Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

"being an adult" is not being a ignorant dumb ass.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Stiffy, doesn't change the fact the islam is NOT compatible with the US Constitution.

Would you willingly admit a person into your house who is a known sex offender or child molester? How about if that person was a known murderer, thief, arsonist? Not if you wanted to protect your family from harm, or your property from damages or loss. Would that also mean excluding members of that known criminal's family members?

The President and Congress also have a responsibility to see that those types and anti-American types do not get into this country. How is that bad thing?

bahmer

There are just certain common sense things that people do and don't do. You don't ask a child molester to be your baby sitter for you three children all under the age of five. You don't have a known sex offender come and take your teen aged daughters to the park. And you don;t have a thief or an arsonist watch your house for two weeks whole you are on vacation. You also wouldn't lend your new car to a known car thief so he could run to the stare and back would you? And so it is with Muslims they lie on purpose it is in their Koran and Hadith that it is OK to lie for the glory of allah.

CDM Loc: Florida

Buf; thanks for this very revealing bit of history. But this has nothing to do with my question. I am not arguing that Islam is not compatible with our constitution. I am not arguing that Islamic influence within our government is not a threat. As for whiteness as the test of Americanism, I can't even begin to wrap my head around that. But all that aside;

Back to the point ... The discussion in this thread has centered on Public Law 414 and the repeated claims here that this law prohibits Muslims, specifically, from immigrating. I have read 414; not just 212 but all of it. Nowhere is there a direct reference to Muslims or Islam or prohibiting any specific race or religion from immigrating - that I can find. But that's not to say I might be missing it; it's a difficult document to read. So;

A number of you all here must have read the law because you all keep referring to the prohibition on Muslims contained therein. So I will ask my question again in anticipation of a thus far elusive straight answer;

Can anyone here point me to the specific language in 414 that that deals with the question of Muslims or Islam? I will take any hint; page, paragraph number ... anything.

That's all I'm asking.

Thanks.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

When did this happen? Nobody missed you.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Maybe you need to get glasses the link to that law was posted on one of the threads.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

That is correct. When are you going to start being an adult?

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Please give me chapter and verse of your reading. "Koran and Hadith that it is OK to lie for the glory of allah."

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

You are a "nobody"?

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Buff would you say Christianity is not compatible with our constitution too?

buffalo Loc: Texas

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance”

No I would not.

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin

Justsss Loc: Wisconsin