HA! That’s funny.
This is the policy:
The First Amendment guarantees the right to practice any “religion” one chooses. However, if that religion advocates the overthrow of our Constitution as the supreme law of the land, said religion becomes a threat to the continued existence of our republic. Islam is much more an imperialist political ideology than it is a “religion.” For example, when a Muslim takes an Oath of Office and swears on the Quran to uphold the Constitution, he/she is literally lying. One cannot be Muslim and swear against “Taqiyya,” a bedrock principle of Sharia (Islamic law). The problem is, the Quran (including Hadiths and Surrahs) deem it a “requirement” to perform “Taqiyya”, i.e. to lie to a “kafir” (a non-Muslim, non-believer, infidel, second class non-person, sub-human). Therefore, we must OUTLAW SHARIA (especially things like public officials swearing on the Quran) to protect our God-given freedoms, our Constitution, the First Amendment and the continuation of our way of life. This policy suggestion is fully in line with the Constitution (1789) for the Republic and not in conflict with the First Amendment. For a good site explaining “Taqiyya” go here: https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-islamic-requirement-to-perform-taqiyya-and-lie-to-non-muslims/#What_Happens_When_Muslims_Do_Not_Practice_Taqiyya
clears throat
Include Beth Din, as there are just as many Jewish council in the UK which were the source that OP cited.
The specification of outlawing a certain sect of practice of a religion and not all religions for the cited reasoning is hypocrisy-negating that all of this is redundant and unconstitutional, via the 1st Amendment and Supremacy clause, blah blah, it’s all above.
If you want to make policies about other issues that’s another topic. But it is distracting from the point of this policy.
If you have some specific actions being taken in regard to some other book or document that need a policy or apply to this policy that is additional. Just naming a Book of the old testament or out of the Torah isn’t applicable to today unless you see some actions actually being taken that threaten our Constitution.
If you have a wording suggestion to the policy great.
But pointing fingers over here and there doesn’t change anything.
You are missing a lot of information about you seem to be protecting. That is part of the issue with censoring that occurs. Hopefully that will change soon. There are a ton of videos on X showing children’s TV shows and how they are brainwashed in a certain region, games that the children are taught to play, abuse to animals to teach them to harm others. There are a ton of vidoes showing what Sharia actually is for women. There are multiple reports of gang rapes in UK and now Italy also because of this book.
It’s not a religion. And no I don’t see another religion that you are referring to behaving in these manners. So trying to compare this war plan and massive abuse to a religion isn’t factual.
It is literally a war plan which I mentioned comments ago in the Muslim Brotherhood document.
I don’t know what Beth Din does so if it applies to trying to overthrow our government and to crimes and abuse trying to be implemented in the name of a religion then of course not. If it is not that then no it would not apply.
And I already tried to edit and paste the comments that are awaiting approval previously so it isn’t accepting it.
Same thing happens everywhere with censorship, and brainwashing. I saw a video yesterday of a group of elementary age boys in Jewish garb harrasing a woman and attacking her in Israel. I’ve seen just as much hate for Jews. Probably the same type of religious grooming to hate.
‘…these courts were authorized to administer monetary rulings, as well as corporal and capital punishments.’ in relation to Jewish Law, including Deuteronomy.
I didn’t just ‘name’ it. Above I listed the exact verses that express the same values you say are Islam-centric.
Making a policy aimed at specfic religious practices is Unconstitutional. You have to include all, or none.
Who’s pointing fingers except the supporters of this policy proposal? I suggest the proposal be made to include all religious subversion of secular court decisions as per the Law. Because the current one is deep-fried in fear fed bigotry.
You ignored everything ive pointed out about recent Israeli actions above, and the exact text from the Torah that mirrors everything except the explicit actions which children which Mormanism practices today.
Also WHAT ABOUT THE JEWISH TUNNELS IN NYC UNDER THE SYNAGOGUE WITH THE STAINED MATTRESS AND HIGH-CHAIRS.
Yea right, it’s anyone who can act this horrible way, not just one group of people. You’re playing identity politics.
I cannot fathom why you all choose not to read what I’ve posted.
Issue: Religious courts
outlaw these religious legal structures too
Issue: Subversive and immoral values
outline all religions, or establish a ‘blanket policy’ that encompasses all who fall within your parameters, instead of identity politics
I’m not talking about harassment. I agree that is wrong. However, I am talking about a lot worse abuse, rape, murder of anyone who is not following them. If you dare try to leave you will also be subject to these criminal behaviors. And if you are a female you will be subject to them anyway no matter who you are just because you are female. And this is on a National scale. The idea is to make it the law in the US. That’s not the same as harassment. I am talking about videos of animal abuse to teach people to physically harm and murder people. It’s not the same. you are mentioning a mattress and tunnels. I don’t know anything about it. But I certainly don’t think it is any different than Priests raping little boys. It’s illegal and should be prosecuted. It’s not in any document or that they should be doing it. They are criminals and are prosecuted in the court system. It’s not the same thing. It’s a different catergory of issue.
I looked up Beth Din. If you have suggestions regarding how it crosses the line into taking over our Country or Constitution then please suggest them. I don’t see anything wrong with a group acting as a mediator or arbitrator if they are following the Countries laws and not trying to over-ride our Country laws taking over our Country. I don’t see anything stating they are trying to force people to do anything like marry a 40 year old Uncle. That violates our laws. That is incest and sex trafficking. So if you have something specific please suggest it. But it appears to be a separate issue. Sharia law violates US law period. Therefore, it should not be permitted. The reason everyone knows about Sharia is because of the crimes and harm that are done. I haven’t heard that about Beth Din. If that is going on it should be brought to the publics attention. But I don’t see a document like the Muslim Brotherhood put out with a 100 year plan to take over America. Do you have anything that shows that is the intention for some other group? Obviuosly as I have been saying every time if there is any group that is trying to take over our Country they are included. But I haven’t seen that and nothing you have said is showing that to be the issue. You are bringing up separate issues.
Your approach to the conversation is to try to take every comment and negate it. That’s not productive.
As I said if you have some other policy you want to create or wording that may apply that I would consider. Otherwise, I support the policy. You are comparing apples to oranges. Maybe apples need a policy and so do organges. But the things you are bringing up are not directly related to the intention and purpose of this policy. I support the policy because it is protecting our Constitution and Country.
This is about a group trying to overthrow our government and implement criminal behavior. If you have better wording, please suggest it for consideration.
If you have another policy for other issues please suggest it.
Thank you
This is the Beth Din that you mentioned http://www.thebethdin.com/
They are complaining that a woman decided to go to civil court anyway and the American Beth Din allowed it and continued to help her. I don’t see how this compares to Sharia law which imprisons women and makes them marry Uncles. I don’t see how this is attempting to take over our Country with a 100 year plan. That 100 year plan is not to respect freedom of religion. It is to take over the Country and all people. It’s not at the same Again, if you have another policy regarding religious courts that you want to suggest that’s a different policy than I am reading. This policy which I support is about a group trying to take over a Country and the Constitution.
And this is a case that was in the court https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//pdfs/2024/2024_34428.pdf
The US court still has say and the parties have to agree willingly. How much they want the Beth Din to be involved should be in their decision making prior to agreeing. This seems to be the issue with that case.
Yea a lot of negating here
This is what I’m doing, suggesting the clarification of, and inclusion of all religious legal structures, instead of targeting one group unconstitutionally.
This last one is just wrong, you are quite literally negating what i say at his point, you are laughable.
No, it’s Unconstitutional, and I tried to add wording to be inclusive of all subversive legal-religious structures that are ideologically and historically related through primary examples, and diectly cited text. At this point you’re attempting to manipulate the situation and convince me that I’m not making sense or talking off topic.
Single out a religion, it’s unconstitutional.
Restrict one religion without the others? it’s unconstitutional and bigotry.
Not to mention the redundancy, because our laws already protect against subversive religious legislation and legal structures.
If anything the proposal should be geared toward restricting legal structues because outlawing a practice is illegal and unconstitutional, intolerant and hypocritical.
We disagree.
1 Like
For information purposes regarding the policy I am including the following to explain the Muslim Brotherhood 100 year plan
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Proecess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
Do you seriously not realize that more religions under the definition of ‘Abrahamic’ prepetuate the same unity-imperialist ideology of a world governance of the chosen? Judaism explicitly states this.
It’s called Olam HaBa ‘The World to Come.’
This isn’t Islam-centric. Watch the video above that Bob shared, it highlights the struggle with the culture prepetuated out east, and the attempts and mindsets leading to reform. He also explicitly mentions that Israel has the same ideology.
Here is the full video for people who want to learn more why this policy is extremely important.
Around 44 minutes the discussion of what Sharia law includes is discussed. Brigette was born in Lebanon and lived through this issue. She speaks the language and can read the documents.
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, etc. ALL have ties to the CIA, and evidence that our government is prepetuating their existence through financial and physical support.
Put down your cool-aid. Judaism has the same thing, Deuteronomy and Olam HaBa.
Following are some links that may assist in the discussion of how a policy may function.
First here is a list of Sharia law and how it violates our laws and Constitution. I am not going to list it here because it will likely not get through. But you can follow the link to see the obvious reasons this violates our laws and Constitution.
Sharia law in America SHARIA LAW IN AMERICA — Current Status in Michigan, California, Texas, Florida, Minnesota
Solutions
Some issues that may present with how it is written are discussed here:
Suggested solution by Public Policy Alliance. However, I don’t agree this is written optimally. But it is here to view and consider. I don’t believe that Sharia law is a religion or that following a plan to overtake a government constitutes a religion either. I don’t think this is written strong enough as it states that people may practice religion but does not address a group that is under the guise of religion but trying to overthrow a government and also violate laws for females only etc.
https://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=170
Legislation > American Laws for
American Courts Model Act
AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:
The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.
As used in this act, “court” means any court, board, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or enforcement authority of this State.
As used in this Act, “religious organization” means any church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation, association, or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals, of any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as a church or religious organization under section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.
[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[3] A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[4]
a. A contract or contractual provision (if severable) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
b. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.
[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.
[6] No court or arbitrator shall interpret this Act to limit the right of any person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by the Constitution of this State. No court shall interpret this Act to require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters, including, but not limited to, the election, appointment, calling, discipline, dismissal, removal or excommunication of a member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam or member of the clergy, of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the religious organization, where adjudication by a court would violate the prohibition of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States, or violate the Constitution of this State.
[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.
2 Likes
More false equivalency…
@DRSE This type of wording and is what I was talking about! 
Thank you!
Yes!
This is exactly what I was supporting the entire time. @robokoch you need to collaborate with Eagans here, and include his suggested wording and policy.
Yet I directly oppose rights, acts, and policies not being applicable to legal entities, since it is through the legal structure of monied politics that our government is now controlled.
This should be applied to corporations, partnerships, LLCs, associations, etc.
Couldn’t a foreign entity like Iran or Israel achieve their means through corporate influence and lobbying? I would simply like to hear your reasoning about section 5 @DRSE . Shouldn’t our already existing rights be applied to legal structures too? What would make you oppose the application of rights and policy to business?
Yea… how is it false equivalence? You’re lucky @DRSE is here to save this proposal 