Should Muslims be barred from holding public office?

Basically - end of story on this thread.

 

This is what was thought about 200 years ago, but is somewhat outdated.
We had no way of knowing what Islam was about back then.
This is why we need to re-evaluate what is a religion.

 

I think that Islam is the perfect example of a religion and what religion often leads to. The problem with giving the government the power to ban certain people from office, who knows how that power will be abused? Imagine if evangelical Christians were banned from office?

 

I think when these laws were made Christians were the only ones being thought about.

 

This brings up an interesting speculation

Has anyone ever brought a class-action suit against Islam for having a religion that tells its followers they can kill all the infidels?
Because then we could probably end up with an actual legal decision saying that they don´t say that.
And then countersue all the Republicans for saying they do.

I wonder if thatś ever been done in Moot Court. Might be even more interesting than Wile E Coyote vs the Acme Company

 

Actually about 20 years ago a suit was brought up against Richard Butler of the Aryan nations for preaching what led up to the murder of an ethopian immigrant.
Butler lost the case and everything he owned.

I always wondered why nobody brought up one against Islam for what is the same thing.

 

In my state there was an actual law saying you had to take an oath affirming you believed in the ¨Christian God¨ before you could be sworn in as Governor. Blatantly unConsitutional, but I think it stayed on the books until just a few years ago because nobody ever challenged it.

 

I recall something like that where the Klan in one state or another was bankrupted. But there the matter was that an actual specific person was killed and the damage was due to a wrongful death.. Same thing here I suppose.

But it wouldn´t work against Islam because Islam does not say that. The quotes saying it does are all out of context

 

That is absolutely wrong, and one of Islam,s favorite excuses.
When I discuss certain events with someone, I like to put them into it's correct context.
They say, that's out of context, and I say, well put it into it's correct one.
Naturally they can't.
I like to say,
who wrote the verse.
What book(s) it is in.
when it was written,
who the audience was
the surrounding verses.
The events of the time it was written.

I have never seen a Muslim do that.
Normally they make their stupid azz excuse and run.

 

I'll give you an Example with one of my favorite verses.

"Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country."

Now I take this to mean, "Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country."

Perhaps you can put it into it's correct context for me.

 

Muhammad said that muslims were allowed to go to war to protect themselves and then discussed how to go to war in that context. At the time he and his followers were being attacked by the other factions in Mecca but the sections on how to go to war are meant to be universal. Islam is famous for enjoining that the ¨People of the Book¨", Christians and Jews, are not to be harmed, ( and ISIS is seriously heretical in allowing that)

 

Muhammed was the aggressor in all of his actions.
He did have some Meccans attack him at the battle of Badr, but they were protecting the caravans he attacked.

When Abu Sufyan heard that Muhammad’s Companions were on their way to intercept his caravan, he sent a message to the Quraysh. ‘Muhammad is going to attack our caravan, so protect your merchandise.’ When the Quraysh heard this, the people of Mecca hastened to defend their property and protect their men as they were told Muhammad was lying in wait for them.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 29

Mecca was a small community, little water and vegetation, and couldn't support more than 1500 people.
Now how many are waring age.
We can only estimate.
He conquered Mecca and turned on the Jews.

 

I'm hoping for the day when a druid is elected to public office.

I will hug a tree in celebration.

 

Just be careful about showing up sky clad. The Christians and muslims get all antsy

 

If any statements made by a professed Muslim - that if acted out upon, would be considered treasonous or not in congruence with the:

- D of I
- Constitution
- Bill of Rights
- 'natural rights'

then close scrutiny should be warranted. If any found actions or statements are in juxtaposition to the above & are not voluntarily recanted... That individual should go on our FBI watch list... ergo it would preclude their holding public office.
(Note - this applies to everyone... Not just Muslims)

 

A Muslim is supposed to be true to God's law, which overrides Man's law,
God's law is the horsesh-t they pull out of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

 

I see your point, however, there is Article IV, Clause 3 of our Constitution & instead of delving into Islamic ideology, I'm compelled as a Constitutional textualist to adhere to the 'no religious test' clause spelled out in our founding documents.

 

Theoretically no religious text can supercede the constitution, or state laws.
However According to Islam, no law can supercede God's law.

Whoever claims both is lying to at least one of them.

 

Yeah same thing for christianity

 

c
Christianity is compatible with any form of government.

I don't know how you even came up with that.
Obviously you are not familiar with Christianity

 

No its not. That is just a lie

 

You're right. Christianity is not compatible with a Caliphate, unless they are slaves.

 

Or a democratic republic

 

It can work there just fine, .

 

Only if you dont follow canon law