Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In America you have the freedom to believe whatever crazy stuff you want to believe, no matter who gets hurt as a result. It’s written in our constitution.
You're telling me your opinion. Which is not supported by facts. I'm providing you with facts. And you are ignoring the facts.
Why would this be cited in the article I linked to?
Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.
You're just repeating what I said was a philosophy, but it was not based on any practical knowledge of muslims. It did not mean foreigners entering with a foreign religion. In 1790, you had to be white to be a citizen and to participate in government or vote. What are the chances a white person would convert to Islam in 1790s even though philosophically that would be acceptable? Virtually none. You are taking the era out of its context.
You're just repeating what I said was a philosophy, but it was not based on any practical knowledge of muslims. It did not mean foreigners entering with a foreign religion. In 1790, you had to be white to be a citizen and to participate in government or vote. What are the chances a white person would convert to Islam in 1790s even though philosophically that would be acceptable? Virtually none. You are taking the era out of its context.
Keith Ellison was sworn into an office using a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.
Fact: You can be sworn into office using any religious book, or no religious book at all.
/thread
racists feel free to keep it going. Not sure how this got to 13 pages when its clear cut.
You're just repeating what I said was a philosophy, but it was not based on any practical knowledge of muslims. It did not mean foreigners entering with a foreign religion. In 1790, you had to be white to be a citizen and to participate in government or vote. What are the chances a white person would convert to Islam in 1790s even though philosophically that would be acceptable? Virtually none. You are taking the era out of its context.
And yet, the point still stands. People at the time fully understood that the First protects religions other than Christianity, whether any actual voters were Hindu/Muslim or not. (We know that the First intended to protect Deists, who are not defined as Christian, and Jews.)
I would prefer a Somali refugee is not here taking an oath for office period.
We all have preferences. I would prefer that no person in the world feel the need to flee his/her native country. But a legal immigrant has every right to run for office. Regardless of religion. And voters have the right to elect that person. Regardless of religion.
Why do you find this offensive? it shows all inclusiveness .I see you doubt what went on in private.
Yes, I do indeed doubt the entire story. Pix (unphotoshopped), or it didn’t happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
