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

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

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.

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’.

How does modern day Judaism implement Deut? How does modern day Judaism implement Deut? There is no altar and thus no animal sacrifices. Most American Jews don’t even support Israel and are a bunch of Lefties who support the so-called “two state solution” - a totally dead and FAKE idea since the PA as well as Hamas still proclaim the want ALL of Israel. So, what exactly is this purported (non-existent) monolithic “Judaism” implementing from Deut?

Please state, text for text, how the moral equivalencies between Sharia Law and Deuteronomy are invalid.
It’s not about what’s in the text. It’s about having POLICIES to implement what’s in the text. Islamists are actively implementing the same violence and political-military agenda of world conquest and they have had and used for 1400 years. The Jews are not. It’s not complicated.

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.
I’m just repeating what THEY themselves STATE DAILY as their goal and operational philosophy. How iis that “fanatic bigotry”? Again…WHY don’t YOU believe what they both say and do?

US legislation only has effect if there is a willingness and actions to ENFORCE it.

As to your “synagogue of satan” comment: As to your “synagogue of satan” comment: You have chosen to look at this as some kind of metaphor rather than the obvious as a being a statement of fact… e.g. these are Gentile “christians” of some kind who are calling themselves “Jews”… “but are not.” Nowhere in the words of Jesus or the OT is this kind of accusation ever made. It is more likely some had organized a pseudo-Messianic synagogue (there are still many examples of this today). Their false doctrine probably led them to wrong and immoral behavior, since false doctrine usually does. They probably drew Gentile Christians away from the truth and thereby threatened the real Messianic community. There is not even a hint that this verse is talking about actual Jews or Jewish followers of “the Way”. Virtually all the Graeco-Roman gentile commentators ignore the obvious and straightforward interpretation that John (Yochanan) is talking here about Gentiles who pretend to be Jews. The same kind of expression is used in v. 2: “…you tested those who call themselves emissaries but aren’t — and you found them to be liars.” It obviously refers to false apostles, and there the commentators accept the literal sense without demur. But here they opt for the metaphorical interpretation that John is talking about Jews who reject Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah instead of the literal understanding that these are non-Jews who lie and say they are Jews but in fact are Gentiles. In this way a verse which says nothing about Jews is given a virulently antisemitic (i.e. bigoted) significance which you obviously endorse. The result is that over the centuries Jews have had the epithet “synagogue of Satan” hurled at them by Christians who thought they understood the Bible.

Benevolent Vs. not benevolent.

Islam calls itself a religion of peace. I saw an interview of a Muslim man once that summed it up nicely. He was asked how Islam could be a religion of peace with all this terr orism. He told us that of course it is. There is only conflict because there are differences. Once the whole world is taken over and becomes Muslim, there will be peace everywhere, so they are spreading peace. He went on to taunt that Muslims will out breed us. That they have many wives when westerners have only one. They have many children and we have few. They will marry our daughters and all their children will be Muslim. He did not mention enslaving people or the engineering of the collapse of nations and… a bunch of different things that apparently were still secret back then.

But Muslims don’t care whether they’ve converted people to their notion of God. They care about your lip service and outward appearance of conversion, to stop any push back to them having their way. They aren’t trying to save other people from the evil one. Which is kind of a huge difference, they’re only after power and consolidation of their control.

It’s my understanding that the moderate Muslims are basically backslid according to their ways and the extre mists are actually the correct ones when it comes to their doctrine.

Christians, like them or not, are trying to help other people, trying to save them from going to hell, in short, which is kindly meant whether anyone agrees with it or not. They do it by talking to people, not enslaving them and trying to do forced conversions and the like. There’s certainly none of this forcing someone into sex slavery until they convert to Islam thing. Christians are waiting for God to come and for HIM to impose His rule on the world. Muslims are trying to take over themselves. There’s really no equating the two.

As for the bible quote up there in this long conversation people have had, the one that talks about stoning people who try to secretly convince you to come worship other ‘Gods’ than God, that’s regarding someone trying to entice you to become an apostate to God. That does not imply ‘let’s find people of other faiths and stone them for thinking different than us!’. That sounds like an intentional misunderstanding to me. And no one does it anyways. When was the last time someone got stoned to death, outside of a Muslim country?

Christians are the ones who turn the other cheek and forgive people. Muslims are the one’s who declare a ‘fatwah’ when they are offended, putting a price on the offending person’s head in hopes someone will do them in. Christians are commanded to not lie, Muslims are allowed to lie to promote their faith, in fact I think it might be required in some circumstances. Christians marry grown women, Muslims can marry infants even and consummate the marriage ‘as long as she’s determined to be able to tolerate it’, by which I believe they mean they estimate that she won’t die from it. They figure. And the 9 years old age is when she’s considered old enough for no one to refuse her groom anymore, even if the girl doesn’t want to. Let’s not forget the ‘tea boys’. The Catholic church being infiltrated by pedos in a long smear campaign is not the same thing as a culture that thinks that’s standard practice, normal, and okay… which is weird since they stone gays. I guess if a man shags a juvenile boy it’s somehow not the same as shagging a grown man? Stoning the child rapist makes more sense to me but then I’m not a Muslim (thanks be to God).

I’m not sure how their Abrahamic roots can make their religion work as they blow off almost half the commandments, 6, 7, 9, 10. Well, the Christians DO blow off that stoning people for enticing them away from God thing, naughty us. Though it’s not one of the 10.

I simply felt the need to clarify the above points. Thankyou for listening, carry on.

I’m refering to the State of Israel as the ‘Gentiles pretending to be Jews’, I know the reference. It’s John’s prophetic message to the church in Philadelphia about their corruption.

The King James editions states:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the Key of David, he that openth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.

I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

It was an analogy for the corruption of the modern Jewish state. History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes.

Look at any pictures of Gaza, and tell me that’s what Deuteronomy asks of it’s followers (a.i. the destruction of heretical cities etc.). Nothing should excuse these types of actions. Not every citizen in Gaza is a member of Hamas, but the West treating every Muslim like a radical, will create radicals.

Also idk what ur talking about ‘no practicing’ there’s been a few of the tunnels with blood stains, baby highchairs, and trafficking suspicions against synagogues like the one in NYC. Does this represent all Jews? No. The Ten commandments? Sharia Law is a lot larger of a concept than what you’re making it out to be, which includes the same good moral values as Judaism for it’s believers, as does Judaism.

Also Leviticus hasn’t been practiced since the 1st century, since the 2nd temple burning. That’s not Deuteronomy, which is VERY MUCH SO practiced by Christians and Jews.

Even the US used a mixture of special operations to take on terrorist groups rather than indiscriminate missle strikes on civilian industry. Israel should have targeted Hamas members through manned missions if citizens were being used as shields against missle strikes. No excuse, no sacrifice.

Deut has about 14 chapters, much of it dealing with aspects of the Levitical cult… many of them a repetition of various parts of Leviticus. I guess your bible is missing Deut 12-26. I see NOTHING in that book currently being practiced that promotes terrorism, world conquest, buggering little boys and many of the other Dark Age Islamic practices that are still be practiced and approved by imperialist political Islamists… including those in Gaza.

“Not every citizen in Gaza is a member of Hamas…”
True; only about 90% of the voting age Gazan public have been voting for their leadership and were participating and cheering the butchery of Oct 7th. Much of what you saw the Gazans do to the hostages were acts of what is known as Hamas’ Civilian Corps. Of course, 100% of their children are indoctrinated from birth to hate Israel and kill Jews… and all Westerners who refuse to “accept” the prophet… BUT THE JEWS FIRST. Let’s not forget the so-called “PA” whose original flag showed the land of Israel as being the eventual territorial boundaries off the “PA” (just like in Hamas charter, 1988). Y

ou keep bringing up “Gaza” but you continually fail to bring up what brought Israel there in the first place. The destruction of Gaza did not happen in a vacuum. Israel gave 100% control of Gaza to the Gazans in 2005. The Israeli gov committed genocide (your new definition) and ethnically cleansed it of all the Jews. They gave them all the infrastructure and thousands of hectares of massive producing greenhouses, etc. They haven’t bothered them in 20 years. What did the Gazans do? They stripped all the greenhouses and cannibalized them in less than a week, have continuouusly elected Hamas for their leaders because they promised to wipe out Israel “from the river to the sea”, and they produced virtually nothing of any consequence on all that land. THIS IS WHO THEY ARE AND YOU ADAMANTLY REFUSE TO SEE IT.

You know, Ethan… you have not responded to MANY of my questions or my comments on “genocide” and you continue to unabashedly make FALSE equivalencies. So, I see no point in continuing this conversation… but thanks for your input. I found some of it very valuable.