Litmus Test for Muslims Running for Political Office in the US

He was born and raised a Christian and he was not forced to renounce his faith.

Huh?

 

And through most those centuries, wives and daughters were the legal property of their husbands and fathers.

I do.

Yes.

Always? If possible, the couple should come to an arrangement that would be in the best interest of the children. Barring that, each case should be decided on its own merits, with the children's interest primary.

Yes.

As a gender-specific title, that would be inappropriate; First Gentleman would be comparable.

 

I don't pretend to know the answers, but to allow terror cells footholds and expansion on American soil is unacceptable, at least to me.

 

We are a democracy, but we are also a republic, a nation of laws and one of our laws says that no particular religion shall be favored over any other or none at all. The Supreme Court acts as a check on the other two branches.

That's not true - we can impose economic sanctions and withhold trade; when that fails we can invade and depose their government.

When you institute protections against those who are not threatening you (eg, people praying in airports), well, that way lies badness.

No one but the terrorists want terror cells here, but to exclude all Muslims, even those fleeing the excesses at home, is not the answer.

 

Let's see if I understand this:

Even though

1. Allowing Muslims to erect Mosques and pray 5 times daily introduces millions of folks who do not believe John 14:6, and.........

even though

2. Allowing anywhere up to 25 million persons from south of our border who represent Catholicism mixed with cultism to enter and live off we taxpayers, and..........

even though

3. Our nation will soon become unrecognizable as a Nation of Christians, with traditional American values going down the tubes,

we are to welcome them.

Is that about right?

 

Please read the comment in context. No one mentioned extermination - the Hitleresque" idea referred to his containment camps, which have been advocated on the board.

 

Anyone here legally should be wlecomed.

 

http://sagebrushpatriot.com/america.htm​

OK, everyone legal should be welcome. I can hear it now: Hispanos, the majority population, teaching their children the Quran and the Hadis under penalty of death if they don't; separate water fountains and restrooms for non-Muslims; beheadings of non-Muslims; non-Muslims banned from colleges and universities; Wahabisim taught from age 2 in local mosques; the blare of calls to prayer 5 times daily; women in burkas........ it will be a time for real brotherhood, Islamofacist style. Sisterhood? Out of the question.

Ken will either join up with them, or be one of those caught hiding behind a tree.

 

Ken is correct. You are not, Don. Sorry, but the facts are the facts.

 

Here are some of the facts..........



http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009498

"Jihadis thus neither recognize national boundaries within the Islamic lands nor do they believe that the coming Islamic state, when it is created, should have permanent borders with the unbelievers. The recognition of such boundaries would end the expansion of Islam and stop offensive jihad, both of which are transgressions against the laws of God that command jihad to last until Judgment Day or until the entire earth is under the rule of Islamic law."

"The theocratic and totalitarian ideology that characterizes al Qaeda makes typical negotiations impossible. "Anyone who stands in the way of our struggle is our enemy and target of the swords," said Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the late leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. Osama bin Laden put it this way: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

"Their version of political utopia is Afghanistan under the Taliban, a land of almost unfathomable cruelty. The Taliban sought to control every sphere of human life and crush individuality and human creativity. And Afghanistan became a safe haven and launching pad for terrorists."

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also declared his absolute hostility to America. Last October, he said, "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved . . . I say that this . . . goal is achievable." In 2006 he declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh . . . if you do not abandon the path of falsehood . . . your doomed destiny will be annihilation." Later he warned, "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes [America and the West] should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region."

 

So back to the question - do you REALLY want to set a precedent of violating the constitution with a religious test for office seekers? Or, do want an amendment to change the "no religious test" clause.

Remember the precedent you will set if your proposals become law.

As our nation already reached the point when one who supports and defends the Constitution is seen as liberal and un-American?

 

Mention containment camps and I think of what we did to the Japanese.

Mention Hitler, and I envision extermination camps.

 

OK Roger, we've all shot our wads on this so........Exactly how would you deal with radical Islamists, in America, that desire to kill us?

 

Anyone who breaks the law should be arrested. Period.

 

No, they received worse.

 

If they break the law - arrest them and punish them to the full extent of the law.

Part of what makes a country great is innocence until proven guilty. Are there dangers in that - of course.

We CANNOT just start depriving people of their rights because of their race, religion, or heritage. If we do America is no longer free and the terrorist have won.

 

Talk about oxymoron. Facts from an Opinion Journal. :smilewinkgrin: