of History]

The 1st Amendment cannot be diminished without a Declaration of War. However, make all immigrants to accept in statement and writing that shari'a is inferior to American law. That we can do.

What would be the point of that? That's the case already in U.S., whether they sign such a document or not.

The overwhelming Muslims in the U.S. who appeal to Sharia Law and Imams do so mainly to resolve domestic matters for which there is no requirement for them to invoke U.S. common law means of redress. In matters like spousal abuse, which may (seem to) fall into a "murky" area if the abused person doesn't opt to (for whatever reason) seek secular redress, if a police officer or other individual gets wind of its having possibly occurred, s/he can, absent the abused person's consent, bring the matter into the U.S. justice system as needed, at which point Sharia Law instantly becomes subordinate to U.S. secular laws.

Since you mentioned Sharia Law, I suspect you're familiar with the various conservative opinion outlets that have over the past year or so referred to the responses obtained in a couple polls taken by the Center for Security Policy, itself another promulgator of opinion. For now, I'll just suggest you look objectively, as someone who wants to obtain complete and contextually relevant information, at what the questions in the CSP polls ask and what they don't ask. Then examine what inferences and assertions are (have been) made in the conservative opinion press follow from the questions asked, but that also present the answers in the context that non-Muslim would understand, and without also noting the context in which a Muslim would perceive the question.

A Hypothetical Example of What I Mean:
Suppose Christians were polled and one of the questions is "Are Jesus' commandments superior to secular law?" Assuming 51% or more of Christians surveyed answered yes, some political group with an axe to grind would surely assert something like "most Christians think Biblical law should supercede the Constitution."

Yet having been a Christian for a long time, were I asked that question, I would impose my own contextual relevance to the question. One possible context is that I think Jesus' law to "love one's neighbor as oneself" is more important than anything in the Constitution. Another context I might apply is that I see the law "thou shall not murder's" having been given in the Bible superior to the fact that the U.S. code of laws contains the same prohibition.

An reader of an opinion piece who doesn't well understand Christianity and how it is applied by my "flavor" of Christian belief would all but certainly have no idea of either of those contextual reads to the question that I applied. It is that same stance of ignorance that most Western non-Muslims are necessarily in when it comes to evaluating the precious few questions in the CSP surveys. I was certainly in exactly that position earlier this year when I became happened upon some of what I was hearing/reading from conservatives about what U.S. Muslims think re: Sharia Law and its application.

It took me quite a lot of reading to arrive at a place whereby I have a sense of how a Muslim may have construed the questions the CSP asked, but when I had finished my research, I saw that how they likely viewed the inquires and how I viewed them were very, very different. What I'm saying is that one must, if one considers oneself equitable and intellectually rigorous, some legitimately critical research and analysis needs to happen before one even considers putting stock in the results of the CSP's surveys about what Muslims think about Sharia Law.

What the CSP says the responses mean and what undoubtedly most U.S. Muslims would say they had in mind when answering the questions aren't in fact the same things. That sort of discrepancy isn't uncommon in polls issued by groups that have a political "axe to grind."

Thank you- that was a very well written post of your position.

Thank you...Hopefully the ideas came through effectively and that's what you refer too because, having just now reread it, I realize the grammar in it is atrocious. I apologize for that.

I didn't proofread my remarks before posting them and I had several interruptions over the course of writing it. That's not an excuse, but rather an explanation, for there is no excuse for not checking it before posting it. I had the time and ability to proofread it; I quite simply didn't. Perfunctory.

 

[TNHarley]

Coyote
I made a thread about this

 

[TNHarley]

RodISHI

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI

Nah, I am not into debate. You need someone with a truly legalistic mind trained to debate with such ignorance and one who has the time to waste on people without any God given common sense. Good luck finding such a person.

 

[TNHarley]

RodISHI

Nah, I am not into debate. You need someone with a truly legalistic mind trained to debate with such ignorance and one who has the time to waste on people without any God given common sense. Good luck finding such a person.

I was just pointing you out to this thread I made. Seemed very relevant. Was wondering about your opinion

 

[RodISHI]

RodISHI

Nah, I am not into debate. You need someone with a truly legalistic mind trained to debate with such ignorance and one who has the time to waste on people without any God given common sense. Good luck finding such a person.

I was just pointing you out to this thread I made. Seemed very relevant. Was wondering about your opinion

I'll try to read through it later.

 

[Pogo]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

I don't remember ever seeing this thread before but it came up in my "watched" list so I guess I must have been here --- so at the risk of repeating the same point, Islam is a religion. Like Christianism or Judaism or Hinduism. You can't change it into a "political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc" by posting a strawman on a message board.

 

[TNHarley]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

I don't remember ever seeing this thread before but it came up in my "watched" list so I guess I must have been here --- so at the risk of repeating the same point, Islam is a religion. Like Christianism or Judaism or Hinduism. You can't change it into a "political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc" by posting a strawman on a message board.

Yes, and you proved you know nothing about islam. You just feel the need to argue

 

[Pogo]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

I don't remember ever seeing this thread before but it came up in my "watched" list so I guess I must have been here --- so at the risk of repeating the same point, Islam is a religion. Like Christianism or Judaism or Hinduism. You can't change it into a "political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc" by posting a strawman on a message board.

Yes, and you proved you know nothing about islam. You just feel the need to argue

Guilty as charged.

But I do know a strawman when I see it.

 

[TNHarley]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

I don't remember ever seeing this thread before but it came up in my "watched" list so I guess I must have been here --- so at the risk of repeating the same point, Islam is a religion. Like Christianism or Judaism or Hinduism. You can't change it into a "political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc" by posting a strawman on a message board.

Yes, and you proved you know nothing about islam. You just feel the need to argue

Guilty as charged.

But I do know a strawman when I see it.

I bet you do, big boy. I bet you do

 

[2aguy]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

His 90 day temporary hold on immigration from those 7 countries is already Constitutional......that power is vested in the Executive Branch by both the Constitution and by legislation........the judge, a democrat put on the bench by Bush.....and the 9th circuit....left wing activists in robes....are wrong....

 

[TNHarley]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc
Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

His 90 day temporary hold on immigration from those 7 countries is already Constitutional......that power is vested in the Executive Branch by both the Constitution and by legislation........the judge, a democrat put on the bench by Bush.....and the 9th circuit....left wing activists in robes....are wrong....

This was about when he was just talking about banning muslims. Notice the date.

 

[Mac1958]

Islam is a political philosophy, legal system, hygiene system etc.. Could that be used to make Trumps ban constitutional? I know people argue the first and it limits the government. Which, I agree with(thanks Jarhead). So what about this?

That's an interesting thought.

They would have had to come with this out of the gate and carefully build a strong case from the ground up. Of course, the usual suspects would have made it about religion all along, but at least there would have been a foundation to fall back on.

Instead, they jumped too hard and too fast and mangled it.
.