Shouldn't Islam Be Banned In the USA (asked of US citizens only)

Keep listening. There's nothing in this post that cannot be shredded with fact...including which religion is largest and Constitutional directives regarding the establishment of a state religion.

 

True.

Untrue.

This is an absurd postulation.
I suppose the Federalist Papers have no bearing on contemporary Constitutional law or American perspectives....mere "soundbites" from history. really...

 

To which, Christ himself stated: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's".... changing the relationship of church and state.

Yes. we're all aware that some Christian organizations found reciprocation in their respective "Caesars".

I would posit that the biggest difference is that the US (I won't speak to nations that restrict free speech) guarantees not to give preference to one religious doctrine over another....and the pesky reality that, in fact, Christianity does not demand the legal institution of its religious precepts: give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.

 

Islam is protected, not its legal code.

 

An interesting statement.
Warren Jeffs will spend the rest of his life in prison for practicing his religion. One cannot claim that his religion, and the free exercise thereof, was equally protected.

 

He did not make a reference to Free Speech or any restrictions to it, he said IMPOSITION OF Shariah LAW.

 

Point of clarification: Iranians are majority Shi'ite and AQ is a Sunni org...carry on with your rant...

 

Well, counselor, allow me to give you a refresher course in Christianity 101.

The Bible is divided into two books (for a reason). The first book is the Old Testament, also known as the Old Covenant

covenant:

• the conditional promises made to humanity by God, as revealed in Scripture.
• the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.

​

The second book is called the New Testament, so called because the prophet promised in the OT was fulfilled in Christ. Christ's teachings necessitated a NEW Covenant between man and God.

This is commonly known in law as abrogation.

The OT is the history of the Jews, the OT gives authority to the NT, but is abrogated by it nonetheless.
The OT is/was applicable only to Jews, never to Christians (Christ wasn't even delivered at that time); Christianity is available to all irregardless of ethnicity (see Bk of Hebrews).

Now, why go off topic with this discussion? Because the links you offered in support of your argument were 2 lists of OT verse that applied to Israelites and never Christians (save one, and that a complete misreading of text -- intentional without doubt).

In the future, if you intend to use Biblical verse against Christians or to illuminate Christian belief, I suggest using verses from the book that applies to their religion and not another religion.

 

Again, I cite Kevin J Murray vs Henry M Paulson Jr

Not every fear is hyperbole.

 

YOU go have a Good Read of the NT....list for us every "incitement to violence" ....
since it is OBVIOUS that YOU are OBJECTIVE and will easily be capable of identifying these vile, filthy, murdering verses of instruction to Christians.

You've been challenged...go.

 

non-responsive and inflammatory (every bit as inflammatory as the 'obsessive rantings' you claimed of others).

 

and then there are plenty of your lot who have no real knowledge or study of either but regurgitate the meme of the day

 

Its not only unconstitutional (ie FIRST amendment), its also illogical (why bother banning it? there is no reason other then prejudice and ignorance) and hypocritical (why not ban all religions?) to 'ban' Islam in the USA.

 

The reason for banning Islam in USA has been given to IslamoFascist Terrorist Supporters scores of times by different posters.

However, invariably, these libs (10-15% of our population) chose to ignore them.

The most blatant one is the FIRST DICTUM of the Qu'ran concocted by the Historically Documented Whackjob Mass Murderer, Thief, Rapist & Pedophilic Rapist Mohammed: "Make the World the Caliphate of Islam, preferably by word, by SWORD (caps mine) if necessary."

There is no other Organized Religion in the World that has this bloodcurdling barbaric Agenda as part of their Doctrine.

This FIRST DICTUM, supercedes all instructions contradictory to it. This is made unequivocally clear, by Mohammed,

Finally, detailed instructions are given for the TORTURE & MURDER of all who oppose Islam, after they have been given the FIRST DICTUM.

Those Muslims who reject Islam, or replace it with another religion are punished with DEATH (together with their family).

Thus Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Political Force camouflaged as a religion

Islam is not any different than Fascism or Communism in its brutality.

The 10-15% crazed Libs, who basically HATE AMERICA invariably support the IslmoFascist Terrorsit Swine.....our ENEMY. And, idiotically profess their "patriotism" for America at the same time.

 

Loong, did you ever watch the Cosby show? There was one episode Dr Huxtable told Theo to close his eyes and imagine his favorite food in all the world.
What was it? steak And could he smell it? *draws in deep breath *sigh* yes And was it sizzling? mouth-watering.
Now Theo, imagine I served this fabulous steak to you on the top of our trash can lid. *eyes pop open*
Lesson: it's all in the delivery

 

FALSE ! It is unconstitutional to ALLOW Islam to exist, being that it is a supremacist ideology (masquerading as a religion), and therefore clearly in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, section 2), the most powerful part of the Constitution, which trumps the weaker 1st Amendment (which has no application to Islam anyway, since Islam is not a religion).

Nothing unusual about that. The 1st Amendment is a relatively weak part of the Constitution, and has numerous exceptions to it. Examples are all the illegal actions pertaining to free speech - slander, libel, perjury, sedition, conspiracy laws, inciting a riot, fighting words, simple assault, etc.

The reason why religions shouldn't be banned, is because they are not supremacist.

 

Nazism was a supremacist ideology, not Islam.


Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, referring to the Arabs of Palestine, Complete Diaries, entry for June 12, 1895 .

“In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out! If they don’t agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force.” Professor Ben-Zion Dinur, Israel ‘s First Minister of Education, 1954, from History of the Haganah, 1956.

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” Israel Koenig, ‘The Koenig Memorandum,’ 1976.

“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.” Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset quoted in New Statesman, June 25,1982 .

“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat as mayor of Tel Aviv, 1983.

 

Margot,

The only problem with your quotes is that Israel never carried out it's so-called "intentions".

However, the IslamoFascist Swine in 5 or 6 wars tried to wipe Israel off the map with a total annihilation of its people.....but they lost each time.

Since then the IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine made one attack after another against Israel with Israel making just enough of a repreisal to have these Palestinian IslamoFascist swine holler "uncle".....then this IslamoFascist terrorist Human Garbage would launch attack....then another....then another....ad infinitum.

Obviously there isn't any sense in negotiating with these IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine.

 

I guess its a good thing that our courts and our legislators disagree with and ignore your flawed interpretation of both the Constitution and Islam.

The Constitution protects us all from those who would use religion and fear to institute pogroms against minority groups.

Really an idiotic argument.

 

Just because you do not approve of Islam doesn't mean it isn't a religion.

What you are proposing is just a blatant attempt to redefine Islam as not a religion in order to bypass the Constitutional protections in place specifically to protect those who hold minority religious viewpoints.

Among those liberal 10-15% of our population apparently is GW Bush...which shows how removed your argument is from reality.

 

Dearest Margot,

Per Debate World Int'l Unwritten Rules: The first one to invoke Nazis loses the argument.

Sincerely,

World of Debaters

 

SFJEFF,

My FACTS about Islam are correct. The FIRST DICTUM is a FACT. Whackjob Mohammed's unequivocal instruction that the FIRST DICTUM supercedes any instruction that contradicts it....is a FACT. The detailed instructions specifyingTORTURE & MURDER of those who oppose Islam after they were given the FIRST DICTUM is a FACT. Those who reject Islam, or replace Islam with another religion, are to be punished by Death together with their family, is a FACT.

Thus, the obvious conclusion that some disagree with the conclusion that Islam is not a "religion" but a Political Force like Fascism or Communism flies in the face of all logic.

Why ?

Answer: Because none of the Organized Religions of the World has such a Atrociously Barbaric Bloodcurdling Agenda as any part of their Doctrines.

Now, I made an error in stating my case that allowed you to claim Dubya, and, actually, MILLIONS of sane, rational Americans, as a matter of fact, the overwhelming number of Americans .....do, indeed, consider Islam a "religion".

However, that still precludes them from NOT being part of the Off-the-Wall Loonie Kooks in the 10-15% of our population.

Let me explain:

The error I made is that I did not make it clear that to be one of the Off-the-Wall Loonie Kooks in the 10-15% of our population ...... one must be ignorant of the atrocious barbarity of the Qu'ran .....as Dubya and the overwhelming number of patriotic Americans are who do NOT support our obvious enemy the IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine. Whilst the 10-15% of the Off-the-Wall Loonie Kooks do support the IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine no matter what.

Once a truly patriotic American is exposed to the atrocious barbarity of the Qu'ran it will be obvious that Islam is not a religion. But, a Political Force that is just as brutal as Fascism or Communism.

Now, are 10-15% of Off-the-Wall Loonie Kooks exposed to the knowledge of the atrocious barbarity of the Qu'ran that renders it a Political Force the same as Fascism and/or Communism ???

Answer: in all probability, the answer is an unequivocal NO !!!

But the difference between Dubya, and the overwhelming number of truly patriotic Americans and the Idiotic Loonie Lib Kooks who HATE AMERICA, whilst hypocritically hollering about their "patriotism is that, and I'd stake my life on the assumption, that Dubya and the truly patriotic Americans upon losing their ignorance of the atrocious barbarity of the Quran would reject the notion that Islam is a "religion" and recognize it as a Political Force like Fascism and/or Communism ......whilst the Idiotic "Hate America" Lib Kooks would still consider Islam a religion, and support IslamoFasist Terrorist Swine as they do now (ignorant, or not) simply because this human garbage, this IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine are, indeed, the enemy of America.

NOW do you geddit ???

 

Well...someone certainly likes to hear themselves talk...

I don't think the winner is decided by who can repeat the most buzzwords in a specific period of time.

 

Yes, they should be banned. Right after they ban the latter day saints and the baptists; especially the baptists.

 

Our Supreme Court is in the process of making just that determination...it is not being ignored.

I asked you about a specific instance/case. Do you think you might refrain from your unsupported assertions long enough to address a real time, actual-in-fact example of Constitutional-Islamic conflict?

Murray vs Paulson

I ask you again, do you support, can you offer Constitutional support for, the Federal Govt protecting/advancing one religious agenda over others?