Gingrich calls for Muslim test

Damocles said:
Yeah, religious test is not okay. I don't even think Clarence Thomas would vote for that.
Click to expand...

I think you will be surprised at what people want to do to end this shit. People are fed up already. You think they havent reached the breaking point yet? Fine give it a year and you will be surprised at the support this has.

Its not like were doing anything else to stop the terror attacks so they will continue unabated.
 
The Blood of Angry Men said:
So we should exterminate the fascist right before they commit genocide? I am 100% with you. Let's kill everyone whom believes and supports genocide.
Click to expand...

As usual a delusional BLM, or a BLM supporting whackjob gets everything arse backwards.

The initiating organization that suggests outlawing cops, who are the guardians of Law & Order i.e., DESIGNATED PROTECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY...... MURDERS them, and then their representatives praise these MURDERERS as "HEROES" are the ORIGINAL EXTERMINATORS. Even their BLM monicker suggests that they are BLACK RACISTS who exclude EVERYONES' LIVES AS MATTERING and who want ONLY what they demand even if it's at the expense of others !!!

As such these MURDEROUS BLM whackjobs are the EXTERMINATORS who should be EXTERMINATED before they EXTERMINATE any one else.

And, just as the legitimate Government of a country EXECUTES, or EXTERMINATES the MURDERERS in our midst......so should the Government EXTERMINATE the EXTERMINATING murderous BLMs.
 
Last edited:
Gingrich’s contempt for the Constitution comes as no surprise:

Gingrich’s proposal, which made no distinction between U.S. citizens and noncitizen, would violate scores of First and Fourteenth Amendment-based Supreme Court rulings and laws that together bar discriminating on the basis of religion, favoring one religion over another by the government and restricting freedom of expression and and belief.

Specifically the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no power to strip people of their citizenship, which would be necessary to deport anyone who is a citizen.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article89805227.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
 
Western governments, the USA , France and the UK is particular , have lost their moral authority. Moral authority is a much more powerful authority than military authority- yet poor leadership has resulted in the erosion of moral authority. This has come about through contempt for international law. The Middle East should never have been invaded, Israeli crimes should never have been supported. What other outcome could have been expected if the rule of law was cherry-picked to suit Western interests ?
How is it to be fixed ? More arms production, more assaults on civilians , more intensive surveillance of us, the civilian populations ? Populist assholes like Gingrich are seeking more immoral authority. Arms dealers are laughing.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, religious test is not okay. I don't even think Clarence Thomas would vote for that.
Click to expand...

Is it a religious test though? A true religious test would be something like 'do believe Christ is God?'. Or are you Muslim or Hindu?

The objective wouldn't be to weed out religionists: just people who wish to install a religious based totalitarian government. In that sense, it would be no different than weeding out Nazis in 1940.

Maybe it's impossible to do. They could just lie about it. In either event, we need a national conversation on it because it's only going to get worse.

And if we really can't do anything about it we're basically screwed.
 
moon2012 said:
Western governments, the USA , France and the UK is particular , have lost their moral authority. Moral authority is a much more powerful authority than military authority- yet poor leadership has resulted in the erosion of moral authority. This has come about through contempt for international law. The Middle East should never have been invaded, Israeli crimes should never have been supported. What other outcome could have been expected if the rule of law was cherry-picked to suit Western interests ?
How is it to be fixed ? More arms production, more assaults on civilians , more intensive surveillance of us, the civilian populations ? Populist assholes like Gingrich are seeking more immoral authority. Arms dealers are laughing.
Click to expand...

If the west lacks moral authority there's none to be had.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This is just such a stupid debate. Sharia is not the law of the land. US Muslims are free to practice Sharia all they want within our system of law. Since it's a protected religious right your idea would be a religious test which are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. It's that damned freedom thing again. Dog gone it people get to practice it.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. No one, yet anyway, can install ISIS style Sharia in this country. It's just not going to happen. But a 'Sharia test' would be an indicator of potential radicalism. Our objective wouldn't be stop Sharia, per se; rather, it would be to keep radicals out of the country.

The Orlando shooter's father was an example. We have to begin questioning whether people like him should be deported. If these attacks continue unabated the conversation is going to be had, eventually.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Is it a religious test though? A true religious test would be something like 'do believe Christ is God?'. Or are you Muslim or Hindu?

The objective wouldn't be to weed out religionists: just people who wish to install a religious based totalitarian government. In that sense, it would be no different than weeding out Nazis in 1940.

Maybe it's impossible to do. They could just lie about it. In either event, we need a national conversation on it because it's only going to get worse.

And if we really can't do anything about it we're basically screwed.
Click to expand...
It is a religious test and no we don't need a national discussion about how to deal with redneck bigotry. I'm not about to inconvenience a fellow American cause some ignorant goober from Pea Holler feels threatened by something they don't understand.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It is a religious test and no we don't need a national discussion about how to deal with redneck bigotry. I'm not about to inconvenience a fellow American cause some ignorant goober from Pea Holler feels threatened by something they don't understand.
Click to expand...

It's Possum Holler.

What's it going to take, Mott? A few tens of thousands? A hundred?
 
declare war and start reading Emails (etc) use POTUS war powers if you wanna go that way. profile and investigate.
The Orlando shooter was on the FBI's map -but he was below the radar by surveillance. dig deeper in those cases
 
anatta said:
for real? love that name :)
Click to expand...

Well, it's the Holler next to me that branches off the main Holler [which is actually nameless] that leads up to Coal Mountain. For real, I'm not making it up lol.

The road in front of my house was an old Indian trial that led east-west. But it's paved now lol.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This is just such a stupid debate. Sharia is not the law of the land. US Muslims are free to practice Sharia all they want within our system of law. Since it's a protected religious right your idea would be a religious test which are specifically prohibited by the US Constitution. It's that damned freedom thing again. Dog gone it people get to practice it.
Click to expand...

We have unofficial Sharia courts that preside over issues like marriage and divorce, you also have Muslims attempting to impose alcohol free and modesty zones as well. Is that part of your freedom? Stop being so bloody PC and wake up!!

Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.

There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2...aria-law-has-no-place-in-britain-or-elsewhere
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
US Muslims are free to practice Sharia all they want within our system of law.
Click to expand...
really?.....even the provisions for rape victims?.......I suspect you don't really want people practicing Sharia all they want.......unless you want to hang your hat on "our system of law".......then it would have been simpler to state "we don't permit people to violate our law regardless of their religious beliefs"......then, of course, you would have had to agree with Gingrich........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top