No, Muslims Should NOT Be Allowed To Serve In Public Office

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

8 million muslims in the US or more, we should have at least couple of bombings a day, don't you think? Or maybe the Las Vegas shooter, sandy hook shooter, Florida school shooter and dozens of mass massacres were orchestrated by white Christians who converted to Islam.

Your overestimation hardly matters. It took ONE Muslim to kill 13 soldiers in Fort Hood, TX, and wound 35 more. It took ONE to kill 49 people in the Pulse Club in Orlando, FL. It took just 19 to kill about 3,000 people in New York, Wash, DC and PA.

And it might take less than that to kill tens of millions in nuclear attacks in major US cities.

With Islam it isn't the numbers that matter. It is the insanity of the ideology.

Islamic terrorism is an issue, but far from the worst.

I certainly don't want Muslims here.

Still, the Muslims aren't the worst.

That title belongs to the Kosher Globalists.

You dont get to decide who stays and who goes.

8 million muslims in the US or more, we should have at least couple of bombings a day, don't you think? Or maybe the Las Vegas shooter, sandy hook shooter, Florida school shooter and dozens of mass massacres were orchestrated by white Christians who converted to Islam.

Your overestimation hardly matters. It took ONE Muslim to kill 13 soldiers in Fort Hood, TX, and wound 35 more. It took ONE to kill 49 people in the Pulse Club in Orlando, FL. It took just 19 to kill about 3,000 people in New York, Wash, DC and PA.

And it might take less than that to kill tens of millions in nuclear attacks in major US cities.

With Islam it isn't the numbers that matter. It is the insanity of the ideology.

Islamic terrorism is an issue, but far from the worst.

I certainly don't want Muslims here.

Still, the Muslims aren't the worst.

That title belongs to the Kosher Globalists.

You dont get to decide who stays and who goes.

Not your call either.

I'm sure Arabs wouldn't appreciate millions of White Christians immigrating to Arabia.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.

Oh yeah Western Europe is shit because they have not. Soon it will be third world countries where violence by the right religion is to be expected and ignored. Islam is a cancer.

Sure, and the Globalists both created the Islamic Refugee crisis like W. Bush, Obama & Putin, and allowed them in like Merkel, May, and Macron.
(Among others)

 

[Rigby5]

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture,

The verse of the Sword comes to mind.That is it in a nutshell. Islam must dominate and it matters not how they go about it. Again there are no positives for the non-Muslim. They are not considered part of humanity. Your texts say so. You need to do some reading.

Of course Muslims want to dominate in Muslim countries, but that is normal self defense.
Would you want someone to emigrate and take over the US?
Of course not.
You want to dominate the US, just as Muslims want to dominate Muslim countries,

I am talking about what Islam says. I could care less what Muslims say. But it comes in handy when they lie.

The Quran is very clear, there can be no compulsion over religion.
Muslims never force anyone to convert or harm them because they are of a different religion.
Jews and Christians have always traveled through Muslim countries without harm.
Muslims harm no one except in defense, and they do not have empires like the US does.
They do not invade foreign countries or attempt to colonize them economically.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear protectionist
As a fellow Constitutionalist I agree with you
when you are talking about POLITICAL RELIGIONS.

Because "Islam" is used to mean different things, the language would
have to be SPECIFIC in complaining and barring POLITICAL RELIGION.
Otherwise there are legal complications if terms are OVERLY BROAD
(and any lawyer with knowledge of the system could get that THROWN OUT).

You and I AGREE that POLITICAL RELIGIONS should be kept out of govt.
So let's stay SPECIFIC and CLEAR so there is no room
to throw out arguments because of "technical errors."

And YES I am asking to WORK WITH YOU to SET UP A COALITION
to get POLITICAL RELIGIONS BELIEFS and CREEDS BARRED FROM GOVT.

protectionist: Which Congressional, State, District or Party leaders do you
most closely connect with? May I please work with you, and any other leaders
you would bring together on this, so we can CRAFT AND DRAFT A RESOLUTION. I'd like to use it to present to and unite leaders of various parties.

There is no need to craft resolution(s). The resolution to criminalize Islam's supremacism over the Constitution was already crafted over 200 years ago by our founding fathers. it is Article 6, Section 2, part 1 of the Constitution (aka "the Superemacy Clause") It is the strongest part of the entire Constitution. Unlike other parts such as the 1st Amendment (which has numerous exceptions), the Supremacy Clause has NEVER had a single exception to it, in over 200 years.

Of course not. Because if anything was allowed to be an exception to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution would no longer be Supreme. If an exception had been made for Islam, then Islam could claim supremacy over everything in America, and it would rule the country (as it seeks to do 24/7).

But thankfully, our founding fathers wrote it into the Constitution that the Constitution and laws of the USA, are the "supreme law of the land"

The only problem with all this is that, this doctrine (like much immigration law these days) is NOT ENFORCED. If it were enforced (as it should be) there would not be a single mosque, Koran, or Islamic center in America, anywhere.

I appreciate your insight. Too bad so many posters in this thread are not up to your level and mine.

Yes protectionist
Part of the problem of WHY people are pushing political religions/beliefs into Govt
is we/they DON'T have an AGREED UNDERSTANDING and committed RESOLUTION
AGAINST pushing political beliefs in Govt but ENFORCING Constitutional limits.

Even our Govt and Party Leaders are pushing Unconstitutional policies
by lobbying and promising to ESTABLISH THEIR PARTY BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

That practice in itself SHOULD be denounced as fraudulent, misrepresentation of terms/laws,
and/or "conspiracy to violate civil rights" of citizens whose beliefs would be infringed upon,
discriminated against, violated or penalized.

Obviously protectionist we DON'T have a public agreement on this principle.

And we NEED one.

My friends with both the Constitution Party and some Libertarians/independent Greens
want to "decentralize" and quit pushing so much controls through federal govt.

You can bet that's why these individuals end up fighting battles alone and
get alienated by their own parties that want to keep pushing beliefs through govt.

I say we draft and promote a resolution on POLITICAL BELIEFS
and call for a Constitutional conference with just Party leaders and members
WHO AGREE to enforce Constitutional laws and limits that would
PRECLUDE this pattern of pushing political beliefs through govt by partisan collusion.

Yes it's already in the Constitution and should ALREADY be enforced. Agree!

But in order to get more people on the same page with ENFORCING existing laws,
we should start with a RESOLUTION signed by complainants of different PARTIES
so that we BRING THESE GRIEVANCES and CORRECTIONS to the corrupt,
abusive leaders and members who are using their collective organizations
to VIOLATE Constitutional laws and principles as you and I have both listed out.

Thank you protectionist
Whatever group(s) you are with, I would like to work
from there, and ask other groups to join in as well.

We can petition to the public and party leaders/members/donors/supporters
to ENFORCE the Constitutional laws as cited, and QUIT imposing
Political Religions, Beliefs and Creeds above the law of the land that otherwise
protects all people equally regardless of creed from discrimination or establishment.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

That is silly because Evangelical Christians did far worse.
For example, we illegally invaded Iraq for no reason at all, and murdered a least half a million innocent civilians.

ISIS murdered that number and more, with the help of America's only Muslim jihadist president, Barrack Obama.

Eh, about as many killed in Syria as Iraq.
And then there's Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen & Iraq another time.

Basically, we've probably created the death of some 3 - 6 million Muslims in the Mid-East thus far.... Both directly, and indirectly.

They the Kosher Globalists are going to prey upon Hicks / Rednecks to manipulate for this, as they already have.

Of course Hicks being bestial savages, and violent predators fall for it every time.... Just look at this forum as proof.

Hicks aren't a heck of a lot better than the Islamists.
In fact, I think except the most extreme ones like perhaps ISIS, you're actually worse.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

They are also less of a threat than Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists who espouse a Dominionistic philosophy of biblical rule over secular government.

Tell me when Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists did these things >>

While these attacks might be particularly shocking, they're not particularly concerning in the overall picture.
For example, Vietnam took far more Americans being nearly 60,000
&
Since the 1970's about 600,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans (Mostly)

A lot of people suspicious of 9/11, and the Boston bombers being false flags.

Even if they were legit, which is very much possible.
(But, I wouldn't rule out the possibility for a False flag)
9/11 was a great pretext for war in the Mideast.

Apparently a good deal of people knew about 9/11 before it happened, so it looks like even if the Islamists did it, that most likely the USA government let it happen.

 

[emilynghiem]

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Everything you are saying is a lie. But I've already stated that a few times. How could anything you say NOT be a lie ?

You're a jihadist, and you're mission here in this thread is to lie, and hope that some of these airheads who know nothing about Islam and jihad may believe you. Ho hum. yawn******

That is an obvious lie.
Muslims have been incredibly pacifist.
They have been invaded, beaten, killed, the homes taken, but the British, French, Zionists, and US.
Rarely do they even try to fight back.
They are not attacking anyone.
They are trying to just get us to stop attacking them.

Dear Rigby5 and protectionist
You are CLEARLY talking about two totally separate populations
and groups of "Muslims"

Perhaps it would be better to clarify that
* Jihadists and SALAFIS are the sect of "Muslims" that go TERRORIST,
wage war on civilians during peacetime, commit human rights violates
and genocide by violently violating civil laws protecting people by due process,
and take justice and war into their own hands by declaring themselves
Judge, Jury and Executioner with NO regard or respect for lawful civil govt

Let's agree to call this group JIHADISTS
which is the MOST extreme violent, dangerous and ILLEGAL Political religion/cults

* ISLAMIC/ISLAMISTS refer to oppressive dictatorships taking over Govt to
impose their REGIME under the guise of lawful government.

This is ALSO a POLITICAL RELIGION that mixes church/religious authority
with state/political/govt authority laws and process.

Also very dangerous and oppressive.
Let's agree to call this group ISLAMIC or ISLAMIST
if it involved MANDATING Islamic beliefs/laws INTO GOVT LAWS
MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE under that govt reach or jurisdiction.

* Lastly, and what Rigby5 was trying to address
the CIVIL "MUSLIMS" who respect Civil laws/authority
and Christian Scriptural laws/authority.

To prevent from talking about 2-3 different groups all called "Muslims"
can we agree to specify which Political Religion/Religious group:
* JIHADIST or SALAFIS (includes violent militant terrorists committing illegal attacks)
* ISLAMIC or ISLAMIST (oppressive political/govt regimes that abuse that power)
* MUSLIMS who respect both Christian Scriptural Authority and Civil Authority

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

3. In general, your argument would work by making a distinction between
* Islamic POLITICAL BELIEFS/RELIGION which would violate the First Amendment
* Muslim religious affiliation of individuals that are NOT a political religion
and do not preclude someone from fulfilling Constitutional duty

Your writing at first blush seems completely reasonable but if you look at the actual details you can see where the fault lies. Are you even aware that the first amendment is a prohibition (restriction) on our government and NOT on the person practicing (or not) their religious faith? Because I don't have a clue what constitutional "duty" you're referring to and upon whom you believe it is conferred by our Constitution.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Protectionist knows nothing about the constitution.

Understatement of the year

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I guess I need to say that I know exactly what I'm talking about on this entire subject. You, like most bigots, are just speaking out of fear and a sense of powerlessness. Not conducive to rational discourse.

I guess I need to say that I know exactly what I'm talking about on this entire subject, having studied it thoroughly in dozens of books and thousands of their footnoted reports, for 18 years now,

You, like most ignoramuses, are just speaking out of ignorance, the result of not putting in the time and effort to research and know this subject, even fundamentally. I knew more about this subject back in 2002, after reading just 1 book and a few of its footnoted reports, than you know know.

If you want to find out if this is true, it's simple, just go ahead and take my Islamization Quiz, which I prepared myself, and have given it to ignorant posters for years in this forum (if you've got the guts). You'll quickly find out how much you don't know, and that YOU are the one who is not ready for rational discourse on this subject.

I'd be interested in seeing your quiz. Can I take it online or do you have to send it to me?

 

[IM2]

Dear protectionist
As a fellow Constitutionalist I agree with you
when you are talking about POLITICAL RELIGIONS.

Because "Islam" is used to mean different things, the language would
have to be SPECIFIC in complaining and barring POLITICAL RELIGION.
Otherwise there are legal complications if terms are OVERLY BROAD
(and any lawyer with knowledge of the system could get that THROWN OUT).

You and I AGREE that POLITICAL RELIGIONS should be kept out of govt.
So let's stay SPECIFIC and CLEAR so there is no room
to throw out arguments because of "technical errors."

And YES I am asking to WORK WITH YOU to SET UP A COALITION
to get POLITICAL RELIGIONS BELIEFS and CREEDS BARRED FROM GOVT.

protectionist: Which Congressional, State, District or Party leaders do you
most closely connect with? May I please work with you, and any other leaders
you would bring together on this, so we can CRAFT AND DRAFT A RESOLUTION. I'd like to use it to present to and unite leaders of various parties.

There is no need to craft resolution(s). The resolution to criminalize Islam's supremacism over the Constitution was already crafted over 200 years ago by our founding fathers. it is Article 6, Section 2, part 1 of the Constitution (aka "the Superemacy Clause") It is the strongest part of the entire Constitution. Unlike other parts such as the 1st Amendment (which has numerous exceptions), the Supremacy Clause has NEVER had a single exception to it, in over 200 years.

Of course not. Because if anything was allowed to be an exception to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution would no longer be Supreme. If an exception had been made for Islam, then Islam could claim supremacy over everything in America, and it would rule the country (as it seeks to do 24/7).

But thankfully, our founding fathers wrote it into the Constitution that the Constitution and laws of the USA, are the "supreme law of the land"

The only problem with all this is that, this doctrine (like much immigration law these days) is NOT ENFORCED. If it were enforced (as it should be) there would not be a single mosque, Koran, or Islamic center in America, anywhere.

I appreciate your insight. Too bad so many posters in this thread are not up to your level and mine.

Yes protectionist
Part of the problem of WHY people are pushing political religions/beliefs into Govt
is we/they DON'T have an AGREED UNDERSTANDING and committed RESOLUTION
AGAINST pushing political beliefs in Govt but ENFORCING Constitutional limits.

Even our Govt and Party Leaders are pushing Unconstitutional policies
by lobbying and promising to ESTABLISH THEIR PARTY BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

That practice in itself SHOULD be denounced as fraudulent, misrepresentation of terms/laws,
and/or "conspiracy to violate civil rights" of citizens whose beliefs would be infringed upon,
discriminated against, violated or penalized.

Obviously protectionist we DON'T have a public agreement on this principle.

And we NEED one.

My friends with both the Constitution Party and some Libertarians/independent Greens
want to "decentralize" and quit pushing so much controls through federal govt.

You can bet that's why these individuals end up fighting battles alone and
get alienated by their own parties that want to keep pushing beliefs through govt.

I say we draft and promote a resolution on POLITICAL BELIEFS
and call for a Constitutional conference with just Party leaders and members
WHO AGREE to enforce Constitutional laws and limits that would
PRECLUDE this pattern of pushing political beliefs through govt by partisan collusion.

Yes it's already in the Constitution and should ALREADY be enforced. Agree!

But in order to get more people on the same page with ENFORCING existing laws,
we should start with a RESOLUTION signed by complainants of different PARTIES
so that we BRING THESE GRIEVANCES and CORRECTIONS to the corrupt,
abusive leaders and members who are using their collective organizations
to VIOLATE Constitutional laws and principles as you and I have both listed out.

Thank you protectionist
Whatever group(s) you are with, I would like to work
from there, and ask other groups to join in as well.

We can petition to the public and party leaders/members/donors/supporters
to ENFORCE the Constitutional laws as cited, and QUIT imposing
Political Religions, Beliefs and Creeds above the law of the land that otherwise
protects all people equally regardless of creed from discrimination or establishment.

Protectionist is a white supremacist. Read his postings for yourself and see.

 

[TRFjr]

A year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.

First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).

Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)

Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc

Article 6 of the US Constitution forbid any religious test. So there is the whole unconstitutional thing. But once you can ignore the US Constitution, your witch hunt should be fine.

which brings up the subject of democrats questioning the religious beliefs of Christian judges nominated to the courts

 

[Unkotare]

Placing the worship of Islam ahead of, and possibly in conflict with, the interests of the United States is disqualifying for serving the interest of the United States.

Placing loyalty to the Pope ahead of, and possibly in conflict with, the interests of the United States is disqualifying for JFK serving the interest of the United States.

memba that?

When did JFK do that exactly?

He didn’t, jackass, that’s the point.

Then write more coherently you wimp.

That doesn't make sense. What does coherent writing have to do with "wimp"? Are you sure you aren't just frustrated about something?

 

[irosie91]

What percentage of Muslims are terrorists?

Why do you ask ?

our dear sobie is MATHEMATICALLY minded

 

[irosie91]

Omar entered a false marriage to aid her brother in getting citizenship. She was already married with children to another man also named Ahmed. Maybe she got the two confused?

maybe she liked both

 

[irosie91]

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 8:12 - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Issa-----I have both worked with and socialized with muslims from MANY DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD. My hubby was born with "DHIMMIE"
status into a community that had existed in the same land for more than 1000 years before muhummad was born and managed to survived the PACT OF UMAR-----for another millennium.------I did get to hear from his older relatives before they died about THEIR experiences ------if you have any questions about the actual ETHOS of Islamic social systems-----feel free to ask.

 

[Lysistrata]

A year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.

First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).

Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)

Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.​

I would think that this preposterous idea would violate both the non-establishment clause and the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.​

THAT is the troubling argument used by the Left that anti-Islamic sentiment is discrimination based on RELIGION when it is not. Islam is not a religion but rather a form of government, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true avowed Islamist sworn to Sharia Law to also uphold the U.S. Constitution.

AS IT IS, we already have numerous Latino officials in Congress who actively advocate for Central Americans and their interests over those of Americans! People advocating for interests which work for foreign interests or against the best interests of America are effectively committing TREASON as a traitor and a subversive and need dealt with thusly.

Islam is a religion whether you like it or not. Your statement that "it is IMPOSSIBLE for a true avowed Islamist sworn to Sharia Law to also uphold the U.S. Constitution" can be applied equally to those Christians who seek to establish a government in the U.S. that follows "biblical law" or Canon Law or claim that the U.S. is a "Christian nation."

Regardless of your dramatic use of your caps lock, you are misusing the term "treason" to mean someone's actions that hurt your feelings or don't conform to your opinions.

 

[irosie91]

I have no problem with Muslims serving in elected office as long as they adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

That's like saying I have no problem with thunder as long as it is silent.

There's no such thing as Muslims adhering to the Constitution. The Constitution requires supremacy to it (Article 6, Section 2, part 1) Islam requires supremacy to it.

Two things cannot be supreme, simultaneously. By definition, supreme means ONE THING above ALL else.

So 8 millions of muslims that have lived and respected the law...how they have been doing it ?

That is no excuse for what the religion teaches. Recently in Philly Muslim children were singing about beheading infidels. There is a video. Peaceful Muslims are not the problem.

Peaceful muslims? Lol so if 0.0001% of muslims commit a bobo there is a problem in Islam? Than most muslims are not really muslims ? Lol

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.
But non muslims are killing thousands each year here in the US, and some sweet cute Christian fanatics are busy killing people in synagogues, mosques, churches, schools, etc....

the people who murder in synagogues and mosques and churches are not called
HEROES -----or "HOLY SHAHID" in Christian society. Their surviving families are not ADULATED Their mothers are not PAID FOR LIFE FOR CONTRUBUTION TO THE GLORY OF CHRISTENDOM as muslimah slut mamas who produce daughters who tie bombs to their whore asses for the purpose of murdering children are ADULATED FOR SERVICE TO ALLAH. Try to face reality. For those who do not know-------the Islamic threat "we are so many that if we WANTED to kill you all we could-------so KISS OUR ASSES" is ubiquitous

I first heard it more than 50 years ago------were I 200 years old----I would have known about it longer

 

[protectionist]

Dood, that is some twilight zone stuff.
Drew McCoy on Twitter

Good way to describe jihadist lunacy.

 

[Terri4Trump]

A year ago, there was a thread entitled >> "Do Republicans believe a Muslim should be allowed to serve in public office if elected?" I'm now answering that by saying No, Republicans don't believe Muslims should be allowed to serve in public office, elected or not. Furthermore, no American should be OK with Muslims serving in public office.

First of all, in America, Islam is sedition, by virtue of it's supremacism, which is in violation of the Constitution (article 6, section 2, part 1-the Supremacy Clause).

Secondly, Islam is an ideology (masquerading as a religion), which advocates (if not commands) the violation of scores of US laws, including some of the most serious felonies (ex. murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, sex discrimination)

Not only should Muslims not be part of government in America, but Islam should not exist in America, period. There should be no mosques, no Korans, no Islamic centers, etc

Islam is not compatible with Western Liberty.