Why Not Ban Muslims: Political Religions vs. Civil Obedience

[g5000]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree with part or all of the above? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this Short Link
Why Not Ban Muslims: Political Religions vs. Civil Obedience
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.

We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Well, in America, far right maniacs have been doing the most damage lately. As far as domestic terrorism goes.

So you have that going for you.

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

I haven't heard about any Christians flying jet airplanes into sky scrapers lately...perhaps my TV is broken???

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

I read the below post online, by someone commenting under an article trying to cite that Jefferson and Adams called for a "Ban on Muslims" because of beliefs in attacking other Nations (others contested this information as not accurate, if you would like to help clarify this point either way!):

"In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, thus US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

Ban Islam now or regret it later.

Most of the replies either agreed that Muslims were the problem, or argued Christians were equally abusive and dangerous if not worse.

To address both perspectives, I replied with the following response:
==========================================
Dear @AnimalMother the problem is not with regular religious Muslim followers and/or Christians who obey civil authority as instructed in the Bible. The problem is with Political Religions such as Islamists and Jihadists who don't respect civil laws of due process and separation of powers. These are not the same: regular religion is kept out of govt while political religion is embedded, not separated from govt, so it violates Constitutional laws and human rights to equal justice and protection of the laws, that Christians and Muslims believe in who follow the Bible and Civil Obedience.

The reason we haven't enforced laws against Political Religions is our Major Parties violate the same laws by acting as Political Religions. Until our leaders are willing to police their own abuse of Party to push Political Beliefs through govt such as Right to Life and Right to Health Care as optional beliefs, then we lose authority and ability to defend religious freedom, and to stop Jihadists or others from abuse of power to violate laws.
[In other words, we cannot expect to enforce laws that we ourselves are violating every day.]

We'd have to be consistent and crackdown on all Political Beliefs, Religions and Creeds, and agree to keep those out of govt and public policy to protect the democratic process and free choice of citizens under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
=====================================================================
I am posting my reply here, edited and in need of more.

Do you agree or disagree with part or all of the above? Is the problem of political oppression and violence caused by Muslims, Christians, or any political religion or party that gets abused to violate laws rights of others?

If you believe this is an important discussion, please copy paste and post this Short Link
Why Not Ban Muslims: Political Religions vs. Civil Obedience
and invite others to join in much needed reforms and corrections.

We need to stop this abuse by our own Parties if we are going to enforce the laws against
abuses by other political religions such as Jihadism and Islamist Terrorism that pushes beliefs through govt.

Thank you, and Have a Happy, Successful and Uplifting New Year 2019.
Let's work together to change the face of politics before we go into the 2020 Elections.

Well, in America, far right maniacs have been doing the most damage lately. As far as domestic terrorism goes.

So you have that going for you.

I wish there was a CLUELESS icon..like we had on Topix...

 

[Pogo]

I haven't heard about any Christians flying jet airplanes into sky scrapers lately...perhaps my TV is broken???

Ever heard of "Tim McVeigh"?

How 'bout Eric Rudolph?

How 'bout the Irish Republican Army? Or the Lord's Army?