Kevyn

The law you state in NO WAY mentions Muslims or precludes them from serving in office. You are either lying about its content or have been tricked into forwarding an erroneous summary of i*********n l*w without actually reading the law. Which is it?

promilitary

You just threw 1.2 billion Catholics under the bus for the crimes of the priests.
Nice going dope.

JoyV

P********a is not written into the Catholic holy book as a tenet of their religion. That there has been abusers and the Catholic church covered for them is reprehensible. But it is not a part of the their religion to be a p*******e and not taught that it is what their god wants.

I am not a Christian and see fault. But The problems I've seen in Christianity don't hold a candle to the tenets of Islam!!!! Your comparison falls flat.

Icthelite

What bothers me about the last two sworn into our Legislative branch is them taking the oath of office using their religious book. The Quran. The Quran's teachings are completely at odds with our Constitution. One thing most folks don't know about the Muslim's, their leader and the teaching of the Quran is that lying is acceptable and heavily advocated if it will advance the teaching of their cult religion and the advancement of their goal. That is to destroy the "Great Satan" which another name they use for the USA.

http://muslimfact.com/bm/terror-in-the-name-of-islam/islam-permits-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml

Carlos

Better that than k*****g babies the way democrats do. You people are murderers, also aren't you democrats
All for gay rights and all that stuff? Muslims seem to be like democrats, they sort of sneak in with phoney
Babbling. Let enough Muslims in and soon you'll have sharia law, you'd be the first to scream for help
And want to change the laws. Even being devious dems are t***sparent. But better to have a gay in the house than a murderer of little kids.






What fools these mortals be.

debeda

debeda

Love your last sentence!! We are indeed fools sometimes

Ray Smith

I do not lie, and take this anyway you like the law is there if you want to read it!

Ray

JoyV

While I find no constitutional prohibition on Muslims or Islam, there is a constitutional basis for prohibiting Sharia law or Dawa. This is the Establishment Clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". In other words, not only can the government not prohibit any religion (2nd part), but the government cannot force any religions laws on the populace either as a whole OR individually (1st part). So when someone breaks a law, they cannot claim their religion allows or commands them to do so.

The Qur'an has many passages which are not only incompatible with our constitution, but which present a very real danger to Americans from any fundamental followers of Islam. Here are a few.

"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of t***h, even if they are of the people of the Book [meaning Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [taxes on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)

And slay them wherever ye catch them. (Q 2:191)

It is not only radicals and extremist followers of Islam who are a threat. Their religious book, the Qur'an, clearly requires they convert or k**l all unbelievers. Those who are not jihadist still embrace what is often referred to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), which includes sharia law. Shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values. These include:

*the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

*the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

*freedom of conscience; individual liberty

*freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

*economic liberty (including private property);

*equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

*freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and

*an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.

Then there is the practice of rape against unbelievers being condoned. The Qur'an allows rape of "s***e"women. And a s***e woman is defined as a woman who is an unbeliever. The way to know whether a woman is a s***e woman or not is whether or not her body is covered.

John Quincy Adams was very cognizant of the threat Islam posed to our country. He wrote a 136-page series of essays on Islam which displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then 00- and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude (the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.). Regarding these two topics, John Quincy Adams states:

"...[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.... The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

"This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike - all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war - it has softened the features of s***ery - it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."

Now there are passages in the Christian's and Jew's religious books which also condone or call for violence. But these are not followed in modern times. For Christians, these passages are in what they call the Old Testament and are superseded by the teachings of Jesus in their New Testament. I have not seen any Christian stonings for instance.

So while our constitution does not forbid Islam, nor Muslims from serving in office; they cannot hold their oath of office AND their religious tenets without one or the other being a lie!!!! I would be willing to lay a large bet on which one is the lie!

ExperienceCounts

And most v****g Catholics are not priests.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

Seth

How about that warlord and dirty old man Mohammed, whose chief wife, Aiesha, was only what? Nine years old when the p*******e married her? What kind of precedent would you suppose that might have set for "the Faithful?"

badbobby Loc: texas

Sadly
Did the 101st Congress on November 18, 1990 quietly repeal the "McCarran Warner Act of 1952" forbidding muslims from holding office? No, that's not true for the simple reason that there never was such an act. Also, forbidding muslims from holding office would go against Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution which reads (in part): "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

johnsorrell7

AND STUPID.....

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

As was said, welcome Ray. The media tell us if McCarran WarnerAct was repealed or anything putting them in a bad light? Hang on, it only gets worse. They never told you about most of Trump's successes either. Yes something is rotten, the whole party. Perhaps we should start a petition since I don't think McCarran Walter was repealed or replaced to get the muzzies out. According to the koran, they can't have an allegiance to anyone but Islam and must h**e America. The constitution says just the opposite for politicians.