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.
They have rights...period. They do not have all the same rights as citizens. That can not be determined until their status is determined in a court of law.
Posting like this can sometimes be taken wrong. I took no offense nor was I questioning you. I just thought I would try and be a little clearer in what I was saying so that misunderstandings might be avoided. My original statements were less than full ideas.
I posted to make my positions clearer, not to question you.
1. I think the article answers that question. Did you read it?
2. Putting The First Amendment into historical context, the "New World" was settled by people, Christians, who came to escape religious persecution because they were of a different sect. The Church of England was the only recognized church. The Founders did not want the new government 'establishing' one [Christian] sect as the official church. This was the reason for the so-called 'establishment' clause, and the following 'free exercise clause' was an extension of the first.
Nowhere in the Constitution is protection afforded for religions hostile to our country, or cults that practice human sacrifice or other bizarre, or Satanic rituals.
Should the U.S. protect "honor killings" (Sharia) as "free exercise?"
And by the way, I have taken two College courses on the Constitution.
Did you pass any of those classes because it sounds like you still don't have an understanding of the Constitution?
You also don't understand that things like Sharia Law aren't above the US law. We have Muslims living in the US that aren't going around killing people in the name of Sharia Law.
Did you pass any of those classes because it sounds like you still don't have an understanding of the Constitution?
You also don't understand that things like Sharia Law aren't above the US law. We have Muslims living in the US that aren't going around killing people in the name of Sharia Law.
As practiced in the United States Sharia Law is no different than say Amish law. The Amish settle many of their differences among themselves. If there is a squabble they don't run to the court system. They have their own way of dealing with it.
As long as criminal laws are not broken there is nothing wrong with this. If Muslims want to do the same, so what.
Where there is a Muslim and someone else involved we still have the court system.
Did you pass any of those classes because it sounds like you still don't have an understanding of the Constitution?
What part of the Constitution does it seem to you that I don't understand? Have you ever studied the Constitution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
You also don't understand that things like Sharia Law aren't above the US law. We have Muslims living in the US that aren't going around killing people in the name of Sharia Law.
Really? There have been many "honor killings" here in the U.S. done by Muslims who practice Sharia, and Muslims do believe that Sharia is above our laws.
The terrorist attacks we have experienced in our country done by Muslims are in the name of Sharia law. They believe they have a right and a duty to kill all non-Muslims.
Really? There have been many "honor killings" here in the U.S. done by Muslims who practice Sharia, and Muslims do believe that Sharia is above our laws.
The terrorist attacks we have experienced in our country done by Muslims are in the name of Sharia law. They believe they have a right and a duty to kill all non-Muslims.
So what? They don't. You can believe whatever you want to believe.
George Bush believed he was above our laws also. He believed he had the right to ignore the Constitutional acknowledged due process right of the citizens AND he actually acted on that.
As practiced in the United States Sharia Law is no different than say Amish law. The Amish settle many of their differences among themselves. If there is a squabble they don't run to the court system. They have their own way of dealing with it.
As long as criminal laws are not broken there is nothing wrong with this. If Muslims want to do the same, so what.
Where there is a Muslim and someone else involved we still have the court system.
Not quite. The Amish adhere to U.S. law. The Amish don't have their "own law." Settling differences amongst themselves is vastly different from having Sharia Courts, as the Muslims do.
The problem is that Muslims do not believe in U.S. law. They believe their law is higher. Do you think they should be allowed to prosecute someone found guilty of theft by cutting off their hands, and doing so apart from U.S. Law? And what about "honor killings?"
We cannot have different laws for different groups of people in the U.S. We have one legal system and the Constitution. All must abide by the laws established by Congress. Period.
Muslims support Sharia blasphemy laws. And we are edging toward "no go zones" here in the United States.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 08-08-2016 at 04:04 PM..
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.
