Once more, the Religion of Peace claims a victim

[BaalChatzaf]

Please see:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/25/jordanian-writer-shot-dead-trial-insulting-islam-nahed-hattar

The victim was out on bail, charged with fomenting riots by sharing an anti-Muslim cartoon on Facebook.  He was shot outside the courthouse where he was going for a hearing....

If the world caliphate is ever accomplished things like that will be  common.

[jts]

The president of the USA swears an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies of the constitution, foreign and domestic. Islam is such an enemy and therefore the president has a duty to ban Islam. Islam should be illegal. Mosques should be illegal. Pushing for sharia law should be regarded as some kind of treason. Muslims should be regarded as terrorist suspects. Every politician who has a soft attitude about Islam should be regarded as a terrorist suspect. Every president who will not oppose Islam should be impeached and removed from office on the ground that he is violating his oath. Muslims who enter the USA (if this is permitted) should be required by law to abandon their inferior culture and accept the superior culture of the USA, with serious consequences if they don't. Islam should be totally disrespected.

I hope Trump gets elected, in spite of the bad things about him, because he might actually do something about the Islam problem.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

That would be clear violation of the First Amendment.  It ain't going to happen.  

[jts]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That would be clear violation of the First Amendment.  It ain't going to happen.  

Islam is a violation of the first amendment and therefore must be outlawed to protect the first amendment.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, jts said:

Islam is a violation of the first amendment and therefore must be outlawed to protect the first amendment.

 

No it isn't.  A person can be a Muslim and be perfectly law abiding under  statute and common law.

[jts]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No it isn't.  A person can be a Muslim and be perfectly law abiding under  statute and common law.

A person can be a Muslim consistent with law if they don't fully do what their religion tells them to do. The reason why they don't fully practise their religion in USA and Canada is they are a small part of the population. As they become a larger and larger portion of the population they will practise their religion more and more fully. And ultimately the result will be sharia law.

Understand 3 things:

1.  Islam will lead to sharia law.

2. Sharia law will destroy freedom and civilisation.

3. Once you are under sharia law, there is little chance of turning back, because it is a kind of totalitarianism and the penalty for opposing it is death.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

22 minutes ago, jts said:

A person can be a Muslim consistent with law if they don't fully do what their religion tells them to do. The reason why they don't fully practise their religion in USA and Canada is they are a small part of the population. As they become a larger and larger portion of the population they will practise their religion more and more fully. And ultimately the result will be sharia law.

Understand 3 things:

1.  Islam will lead to sharia law.

2. Sharia law will destroy freedom and civilisation.

3. Once you are under sharia law, there is little chance of turning back, because it is a kind of totalitarianism and the penalty for opposing it is death.

 

Exactly.  Now how many people do you know or know of who say they are religious but to not follow the doctrines of their religion fully? 

And Shariah will never become law in the U.S. or Canada because Muslims are a small minority in the population.

So far, Islam in the U.S. has not led to Sharia become the effective law.  Statute and Common Law are the effective laws.  

If there were ever a danger of Islam  being imposed on the population then Mosques will burn and Muslims will be slaughtered.   And those that are not slaughtered would be loaded onto freight cars.

Don't worry about it. 

 

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, jts said:

Islam is a violation of the first amendment and therefore must be outlawed to protect the first amendment.

 

That's a contradiction. The crux is Islam is not a violation of the First Amendment.

--Brant

violation requires an actor

[BaalChatzaf]

39 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's a contradiction. The crux is Islam is not a violation of the First Amendment.

--Brant

violation requires an actor

exactly.  A set of beliefs is not subject to legal force or government control.  Actions are a different story....