===================
You are obviously so ignorant of the history and founding of America. Perhaps you came from a 3rd world country, or from a Muslim land.

Catholics discovered America. Christopher Columbus was a Catholic aided by Spain to come to the New World in 1492. Then in 1496, he was succeeded by Americus Vespucci, another Catholic. Both of them were aided by the King and Queen of Spain who were Catholics.

Saint Agustin Church was built in Florida in Aug 28, 1565.
Many Christian settlers followed from Europe. Many built Churches and Catholic schools.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/history/the-catholic-church-in-the-united-states-of-america.html

https://www.stmarymagdalen.org/ParishInfo/documents/50AnnivHistoryProject.pdf

The pedophile case you have accused the church been contained mostly. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has the highest morals, and has contributed to alleviate million of poorest people of the world. You don't know that because your hatred towards God and the Church is so overwhelming. But your love to the violent Islam is overwhelming. Muslims kill female kids and enslave women. They rape Christians. For 1400 years your Muslim friends have killed 292 million Christians and Jews.

All church denominations have similar sexual abuse problems, and you single out the Catholic Church due to your ignorance, and hatred of God. Sexual abuses are abundant in schools, government offices, Hollywood, other Christian denominations, and all social organizations.

Because you are so ignorant of the US history, I am certain you came as illegal alien. Now, go back where you came from.

The reply was made in a sarcastic frame.

Radiance, we have been here before on the Catholic thing. I was challenged by some guy that I don't see on OPP anymore to do a little deeper research. I did...and guess what? You're absolutely correct! The RCC does not come in first place for sexual abuse, or second, or even third. And since the time that the story was brought to light by a dishonest media, the Vatican has enacted new rules to ensure that these abuses do not happen again.
I DO have to say that I find fault in the RCC in the fact that they tried to keep the story quiet, but the media wrongly made it look like the RCC was the only religion responsible. Not true at all.
What I find wrong with you statements is that Christopher Columbus discovered America when he never set foot on mainland American soil. Amerigo (Americus in the Latin) Vespucci supposedly discovered South America, but not North America (I have no opinion as I haven't studied it). Lief Erickson was actually on mainland American soil long before any other explorer. Now, there seems to be pretty solid evidence that the Chinese reached the western coast long, long before even Lief!

It really looks bad for you to call people names and it affects how others view the RCC. I'm not getting on to you...just saying.

================
The Catholic Church was the first to build a Church in San Agustin Florida on Aug. 28, 1565. Even though Columbus did not reach the mainland of the US, this country celebrate the Columbus day every year. And Americus Vespucci, left the name America because they were the famous Christian explorers who set sail to the New World.

Officially, I still consider them as the discoverers. Not the Chinese as you've claimed.
I stand firm on my position.

It is true that Muslims are violent and its motive taking over the whole world. They kill infidels, raped Christians, and killed them. Do you deny that?

This is the closest that I could find on that bill badbobby hope the heips some.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Policypedia Imigration Final.png
Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship
Public Policy Logo-one line.png
The Immigration and Nationality Act is a comprehensive federal immigration law adopted in 1952. Also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 modified the national origins quota system, which had been established under the Immigration Act of 1924. The national origins quota system set limits on the numbers of individuals from any given nation who could immigrate to the United States. The law also codified and compiled existing laws from a variety of sources into a single text. Although the national origins quota system was eliminated by legislation adopted in 1965, the remainder of the law comprises the foundation of Title 8 of the United States Code, the canon of federal law relating to immigration policy.[1]
Background
Immigration Act of 1924
According to the United States Department of State Office of the Historian, "the Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota." The act provided for the granting of immigration visas to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States, calculated as of the 1890 census. Immigrants from Asia were barred under this system. Quotas were not applied to immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.[2]

Legislative history
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 9, 1951, as HR 5678. The House approved the bill on April 25, 1952. The United States Senate approved its version of the bill on May 22, 1952. A joint conference committee was convened to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill. The conference committee version of the bill was adopted by the House on June 10, 1952, and by the Senate on June 11, 1952.

Senator Pat McCarran (D), one of the bill's primary sponsors, argued that the law's provisions were necessary in order to preserve national security:[3]

“ I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission, and those gates are cracking under the strain.[4] ”
—Senator Pat McCarran
President Harry Truman (D) vetoed the legislation on June 25, 1952. In his veto statement, Truman said the following:[5]

“ [HR 5678] would not provide us with an immigration policy adequate for the present world situation. Indeed, the bill, taking all its provisions together, would be a step backward and not a step forward. In view of the crying need for reform in the field of immigration, I deeply regret that I am unable to approve HR 5678. ... The bill would continue, practically without change, the national origins quota system, which was enacted, into law in 1924, and put into effect in 1929. This quota system–always based upon assumptions at variance with our American ideals–is long since out of date and more than ever unrealistic in the face of present world conditions.[4] ”
—President Harry Truman
On June 26, 1952, the House voted 278-113 to override Truman's veto. The Senate followed suit on June 27, 1952, voting 57-26.[6][7]

Provisions
National origins quota system
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 modified the national origins quota system introduced by the Immigration Act of 1924, rescinding the earlier law's prohibition on Asian immigration. Under the 1952 law, national origins quotas were set at one-sixth of 1 percent of each nationality's population the United States as of the 1920 census. At the time of enactment, the law provided for the issuance of 154,277 visas under the quota system. Immigrants from the Western Hemisphere continued to be excluded from the quota system, as were the non-citizen husbands of American citizens (non-citizen wives of American citizens had been exempted from the quota system earlier). The national origins quota system was eliminated in 1965 with the passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.[8][9]

Section 212
Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 granted the President of the United States the following authority:[1][10]

“ Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.[4] ”
—Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 212
Other provisions
The act established preferences for certain visa applicants, including those with specialized skills and those who families already resided in the United States.[1][8]

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 1968 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act "to provide for the naturalization of persons who have served in active-duty services in the Armed Forces of the United States."[11]

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 truth, 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 kill 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 "slave"women. And a slave woman is defined as a woman who is an unbeliever. The way to know whether a woman is a slave 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 slavery - 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!

Not a bit. Sadly, I've come to believe that all Muslims are not radical as those monsters are. An example is a friend who lives in China went to a Muslim celebration where a Christian was asked to speak to the whole assembly. There were also Catholics, Hindu's, Buddhists, and other religions at the celebration. It sounded pretty kewl to me. But you are right in that Islam is the ONLY religion that I know of that SOME RADICAL members kill those of other beliefs. You can buy your life among them by paying a ransom, but what about poor people? It's off with their heads...not storybook but for real.

As for who discovered America, one could go as far as saying the American Indian did it when they supposedly walked over the Bering Strait. That puts Columbus in the deep south, Lief Erickson in the far North, the Chinese in sunny California or the Southwest, and Native Americans in cold, cold Alaska or the Northwest.
Anyway, I have no real problem with Columbus...after all, that's what I was taught in school.

My bloodsister had a cousin who was married to Muslim who was not a radical. He was a student and did volunteer work. A very gently spoken man. My bloodsister and her cousin were having a discussion regarding the difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam. The cousin turned to her husband and asked what he would do if he received an order from his religious leader to kill her. He said he would be very unhappy about it, but would kill her.

The only differences I see between a practicing Muslim who is moderate vs one who is radical is a matter of degree and whether hate on their part is involved. Whether the person is killed out of hate or out of duty, they are just as dead!

My bloodsister had a cousin who was married to Muslim who was not a radical. He was a student and did volunteer work. A very gently spoken man. My bloodsister and her cousin were having a discussion regarding the difference between radical Islam and moderate Islam. The cousin turned to her husband and asked what he would do if he received an order from his religious leader to kill her. He said he would be very unhappy about it, but would kill her.

The only differences I see between a practicing Muslim who is moderate vs one who is radical is a matter of degree and whether hate on their part is involved. Whether the person is killed out of hate or out of duty, they are just as dead!