In Search Of A Constitutional Definition For Islam

[Flanders]

Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​

XXXXX​

Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him​

Bill Federer calls Islam a “religious system” while I always defined Islam as a political movement. Federer points out something that I never considered: Islam is also a “political-military system”.

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.​

Federer is slightly off course on this one:

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.​

Our federal government does not have worldwide authority, but our Congress and our Courts do have the authority to define Islam as a political movement. To date, our LAWYERS promoted to the bench lacked the courage to face the threat from Islam. Perhaps Federer’s “political-military” definition will put some starch in their backbones. After all, the Constitution already protects Americans from Islam when the Constitution is enforced; so nobody is asking lawyers to legislate the same way 7 lawyers legislated infanticide.

Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.

A Course Change Is Unlikely​

Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”​

Finally, I have no use for the United Nations, or for its Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they have to be paid for with tax dollars. There is a long list of logical reasons for scrapping the United Nations. This excerpt adds Islam to the list —— not because Muslims rejected the UN’s Declaration, but because Muslims despise the very Rights our Constitution guarantees:

The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:​

Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom to change religions
Right to education
No slavery
No forced marriages
No torture
No inhumane punishment​

The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:​

the death penalty for those leaving Islam
punishing women who are victims of rape
allowing men to be polygamous
permitting wife beating
censoring speech insulting Islam​

The answer to this question is YES:

Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech?​

The answer to this question is NO because a political movement is not a religion:

Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion?​

The answer to this question is obviously YES:

Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?​

It all comes down to one thing. No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible. Irrespective of Islam’s inherent brutality, rejecting the evils of theocracy is more than enough reason to answer YES to the title question:

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?​

Please read Bill Federer’s entire piece to get so much more than I excerpted. He includes a lot about our Constitution, and details about Muslim slavery dating back to the 1600s.

 

[pinqy]

Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​

XXXXX​

Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him​

Bill Federer calls Islam a “religious system” while I always defined Islam as a political movement. Federer points out something that I never considered: Islam is also a “political-military system”.

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.​

Federer is slightly off course on this one:

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.​

Our federal government does not have worldwide authority, but our Congress and our Courts do have the authority to define Islam as a political movement. To date, our LAWYERS promoted to the bench lacked the courage to face the threat from Islam. Perhaps Federer’s “political-military” definition will put some starch in their backbones. After all, the Constitution already protects Americans from Islam when the Constitution is enforced; so nobody is asking lawyers to legislate the same way 7 lawyers legislated infanticide.

Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.

A Course Change Is Unlikely​

Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”​

Finally, I have no use for the United Nations, or for its Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they have to be paid for with tax dollars. There is a long list of logical reasons for scrapping the United Nations. This excerpt adds Islam to the list —— not because Muslims rejected the UN’s Declaration, but because Muslims despise the very Rights our Constitution guarantees:

The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:​

Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom to change religions
Right to education
No slavery
No forced marriages
No torture
No inhumane punishment​

The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:​

the death penalty for those leaving Islam
punishing women who are victims of rape
allowing men to be polygamous
permitting wife beating
censoring speech insulting Islam​

The answer to this question is YES:

Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech?​

The answer to this question is NO because a political movement is not a religion:

Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion?​

The answer to this question is obviously YES:

Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?​

It all comes down to one thing. No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible. Irrespective of Islam’s inherent brutality, rejecting the evils of theocracy is more than enough reason to answer YES to the title question:

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?​

Please read Bill Federer’s entire piece to get so much more than I excerpted. He includes a lot about our Constitution, and details about Muslim slavery dating back to the 1600s.

Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.

 

[jon_berzerk]

i have heard it that is both a religious and political institution

 

[midcan5]

And why would Islam be asked to do something different than all religions? Could it be bigotry and hate, the new America motto for the un-American American.

Sermons on Trump: http://nyti.ms/2eU3EXC

"The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen. Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election."

Noam Chomsky called this political moment 6 years ago

 

[Flanders]

Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.

To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment. Basically, a Christian goes to jail when they break a criminal law. No matter what a Muslim does to a non-Muslim they get away with it under Sharia law. Hell, brutalizing their own women and children in Muslim Countries is not even a crime.

And why would Islam be asked to do something different than all religions?

To Midca5: Because their political movement political-military system is engaging in war against America for openers.

 

[hazlnut]

Islam is either a religion or a political movement. Muslims cannot have it both ways.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/bill-aimed-in-the-wrong-direction.521719/​

XXXXX​

Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.

Give Him A Fair Trial Before You Hang Him​

Bill Federer calls Islam a “religious system” while I always defined Islam as a political movement. Federer points out something that I never considered: Islam is also a “political-military system”.

One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book. As Mohammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political-military leader, Sharia Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political-military system.​

Federer is slightly off course on this one:

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political-military example of Mohammad, when Sharia-practicing Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political-military allegiance to Mecca.​

Our federal government does not have worldwide authority, but our Congress and our Courts do have the authority to define Islam as a political movement. To date, our LAWYERS promoted to the bench lacked the courage to face the threat from Islam. Perhaps Federer’s “political-military” definition will put some starch in their backbones. After all, the Constitution already protects Americans from Islam when the Constitution is enforced; so nobody is asking lawyers to legislate the same way 7 lawyers legislated infanticide.

Violating the 1st Amendment by forcing every American to support the Socialist religion with tax dollars was bad enough, but allowing Muslims to kill Americans in order to advance their political movement disguised as a religion is high treason. Both Congress and the SCOTUS have stood by for decades well-knowing what is happening. So it is highly unlikely the SCOTUS and/or Congress will do anything about it now.

A Course Change Is Unlikely​

Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values presents a dilemma. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the foreword of the book “Law in the Middle East” (1955): “Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge … reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis (direct opposite) of Western law.”​

Finally, I have no use for the United Nations, or for its Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they have to be paid for with tax dollars. There is a long list of logical reasons for scrapping the United Nations. This excerpt adds Islam to the list —— not because Muslims rejected the UN’s Declaration, but because Muslims despise the very Rights our Constitution guarantees:

The United Nations adopted “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dec. 10, 1948, recognizing such basic human rights as:​

Freedom of opinion and expression
Freedom to change religions
Right to education
No slavery
No forced marriages
No torture
No inhumane punishment​

The leaders of 57 Islamic countries rejected the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, forming their own group called the OIC – Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The OIC passed in 1990 the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:​

the death penalty for those leaving Islam
punishing women who are victims of rape
allowing men to be polygamous
permitting wife beating
censoring speech insulting Islam​

The answer to this question is YES:

Should a nation grant freedom of speech to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of speech?​

The answer to this question is NO because a political movement is not a religion:

Should a nation grant freedom of religion to those whose ultimate goal is to abolish freedom of religion?​

The answer to this question is obviously YES:

Do Sharia-practicing Muslims want to demand freedoms for themselves, but not grant the same freedoms to others?​

It all comes down to one thing. No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible. Irrespective of Islam’s inherent brutality, rejecting the evils of theocracy is more than enough reason to answer YES to the title question:

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?
Posted By Bill Federer On 11/20/2016 @ 5:41 pm

Is Islam incompatible with U.S. Constitution?​

Please read Bill Federer’s entire piece to get so much more than I excerpted. He includes a lot about our Constitution, and details about Muslim slavery dating back to the 1600s.

Fuck off.

You christian phonies push all kinds of agendas.

You fuckers have it both ways.

Fucking ban your asses.

 

[Flanders]

You christian phonies push all kinds of agendas.

To hazlnut: Asshole. Research my messages to find out what I think about every organized religion.

 

[pinqy]

Do you have a similar opinion for Christianity? Many have told me that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. In which case it should have no legal protection as a religion. And many Christians want to exempted from civil rights laws, such as the right to beat their children, and the right to ignore civil rights laws.

To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment. Basically, a Christian goes to jail when they break a criminal law. No matter what a Muslim does to a non-Muslim they get away with it under Sharia law. Hell, brutalizing their own women and children in Muslim Countries is not even a crime.

And why would Islam be asked to do something different than all religions?

To Midca5: Because their political movement political-military system is engaging in war against America for openers.

Oh, like when Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis/St Paul refused to transport people with alcohol or dogs due to their religious beliefs and were fined and sanctioned versus Christians who refuse to serve homosexuals and get a political movement and legislation to protect their right to discriminate.

 

[Flanders]

I do not want to put a damper on the dreams and aspirations conservatives are placing in Neil Gorsuch, but I am reminded of the euphoria Chief Justice John Roberts spread like butter on a hot bagel. Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA. Instead, Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine. And let us not forget Earl Warren, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, conservatives all. My point. The Supreme Court is a crap shoot at best.

I freely admit that Gorsuch sounds good:

​

so what is to fear from Neil Gorsuch? Answer: He is just another lawyer, and a Harvard lawyer on top of it.

Parenthetically, I am always curious as to way wannabes never learn the Constitution from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Instead, they appear to learn from 20th century lawyers. Gorsuch cited Scalia and Thomas Jackson which is okay, but I would like to know why he reached into the grab bag and pulled out Jackson.

The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.​

Frankly, conservatives should ask Gorlsuch if he admires international tribunals? A yes answer is enough to vote against his confirmation:

Note that Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson took leave from the High Court to act as prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials. Today’s justices would be defending Muslims in a war crimes trial:

 

[LuckyDuck]

Bottom line in all of this is that the clause in our First Amendment whereby it cites that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion," is the weak link in our armor. Our founding fathers, not being familiar with Islam, didn't consider that a religion would be a combination of politics, religion and military aspirations and thus a force determined to wipe out all humans not bowing to it.
The only solution to this problem, at least that I can see, is sadly, a civil war.
A president can declare a national state of emergency and on doing so, suspend the Constitution. All that is needed would be multiple terrorist attacks committed simultaneously. Once the Constitution is suspended, troops can be dispersed to round up Muslims (excluding those who have lived here through several generations and are westernized) and forcibly remove them. Those that fight along with those that fight in support of them, wipe them out. After that, change the Constitution regarding that clause on religion.

 

[Flanders]

Bottom line in all of this is that the clause in our First Amendment whereby it cites that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion," is the weak link in our armor.

To LuckyDuck: Not so. Those words are the only barricade standing against every form of totalitarian government.

Government and organized religion will always plague mankind. The trick is to limit government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

The first 16 words in the First Amendment were designed to prevent any one religion dominating the others. No other country has, or ever had, such a powerful guard against the evils of human nature. In short: There will always be a legion of fools and parasites who believe that a benign totalitarian government is possible.

Our founding fathers, not being familiar with Islam, didn't consider that a religion would be a combination of politics, religion and military aspirations and thus a force determined to wipe out all humans not bowing to it.

To LuckyDuck: Again, not so. Our Founders understood Islam much better than the clowns in Washington today. These two links offer enough to prove my case:

Founding Fathers rip Obama’s Muslim ‘fabric’

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam

The only solution to this problem, at least that I can see, is sadly, a civil war.

To LuckyDuck: A civil war is more than possible, only the America-haters will start it.

There is not a chance that an attack will be planned and executed by ISIS or any Muslim military so long as he is president. The Muslim military has every reason to make Taqiyya the Liar & Company look like he is defending the country while between them they put their fifth column in place.

Just consider this if you are not convinced:

1. A Muslim fifth column is much more comprehensive than was the Soviet Union’s sleeper cells and Nazi Germany’s espionage agents.

2. There is not a chance Taqiyya the Liar will be accused of betraying the country after he is out of office. Not getting caught is an important component of his fifth column strategy.

3. Muslims pouring into this country will not be placed in internment camps as were Japanese Americans who were loyal Americans. Taqiyya the Liar’s Muslim immigrants, along with UN refugees, will have no loyalty to this country. As a matter of fact, some years ago, a thousand or so Muslims serving in the US military pledged that they would not kill another Muslim in battle. Today, they would desert faster than did Bowe Bergdahl.

4. Administration traitors are not the least bit concerned about lone wolf attacks like the Boston Bombers and Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The Chicago sewer rat will even look good when the intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials thwart an attack. So long as the public accepts lone wolf attacks the fifth column strategy remains hidden.​

Breaking The Nuclear Monopoly

Those that fight along with those that fight in support of them, wipe them out.

To LuckyDuck: You got that right.

After that, change the Constitution regarding that clause on religion.

To LuckyDuck: Enforcing it is easier. Reread the part about a political movement in #1 permalink.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Islam and The Constitution are not compatible. You can not have and serve to masters.

 

[pinqy]

Islam and The Constitution are not compatible. You can not have and serve to masters.

By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

 

[Flanders]

By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.

To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment.

To pingy: Bottom Line: Every priesthood is incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, every do-gooder who strives to live on tax dollars for doing nothing more than tell everybody how to behave is incompatible with the Constitution.

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

To Paparock: Colonial Americas were wise enough to separate religion from government.

No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

Protestant Christianity was the influence on the Founders.

 

[pinqy]

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

i have. I didn't say I thought it incompatible. Your claim was that one could not serve two masters: the Constitution and one's religion. Many Christians would say Jesus first, then the Constitution.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

By that logic, Christianity is incompatible with the Constitution.

To pingy: Be serious. American Christians always practiced their religion within the bounds of the First Amendment.

To pingy: Bottom Line: Every priesthood is incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, every do-gooder who strives to live on tax dollars for doing nothing more than tell everybody how to behave is incompatible with the Constitution.

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

To Paparock: Colonial Americas were wise enough to separate religion from government.

No American can believe in a theocracy and the U.S. Constitution.

You are not educated in the history of the United States or you would know the prominent and central role that Christianity in the writing and formation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. The writings of the Founding Fathers speak about this often and in depth for anyone who takes the time to study the subject. Congress authorized the first American printed English Bible in 1782. The Colonial Americans set forth Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion. You really should study and read the actual documents and the actual history; not talking points as I have..

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

i have. I didn't say I thought it incompatible. Your claim was that one could not serve two masters: the Constitution and one's religion. Many Christians would say Jesus first, then the Constitution.

Jesus himself said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G_d what is G_d's. I for one think I can differentiate the difference having walked that path firsthand for the last 67 years and having served in the U.S. Army from 1971-1973 in Air Defense and again in the only.Texas National Guard U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Unit in the United States.

 

[pinqy]

Quite the contrary according to the Federalist Papers Our founding Fathers felt that Christianity was a foundation necessity for the very survival of the United Sates! Have you not studied American History, the Federalist Papers and the connection of Christianity to the founding of the United States?

i have. I didn't say I thought it incompatible. Your claim was that one could not serve two masters: the Constitution and one's religion. Many Christians would say Jesus first, then the Constitution.

Jesus himself said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G_d what is G_d's. I for one think I can differentiate the difference having walked that path firsthand for the last 67 years and having served in the U.S. Army from 1971-1973 in Air Defense and again in the only.Texas National Guard U.S. Army Airborne Infantry Unit in the United States.

And you have never encountered nor heard of Christians who thought that Jesus should come first? Especially in Texas?