Would you amend the Constitution to save our Constitutional rights?

Muslims breed like domestic cats. American Christians breed like rocks. Do you really believe that we can maintain cultural dominance in the world?

 

It need to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states either by legislative action or convention.

 

Certain forms of Christianity do indeed pose a serious threat to our nation and freedoms. The Dominionists and their ilk (and Sarah Palin is linked to these groups) would turn this nation into a theocracy. They are far more numerous than Muslims in this nation.

 

Doesn't Sharia's law violate that whole separation of church and state thing anyway?

 

If a group was trying to destroy the Constitution, adding an amendment is useless, in fact, it could have the opposite effect and actually hurt what the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish with the Constitution. Of course the argument is pointless when the population that is supposedly trying to destroy the Constitution is only 0.8% of the U.S. population. With only 2.5 million people, all the Muslims in America would barely fill Chicago. So no, 0.8% or the population does not frighten me. It is the 73%+ of the population that scares me when they try to force THEIR religion into U.S. law.

 

I am against ANY religious intrusion into American politics. I hold the First Amendment dear and consider it the most important amendment in the whole Constitution. I stand by Separation of Church and State as any fundamentalist who has debated me on this forum will attest. Why would I welcome Shariah justice? It is against everything I hold dear.

That said, I also don't run around like Chicken Little yelling "the sky is falling!" every time a Muslim wants to follow some tenant of his religion. I have yet to see a single incident in the U.S. where a Muslim succeeded at forcing his religion into U.S. law and no Muslim has forced a non-Muslim into arbitration. No, the only people that will force you into arbitration is your mobile phone provider and bank.

Now, I know very little of Swedish politics so I can't comment their legal system, but I would like to see a link, if you have one, on how Muslims are enforcing Shariah Law in Sweden.

 

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_350_35326.php
http://instigatornews.com/sweden-bows-islam-adopts-sharia-insult-law/

 

Yes. My right to own slaves was taken away. Not that I miss it much or wouldn't have supported removing that right, but yes I lost a right on that day.

Please don't ask me to choose between two silly options to fit me into your limited view of the world. I do not want slavery and I'm not full of crap. The world is a bigger place and there are more possibilities than you seem to think exist.





​

 

This should be the official political slogan of the Republican party

 

I think that any law that criminalizes hate speech is a bad law, but it is not Sharia. The Quran actually says "Bear patiently what they say." (20:130 and 50:39).

 

What rights were lost with the 12th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th or 27th Amendments?

 

so they murder 6 people in France for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles.............right, gotcha

 

They were insulted. People kill people over insults all the time. Hell, people have been killed for insulting a football team, does that mean that football should be banned. Nowhere in the Quran does it say to kill people who have insulted Allah or Mohammed.

 

The freedom to do otherwise than whatever those amendments required or the entitlement to whatever those amendments removed. The right to collect a poll tax or the right to run for a third presidential term, as examples.




​

 

yep, whatever you say............

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?" If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most "wicked".

Qur'an (33:57) - "Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained"

Qur'an (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

When author Salman Rushdie published "The Satanic Verses," a 1988 novel deemed offensive to Muhammad, the Ayatollah Khomeini pronounced a death sentence that was supported by a majority of Muslims

 

Want to do some more math? Assume 0.8% of the population has an average of 6 children. Assume 99.2% of the population has an average of 1.6 kids. Assume that a generation is 20 years. Assume everybody dies at age 100.

What year does that 0.8% group become the majority?

 

This calculation assumes that Muslim women average 6 kids per lifetime and American women average 1.6 kids per life time. Make proper adjustments with the real data. 1.6 and 6 were just based upon my own observations. The calculation is very simple and can be replaced with the numbers of your choosing.

8 people x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 62,208
992 people x 1.6 x 1.6 x 1.6 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 10,401

0.8% of the population can become 85.7% of the population in 120 years under the right condition. Hint: The United States has the right conditions.

This calculation doesn't take into consideration that the 0.8% of the population is idealistic, has a goal and would kill 10 neighbors for their cause. This calculation doesn't take into consideration that the other 99.2% of the population can't even kill their own food without feeling remorse, only care about themselves and owns no higher ideal. It may be faster than 120 years. Who knows?

 

Why is that?

 

Psssst, we are not Europe and have no where near the same Muslim population.

 

What about the right for women to vote (19th). What right did that take away? How about the lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 (26th), what right did that take away? As for the poll tax, that is not a right because the only the people have rights, the government does not.

It actually sounds though that you think that you can only have a right if another person's rights are taken away. I that what you believe?

 

A right is something you're owed or due. Most would say America has a right to protect itself. People lost the right to, through the agency of their government, collect a poll tax.

Giving women the right to vote, meant men lost the right to exclusively decide the fate of this nation. *shrug*





​

 

Americans have neglected the need to amend for so long that now it is not quite as simple as " yes or no" or even maybe.

Firstly, I am for an Article V convention, BUT it needs to be done properly, assuring all amendments have constitutional intent.

Currently, there are very few Americans that can even discuss constitutional intent intelligently.

This thread proves that. The thread was created because a poster here observed that members were FAILING to observe that free speech has an ultimate purpose. DUH!

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/394345-we-should-get-rid-free-speech.html

Unfortunately, not one participant overtly recognized that free speech has an actual ultimate purpose of enabling the unity NEEDED to amend and empower defense of the 1787 constitution.

These two threads are where the failure to even discuss the constitutional intent of free speech became so obvious the above thread was inspired with its inverted controversy to inspire participation by these two.

Amazing dogma proportionate and consistent with the participation on this thread was shown in the thread above.

An early one looking at the natural law, biological basis for the purpose of free speech.

http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...assure-info-vital-life-shared-understood.html

Another created to balance a thread started about the limits of free speech.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...free-speech-choosing-limits-over-purpose.html

This thread below outlines a credible threat to the constitution. Not from sharia law, but from from globalist corporations that may well be working to convert the constitutions intent from serving the people to serving corporate profits.

There is an absolutely credible 20 year threat from ALEC behind this and a VERY well shown case of double speak from Mark Levin on December 4, 2014 to support that something is up. Collusion between ALEC and another .org which apparently tried to distance itself with a grass roots Article V promotion appears suddenly here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

How can this be? Seriously, it's not reasonable to consider that all of those people are real Americans CONSISTENTLY exhibiting a failure to use critical thinking AND ignorance of the obvious. Covert, cognitive infiltration anyone?

Now, if people cannot deal with constitutional intent, this proposal makes some sense. But even it appears well over the heads of the sincere posting here. Or maybe they are not sincere. We know they are not accountable.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...endment-congress-cannot-runoff-lawmaking.html

It appears the best we have is a forum of sheep, whiners, complainers and unaccountable deniers.

Covert cognitive infiltration?

I've learned that with a tool such as the definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech, infiltrators do not even dare to deny they are infiltrators. NOTHING is what happens.

Watch!

 

You should try to think for yourself instead of parroting www.thereligionofpeace.com. If you read the whole passage of 6:93 it says:

Qur'an (6:93) - Who can be more wicked than the one who invents a lie against Allah, or says: "This was revealed to me," while nothing was revealed to him? Or the one who says: "I can reveal the like of what Allah has revealed?" If you could only see these wrongdoers when they are in the agonies of death and the angels stretch forth their hands saying, "Take out your soul! Today you will be rewarded with a disgraceful punishment for saying falsehood against Allah which you had no right to say and showing arrogance against His revelations!"

As you can see, this passage was about lying about revelations from Allah, no where does it talk about killing people for insulting Allah or Mohammed.

Well, if we need an amendment to protect of from Muslim's forcing their beliefs on us, then we should also make and amendment to protect us form Christians forcing THEIR beliefs on us. After all, they call for the death penalty on people too:

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

And that one doesn't even require any assumptions, it just out and out says it.

 

Frankly I'd just as soon you not explain your islamophobia to me. I've got the drift already. This is basic McCarthyism with some folks getting a lot of attention and cash out of fear mongering. Its all just tiresome.

 

Yes, what about the constitution Pregnar?