Outlaw Islamic Sharia (law): it SUPERSEDES our Constitution as the "law of the land"

Homeland Security
125

Ethan. We are on different pages. You are making it into a different topic. I don’t understand why are you copying and pasting? Just put a comment if you have one. You obviously do not understand Deuteronomy or what is taught about it or the reality. Nobody is murdering anyone in Christianity today. Muslims are murdering people today. They are enslaving people today. Look around the world. Those are the facts. People have been attacking white people for years now for enslaving people but the only people actually enslaving people today are Muslims. And raping and murdering, etc. It’s a problem What are your suggestions to stop it? You are just arguing and ignoring the facts of what people are actually doing and what the danger is for all of us. You put a thumbs down on Brigitte Gabriel’s interview. She was born in Lebanon and lived as neighbors with Muslims. She experienced it. It is a real danger. It wasn’t the Christians or the Jews. It was the Muslims.

I have been very clear about my position and that I do not believe Sharia LAW is a religion. I don’t believe people should be able to disguise a religion as a way to overthrow a government. That is the topic. You are bringing up things that are not related to that issue. Christianity and Judaism is not doing either of those things. The world is the example. I am not going to ignore the reality because people want to hide behind a label that is not real.

We disagree. I am done discussing this topic with you because you are just repeating the same thing and copying and pasting. It’s not really legible or a conversation. We disagree. If I post something it is really not going to be directed at you. I’m sorry but I don’t find this productive. That’s the only reason. I’ve had convesations on other topics with you and not had this experience. We just disagree on this topic and it’s not productive.

1 Like
126

Unfortunately, Ethan believes Imperialist Islam and Sharia to be just another “abrahamic religion” so he constantly draws false equivalencies. He cannot fathom that he’s dealing with a Dark Ages MENTALITY with an average IQ of 80-85 that believes the end justifies the means and is literally encouraged to lie to all “infidels”, i.e. subhumans, until the Islamic Umah rules the world… all “peace agreements” are temporary, tax / extort all “unbelievers” with the jizya, treat women and children (m & f) as sex objects and chattel, slavery legal, etc. Thanks for your comments.

1 Like
127

:rofl: alright. You guys play with your forum and bigotry, at least you did what I wanted. You can’t just decide what is and isn’t a religion for others, plus the video you guy’s shared has a guy clarify that it is a religion. Even hits the definition of ‘religion’ in the link you jusy shared above.

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.

  1. Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death

What I don’t understand is how you could take any other interpretations of the sections of Deuteronomy I was comparing. Or how I could be misunderstanding it. Maybe your church doesn’t teach these verses, but others could. Put yourself in the shoes of believer of modern Islam, whose empathetic ideas and beliefs are clouded by the terrors of radical Islam.

We are on the same page, you added exactly the wording I was arguing that Bob was missing. Thanks, even though you’re still arguing conjecture, you added what I argued for. You just want to argue.

I also think that you’re trying to clarify that Sharia Law itself isnt a religion (It’s not, It’s a part of one) where as the 10 Comandments is also religious code, not ‘a religion’. Dumb comparison. Neither are the Noahide Laws or Beth Din considered ‘religions’ but are the exact same Jewish concepts as Sharia Law.

Judaism, Christianity, and Mormanism have done these things, and could still do these things. Hell, Mormanism is doing all the adultery and child-crimes today. You outlined preventative measures perfectly in defining statements for ‘religious organizations’ and ‘courts’.

If those clarifications were there initially, I wouldn’t have even commented criticism. But they will be now so-

Thanks.

128

If they are not here legally, which is likely many of them, then deport them all. If you can’t swear on a Bible, then you can’t hold public office. Simple.

129

I agree, this seems to me an idea and the thought process of a bureaucrat. We do not need to ban Sharia law, Sharia law has no basis in the law of the USA. We simply need to enforce the laws we have. It is like democrats saying we need a new immigration law. no we do not we need to enforce the laws we have otherwise why even write new ones. So can you cut the throat of a goat in the street? I would guess this is illegal in every state in the USA. Can you force your child to marry somebody they do not want to again illegal, can you marry a 10 year old. I cannot think of one aspect of Sharia law that Americans oppose that isn’t already illegal. The issue is, we have chosen not to prosecute, for example Omar for marrying her brother and lying to the government.

1 Like
130

This ^

131

Completely agree. I spent 10 years working overseas. I have many Islamic friends. I also know there is no more poisonous of an ideology than that promoted Islam.

132

Islam is an ideology not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life and government. Islam has pseudo religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components in its ideology. The pseudo religious component is a mask for all of the other components to hide behind. They have been conquering for 1400 years and will continue to war and jihad until they cease to exist or they take over the world!

1 Like
133

I could make the same arguement about Christians or Jews. Your statement is an opinion, not a fact. So pretentious for one person to declare what is and isn’t a religion.

Whole wars have been fought over that mentally. Thus the reason our founding fathers made a point to declare religious freedom, to avoid the ceaseless strife.

Yet, now you seek to say the other side doesn’t qualify for the protections guaranteed by our Constitution in order to forward your fanatic self-centered views of religious tyranny, when in fact Judaism presses the same commandments of murder of the innocent non-believers.

Your generalizations and excuses are hate filled. Even when I cite the exact verses that command Jews to murder non-believers, leave their homes in ruins, and burn all their possessions as offerings-you are still blind to the truth.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

I know your affliction and poverty, but you are rich. I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

I could wholeheartedly say that Zionism isn’t a religion, but Judaism is.

We have laws that leave this proposal in redundancy, and inefficiency. The only thing that made this feasible was Eagans’s addition above, specifically clause 2.

134

Yes… that is their goal; a worldwide Caliphate. Either one understands and believes their words or one is in denial and wants to pretend they don’t mean what they say.

135

Biblical Zionism is part of “Judaism” in the sense that these “true” zionists believe Israel to the Jewish homeland as described in the Hebrew Bible. The “zionists” who are part of the Globalist Cabal are a completely different group of authoritarian, anti-human, anti-God zealots who seek to kill off 95% of humanity and “save the earth”… for themselves. Included in this group would be the “Sabbatean-Frankists” or “FAKE JEWS” (think Rothschilds, remnants of the Jewish Agency in Israel), etc.) who want to destroy all religion along with the so-called “Illuminati” Marxist corporatocracy / technocracy) … both of who are included within the “Globalist Cabal” with whom MAGA, patriots in the 5 eyes, EU (etc.) and the AWAKE Jews of Israel are currently waging war led by Trump, the EU leaders like Orban (etc.) and Netanyahu.

1 Like
136

lmao so this entire paragraph proves my point, along with the 2nd clause of Eagans proposal above solving my issue.

Both groups have radical expansionist counterparts who seek global unity through religious imperialism. Each of their religions should not be generalized due to these abhorrent followers.

Neither of which are compatible with current US legislation.

Both of which would need clarification in such a proposal.

137

You fail to differentiate between “religions” and political movements “pretending” to be religions. In ancient times, one could not separate politics from religion. You’re saying we still don’t have the capacity to tell the difference. We seem to be able to identify the Globalists as a political movement, but are unable to do the same with “political Islam”. We’ ve already “outlawed” the type of behavior seen in political movements. While we are now going after the purely “political” Globalists / Illuminists, we are not going after political Islam since it is taboo being a “religion of peace”… All I’m saying is we need to identify it as being no different than the Globalists. As stated previously, your idea that Israel or Israeli Jews are no different is unsupported by the facts. On the simplest level, Israel has never sought, stated or acted to install a worldwide “Jewish state” as have the Islamists for the past 1400 years.

138

Olam HaBa and the Beth Din are the Jewish equivalents, and support exactly what you say doesnt exist. Stating exactly that the Jews are the chosen, and the goy will be punished and ruled over.

Organized religion and politics are synonymous, thus the reason we have the Supremacy clause and the 1st Amendment.

Fanatical hypocrisy.

139

A Beit Din has only civil powers over those who voluntarily submit to them A Beit Din has only civil powers over those who voluntarily submit to them (part of a clear minority of all Jews and Israelis). Further, there are several Beit Dins and they all follow their own Sects’ rules. It’s not some kind of “united front.” They can’t even agree with each other let alone have the power to declare and prosecute a WAR, let alone one whose STATED goal is genocide. To equate them with an independent “state” (like Iran or Gaza) who publicly advocate and/or actually attempt to carry out the GENOCIDE, MURDER, DECAPITATION, RAPE of entire nations is disingenuous at best, inflammatory and ignorant at worst. Again… you continue to use the same FALSE and ILLOGICAL equivalencies in making your comparisons and analogies. It’s intellectually WEAK and LAZY because you stubbornly insist on remaining ignorant of who YOU enemies really are … even as they threaten to overthrow your country. Whether they can actually pull it off is irrelevant.
The USA is “the Great Satan” to all Imperial Islamist Jihadis. First they come in legally and illegally and use our laws and freedoms against us. To know the future in the medium term if they are not stopped, just look at the UK and EU. The last time this happened, political Islam was stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1684. It will likely take the same kind of violent answer to defeat them again.
COMPARING Imperial violent Jihadi POLITICAL Islam with 260 MILLION+ barbaric Dark Ages adherents whose STATED GOAL is to DESTROY ISRAEL “from the River to the sea” to several independent orthodox Jewish sects’ Beit Dins, most of whom don’t know from which end of a gun the bullet come and wherein most of their younger adherents refuse to fight in the IDF because they believe they’re required to “study” Talmud instead … is beyond laughable … it’s hilariously ABSURD for you to even advance such a ridiculous theory. Tell me, exactly HOW are they going “to punish and rule over the goy” – with a prayer book? Finally, they believe that rule will be in a “messianic kingdom” brought in by a physical Messiah at the beginning of the Olam Haba. They are not prepared to bring that in themselves as are the Islamists, especially the Shi’ites who believe that they must bring in a massive amount world destruction for their “messiah” (the Madhi) to come. You know, there’s a big difference between the hyperbole of a bunch of unarmed Jewish men in black suits and an Islamic terrorist full of centuries of blood lust with an AK-47 in his hands.

140

It’s not like Iran, Iraq, or UK Sharia Law courts are in unanimous decision either? Pointing out Beth Din was to highlight the hypocrisy of singling out a specfic sect of Abrahamism in the land of religious freedom.

There’s more of an interconnected hierarchy in Catholicism than Sharia.

If you’re referring to the Imperial Ottoman Empire invading the HRE in the 1600s (both divine monarchies) that is SO far removed and irrelevant to the situation we are in today. There is not some united Caliphate right at our borders, nor is every Muslim the 200+ million a radical Hamas member. That’s pure bigotry.

These arent unarmed suit-Jews, Israel is a fully equipt military with Nuclear capabilities. Judaism doesn’t equal the State of Israel/Zionism. Islam doesn’t equal Iran/Hamas.

I know your affliction and poverty, but you are rich. I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. - Revelation 3:9

The forced removal of an population is under the definition of Genocide. Israel has treated their underage prisoners terribly, in violation of international law. So much so that their PM is an international Criminal, filed by members of their own cabinet. The US has no place in foreign religious conflicts.

Deuteronomy clearly states what Jews are supposed to do to with neighboring heathens and heretics, including members of your own family.

How are these comparisons illogical? You’re really pulling a ‘DNC’ here by pointing fingers saying something is wrong and not explaining yourself.

You choose to act like the comparisons are not equal, when they are.

Per the US Library of Congress (What is Sharia Law? -2011), Sharia Law is the Divine Commandments granted by God, the Islamic equivalent to Deuteronomy and the Ten Commandments, with the main difference being Polygamy. All Muslims are observant of the Quran, and thereform observant of Sharia. To say Sharia is a threat, is to say All of Islam is a threat, which is up to religious interpretation, and thus not applicable in US courts.

There are 8 Countries where enforcement of Sharia Law applies to non-Muslims, including the Saudis but we aren’t postured against them, just Iran. Sooo idk where you get your numbers but that would put a population of ~550 million living under total Sharia Law, caliphate style, and even more in muslim-only sharia application.

Even Judaism believes that non-believers must at least follow the 7 commandments given to Noah.

Saying: ‘They (Jews/Israel) wouldn’t do that’ or ‘They don’t have it in them’ whereas this group of people definitely do, is fanatic bigotry. Hypocrisy.

You should take both at face value, and both are extremely similar. I know who are my enemies are, and it includes everyone who seeks to errode the system of rights and representation that is foundational to our ideology.

I clearly stated above how this could be stated to gain my support, the change was suggested by Eagans. Anything further is conjecture.

You are blinded politically by your religious stance, and hate. US secularism is superior to religious intolerance or unity.

:us: :eagle: > :star_of_david:︎ :star_and_crescent: :latin_cross: / ☨

141

You are not reading my post very carefully. My stance is NOT religious. It’s political as I’ve continually demonstrated. I never equated Hamas with Islam… I’ve equated it with and “imperial political system” calling itself Islam". I stated several times that there’s a difference between what I termed “imperial political Islam” and “Reformed Islam” (the vast majority) most off who are peaceful and great people as I’ve also reiterated. Again… you are a lazy reader.

Your FAKE moral equivalencies cannot be reasoned with. I never heard the definition that genocide included the forced removal of people. That must be the NWO-UN new WOKE definition. But that is NOT REALLY genocide just because some yokels decided they needed a new definition to play their political games. However, if it was real “genocide,” I guess the FORCED removal of 600,000 Jews from all the Arab countries they’d lived in for a few millennium in 1948-49 should then be RECLASSIFIED as a genocide in the history books, shouldn’t it? The Arabs who failed to return after the war in 1948 voluntarily refused Israel’s repeated invitations to return to their homes. They were promised Israel would soon be gone. They’ve been “refugees” ever since. In fact, a new UN definition of “refugee” was created just for them. Look it up and learn.

BTW: To what do you equate the 46,000+ Islamic terror attacks since 9/11? Are those somehow equivalent to Israel’s seeking to destroy those openly state they will ELIMINATE them from the face of the earth as a matter of “public” and “religious” policy?

As to Eagans suggestion, I thought it was fine. I believe I said so, but frankly I don’t remember it now. And I don’t think I added it. It probably slipped my mind. However, feel free to point me to it and I’ll read it again.

You: “I know who are my enemies are, and it includes everyone who seeks to erode the system of rights and representation that is foundational to our ideology.” Sadly, you have failed to live up to that statement. That enemy is already inside the gates… e.g. political imperial Islam & Sharia masquerading as a “religion of peace.” It’s ultimately perhaps even bigger than the Globalists / DS because they’ve been seeking to dominate the world for 1400 years and they’re very patient.

Again, I state: You don’t get it. Why don’t you believe they are a “threat” when they constantly TELL YOU that they will use our freedoms to conquer us? If you did, you’d ACT on your words and actually DO SOMETHING about them because they SAY they are your “enemies” and want to destroy your way of life? Wake up Ethan and be well.

142

Radical terrorist groups since 1948 have largely been funded by the CIA. Iran-Contra, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc. all were CIA proxy armies to forward US neo-imperialism/Communist Containment.

There was actually great international cooperation between Western Protestant Monarchies and the Ottoman Caliphate pre WW1. An almost complete lack of terrorist groups. Islamic Terrorism wasn’t concurrent until the 1970s, with the Soviet-Afghan War.

Yes, per the definition at Geneva, the ethnic cleanse of Jews from Islamic countries would be considered genocide. The debate lies in what could be considered an ‘expulsion’ vs. an ‘exodus’ due to Arabic internal policy.

The definition implys that Ethnic Cleansing is a Crime against Humanity, and the methods used to achieve said actions fall under the conditions outlined for Genocide.

But The genocides carried out by each religious group is irrelevant to our conversation in terms of US legislation. What does matter is holding every group accountable, for their creeds and actions at face value, while upholding our own values. I’ve only supported the equal treatment of religious groups.

Please state, text for text, how the moral equivalencies between Sharia Law and Deuteronomy are invalid instead of screaming that I’m incorrect like CNN or a democrat panel.

Eagans’s suggestion above outlined that ‘any religious structure’ was subject to enforcement of this policy proposal, which would then encompass more than just Sharia Law. → My whole arguement being that the policy should be geared towards all religious groups, rather than a singular group, because restricting a single group from practicing what they perceive as a religion is Unconstitutional. You see? I simply wanted your proposal to encompass all religious courts and groups rather than just one, because like I said above, even an enforced Bible-Oath is Unconstitutional per the 1st Amendment.

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.

^ This is what I was asking for, to single out one religious group is were you steep into ‘prejudice’. So to avoid that, I wanted the inclusion of all religion with abhorrent dark age creeds.

Restriction of Sharia Law = Subversion of the 1st Amendment

Restrictions on All Religious Legal Structures = Upholding the Supremacy Clause/Constitution

143

PS: And let’s add the “genocide” of the Assyrian Exile, Babylonian, Exile, Roman Exile, Spanish, English,. etc… to say nothing of the failed Nazi attempt and several Muslim “genocides.” No people on earth have ever suffered as much “genocide” as the Jews.

YOU: This is what I was asking for, to single out one religious group is were you steep into ‘prejudice’. So to avoid that, I wanted the inclusion of all religion with abhorrent dark age creeds.
OK… I get it… but that lingo is just “cover” since REALISTICALLY there are no other religions actively trying to enforce or implement Dark Ages creeds and forcefully impose them on others.

Restriction of Sharia Law = Subversion of the 1st Amendment (not if Sharia itself = Subversion of the 1st Amendment (which it does).

If this proposal was amended and we added “the Restrictions on All Religious Legal Structures” (to uphold supremacy clause) do you really believe this will stop them? If so, I’ll add it. But people still have the right to contract and if they want to voluntarily put themselves under Sharia or a Beit Din or whatever and it does not affect others, how will you stop them?

Furthermore, I just don’t believe they’ll pay any attention to it and, per above, Sharia already violates the 1st Amendment. Since it does, then really all we need is ENFORCEMENT. Even if they did, how will that stop them from continuing to promote their political agenda? They real key is ENFORCEMENT. It’s really about political Islam. Sharia is only part of the problem. Political Islam subverts our Constitution in the NAME of Religion. The other religions do NOT have that aspect as part and parcel of their raison d’être. Their civil and ethical laws are compatible with it. Big problem from my POV.

144

Sharia violates the 1st Amendment just as much as Deuteronomy, also modern day Judaism is in observance of Deuteronomy, so it’s invalid to say noone but Islam is abhorrent and practicing inhumane creeds.

If you don’t believe US legislation has any effect on US soil than why propose this? Yes, including that type of wording to restrict all religious courts from having power, will do what you desire, plus will shut up the ‘Free Palestine’ crowd, as it wouldn’t be Islam-centric and thus Constitutional.

You can’t Constitutionally stop people from voluntarily taking part in religious courts, but you can prevent those courts from having jurisdiction over actual US courts → or from carrying out sentences that contradict US law, so no decapitation/amputation due to the restriction of cruel and unusual punishment, no child marrige due to the age of consent and marriage laws.

In fact, you could take this further, and state that any civil action or punishment taken by religious institutions that contradicts US law, to be unenforceable and thus invalid. I’m sure there’s a better way to word that too.

It’s not just ‘cover’ it’s the type of wording that seperates this from being unconstitutional. This whole time, I’ve simply tried to help by showcasing the hypocrisy and unconstitutional mentality of banning a single practice and legal structure, vs a ‘blanket statement’.