PDA

View Full Version : Warning: Why Islam is NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!



Evmetro
01-30-2017, 04:32 PM
Just came across this cool article and had to post it here for community to read:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/islam-is-not-a-religion

Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?

Common Sense
01-30-2017, 04:33 PM
Lol...it's not an "article". It's an idiotic hate site.

Beevee
01-30-2017, 04:37 PM
The OP doesn't even hide the fact that all his threads are baiting of liberals.
My response to the article - No comment.

waltky
01-30-2017, 05:22 PM
So's dey'll know Mohammed Muhammad, the terrorist from Muhammed Mohammud, the tourist...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif
Pentagon making list of Iraqis who worked alongside U.S. forces after travel ban
Mon Jan 30, 2017 | WASHINGTON The Pentagon was creating a list of Iraqis who had worked alongside U.S. troops, which will be passed to agencies implementing President Donald Trump's executive order restricting entry for people from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries, a spokesman said on Monday.


A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Captain Jeff Davis, said that over the weekend the White House had "provided the opportunity" to submit names. "There are a number of people in Iraq who have worked for us in a partnership role, whether fighting alongside us or working as translators, often doing so at great peril to themselves," Davis told reporters. "We are ensuring that those who have demonstrated their commitment tangibly to fight alongside us and support us, that those names are known in whatever process there is going forward," he added.


http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170130&t=2&i=1170757443&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXMPED0T18U
A masked translator for the U.S. soldiers distributes peace pamphlets as they inspect a road repair project in Baghdad

It was unclear when the list would be complete and how many names it would include. Trump's order suspending travel, which he signed on Friday, sparked anger in Iraq, where more than 5,000 U.S. troops are deployed to help Iraqi and regional Kurdish forces in the war against the Islamic State militant group.

Iraq asked the United States on Monday to reconsider the travel ban on its citizens, taking a more diplomatic line than the Iraqi parliament, which demanded the government retaliate. The Iraqi parliament called on the government to impose "similar treatment" on U.S. nationals.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-defense-idUSKBN15E276

See also:

Wall Street falls the most this year as Trump honeymoon sours
Mon Jan 30, 2017 | Major U.S. stock indexes posted their largest drop so far in 2017 on Monday as investors worried that a curb on immigration ordered by Donald Trump was a reminder that some of the U.S. president's policies are not market-friendly.


An executive order issued by Trump on Friday banned immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, including legal residents and visa holders, and temporarily halted the entry of refugees. Over the weekend, thousands of people rallied in major U.S. cities and at airports in protest. U.S. equities had hit a series of record highs following Trump's election in November, encouraged by his promise of tax cuts and simpler regulations. "Investors focused on the pro-growth of (Trump's) proposals and not those detrimental to economic activity, like protectionism," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at First Standard Financial in New York.

He said investors wore blinders to only see the market-friendly policies Trump spoke about during the campaign and the immigration ban was a reminder of actions he could take that could undermine the economy. Technology, a sector which has openly opposed bans on immigration and hurdles to hiring foreign talent, weighed the most on the S&P 500. The Dow Jones Industrial Average .DJI fell 122.65 points, or 0.61 percent, to close at 19,971.13, the S&P 500 .SPX lost 13.79 points, or 0.60 percent, to 2,280.9 and the Nasdaq Composite .IXIC dropped 47.07 points, or 0.83 percent, to 5,613.71. It was the largest daily percentage drop for the Dow since October, while the S&P and Nasdaq dropped the most since late December.


http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170130&t=2&i=1170778272&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPED0T1FB
Trader Peter Tuchman gestures as he talks on the phone following the resumption of trading following a several hour long stoppage on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York

Earlier, Trump signed an executive order that would seek to pare back federal regulations by requiring agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new rule introduced. In an event with small business leaders, Trump took credit for the market rally since Nov. 8: "The stock market has gone up massively since the election. Everyone's saying 'Oh, the market will go down.' I said 'The market's not going down'." The Russell 2000 index of small and mid-cap companies fell 1.3 percent Monday, giving back all of January's gains. The CBOE Volatility index .VIX or Wall Street's "fear gauge" rose 1.30 points, the most for any day since Nov. 3.

Stocks fell even as U.S. consumer spending accelerated and a measure of pending home sales rose in December, pointing to sustained domestic demand that could spur economic growth in early 2017. "Non-economic factors are starting to enter the fray to the detriment of the positive story equity market participants have been anticipating," said Washington, DC-based Wayne Wicker, chief investment officer at retirement plan manager firm ICMA-RC, which says holds about $36 billion in assets under management. Airline stocks fell, with American Airlines (AAL.O) down 4.4 percent and United Continental (UAL.N) down 3.6 percent. At least one analyst cited worries over the travel ban to the United States.

MORE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN15E1B2)

Ethereal
01-30-2017, 06:27 PM
Just came across this cool article and had to post it here for community to read:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/islam-is-not-a-religion

Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?

Let's just ask Thomas Jefferson what he thought of religious liberty in America. From A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Case of Geo. Reynolds Vs. the United States (https://books.google.com/books?id=xoYuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false):

https://goo.gl/WYAIVR

rcfieldz
01-30-2017, 07:08 PM
Read the Quran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
Talk with some Muslims.
Draw your own conclusion.

Ethereal
01-30-2017, 07:13 PM
Read the Quran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
Talk with some Muslims.
Draw your own conclusion.
How about these Muslims...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv31_NvDBYw

stjames1_53
01-30-2017, 07:19 PM
about the time we don't vet, and a jihadist who slipped in blows up a school.....................they'll be screaming for blood....when one of them loses a child or a loved one to Muslim Extremist, they'll want to hang Trump because he didn't do his job
Now to Canada...when a mosque gets shot up, it's a terrorist attack, but when one shoots up a night club in FL, it's a misguided man's attempt to satisfy is homosexual urges..............
how f*cked up is that?

midcan5
01-30-2017, 08:34 PM
LOL the dumbness of the right in America never fails to amuse, now a major religion is not a religion even. Fool thy name is right wing American.

"When David Duke was running for governor of Louisiana, he always had a country or bluegrass band on the platform with him, in all the photographs I saw. That band always had a guitar picker and a banjo player. I always had the fantasy of pulling David Duke aside and telling him "Well, Dave, the guitar was invented by Spanish-speaking Arabs, and, well, as for the banjo, now, you're probably gonna want to sit down and let me pour you a really stiff drink before I tell you..." Ken Burch


"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."

Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-and-rage-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-mass-shootings

Tahuyaman
01-30-2017, 09:15 PM
The OP doesn't even hide the fact that all his threads are baiting of liberals.
My response to the article - No comment.

I'm not defending the source, but anything factual baits liberals. Yiu might want to develop a different strategy.

resister
01-30-2017, 09:22 PM
LOL the dumbness of the right in America never fails to amuse, now a major religion is not a religion even. Fool thy name is right wing American.

"When David Duke was running for governor of Louisiana, he always had a country or bluegrass band on the platform with him, in all the photographs I saw. That band always had a guitar picker and a banjo player. I always had the fantasy of pulling David Duke aside and telling him "Well, Dave, the guitar was invented by Spanish-speaking Arabs, and, well, as for the banjo, now, you're probably gonna want to sit down and let me pour you a really stiff drink before I tell you..." Ken Burch


"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."

Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-and-rage-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-mass-shootingsConsider this the "BOO" button! The opposite of thanks ! I find this post....

Green Arrow
01-30-2017, 09:48 PM
Islam is a religion. Religion is protected by the constitution.

Glad I could help.

resister
01-30-2017, 09:49 PM
Islam is a religion. Religion is protected by the constitution.

Glad I could help.
Not foreign religion.

Green Arrow
01-30-2017, 10:00 PM
Not foreign religion.
LOL. All religion is protected by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson hosted the first White House Iftar dinner, there's literally zero rational argument that they meant to exclude any religion. That's the exact opposite of what they wanted.

resister
01-30-2017, 10:04 PM
LOL. All religion is protected by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson hosted the first White House Iftar dinner, there's literally zero rational argument that they meant to exclude any religion. That's the exact opposite of what they wanted.Care to show me where the constitution supports foreign religion as constitutionaly protected?

The constitution gives no one the "right" to emigrate, religious or otherwise.

Green Arrow
01-30-2017, 10:13 PM
Care to show me where the constitution supports foreign religion as constitutionaly protected?

The constitution gives no one the "right" to emigrate, religious or otherwise.

Yes, the first amendment.

decedent
01-30-2017, 10:14 PM
The OP doesn't even hide the fact that all his threads are baiting of liberals.
My response to the article - No comment.

I'm converting to Islam just to piss off the OP.


I changed my mind. I can't get up at 2AM to pray and I like beer too much.

resister
01-30-2017, 10:15 PM
Yes, the first amendment.
So under this logic, hate speech is OKEEDOKEY! As well as...

resister
01-30-2017, 10:17 PM
FTR immigration is an action..it is action ,talking about it is speech.

Ethereal
01-30-2017, 10:21 PM
Not foreign religion.

Thomas Jefferson expressly included Islam within his conception of religious liberty. And Thomas Jefferson was arguably the most influential in terms of crafting America's legal treatment of religious toleration.

Dr. Who
01-30-2017, 10:28 PM
Just came across this cool article and had to post it here for community to read:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/islam-is-not-a-religion

Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?

Is there something vague about: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Green Arrow
01-30-2017, 10:54 PM
So under this logic, hate speech is OKEEDOKEY! As well as...

No, there are constitutional limits on speech.

resister
01-30-2017, 11:05 PM
No, there are constitutional limits on speech.
There is not one thing in the constitution, giving non citizens, rights as citizens. nadad.

Crepitus
01-30-2017, 11:25 PM
Just came across this cool article and had to post it here for community to read:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/islam-is-not-a-religion

Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?

All that is is a rant. The conclusions are ludicrous, the writing style juvenile, and the author moronic.

resister
01-30-2017, 11:29 PM
All that is is a rant. The conclusions are ludicrous, the writing style juvenile, and the author moronic.
Not one thing in the constitution gives non citizens any rights. Stop insulting Mr.Crepitus.

Crepitus
01-30-2017, 11:43 PM
Not one thing in the constitution gives non citizens any rights. Stop insulting Mr.Crepitus.

Bill of rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants.

The Constitution only limits 2 rights to citizens, the right to vote and the right to run for federal office. All others can be presumed to apply to all persons.

This is a long piece, full of case sites and all sorta other legalese that make it hard non lawyers like me to read, but i'm gonna post it for those who want to slog through.


http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Crepitus
01-30-2017, 11:44 PM
Not one thing in the constitution gives non citizens any rights. Stop insulting Mr.Crepitus.

Just who here did I insult anyway?

resister
01-30-2017, 11:52 PM
All that is is a rant. The conclusions are ludicrous, the writing style juvenile, and the author moronic.This is kinda insulting, no ^ ?

Chris
01-30-2017, 11:54 PM
This is kinda insulting, no ^ ?

Of the author of the ridiculous piece linked in the OP? Sure. He is moronic. He makes the very same arguments ISIS terrorists do.

resister
01-30-2017, 11:54 PM
Bill of rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants.

The Constitution only limits 2 rights to citizens, the right to vote and the right to run for federal office. All others can be presumed to apply to all persons.

This is a long piece, full of case sites and all sorta other legalese that make it hard non lawyers like me to read, but i'm gonna post it for those who want to slog through.


http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
Please post in English, where the constitution, grants rights to non citizens?

resister
01-30-2017, 11:55 PM
This is kinda insulting, no ^ ?
I confused this statement with OP. My bad.

Crepitus
01-30-2017, 11:56 PM
This is kinda insulting, no ^ ?

Not directed at any of our members, but at the author of that hate rant and it's content.

Does that affect you in any way?

Evmetro
01-30-2017, 11:56 PM
The OP doesn't even hide the fact that all his threads are baiting of liberals.
My response to the article - No comment.

I understand how you feel. Every lefty post I read looks insulting to me, and they all look like flamebait. We are on opposing sides of an ugly political war, so it is not unusual that we sound offensive to each other.

resister
01-30-2017, 11:58 PM
Not directed at any of our members, but at the author of that hate rant and it's content.

Does that affect you in any way?
See post # 31, I was mistaken.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 12:00 AM
Please post in English, where the constitution, grants rights to non citizens?

What was so hard to understand about my post? The only rights reserved for citizens only are the right to vote and run for federal office. The supreme court has ruled repeatedly that other rights apply to all people citizens or not. The linked text cites numerous examples.

resister
01-31-2017, 12:07 AM
What was so hard to understand about my post? The only rights reserved for citizens only are the right to vote and run for federal office. The supreme court has ruled repeatedly that other rights apply to all people citizens or not. The linked text cites numerous examples.Our constitution is for our country men. Not for people in Micronesia.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 12:16 AM
Our constitution is for our country men. Not for people in Micronesia.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/22/227859f57b79cf9dedd773f735abbcd24477b4cc1e20c1eda3 1cfc002fde8112.jpg

resister
01-31-2017, 12:32 AM
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/22/227859f57b79cf9dedd773f735abbcd24477b4cc1e20c1eda3 1cfc002fde8112.jpg
I would to, arguing that the constitution applies to non US citizens is a losing argument, Good times had by all!!!!

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 01:45 AM
There is not one thing in the constitution, giving non citizens, rights as citizens. nadad.

The founders never intended for freedom to only apply to U.S. citizens.

resister
01-31-2017, 01:47 AM
The founders never intended for freedom to only apply to U.S. citizens.Where is this assertation, contained in the constitution? I am all ears !

resister
01-31-2017, 01:50 AM
The founders never intended for freedom to only apply to U.S. citizens.They were building there own country, why would they care about others beyond borders? Did I miss this in an alternative constitution?

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 01:50 AM
Where is this assertation, contained in the constitution? I am all ears !

Where does it say it only applies to citizens?

resister
01-31-2017, 01:54 AM
Where does it say it only applies to citizens?
Where does it mention non citizens?

resister
01-31-2017, 01:55 AM
Where does it mention non citizens?
Burden of proof?

resister
01-31-2017, 01:56 AM
Where does it say it only applies to citizens?
Where does it say it does not apply to extraterrestrial life, by the same logic?

Bethere
01-31-2017, 02:03 AM
Where is this assertation, contained in the constitution? I am all ears !

Article 1, 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

resister
01-31-2017, 02:07 AM
Article 1, 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;.
Notice key words "Citizens of the United States" Yall, see these important words, right ^ ?

Bethere
01-31-2017, 02:18 AM
Notice key words "Citizens of the United States" Yall, see these important words, right ^ ?

And they only apply in that clause (up to the semi-colon).

Here's another clause:

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

And another:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

resister
01-31-2017, 02:23 AM
And they only apply in that cause (up to the semi-colon).
Time to get a lawyer in here, I think you are mistaken, I am going to bed soon, but feel free to post a thread tomorrow about how the US constitution applies to all world citizens.

That should really be a hoot!:laugh:

Bethere
01-31-2017, 02:28 AM
Time to get a lawyer in here, I think you are mistaken, I am going to bed soon, but feel free to post a thread tomorrow about how the US constitution applies to all world citizens.

That should really be a hoot!:laugh:

Nah. Three clauses. Each applies to different people.

The first applies to citizens.

The second applies to all people.

The third applies to all people in our jurisdiction.

Muslim refugees enjoy the protection of clause 2 and clause 3.

resister
01-31-2017, 02:39 AM
Nah. Three clauses. Each applies to different people.

The first applies to citizens.

The second applies to all people.

The third applies to all people in our jurisdiction.

Muslim refugees enjoy the protection of clause 2 and clause 3.
I aint quite gone to bed just yet(very close) I will post a thread about this Tuesday.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 03:06 AM
I aint quite gone to bed just yet(very close) I will post a thread about this Tuesday.

Just remember that if you were right there wouldn't be any birthright babies about which to complain.

AeonPax
01-31-2017, 05:05 AM
`
My Opinion;
`



a) The Koran, like the Bible, is subject to the interpretations of the many sects within Islam, just as Christian sects do. Often, their meanings are different and contradicting. One such Sharia interpretation is called Wahhabism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism), which is closely associated to Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and the ISIS, as onerous, fatal and draconian, especially to women. Not all ME Islamic countries practice Wahhabism. Insofar that I cannot judge all of Christianity by the actions of the Evangelicals, nor can I judge all Muslims only by those who adhere to Wahhabism.

b) It is, however, prudent and rational to observe the actions and behaviors of the collective Muslim population worldwide. In these modern times, Islam has become synonymous with terrorism and violence. Considering what is happening in Europe, there is more than just a slight causal relationship between the violence being wrought there and the influx of Muslims.

c) Considering this, I am not sympathetic to the plight of refugees who want to come to the US. To paraphrase a quote; "If there is only a ONE percent chance that any of these refugees will harm this country or its people, we have to take it as an absolute certainty." To that extent, I support a temporary ban.

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 06:05 AM
it's not a permanent ban. It's only until we can get a better systems of checks in place. It wasn't like they weren't warned

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 07:14 AM
I would to, arguing that the constitution applies to non US citizens is a losing argument, Good times had by all!!!!

Yea, that is not a victory you wanna claim my friend.

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 07:20 AM
Yea, that is not a victory you wanna claim my friend.


CONUS is not an international accord

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 07:29 AM
CONUS is not an international accord

Post makes no sense as usual.

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 07:45 AM
Post makes no sense as usual.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by resister http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1906810#post1906810) I would to, arguing that the constitution applies to non US citizens is a losing argument, Good times had by all!!!!



Yea, that is not a victory you wanna claim my friend.


CONUS is not an international accord


Post makes no sense as usual.
admit it, the CONUS is ungainly for you. You are in favor of applying CONUS to the international crowd. It's one of the platforms of modern socialism ................you're going to sh!t all over yourself when a jihadist, unvetted, blows up your grandchildren's school..come one come all..there is no more immigrations hoops to jump through!!!!!

Bethere
01-31-2017, 07:47 AM
admit it, the CONUS is ungainly for you. You are in favor of applying CONUS to the international crowd. It's one of the platforms of modern socialism ................you're going to sh!t all over yourself when a jihadist, unvetted, blows up your grandchildren's school..come one come all..there is no more immigrations hoops to jump through!!!!!

No, just the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

"All people."

Unless they are in our jurisdiction. Then they get the equal protection clause, too.

"All people in our jurisdiction. "

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 07:55 AM
No, just the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

"All people."

Unless they are in our jurisdiction. Then they get the equal protection clause, too.

"All people in our jurisdiction. "

green card holders aren't citizens of the US...what don't you get about that? they are here as guests.............Trump can cut their stay here if found to have radical leanings........just like Obama and Carter

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:00 AM
green card holders aren't citizens of the US...what don't you get about that? they are here as guests.............Trump can cut their stay here if found to have radical leanings........just like Obama and Carter

All people.

All people in our jurisdiction.

They can be deported, but the constitution grants them due process and equal protection under the law.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 08:03 AM
admit it, the CONUS is ungainly for you. You are in favor of applying CONUS to the international crowd. It's one of the platforms of modern socialism ................you're going to sh!t all over yourself when a jihadist, unvetted, blows up your grandchildren's school..come one come all..there is no more immigrations hoops to jump through!!!!!

How am I gonna apply the CONtinental United States to anyone else?

Try to make sense, say something that actually communicates for a change.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 08:07 AM
Where does it say it does not apply to extraterrestrial life, by the same logic?

Look dude, you can't have this both ways. The strict constitutionalists claim if it ain't in there it ain't protected by it. That's why they claim stuff like income tax and welfare is unconstitutional.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:10 AM
Look dude, you can't have this both ways. The strick constitutionalists claim if it ain't in there it ain't protected by it. That's why they claim stuff like income tax and welfare is unconstitutional.

And of course they really need to read the 9th amendment!

Docthehun
01-31-2017, 08:12 AM
And of course they really need to read the 10th amendment!

And chances of that are?

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:16 AM
And chances of that are?

Good point!

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 08:32 AM
Time to get a lawyer in here, I think you are mistaken, I am going to bed soon, but feel free to post a thread tomorrow about how the US constitution applies to all world citizens.

That should really be a hoot!:laugh:

No lawyer is necessary, just a knowledge of the English language beyond the third grade.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:35 AM
No lawyer is necessary, just a knowledge of the English language beyond the third grade.

Give him a chance. He's aware of his limitations.

We might have to teach him what a semi colon is, though.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 08:42 AM
Give him a chance. He's aware of his limitations.

We might have to teach him what a semi colon is, though.

That's the part of your gut that comes right before the colon right?


Actually please don't tell him. Look what happened when someone pointed out the comma.

Docthehun
01-31-2017, 08:45 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-leaders-blindsided-scrambling-refugee-ban-090516241--politics.html

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:50 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/congressional-leaders-blindsided-scrambling-refugee-ban-090516241--politics.html

Corker actually had to thank the media for telling him about it.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 08:51 AM
That's the part of your gut that comes right before the colon right?


Actually please don't tell him. Look what happened when someone pointed out the comma.

He is trying though. He'd be a worthy target if he called other people stupid and wanted to tell us how to improve our schools. Resister doesn't do that.

Chris
01-31-2017, 09:50 AM
Article 1, 14th amendment:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Yours is a strange reading. You miss the forest for the trees. IOW, you focus in on isolated words and ignore the syntax of the entire sentence to draw your conclusion. But that syntax sets a context that says this amendment applies to the citizens of various states. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from violating the rights of citizens, this prohibits the states.

You could appeal to natural law but as a liberal you likely reject that.

The OP isn't a constitutional question anyway, but a religious one. The OP accepts religions are protected, it rejects Islam as a religion. That ludicrous as well.

DGUtley
01-31-2017, 10:29 AM
The OP isn't a constitutional question anyway, but a religious one. The OP accepts religions are protected, it rejects Islam as a religion. That ludicrous as well.

Amen...

nic34
01-31-2017, 10:43 AM
Not foreign religion.

All religions are foreign.

DGUtley
01-31-2017, 11:26 AM
Not foreign religion.

Would you kindly explain to me what a "foreign religion" is? As a Roman Catholic, it was long argued that Roman Catholicism was a 'foreign religion' members of which should not hold highest offices. You are mistaken here, resister

Common Sense
01-31-2017, 11:35 AM
Would you kindly explain to me what a "foreign religion" is? As a Roman Catholic, it was long argued that Roman Catholicism was a 'foreign religion' members of which should not hold highest offices. You are mistaken here, @resister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2122)
He thinks Jesus was an American...

Chris
01-31-2017, 11:38 AM
He thinks Jesus was an American...


Jesús. He from Mehico.

DGUtley
01-31-2017, 11:40 AM
17086

17087

17088

Chris
01-31-2017, 11:41 AM
Would you kindly explain to me what a "foreign religion" is? As a Roman Catholic, it was long argued that Roman Catholicism was a 'foreign religion' members of which should not hold highest offices. You are mistaken here, resister


Many Christians blame atheists from removing the Bible and prayer from public schools but it was actually court cases fouhgt between Protestants and Catholics over which version to use. This Protestant anti-Catholic attitude goes back to Locke, who tolerated all but Catholics and atheists, and, ultimately, Luther.

DGUtley
01-31-2017, 11:51 AM
Many Christians blame atheists from removing the Bible and prayer from public schools but it was actually court cases fouhgt between Protestants and Catholics over which version to use. This Protestant anti-Catholic attitude goes back to Locke, who tolerated all but Catholics and atheists, and, ultimately, Luther.

With all due respect Chris, you're kind-of somewhat mistaken. The key case, Engel v. Vitale involved a prayer approved by the NY Bd. of Regents for use in schools. In Engel, the parents of ten pupils brought action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Eventually, the USC decided that it violated the establishment clause. I think you're referencing the 'Bible Wars' referenced in the link.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/25/when-the-court-took-on-prayer-the-bible-and-public-schools/

Chris
01-31-2017, 12:05 PM
With all due respect Chris, you're kind-of somewhat mistaken. The key case, Engel v. Vitale involved a prayer approved by the NY Bd. of Regents for use in schools. In Engel, the parents of ten pupils brought action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Eventually, the USC decided that it violated the establishment clause. I think you're referencing the 'Bible Wars' referenced in the link.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/25/when-the-court-took-on-prayer-the-bible-and-public-schools/


By the 1960s, when that case was heard, the courts were clearing out the last vestiges of the Bible and prayer. I refer back to the 1940s, cases like Everson v Board of education of Ewing Township, McCollum vs Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois, and others that set the precedents for secularists to clean up. This is documented in Noah Feldman's Divided by God.

DGUtley
01-31-2017, 12:29 PM
By the 1960s, when that case was heard, the courts were clearing out the last vestiges of the Bible and prayer. I refer back to the 1940s, cases like Everson v Board of education of Ewing Township, McCollum vs Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois, and others that set the precedents for secularists to clean up. This is documented in Noah Feldman's Divided by God.

To that extent, I think what you are talking about lead up to what I'm talking about.

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 12:46 PM
Corker actually had to thank the media for telling him about it.

I am disappointed to see Ryan has no spine.

Chris
01-31-2017, 12:57 PM
To that extent, I think what you are talking about lead up to what I'm talking about.

Right, the cases I cite were the precedent setting seeds to those you cite and others like Abington School District v. Schempp or Murray v. Curlett both in 1963.

birddog
01-31-2017, 01:06 PM
Islam is a cult bent on destroying the foundation beliefs that our country was founded on, and should not have First Amendment right. I have said that for years.

I do believe good muslims who are opposed to and do not support radical Islam are acceptable. All mosques should be regularly inspected and disciplined if needed.

resister
01-31-2017, 02:38 PM
No lawyer is necessary, just a knowledge of the English language beyond the third grade.Teach me O great one.

resister
01-31-2017, 02:42 PM
That's the part of your gut that comes right before the colon right?


Actually please don't tell him. Look what happened when someone pointed out the comma.Good old crepitus, I can always count on you for insults! Thanks:azn:

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 02:51 PM
No, just the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

"All people."

Unless they are in our jurisdiction. Then they get the equal protection clause, too.

"All people in our jurisdiction. "

stupidity..............all people.........nope, it doesn't translate as inclusive of GB, France, etc.......
and since those illegals are here illegally, I guess they fall under the auspices of the criminal side of the law, as far as jurisdiction goes...........Trump will resolve this confusion for you....

resister
01-31-2017, 03:06 PM
Give him a chance. He's aware of his limitations.

We might have to teach him what a semi colon is, though.
I am resister, I am awesome.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 03:46 PM
Yours is a strange reading. You miss the forest for the trees. IOW, you focus in on isolated words and ignore the syntax of the entire sentence to draw your conclusion. But that syntax sets a context that says this amendment applies to the citizens of various states. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from violating the rights of citizens, this prohibits the states.

You could appeal to natural law but as a liberal you likely reject that.

The OP isn't a constitutional question anyway, but a religious one. The OP accepts religions are protected, it rejects Islam as a religion. That ludicrous as well.

Nonsense. My reading is the standard reading in force for the last 150 years in American courts.

Docthehun
01-31-2017, 04:23 PM
17086

17087

17088

The "H" got hit by lightning and burned to the ground!

Chris
01-31-2017, 04:26 PM
Nonsense. My reading is the standard reading in force for the last 150 years in American courts.

Uh, no it's not.

(It's so easy to argue with you.)

Bethere
01-31-2017, 04:27 PM
Uh, no it's not.

(It's so easy to argue with you.)

Winning is an entirely different matter.
Birthright citizenship is an excellent example. You could argue that it is unconstitutional and yet it has been challenged repeatedly and never been ruled as such--it has been the law of the land for 150 years.

Tell the millions of people with birthright citizenship that they aren't citizens.

Chris
01-31-2017, 04:29 PM
Winning is an entirely different matter.

Being superficial doesn't interest me.

Here, from http://kids.laws.com/14th-amendment:


The 14th amendment is a very important amendment that defines what it means to be a US citizen and protects certain rights of the people. There are three important “clauses” in the 14th amendment, each of which are still important today. A clause is a sentence in any part of our constitution.

Citizenship Clause – the citizenship clause gives individual born in the United States, but especially at that time, African Americans the right to citizenship. Before the 14th amendment, African Americans could not become citizens and this limited the rights of those that were able to escape slavery and become free. This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. Although this right was established by the Civil Rights of 1866, this amendment made the law permanent as many feared that the law could be overturned and take away the citizenship of African Americans. Later on, the Supreme Court protected this right for the children of immigrants and the right of Native Americans to become citizens also was protected later on.

Once you have American citizenship, it cannot be taken from you by Congress or other authorities, unless you lie to government during the process to get US citizenship. Otherwise, everyone that becomes an American citizen stays an American citizen, unless they give it up themselves.

Due Process Clause – the due process clause protects the 1st amendment rights of the people and prevents those rights from being taken away by any government without “due process.” Due process is a trial by jury for all people accused of wrongdoing. Although you may think the 1st amendment already protects these rights, the 14th amendment specially enforces the Bill of Rights on the states, to make sure that they can never limit the rights of Americans without fairness. There were also a number of rights that are protected for those that are accused of a crime but have not been proven to do anything wrong yet.

Equal Protection Clause – This part of the fourteenth amendment states that there may be no discrimination against them by the law. The federal government enforces this protection on the states, ensuring that they do not. Remember that the Bill of Rights protects some rights for Americans. The equal protection clause extended this protection to the state governments. This clause of the 14th amendment would later be used to end discrimination and segregation in the South.

...

Bethere
01-31-2017, 04:39 PM
Being superficial doesn't interest me.

Here, from http://kids.laws.com/14th-amendment:

Thanks, you are SO easy to argue with.

From your source:

This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. Although this right was established by the Civil Rights of 1866, this amendment made the law permanent as many feared that the law could be overturned and take away the citizenship of African Americans. Later on, the Supreme Court protected this right for the children of immigrants and the right of Native Americans to become citizens also was protected later on.

GOOD TIMES.

Chris
01-31-2017, 04:47 PM
Thanks, you are SO easy to argue with.

From your source:

This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. Although this right was established by the Civil Rights of 1866, this amendment made the law permanent as many feared that the law could be overturned and take away the citizenship of African Americans. Later on, the Supreme Court protected this right for the children of immigrants and the right of Native Americans to become citizens also was protected later on.

GOOD TIMES.


Thanks for supporting my argument. The 14th applies to citizens. You're a citizen by birth. "This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens." The 14th doesn't, as you earlier claimed, apply to foreigners.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 04:54 PM
Thanks for supporting my argument. The 14th applies to citizens. You're a citizen by birth. "This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens." The 14th doesn't, as you earlier claimed, apply to foreigners.

That wasn't my claim. The due process clause applies to all people. The equal protection clause applies to all people in our jurisdiction.

As your own source noted,"This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. "


Feel free to seize the last word.

Chris
01-31-2017, 05:02 PM
That wasn't my claim. The due process clause applies to all people. The equal protection clause applies to all people in our jurisdiction.

As your own source noted,"This clause allows all people born in the United States to be US citizens. "


You claim it applies to all people, indeed, but it does not apply to all, it applies to all the people, meaning, citizens. Being born here defines citizenship, those born here are citizens, not naturally it applies to them.

Arguing with you alway turns into a semantic game. It seems it's so important for you to be right you will twist even what you say. So, with that, I walk away from your shenanigans.

The Xl
01-31-2017, 05:15 PM
Moderate Islam is compatible with the Constitution.

Bethere
01-31-2017, 05:24 PM
Moderate Islam is compatible with the Constitution.

True.

Religious positions are not considered in the constitution.

Chris
01-31-2017, 05:40 PM
Moderate Islam is compatible with the Constitution.

Of course, Islam is a religion and its practice protected.

Raises an interesting question, is the Islamism of terrorists a religion?

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 06:27 PM
Islam is a cult bent on destroying the foundation beliefs that our country was founded on, and should not have First Amendment right. I have said that for years.

I do believe good muslims who are opposed to and do not support radical Islam are acceptable. All mosques should be regularly inspected and disciplined if needed.

I'm sure you'll be just fine with the government treating Christianity the same way.

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 06:29 PM
Of course, Islam is a religion and its practice protected.

Raises an interesting question, is the Islamism of terrorists a religion?

Yes, it is.

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 06:35 PM
Of course, Islam is a religion and its practice protected.

Raises an interesting question, is the Islamism of terrorists a religion?

let's take a different walk with this..Islam is a nation, although borderless........we cannot have two nations under one rule

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 06:40 PM
let's take a different walk with this..Islam is a nation, although borderless........we cannot have two nations under one rule

Islam is not a nation, it's a religion.

stjames1_53
01-31-2017, 07:25 PM
Islam is not a nation, it's a religion.

dude, they even refer to themselves as the Nation of Islam..................

Chris
01-31-2017, 07:48 PM
let's take a different walk with this..Islam is a nation, although borderless........we cannot have two nations under one rule

Something different, a political movement that embraces Islam.

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 08:28 PM
dude, they even refer to themselves as the Nation of Islam..................

https://media.giphy.com/media/iGNiqAuwG9dwQ/giphy.gif

Let me guess...everything you've ever read about Islam came from Breitbart, World Net Daily, The American Thinker, or Religion of Peace?

The "Nation of Islam" is the name of one very, very small minority sect primarily made up of African-American converts to Islam. It's all Louis Farrakhan and his nutjobs and they barely actually follow Islam, just a very weird and bastardized version of it.

birddog
01-31-2017, 10:17 PM
I'm sure you'll be just fine with the government treating Christianity the same way.

No, and obviously you were not bright enough to understand my post.

Green Arrow
01-31-2017, 10:20 PM
No, and obviously you were not bright enough to understand my post.

I understand it perfectly. What you fail to understand is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. What you approve of doing to someone else will eventually be done to you.

maineman
01-31-2017, 10:26 PM
Of course, Islam is a religion and its practice protected.

Raises an interesting question, is the Islamism of terrorists a religion?

is the Christianity of people who bomb abortion clinics a religion?

resister
01-31-2017, 10:37 PM
is the Christianity of people who bomb abortion clinics a religion?The ideology behind the motivation? In a perverted way, sure. The action itself? The actions of an insane person can't be blamed on religion, unless the Bible tells Christians to bomb these clinics.

decedent
01-31-2017, 10:52 PM
Islam is a religion. This should be obvious to people who think.


Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?

Another bait thread for "lefties"? Is this going to be a daily thing?

maineman
01-31-2017, 10:59 PM
The ideology behind the motivation? In a perverted way, sure. The action itself? The actions of an insane person can't be blamed on religion, unless the Bible tells Christians to bomb these clinics.

do you think that abortion clinic bombers truly believe they are doing God's work? do you think that ISIS members truly believe they are doing Allah's will?

what is the difference?

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 11:17 PM
Islam is a cult bent on destroying the foundation beliefs that our country was founded on, and should not have First Amendment right. I have said that for years.

I do believe good muslims who are opposed to and do not support radical Islam are acceptable. All mosques should be regularly inspected and disciplined if needed.

Christianity is a cult bent on destroying the foundation beliefs that our country was founded on and should not have the first Amendment right. People have said so for years.

I do believe good Christians who are opposed to and do not support radical Christianity are acceptable. All churches should be regularly inspected and disciplined if needed.

resister
01-31-2017, 11:19 PM
do you think that abortion clinic bombers truly believe they are doing God's work? do you think that ISIS members truly believe they are doing Allah's will?

what is the difference?
None whatsoever, but one I don't believe the bible endorses blowing up abortion clinics. I can't imagine you thinking it does.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 11:22 PM
dude, they even refer to themselves as the Nation of Islam..................

Lol.

Crepitus
01-31-2017, 11:24 PM
The ideology behind the motivation? In a perverted way, sure. The action itself? The actions of an insane person can't be blamed on religion, unless the Bible tells Christians to bomb these clinics.

They say it does.

resister
01-31-2017, 11:25 PM
Christianity is a cult bent on destroying the foundation beliefs that our country was founded on and should not have the first Amendment right. People have said so for years.

I do believe good Christians who are opposed to and do not support radical Christianity are acceptable. All churches should be regularly inspected and disciplined if needed.
WOW...just WOW ^?

resister
01-31-2017, 11:26 PM
They say it does.
Chapter and verse where bibles calls for blowing up abortion clinics?

resister
01-31-2017, 11:28 PM
They say it does.
"they say" is not a great example, when "they" are mistaken. "They" often are.

Chris
01-31-2017, 11:47 PM
is the Christianity of people who bomb abortion clinics a religion?

Misconstrued I think.

resister
01-31-2017, 11:56 PM
Misconstrued I think.
An understatement ^

Crepitus
02-01-2017, 12:21 AM
Chapter and verse where bibles calls for blowing up abortion clinics?

Read what I post, not what you wish I had posted.

I never said the bible say blow things up, I said the militant anti abortionists did. So you need to ask them, not me.

Crepitus
02-01-2017, 12:22 AM
"they say" is not a great example, when "they" are mistaken. "They" often are.

They= the people who bomb clinics and kill providers.

stjames1_53
02-01-2017, 05:55 AM
Misconstrued I think.

deliberately...............they do it all the time. I guess it's about time we considered these guys militant extremist.

maineman
02-01-2017, 08:51 AM
None whatsoever, but one I don't believe the bible endorses blowing up abortion clinics. I can't imagine you thinking it does.

do you mean to tell me that there is not some pretty gory stuff endorsed, especially in the OT, and especially if taken out of historical context? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

it's a long read, and not something you should attempt before eating, but it gets my point across.

FindersKeepers
02-01-2017, 09:12 AM
Here's my opinion on this issue.

Islam, being a religion, is protected under our Constitution.

However, the "law" that conservative Muslims follow is NOT.

Sharia runs afoul of Western culture and should not be encouraged. Muslims who come here should be made to understand that their religious laws will not be supported if they violate our laws.

The Muslims I know do not support Sharia law, but, rather, follow moderate Islamic tenets. They marry outside their religion, they do not wear burkas and they do not think of women as second-class citizens. They are industrious and their children intermingle easily with non-Islamic children.

That's all good.

Unfortunately, within Islam is a fairly large percentage of conservative Muslims whose ideas are not culturally acceptable in the West. These are the ones who don't belong here.

Sure, we can point to conservative Christians who are just as intolerant, but what does that help? Are we trying to add more intolerance in an effort to minimize what we have already?

Looked what happened to the FLDS settlement in TX a few years ago. There's a far-whacked branch that also treats women like second class citizens and believes in arranging marriages of underage girls. Child Protective Services stormed in and took all the little ones -- not returning them for quite awhile.

What do you suppose would happen a similar thing occurred in a strict Muslim community that followed Sharia? The gnashing of progressive teeth would sound like a thunderstorm.

I'm not advocating that, btw.

CPS went into the FLDS because they worried that the men were dominating/subordinating the women and that the children were being raised in a religion that did not allow them their full rights under the Constitution.

The same thing (subordination of women and arranged marriages) is happening today in strict Muslim communities, but damn if we can make that comparison without liberals jumping down our throats.

As a woman -- I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see Muslim women hidden away under bolts of dark fabric. These women are every bit as held down as the FLDS women, yet the Left cheers their social imprisonment.

It's a shame. It really is.

maineman
02-01-2017, 10:38 AM
If members of an Islamic community within some city in the United States voluntarily choose to allow Muslim clerics to adjudicate their civil disputes using the principles of Sharia Law, why would anyone care? We've allowed conservative Jews to do virtually the same thing for many years (via the BDA). Certain Christian denominations adjudicate civil matters for their congregants as well. Why should Muslims be treated than Christians and Jews who voluntarily choose for their religious leaders to adjudicate civil matters outside our court system in accordance with THEIR faith. No one is suggesting that Sharia Law invalidate US Law.

http://www.broydeblog.net/uploads/8/0/4/0/80408218/jewishlawcourts__2012-2013_.pdf

Chris
02-01-2017, 10:43 AM
Here's my opinion on this issue.

Islam, being a religion, is protected under our Constitution.

However, the "law" that conservative Muslims follow is NOT.

Sharia runs afoul of Western culture and should not be encouraged. Muslims who come here should be made to understand that their religious laws will not be supported if they violate our laws.

The Muslims I know do not support Sharia law, but, rather, follow moderate Islamic tenets. They marry outside their religion, they do not wear burkas and they do not think of women as second-class citizens. They are industrious and their children intermingle easily with non-Islamic children.

That's all good.

Unfortunately, within Islam is a fairly large percentage of conservative Muslims whose ideas are not culturally acceptable in the West. These are the ones who don't belong here.

Sure, we can point to conservative Christians who are just as intolerant, but what does that help? Are we trying to add more intolerance in an effort to minimize what we have already?

Looked what happened to the FLDS settlement in TX a few years ago. There's a far-whacked branch that also treats women like second class citizens and believes in arranging marriages of underage girls. Child Protective Services stormed in and took all the little ones -- not returning them for quite awhile.

What do you suppose would happen a similar thing occurred in a strict Muslim community that followed Sharia? The gnashing of progressive teeth would sound like a thunderstorm.

I'm not advocating that, btw.

CPS went into the FLDS because they worried that the men were dominating/subordinating the women and that the children were being raised in a religion that did not allow them their full rights under the Constitution.

The same thing (subordination of women and arranged marriages) is happening today in strict Muslim communities, but damn if we can make that comparison without liberals jumping down our throats.

As a woman -- I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I see Muslim women hidden away under bolts of dark fabric. These women are every bit as held down as the FLDS women, yet the Left cheers their social imprisonment.

It's a shame. It really is.



Agree, but Sharia Law can be applied in private arbitration so long as both parties agree to it. eBay, PayPal, M$ all impose arbitration agreements and rules. But such laws and rules cannot be adopted by our government except all the nonsense legislated, adjudicated or executive ordered.

Newpublius
02-01-2017, 10:49 AM
Agree, but Sharia Law can be applied in private arbitration so long as both parties agree to it. eBay, PayPal, M$ all impose arbitration agreements and rules. But such laws and rules cannot be adopted by our government except all the nonsense legislated, adjudicated or executive ordered.

That question is a bit more complicated. There is a distinction between arbitration/mediation even though I don't blame anybody for interchanging the terms. The typical difference is nonbinding mediation versus binding arbitration. With respect to nonbinding mediation, if private parties mediate and both adhere to it, we don't even have a case and/or controversy.

However, what happens if private BINDING arbitration sees a private party attempt to repudiate the arbitrators? What then? Well, then the party seeking to uphold the arbitrator's award will go to court to enforce it.

The 'general' rule is that there is strong public policy in favor of enforcing arbitrator's awards.

Now, what if the arbitrator is using rules that violate our general concept of 'public policy'

Just to make an extreme example let's take an Islamic prenuptial with an arbitration clause. Couple goes to arbitration and the arbitrator makes a pro-male ruling that would shock the conscience. Should the family court in that state enforce that?

I don't just say 'no' -- I say FUCK no.

birddog
02-01-2017, 11:30 AM
I understand it perfectly. What you fail to understand is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. What you approve of doing to someone else will eventually be done to you.

I question your understanding perfectly, and I am elated the dims in the Senate are experiencing Karma.

patrickt
02-01-2017, 11:31 AM
Just came across this cool article and had to post it here for community to read:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/islam-is-not-a-religion

Since lefties are so intent on protecting the religion of "surrender or submit", I assume that lefties will be interested in undoing what this article says. Let's see what you have. Can you comment on specifics of the article instead of the usual changing of the subject?
Islam and its believers are protect exactly the same, no more, no less, than are those who practice Christianity or Judaism or any other actual religion.

Chris
02-01-2017, 12:13 PM
That question is a bit more complicated. There is a distinction between arbitration/mediation even though I don't blame anybody for interchanging the terms. The typical difference is nonbinding mediation versus binding arbitration. With respect to nonbinding mediation, if private parties mediate and both adhere to it, we don't even have a case and/or controversy.

However, what happens if private BINDING arbitration sees a private party attempt to repudiate the arbitrators? What then? Well, then the party seeking to uphold the arbitrator's award will go to court to enforce it.

The 'general' rule is that there is strong public policy in favor of enforcing arbitrator's awards.

Now, what if the arbitrator is using rules that violate our general concept of 'public policy'

Just to make an extreme example let's take an Islamic prenuptial with an arbitration clause. Couple goes to arbitration and the arbitrator makes a pro-male ruling that would shock the conscience. Should the family court in that state enforce that?

I don't just say 'no' -- I say FUCK no.


OK, interesting distinctions.

In terms of a voluntary contract I would argue the agreement should be upheld, and thus the finding on any binding arbitration. Nonbinding, let a court decide.

FindersKeepers
02-01-2017, 12:35 PM
Just to make an extreme example let's take an Islamic prenuptial with an arbitration clause. Couple goes to arbitration and the arbitrator makes a pro-male ruling that would shock the conscience. Should the family court in that state enforce that?

I don't just say 'no' -- I say FUCK no.

That's exactly the way I feel. To me - those arbitration clauses should be null and void in the US. I recently read a story about an education Muslim woman who was married in a Middle Eastern country (don't remember which one now), but then relocated to London. She signed her marriage contract without reading it. Now, she understands how stupid that was, but at the time her finance, his parents, and even her own parents acted like it was an insult that she would even ask to look it over. She accepted it because she was made to feel as if she was stepping out of her place to do anything else. That's coercion. People will say she has no defense, but they don't understand how valueless emotionally subordinate women feel.

I want to ask those who support enforcing those types of contracts in our courts, whether they would also have supported former slaves, after the emancipation, if they signed a contract to continue being slaves? Many wanted to -- but the law forbid it. Slavery was emotionally crippling -- but so is being a woman in a patriarchal society that makes her think she doesn't deserve anything else.

Personally, I think public bans on full burkas would be a good step. It might take some frightened women awhile to come out of their shells, but once they did -- there's be no going back to the slavery.

Chris
02-01-2017, 12:53 PM
That's exactly the way I feel. To me - those arbitration clauses should be null and void in the US. I recently read a story about an education Muslim woman who was married in a Middle Eastern country (don't remember which one now), but then relocated to London. She signed her marriage contract without reading it. Now, she understands how stupid that was, but at the time her finance, his parents, and even her own parents acted like it was an insult that she would even ask to look it over. She accepted it because she was made to feel as if she was stepping out of her place to do anything else. That's coercion. People will say she has no defense, but they don't understand how valueless emotionally subordinate women feel.

I want to ask those who support enforcing those types of contracts in our courts, whether they would also have supported former slaves, after the emancipation, if they signed a contract to continue being slaves? Many wanted to -- but the law forbid it. Slavery was emotionally crippling -- but so is being a woman in a patriarchal society that makes her think she doesn't deserve anything else.

Personally, I think public bans on full burkas would be a good step. It might take some frightened women awhile to come out of their shells, but once they did -- there's be no going back to the slavery.


Caveat emptor!

FindersKeepers
02-01-2017, 04:13 PM
Caveat emptor!

Perhaps, but this is a bigger issue than most are aware of -- and, even those who are aware of it -- will make excuses for why no one should speak out against it.

The abuse of women in Islam isn't limited to small groups of extremists here and there -- it's prevalent -- and it's deadly.

I have my own reasons for believing why those in the West who claim to support women and freedom are selling their sisters down the river, but that's a whole other thread.

11 minutes take up a bit more time than many will give up to watch something, so, if you can't find the time to watch this, I'll understand. But, these Muslim women, who are also activists, attempt to explain how truly widespread these problems are for women -- even in the West.

If you find the time to watch it -- let me know what you think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-zWq_Xzw_g

Chris
02-01-2017, 04:26 PM
Perhaps, but this is a bigger issue than most are aware of -- and, even those who are aware of it -- will make excuses for why no one should speak out against it.

The abuse of women in Islam isn't limited to small groups of extremists here and there -- it's prevalent -- and it's deadly.

I have my own reasons for believing why those in the West who claim to support women and freedom are selling their sisters down the river, but that's a whole other thread.

11 minutes take up a bit more time than many will give up to watch something, so, if you can't find the time to watch this, I'll understand. But, these Muslim women, who are also activists, attempt to explain how truly widespread these problems are for women -- even in the West.

If you find the time to watch it -- let me know what you think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-zWq_Xzw_g


I've heard some of those women speak before. I think that yes there is a problem but the problem has more to do with culture as a whole than Islam as a religion. It derives of a time when family was all and defining, a time before the emergence of Western individualism. The ME hangs onto that culture, that tradition, and from Qutb and the Egyptian Brotherhood has militantly resisted Western influence. So I can see how raised in that culture, immigrating here, women may accept abuse Western women would not, accept "contract" to abide by Sharia-based arbitration, for it they do not they lose place in the family that defines them. It's more complex than my simplistic position can encompass.

Western women face the same problems. They're freer to resist and exit from it.

FindersKeepers
02-02-2017, 05:09 AM
I've heard some of those women speak before. I think that yes there is a problem but the problem has more to do with culture as a whole than Islam as a religion. It derives of a time when family was all and defining, a time before the emergence of Western individualism. The ME hangs onto that culture, that tradition, and from Qutb and the Egyptian Brotherhood has militantly resisted Western influence. So I can see how raised in that culture, immigrating here, women may accept abuse Western women would not, accept "contract" to abide by Sharia-based arbitration, for it they do not they lose place in the family that defines them. It's more complex than my simplistic position can encompass.

Western women face the same problems. They're freer to resist and exit from it.


For the most part -- and I thank you for watching the vid -- I think we're on a similar page. Things like advocating honor killings do not appear in the Quran, and yet they've been adopted, via the religion, as you say, through the "culture."

But, there's no other way to define this culture other than by calling it Muslim. Whole nations define themselves as such, and we're not given another definition. They call themselves "Muslim nations" and the "Muslim world." And, in those nations, the subjugation of women takes place on a large scale.

I cannot defend that. Although it does not directly affect me, I can no more defend what happens to those Muslim women than I can defend what once happened to blacks in the US.

But, if I speak out about it -- I lose all support. Those women in the vid, they live under threats of death and violence for attempting to rock the boat.

Yes -- Western women most certainly can suffer the same fate. Our law will persecute men who abuse their partners, even if the women refuse to testify. Our laws finally realized that women living in those types of situations do not have the emotionally ability to fight their husbands/boyfriends -- even in court. So, the law steps in. And it should.

That doesn't happen in Muslim countries. Only recently have any of them even adopted punishments for males who kill female family members. Those punishments are very light in comparison to the punishments women receive.

The US, and the West, in general, cannot remedy the way women are treated in Saudi or Iran, but we can sure as heck remedy it here. And, that's where our focus should lie.

As an atheist, I'm not fond of any religion, but if we do judge them, it should be by taking a step back and observing them as a whole. When I do that -- I find Buddhism near the top, followed by Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity and then, at the very bottom, I place the religions that (by tenet or by culture) see women as subservient (Hinduism, Islam). Not all adherents of those religions, but large numbers. Way too large.

stjames1_53
02-02-2017, 05:38 AM
Agree, but Sharia Law can be applied in private arbitration so long as both parties agree to it. eBay, PayPal, M$ all impose arbitration agreements and rules. But such laws and rules cannot be adopted by our government except all the nonsense legislated, adjudicated or executive ordered.

two systems of law...
You cannot serve two masters. You will end up hating both

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:19 PM
Well cool, CatchKevin made it official with a stupid, racist blog post!

You're awesome dude!

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:20 PM
I'm converting to Islam just to piss off the OP.
I changed my mind. I can't get up at 2AM to pray and I like beer too much.

I think scotch is also verboten .. and i like bacon.

RATS

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:22 PM
Read the Quran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
Talk with some Muslims.
Draw your own conclusion.

I know many Muslims and i've already drawn my conclusion.

Little man that you are, it is likely you'll live in fear of AQ and ISIL until your dying day.

SAD! :(

Chris
02-02-2017, 05:27 PM
I know many Muslims and i've already drawn my conclusion.

Little man that you are, it is likely you'll live in fear of AQ and ISIL until your dying day.

SAD! :(



Name calling.

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:28 PM
How about these Muslims...

THANKS for the vid .. these ladies are AWESOME BADASS .. and some of them are mega-cute.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/dd/3f/89dd3f71d0400fc855ae8729df5a60b5.jpg

Subdermal
02-02-2017, 05:31 PM
do you mean to tell me that there is not some pretty gory stuff endorsed, especially in the OT, and especially if taken out of historical context? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

it's a long read, and not something you should attempt before eating, but it gets my point across.
How does it get your point across? As a former pastor, you should well know that the OT is a history book and that the NT is the 'new covenant'; that the old has 'passed away'.

There is nothing in the OT which is presently applicable to God's Law wrt Man; it is all found in the NT.

Ethereal
02-02-2017, 05:48 PM
THANKS for the vid .. these ladies are AWESOME BADASS .. and some of them are mega-cute.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/89/dd/3f/89dd3f71d0400fc855ae8729df5a60b5.jpg

Yes. They are a bright light in a dark, dark world, and the brighter the light, the more the forces of darkness will try to snuff it out. I am worried about what will happen to them going forward. We need to pressure western governments to support their independence and autonomy as well as their fight against ISIS.

Subdermal
02-02-2017, 05:51 PM
Islam is a religion. This should be obvious to people who think.

I may have missed it: who has contested whether or not Islam is a religion? Isn't the point of this thread to contemplate whether or not Islam is something in addition to religion?

Another bait thread for "lefties"? Is this going to be a daily thing?

I have news for you. Unless you grow up quickly, everything which challenges your conventions is going to be considered "bait". Unless you can maturely address the topic an defend your stance in an intelligent and compelling manner, your ideology will look weak and destructive.

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:58 PM
Yes. They are a bright light in a dark, dark world, and the brighter the light, the more the forces of darkness will try to snuff it out. I am worried about what will happen to them going forward. We need to pressure western governments to support their independence and autonomy as well as their fight against ISIS.

I have a news alert set for them .. they're AMAZING. Appreciate you bringing them to my attention!

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 06:01 PM
Where does it say it does not apply to extraterrestrial life, by the same logic?

PLEASE tuck tail and leave IMMEDIATELY

I cannot believe i just read your posts about a perceived exception for "foreign religions"

Oh My Hell!

https://forum.huskermax.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/facepalm.gif

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 06:23 PM
The problem is Turkey. They are in NATO.

Yes. They are a bright light in a dark, dark world, and the brighter the light, the more the forces of darkness will try to snuff it out. I am worried about what will happen to them going forward. We need to pressure western governments to support their independence and autonomy as well as their fight against ISIS.

decedent
02-02-2017, 06:54 PM
I may have missed it: who has contested whether or not Islam is a religion? Isn't the point of this thread to contemplate whether or not Islam is something in addition to religion?


People from the Trump camp who are claiming Islam is just an ideology (not a real religion).

I have news for you. Unless you grow up quickly, everything which challenges your conventions is going to be considered "bait". Unless you can maturely address the topic an defend your stance in an intelligent and compelling manner, your ideology will look weak and destructive.
Grow up? You support a guy who has daily tantrums about the most trivial of issues. He went out of his way to tell the Australian PM that his inauguration crowd was huge, then he threatened him, then he hung up. You picked a real winner.

maineman
02-02-2017, 07:17 PM
People from the Trump camp who are claiming Islam is just an ideology (not a real religion).

Grow up? You support a guy who has daily tantrums about the most trivial of issues. He went out of his way to tell the Australian PM that his inauguration crowd was huge, then he threatened him, then he hung up. You picked a real winner.

Trumpeteers will stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and yell, "NYAHNYAHNYAHNYAHNYAH" as loud as they can rather that shut their pinholes, open their ears, and brains, eat a little crow, and admit that they voted for a "not ready for prime time" egotistical misogynist who is in way over his head. Pride will always force them to keep riding that dead horse, even though it's going nowhere fast.

DGUtley
02-02-2017, 07:25 PM
People from the Trump camp who are claiming Islam is just an ideology (not a real religion).

1. By Trump Camp, do you mean his administration?
2. If so, Citation please?

resister
02-02-2017, 08:09 PM
PLEASE tuck tail and leave IMMEDIATELY

I cannot believe i just read your posts about a perceived exception for "foreign religions"

Oh My Hell!

https://forum.huskermax.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/facepalm.gif
Go post more lies as a thread.