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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Yeah, a man whose son died in service to America is questionable while a candidate with many business ties to Saudi Arabia is a real 'Murican. And so it goes with the American right.............................
I already have a copy of the Constitution that is many years old, and I refer to it often, thank you. I have also taken two college courses on the Constitution.
What Mr. Kahn doesn't understand about our Constitution is that we have one.
Good point, but I think he understands that very well, and he is trying to make it irrelevant. You see, in Islam, they do not believe in free speech. (I'm sure you knew that). He hates the fact that Donald Trump is allowed to say anything he wants about Islam (and I haven't yet heard Donald say anything wrong).
You can't ban someone based on religion but the President has wide latitude based on other factors. The problem is that if Trump bans only people from arab speaking nations then it can give the impression of discrimination and thus not be allowed.
You most certainly can ban someone based on religion. You can ban the entire religion. It's called The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and it applies in the case of Muslim terrorism. It could be use to bar ALL Muslim immigration.
I do believe that ISIS is winning when we start banning refugees, killed by ISIS and now banned by the US.
Mission accomplished.
We have no obligation to take in "refugees," especially when we don't know way of knowing who they are. Especially in our current world with the constant threat of terrorism, and what we know is going on in Europe with the "migrants." They are a huge problem.
Thanks for trying to rewrite history, I got a good laugh from this response. I guess you believe the Constitution is only for the things you agree with. I think you need to take your own advice, and take a course on the Constitution from a qualified teacher rather than some nut job right winger on a blog.
You'd better dig out some old history books.
The First Amendment, in historical context was to written to prevent the government from naming one (Christian) sect the only recognized Church.
America was settled by Christians (of various sects) who were escaping religious persecution for their beliefs. The Church of England was the only recognized church. The so-called "establishment clause" was to prohibit Congress from 'establishing' one sect over all others, and the "free exercise clause" was an extension of the of the first.
I took two college courses on the Constitution, and not from a blog, but from qualified and degreed professors at a major college.
The Muslim religion is not trying to destroy us, if that was the case we would be have a rather bit problem in the US already with a million Muslims.
Freedom of religion only refers to Christian Sects? Your version reads differently than mine.
You'd better update your knowledge, because you couldn't be more wrong. It is the goal of Islam to dominate the entire world and to wipe out Western civilization. That is what Islamic Jihad is all about. The fact that not all Muslims practice their religion (as taught in the Qur'an) is irrelevant. Those that do are a serious threat, and they are making serious inroads even in our country, because so many Americans are ignorant about Islam and believe (wrongly) that it is a "religion of peace." Islam itself does not claim to be a "religion of peace." Quite the opposite.
Why do you think the Crossed Swords on a field of green in a circle is the Muslim Brotherhood logo? The swords are significant.
We DO have a big problem in the United States!
A study of American history would reveal that the First Amendment was about not naming one Christian Sect as the only official church. That is a fact you cannot refute. Better crack the history books. It has been groups like the ACLU that have perverted our history. Most all the early settlers who came to America to escape religious persecution were Christians of various sects. This is a matter of historical fact. Their world view was Judaeo/Christian; it was not a secular, globalist view as we have in our times. You're trying to put our Constitution into the context of 200 plus years after the Declaration of Independence. That gives you a wrong interpretation.
I'm sorry that you feel this way. I'm not a fan of Islam, but I am a fan of the Constitution, and of the principles that are the foundation of our nation. I understand that when you undermine the protections for those principles, that you imperil those principles. Across the board. Freedom of religion doesn't exist when you start making up special rules for one religion. Once you set the precedent that you can ban a specific religion from immigrating, that you can pass laws against a specific religion, then you've set the precedent that any and all religions can be targeted.
We have laws in place that are secular and that protect us. We can bar an immigrant who has associations with terrorist groups. We can prosecute someone in this country who commits an honor crime. We have laws.
We are not at war with Islam. We cannot be at war with a religion. You cannot defeat a religion. Especially a religion that has over a billion followers. And all of the people who say we are at war with Islam are giving comfort to our enemies, the religious extremists. Because that's their narrative. That's the story they are telling in order to recruit supporters. That's their rationale for attacking us.
Islam is not at war with the United States. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with Islamic extremists who have twisted and perverted their religion, and if they didn't have religion, they would find another "cause" to rationalize their hatred, anger and frustration. These are bitter, emotionally stunted people who revel in hatred and anger, and who are looking for excuses for that hatred and anger. We don't need to help them find those excuses.
Then let Islam fight their own extremists. I've yet to see or hear a mass uprising against their extremists.
To me, silence is consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
You'd better dig out some old history books.
The First Amendment, in historical context was to written to prevent the government from naming one (Christian) sect the only recognized Church.
America was settled by Christians (of various sects) who were escaping religious persecution for their beliefs. The Church of England was the only recognized church. The so-called "establishment clause" was to prohibit Congress from 'establishing' one sect over all others, and the "free exercise clause" was an extension of the of the first.
I took two college courses on the Constitution, and not from a blog, but from qualified and degreed professors at a major college.
Nice try.
Yes, and it was for those fleeing religious persecution. I don't see that this is the same thing.
Then let Islam fight their own extremists. I've yet to see or hear a mass uprising against their extremists.
To me, silence is consent.
They are fighting extremists. What the hell do you think is going on in the Middle East? Do you think it's just Americans and NATO forces fighting ISIS? Who do you think ISIS is killing and torturing in Fallujah?
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.
I think you need to take your own advice, and take a course on the Constitution from a qualified teacher rather than some nut job right winger on a blog.
