More Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Hate from the Far Right

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque

The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration

The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group

In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law

So what the hell are you bleating about?

Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost

Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

 

[MindWars]

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just playing a sick game. Nobody could really be that stupid


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.

I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck up

What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.

What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The First Amendment says that sharia should be protected, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You lose, hosebag.

I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck up

What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.

What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

Do u know what punctuation is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MindWars]

I'll tell you what wise guy, provide us with an example of when and where someone was given an exemption from criminal law when committing a crime in he name of religious freedom and citing the first amendment. Otherwise shut the fuck up

What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.

What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

Do u know what punctuation is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO

 

[MindWars]

What I'm saying is that if you go by the Constitution, sharia and hand chopping... should be allowed. That we haven't allowed it yet is a different matter, as we don't always adhere to things we sign on to.

What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

Do u know what punctuation is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO

And when I get gram. nazi's or punctuation nazi's it makes me not know what it is even more intentionally because it URKS the fk out of them....................!!!?????///....... lol

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What I'm saying is that you have an abysmal understanding of the Constitution and our system of laws and government. Your concrete thought process does not allow you to understand that no rights, no freedoms are absolute -and that includes religious freedom. Quite frankly , never before have I heard anything as stupid as the theory that the 1st A. allows Muslims to chop off someone's hand. Under Jewish law- a man may marry a niece or cousin. Does that supersede civil law where that is prohibited?

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

Do u know what punctuation is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO

And when I get gram. nazi's or punctuation nazi's it makes me not know what it is even more intentionally because it URKS the fk out of them....................!!!?????///....... lol

No matter. It would still be incoherent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MindWars]

The Constitution says so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Where does it say that some stuff is exempted?

Their religious rights will trump our Constitution that's what ppl don't understand our Const. will mean nothing haven't you noticed immigrants are getting prosecuted here , they get sent back and come right back over the border again.

Do u know what punctuation is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO

And when I get gram. nazi's or punctuation nazi's it makes me not know what it is even more intentionally because it URKS the fk out of them....................!!!?????///....... lol

No matter. It would still be incoherent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well sad to say I suppose that is your problem and not mine. Esp. since you think everything I post is full of shit to begin with.

 

[Mudda]

Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost

Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

 

[MindWars]

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:


Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

Omar Ahmad, co-founder the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), made his anti-Christian bias crystal clear in a July 4, 1998 San Ramon Valley Herald article in which Ahmad stated "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America."
This philosophy, commonly dubbed Sharia law, is being systematically implemented right under our American noses and in a multitude of local venues.

KEY WORD HERE IS UNITED NATIONS and Until the average sheep realizes how the UN has DICTATED OUR LAWS under OBAMA you won't understand how our Constitution will mean jack shit.............until we rein it back in.


The United Nations calls for countries to accept 180,000 Syrian Refugees as ISIS says they're using refugees as a Trojan Horse: Vox News, a hard left-leaning media company founded by one of President Obama's "favorite journalists," led the charge with multiple articles directly attacking any American who believes in a secure border while calling for up to 1 million Syrian refugees to be allowed into country.

You will not hear of this in the media. Even though there are hundreds "no-go zones," in Europe, and they are beginning to appear in the United States, the media is not permitted to report on this development. Even though they are likely breeding grounds for jihad where sharia governs, the media in places, like Dearborn, Michigan, is silent. In fact, even Fox News was forced to apologize after a commentator labeled parts of Europe no-go zones.



Life in Dearbornistan

Dearborn, Michigan, is a portend of what is coming across our country.

Slightly more than 30% of Dearborn's 95,000 residents are Arab-American or of Arab descent (PDF). Rather than let their religion stand as a shining example of an exemplary American subculture, the collective actions of the Muslims in Dearborn suggest a desire to extinguish all other forms of worship in the same manner that Cair's co-founder, Oma Ahmad, has called for. Critics of the Muslim takeover of Dearborn have pointed to the fact that McDonald's serves halal meat, business signs are bilingual, and every diner serves hummus. These developments do not concern me. What concerns me is the total disregard that this community is displaying towards the rights of others and their disregard has escalated to the level of life-threatening behaviors. Further, the civil authority in Dearborn is doing nothing to protect victimized Christians in its community.

Over the past week, I have watched three videos which demonstrate the preferential treatment that Muslims receive in Dearborn and how the police tolerate unchecked violence directed at Christians. The videos and their accompanying stories were not chosen based upon sensationalism. Rather, they were chosen for their representatives of what Christians can expect by living in this community.



Dearborn City Council Demonstrates Religious Preference for Muslims

The city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to become the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. Sharia Law addresses secular law including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet, and hygiene.

Does this mean that those who steal will have limbs cut off? Will adulterers be stoned? Will honor killings be sanctioned on American soil? How far will this madness be allowed to penetrate the American culture.

Radicalism Spread beyond Dearborn- Muslim Radical Attacks Christian Street Preacher in Front of a Cop with Impunity in Tampa

This case should concern every American because it shows how radical Islamic abuse of Christians has been allowed to spread beyond the city limits of Dearborn. The following video contains a head butt that went on unpunished and this was all caught on tape. "Street Preacher" is attacked by Muslim while preaching at a Lady Gaga Concert. The police not only ignore the head butt attack, but they actually charged the Christian with battery. They would not view the video, nor did they talk to any of the witnesses.






Sharia Law Is Attempting to Replace the U.S. Constitution - Freedom Outpost

 

[MindWars]

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:


Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

It all comes down to this...........as said before Their religion will be used to Trump our Constitution and it can be done in multiple ways. Without it ever looking like the Constitutional rights were violated or not violated.
This Government is basically rewriting our Const. without the dumbed down public even realizing it is happening. Obama style.

The FIREST AMED. should NOT apply to them or anybody else until OFFICIALLY an American.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:


Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?

In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

In addition, case law-court decision add the body of Constitutional law. A SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed. Furthermore::

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law. » Limits of Religious Freedom

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

Omar Ahmad, co-founder the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), made his anti-Christian bias crystal clear in a July 4, 1998 San Ramon Valley Herald article in which Ahmad stated "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America."
This philosophy, commonly dubbed Sharia law, is being systematically implemented right under our American noses and in a multitude of local venues.

KEY WORD HERE IS UNITED NATIONS and Until the average sheep realizes how the UN has DICTATED OUR LAWS under OBAMA you won't understand how our Constitution will mean jack shit.............until we rein it back in.


The United Nations calls for countries to accept 180,000 Syrian Refugees as ISIS says they're using refugees as a Trojan Horse: Vox News, a hard left-leaning media company founded by one of President Obama's "favorite journalists," led the charge with multiple articles directly attacking any American who believes in a secure border while calling for up to 1 million Syrian refugees to be allowed into country.

You will not hear of this in the media. Even though there are hundreds "no-go zones," in Europe, and they are beginning to appear in the United States, the media is not permitted to report on this development. Even though they are likely breeding grounds for jihad where sharia governs, the media in places, like Dearborn, Michigan, is silent. In fact, even Fox News was forced to apologize after a commentator labeled parts of Europe no-go zones.



Life in Dearbornistan

Dearborn, Michigan, is a portend of what is coming across our country.

Slightly more than 30% of Dearborn's 95,000 residents are Arab-American or of Arab descent (PDF). Rather than let their religion stand as a shining example of an exemplary American subculture, the collective actions of the Muslims in Dearborn suggest a desire to extinguish all other forms of worship in the same manner that Cair's co-founder, Oma Ahmad, has called for. Critics of the Muslim takeover of Dearborn have pointed to the fact that McDonald's serves halal meat, business signs are bilingual, and every diner serves hummus. These developments do not concern me. What concerns me is the total disregard that this community is displaying towards the rights of others and their disregard has escalated to the level of life-threatening behaviors. Further, the civil authority in Dearborn is doing nothing to protect victimized Christians in its community.

Over the past week, I have watched three videos which demonstrate the preferential treatment that Muslims receive in Dearborn and how the police tolerate unchecked violence directed at Christians. The videos and their accompanying stories were not chosen based upon sensationalism. Rather, they were chosen for their representatives of what Christians can expect by living in this community.



Dearborn City Council Demonstrates Religious Preference for Muslims

The city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to become the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. Sharia Law addresses secular law including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet, and hygiene.

Does this mean that those who steal will have limbs cut off? Will adulterers be stoned? Will honor killings be sanctioned on American soil? How far will this madness be allowed to penetrate the American culture.

Radicalism Spread beyond Dearborn- Muslim Radical Attacks Christian Street Preacher in Front of a Cop with Impunity in Tampa

This case should concern every American because it shows how radical Islamic abuse of Christians has been allowed to spread beyond the city limits of Dearborn. The following video contains a head butt that went on unpunished and this was all caught on tape. "Street Preacher" is attacked by Muslim while preaching at a Lady Gaga Concert. The police not only ignore the head butt attack, but they actually charged the Christian with battery. They would not view the video, nor did they talk to any of the witnesses.






Sharia Law Is Attempting to Replace the U.S. Constitution - Freedom Outpost

Debunked bovine excrement!

 

[Mudda]

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?

In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

In addition, case law-court decision add the body of Constitutional law. A SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed. Furthermore::

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law. » Limits of Religious Freedom

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

Actually, the Founding Fathers put NO limits on the First Amendment. So what SCOTUS is doing is usurping our Constitution for their own preferences. So why bother to follow the Constitution in the first place? The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed. It'll creep in, one aspect at a time, if it hasn't already. They obviously won't start by chopping someone's hand off, lol. But check out Dearborn, Michigan on google, the Muslim Britain-like ghettos have already started here.

 

[MikeK]

Could you imagine the US having anti-Catholic rallies when all the IRA stuff was going down. It is ignorant, bigoted, hateful and wrong.

The IRA was in no way hostile toward or posed the slightest level of threat to the U.S. or the American people. Can you say the same for the vast majority of Muslim insurgents?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

Omar Ahmad, co-founder the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), made his anti-Christian bias crystal clear in a July 4, 1998 San Ramon Valley Herald article in which Ahmad stated "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America."
This philosophy, commonly dubbed Sharia law, is being systematically implemented right under our American noses and in a multitude of local venues.

KEY WORD HERE IS UNITED NATIONS and Until the average sheep realizes how the UN has DICTATED OUR LAWS under OBAMA you won't understand how our Constitution will mean jack shit.............until we rein it back in.


The United Nations calls for countries to accept 180,000 Syrian Refugees as ISIS says they're using refugees as a Trojan Horse: Vox News, a hard left-leaning media company founded by one of President Obama's "favorite journalists," led the charge with multiple articles directly attacking any American who believes in a secure border while calling for up to 1 million Syrian refugees to be allowed into country.

You will not hear of this in the media. Even though there are hundreds "no-go zones," in Europe, and they are beginning to appear in the United States, the media is not permitted to report on this development. Even though they are likely breeding grounds for jihad where sharia governs, the media in places, like Dearborn, Michigan, is silent. In fact, even Fox News was forced to apologize after a commentator labeled parts of Europe no-go zones.



Life in Dearbornistan

Dearborn, Michigan, is a portend of what is coming across our country.

Slightly more than 30% of Dearborn's 95,000 residents are Arab-American or of Arab descent (PDF). Rather than let their religion stand as a shining example of an exemplary American subculture, the collective actions of the Muslims in Dearborn suggest a desire to extinguish all other forms of worship in the same manner that Cair's co-founder, Oma Ahmad, has called for. Critics of the Muslim takeover of Dearborn have pointed to the fact that McDonald's serves halal meat, business signs are bilingual, and every diner serves hummus. These developments do not concern me. What concerns me is the total disregard that this community is displaying towards the rights of others and their disregard has escalated to the level of life-threatening behaviors. Further, the civil authority in Dearborn is doing nothing to protect victimized Christians in its community.

Over the past week, I have watched three videos which demonstrate the preferential treatment that Muslims receive in Dearborn and how the police tolerate unchecked violence directed at Christians. The videos and their accompanying stories were not chosen based upon sensationalism. Rather, they were chosen for their representatives of what Christians can expect by living in this community.



Dearborn City Council Demonstrates Religious Preference for Muslims

The city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to become the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. Sharia Law addresses secular law including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet, and hygiene.

Does this mean that those who steal will have limbs cut off? Will adulterers be stoned? Will honor killings be sanctioned on American soil? How far will this madness be allowed to penetrate the American culture.

Radicalism Spread beyond Dearborn- Muslim Radical Attacks Christian Street Preacher in Front of a Cop with Impunity in Tampa

This case should concern every American because it shows how radical Islamic abuse of Christians has been allowed to spread beyond the city limits of Dearborn. The following video contains a head butt that went on unpunished and this was all caught on tape. "Street Preacher" is attacked by Muslim while preaching at a Lady Gaga Concert. The police not only ignore the head butt attack, but they actually charged the Christian with battery. They would not view the video, nor did they talk to any of the witnesses.






Sharia Law Is Attempting to Replace the U.S. Constitution - Freedom Outpost

Hilarious: Army Veteran Debunks Conservative "Sharia Law" Claims | HuffPost

Satirical website makes up ‘article’ on sharia law for humor; City of Dearborn not amused by falsehood; sets record straight

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?

In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

In addition, case law-court decision add the body of Constitutional law. A SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed. Furthermore::

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law. » Limits of Religious Freedom

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

Actually, the Founding Fathers put NO limits on the First Amendment. So what SCOTUS is doing is usurping our Constitution for their own preferences. So why bother to follow the Constitution in the first place? The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed. It'll creep in, one aspect at a time, if it hasn't already. They obviously won't start by chopping someone's hand off, lol. But check out Dearborn, Michigan on google, the Muslim Britain-like ghettos have already started here.

I don't care what the founders intended. Deal with what is now. You asked me how freedom of religion is limited and I educated you about it. You don't like the answer so now you are going to pull a logical fallacy known as moving the goal post and make it about the founders intent.

Suppose you re-write the first A. in a way that you think it should be. Let's see what you got.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Mudda]

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

Omar Ahmad, co-founder the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), made his anti-Christian bias crystal clear in a July 4, 1998 San Ramon Valley Herald article in which Ahmad stated "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America."
This philosophy, commonly dubbed Sharia law, is being systematically implemented right under our American noses and in a multitude of local venues.

KEY WORD HERE IS UNITED NATIONS and Until the average sheep realizes how the UN has DICTATED OUR LAWS under OBAMA you won't understand how our Constitution will mean jack shit.............until we rein it back in.


The United Nations calls for countries to accept 180,000 Syrian Refugees as ISIS says they're using refugees as a Trojan Horse: Vox News, a hard left-leaning media company founded by one of President Obama's "favorite journalists," led the charge with multiple articles directly attacking any American who believes in a secure border while calling for up to 1 million Syrian refugees to be allowed into country.

You will not hear of this in the media. Even though there are hundreds "no-go zones," in Europe, and they are beginning to appear in the United States, the media is not permitted to report on this development. Even though they are likely breeding grounds for jihad where sharia governs, the media in places, like Dearborn, Michigan, is silent. In fact, even Fox News was forced to apologize after a commentator labeled parts of Europe no-go zones.



Life in Dearbornistan

Dearborn, Michigan, is a portend of what is coming across our country.

Slightly more than 30% of Dearborn's 95,000 residents are Arab-American or of Arab descent (PDF). Rather than let their religion stand as a shining example of an exemplary American subculture, the collective actions of the Muslims in Dearborn suggest a desire to extinguish all other forms of worship in the same manner that Cair's co-founder, Oma Ahmad, has called for. Critics of the Muslim takeover of Dearborn have pointed to the fact that McDonald's serves halal meat, business signs are bilingual, and every diner serves hummus. These developments do not concern me. What concerns me is the total disregard that this community is displaying towards the rights of others and their disregard has escalated to the level of life-threatening behaviors. Further, the civil authority in Dearborn is doing nothing to protect victimized Christians in its community.

Over the past week, I have watched three videos which demonstrate the preferential treatment that Muslims receive in Dearborn and how the police tolerate unchecked violence directed at Christians. The videos and their accompanying stories were not chosen based upon sensationalism. Rather, they were chosen for their representatives of what Christians can expect by living in this community.



Dearborn City Council Demonstrates Religious Preference for Muslims

The city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to become the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. Sharia Law addresses secular law including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet, and hygiene.

Does this mean that those who steal will have limbs cut off? Will adulterers be stoned? Will honor killings be sanctioned on American soil? How far will this madness be allowed to penetrate the American culture.

Radicalism Spread beyond Dearborn- Muslim Radical Attacks Christian Street Preacher in Front of a Cop with Impunity in Tampa

This case should concern every American because it shows how radical Islamic abuse of Christians has been allowed to spread beyond the city limits of Dearborn. The following video contains a head butt that went on unpunished and this was all caught on tape. "Street Preacher" is attacked by Muslim while preaching at a Lady Gaga Concert. The police not only ignore the head butt attack, but they actually charged the Christian with battery. They would not view the video, nor did they talk to any of the witnesses.






Sharia Law Is Attempting to Replace the U.S. Constitution - Freedom Outpost

Hilarious: Army Veteran Debunks Conservative "Sharia Law" Claims | HuffPost

Satirical website makes up ‘article’ on sharia law for humor; City of Dearborn not amused by falsehood; sets record straight

Sheesh! Go stick your head back in the sand.

 

[Mudda]

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?

In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

In addition, case law-court decision add the body of Constitutional law. A SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed. Furthermore::

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law. » Limits of Religious Freedom

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

Actually, the Founding Fathers put NO limits on the First Amendment. So what SCOTUS is doing is usurping our Constitution for their own preferences. So why bother to follow the Constitution in the first place? The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed. It'll creep in, one aspect at a time, if it hasn't already. They obviously won't start by chopping someone's hand off, lol. But check out Dearborn, Michigan on google, the Muslim Britain-like ghettos have already started here.

I don't care what the founders intended. Deal with what is now. You asked me how freedom of religion is limited and I educated you about it. You don't like the answer so now you are going to pull a logical fallacy known as moving the goal post and make it about the founders intent.

Suppose you re-write the first A. in a way that you think it should be. Let's see what you got.

I don't have to rewrite it, it already allows hand chopping. A future SCOTUS will eventually have to agree.

 

[Billo_Really]

lol. There's no such Constitution right to your hand. But there is a Constitutional right for the person getting their hand chopped off to get it chopped off, if he or she so desires. I could have my hand chopped off today and nobody would care.

You are correct. When it comes to your hands, it's your call. But you can't decide to chop my hands off; that's not your call. And there is no judge in the country that could make that call. The Constitution protects persons against cruel and unusual punishment. And I don't think anyone would argue chopping someone's hands off against their will is not cruel and unusual.