REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

CONSTITUTIONALIST PARTY PLATFORM

POSTED BY: CREVANREAVER
UPDATED: Saturday, December 19, 2015 04:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7103
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, September 13, 2004 6:43 AM

CREVANREAVER


While searching through the internet for some political discussion, I found the website of the rather underfunded Constitutionalist Party.

Even though I have pretty much made up my mind to vote Libertarian in November...

http://www.badnarik.org/
http://www.lp.org/

...I think some people might find the CP somewhat interesting. So here is the link to their platform.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp/platform/print-p.html

And here is the link to the party's website.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jmarkels/cp.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:51 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Interesting stuff Crevan.

Umm, could we get this thread moved to the Real World Events Discussion section?

editted to add: Okay. I just caught myself using the word "interesting" in the way I make fun of on the definitions thread. Whoops. There is a lot of information on this page. It's going to take me a while to get through it all. But there seems to be some good common-sense positions (as well as many that I disagree with but appreciate the thought and effort that went into the formulation). The one that jumped out at me right off the bat was the position on the death penalty. I really liked the supporting information that they provided for their recommendation that the death penalty be done away with (looking at the problems that a death penalty is intended to address and then analyzing how, in reality, our current incarnation of the death penalty does not address those concerns - or addresses them poorly).


I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 9:16 AM

SGTGUMP


I like the idea of having more 'third parties' out there. The CP does have some good ideas, but I still align more with Libertarians.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 13, 2004 9:23 AM

BARCLAY


I find myself agreeing with most of the CP platform, and I think it's important to have alternatives out there. It's definitely time for something to change.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:16 AM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by Barclay:
I think it's important to have alternatives out there. It's definitely time for something to change.



Precisely! If anybody else knows of any other alternative parties, please post links to their sites and possible platforms.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:57 AM

BARCLAY


Has anyone tried contacting this party and received a response? It looks likes the last update was 3 years ago, and I haven't heard anything myself. Just wodnering if it's a dead venture.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:27 AM

FIREFLEW


I'm not American, but it looks like a decent party having read their site. In short, vote Constitionalist Party Platform

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 19, 2004 4:59 AM

CONSCIENCE


Constitutionalist, well anything would be better than the Green Party or the current Reform Party of Ralph Nader.

I say this to you Ralphie ...

You pinko douche!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 20, 2004 3:04 PM

CREVANREAVER


Quote:

Originally posted by Conscience:
Ralph Nader...You pinko douche!



Conscience your absolutely right, Nader is a crazy socialist pinhead and is therefore worst than either President Bush or Senator Kerry.

Vote Badnarik!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2004 2:56 PM

CONSCIENCE

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 16, 2004 11:24 PM

HARDWARE


Now you want to know the ideal job for Ralph Nader? Head of the EPA. Nader! Sick balls!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 1:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Peroutka might be a better president if you want a Christian theocracy. Most CP members are Christian fundamentalists. Nothing wrong with that. But people should be aware that what they stand for ultimately is a small government founded on evangelical/fundamentalist Christian morality. In other words, a Christian theocracy.

Now if that is what you believe in, vote for them by all means. Personally, I shudder at any kind of theocracy.

Someone asked about alternative parties.
The biggest alternative presidential candidates, in terms of ballot status, are:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html

Libertarian Party: 48 states + DC
www.lp.org

Constitution Party: 36 states
www.constitutionparty.com

Ralph Nader: 34 states + DC (party affiliation varies from state to state)
www.votenader.org

Green Party: 27 states + DC
www.gp.org

Socialist Workers Party: 13 + DC
www.themilitant.com


Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:05 AM

LENSMANZ313


I'm a Libertarian--and my vote is for Badnarik . . . !

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 2:29 AM

FIREFLEW


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Peroutka might be a better president if you want a Christian theocracy. Most CP members are Christian fundamentalists. Nothing wrong with that. But people should be aware that what they stand for ultimately is a small government founded on evangelical/fundamentalist Christian morality. In other words, a Christian theocracy.

Now if that is what you believe in, vote for them by all means. Personally, I shudder at any kind of theocracy.



They're fundies?

___________________________________
Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 9:37 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

They're fundies?

Oh yeah. BIG time fundies. PBS showed a documentary called "Crashing the Parties," which followed the presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. The footage on the CP candidate and campaign staff was mostly of them praying and reading the Bible.

Now I have no problems with politicians being religious as all get out. I just don't want them to force their religion on ME. Unfortunately, the Constitution Party believes that the government derives its authority from God, and therefore has an obligation to enforce God's will. God's will according to their interpretation of the Bible, of course.

If you want small government without the religious mandates, I'd recommend the Libertarian Party. I'm voting Libertarian.



Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:17 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Thanks for the info CantTakeSky. Fundies looking for a state sponsorship of religion. Shudder.

Hardware. I love the "Chopper" reference.

The slate for President in California is one of the smallest I can remember (of course, my memory sometimes gets hazy ). Only 6 parties: Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, American Independent, and Peace and Freedom (The funny thing is that Michael Peroutka is running on the American Independent ticket - not the Constitutionalist Party ticket). The US Senator race here has candidates from each of the above parties except Green. The Libertarians are running a candidate for US Rep and State Senator for my respective districts but the State assembly contest is just a two party race. Variety, not so much.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 5, 2004 8:56 AM

SKYWALKEN


Quote:

Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
If anybody else knows of any other alternative parties, please post links to their sites and possible platforms.



Check out the America First Party, it was formed in 2002 by supporters of Pat Buchanan from his time on the Reform Party ticket in the 2000 Presidential Election.

http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml

And in case anyone doesn't know how the election turned out on a county-by-county level...


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 6, 2004 8:10 AM

CREVANREAVER


The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by county).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 12:26 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 12:50 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
non-candidate Romney first?




I suggest you refrain from entering into a conversation that is obviously over your head. Smart on your part to not offer your thoughts and instead post someone else's via a link.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 1:33 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


I have been here since almost the beginging, since the start of this online firefly community and you still have no idea who or what I am?

Have you even read the US constitution? Do you know what they were doing when they wrote it? The people who wrote it and the times and experiences they came from?
I support muslims in their own damn place, I am for helping Arab Christians, I am not against Atheist Arabs or Agnostics from the Middle East, I am against war, I am against the military industry and the corrupt banksters who profit from sick wars, I support muslims in their own countries, over there away from America, I don't support bringing more wacko Islamics into the United States
you still have no idea who I am
Do you know of how ancient Persians and Chinese spoke of Islam and do you know of Islams critics through time? Do you know what the philosphers of France and the poets and diplomats of Asia and South America said of Islamism? Do you know the history of the US military after it won its Independence from the British Empire do you know the USA fought Islamic ships and hijackers? Do you John Quincy Adams thoughts, do you know the thoughts of Samuel Johnston, Apostolos Euangelou Vacalopoulos, India Hindus like Bhavishya Purana, Chinese military leaders, Richard Dobbs, Tocqueville, Jacob Burckhardt, James Iredell do you know what they said of Muhammedans or Mahometans? do you know of the schooner USS Enterprise and fighters like Presley O’Bannon do you know United States Marines crossed the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, do you know this fact? Do you know how Thomas Jefferson Led America’s First “War On Terror”? Do you know what America's great inventors, writers, scientists and free thinkers wrote of Islam do you know what Ben Franklin wrote? Do you know how England's Churchill spoke of radical Muslims? Do you know what John Adams wrote, do you know what Adams thought servicing as the ambassador to Britain?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/our_founding_fathers_included_islam/

Our Founding Fathers included Islam

Thomas Jefferson didn't just own a Quran -- he engaged with Islam and fought to ensure the rights of Muslims
Denise Spellberg

Excerpted from "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an"

[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”? — Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776?

At a time when most Americans were uninformed, misinformed, or simply afraid of Islam, Thomas Jefferson imagined Muslims as future citizens of his new nation. His engagement with the faith began with the purchase of a Qur’an eleven years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s Qur’an survives still in the Library of Congress, serving as a symbol of his and early America’s complex relationship with Islam and its adherents. That relationship remains of signal importance to this day.

That he owned a Qur’an reveals Jefferson’s interest in the Islamic religion, but it does not explain his support for the rights of Muslims. Jefferson first read about Muslim “civil rights” in the work of one of his intellectual heroes: the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. Locke had advocated the toleration of Muslims—and Jews—following in the footsteps of a few others in Europe who had considered the matter for more than a century before him. Jefferson’s ideas about Muslim rights must be understood within this older context, a complex set of transatlantic ideas that would continue to evolve most markedly from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries.

Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government.

Resistance to the idea of Muslim citizenship was predictable in the eighteenth century. Americans had inherited from Europe almost a millennium of negative distortions of the faith’s theological and political character. Given the dominance and popularity of these anti-Islamic representations, it was startling that a few notable Americans not only refused to exclude Muslims, but even imagined a day when they would be citizens of the United States, with full and equal rights. This surprising, uniquely American egalitarian defense of Muslim rights was the logical extension of European precedents already mentioned. Still, on both sides of the Atlantic, such ideas were marginal at best. How, then, did the idea of the Muslim as a citizen with rights survive despite powerful opposition from the outset? And what is the fate of that ideal in the twenty-first century?

This book provides a new history of the founding era, one that explains how and why Thomas Jefferson and a handful of others adopted and then moved beyond European ideas about the toleration of Muslims. It should be said at the outset that these exceptional men were not motivated by any inherent appreciation for Islam as a religion. Muslims, for most American Protestants, remained beyond the outer limit of those possessing acceptable beliefs, but they nevertheless became emblems of two competing conceptions of the nation’s identity: one essentially preserving the Protestant status quo, and the other fully realizing the pluralism implied in the Revolutionary rhetoric of inalienable and universal rights. Thus while some fought to exclude a group whose inclusion they feared would ultimately portend the undoing of the nation’s Protestant character, a pivotal minority, also Protestant, perceiving the ultimate benefit and justice of a religiously plural America, set about defending the rights of future Muslim citizens.

They did so, however, not for the sake of actual Muslims, because none were known at the time to live in America. Instead, Jefferson and others defended Muslim rights for the sake of “imagined Muslims,” the promotion of whose theoretical citizenship would prove the true universality of American rights. Indeed, this defense of imagined Muslims would also create political room to consider the rights of other despised minorities whose numbers in America, though small, were quite real, namely Jews and Catholics. Although it was Muslims who embodied the ideal of inclusion, Jews and Catholics were often linked to them in early American debates, as Jefferson and others fought for the rights of all non-Protestants.

In 1783, the year of the nation’s official independence from Great Britain, George Washington wrote to recent Irish Catholic immigrants in New York City. The American Catholic minority of roughly twenty-five thousand then had few legal protections in any state and, because of their faith, no right to hold political office in New York. Washington insisted that “the bosom of America” was “open to receive . . . the oppressed and the persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.” He would also write similar missives to Jewish communities, whose total population numbered only about two thousand at this time.

One year later, in 1784, Washington theoretically enfolded Muslims into his private world at Mount Vernon. In a letter to a friend seeking a carpenter and bricklayer to help at his Virginia home, he explained that the workers’ beliefs—or lack thereof—mattered not at all: “If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews or Christian of an[y] Sect, or they may be Atheists.” Clearly, Muslims were part of Washington’s understanding of religious pluralism—at least in theory. But he would not have actually expected any Muslim applicants.

Although we have since learned that there were in fact Muslims resident in eighteenth-century America, this book demonstrates that the Founders and their generational peers never knew it. Thus their Muslim constituency remained an imagined, future one. But the fact that both Washington and Jefferson attached to it such symbolic significance is not accidental. Both men were heir to the same pair of opposing European traditions.

The first, which predominated, depicted Islam as the antithesis of the “true faith” of Protestant Christianity, as well as the source of tyrannical governments abroad. To tolerate Muslims—to accept them as part of a majority Protestant Christian society—was to welcome people who professed a faith most eighteenth-century Europeans and Americans believed false, foreign, and threatening. Catholics would be similarly characterized in American Protestant founding discourse. Indeed, their faith, like Islam, would be deemed a source of tyranny and thus antithetical to American ideas of liberty.

In order to counter such fears, Jefferson and other supporters of non-Protestant citizenship drew upon a second, less popular but crucial stream of European thought, one that posited the toleration of Muslims as well as Jews and Catholics. Those few Europeans, both Catholic and Protestant, who first espoused such ideas in the sixteenth century often died for them. In the seventeenth century, those who advocated universal religious toleration frequently suffered death or imprisonment, banishment or exile, the elites and common folk alike. The ranks of these so-called heretics in Europe included Catholic and Protestant peasants, Protestant scholars of religion and political theory, and fervid Protestant dissenters, such as the first English Baptists—but no people of political power or prominence. Despite not being organized, this minority consistently opposed their coreligionists by defending theoretical Muslims from persecution in Christian-majority states.

As a member of the eighteenth-century Anglican establishment and a prominent political leader in Virginia, Jefferson represented a different sort of proponent for ideas that had long been the hallmark of dissident victims of persecution and exile. Because of his elite status, his own endorsement of Muslim citizenship demanded serious consideration in Virginia—and the new nation. Together with a handful of like-minded American Protestants, he advanced a new, previously unthinkable national blueprint. Thus did ideas long on the fringe of European thought flow into the mainstream of American political discourse at its inception.

Not that these ideas found universal welcome. Even a man of Jefferson’s national reputation would be attacked by his political opponents for his insistence that the rights of all believers should be protected from government interference and persecution. But he drew support from a broad range of constituencies, including Anglicans (or Episcopalians), as well as dissenting Presbyterians and Baptists, who suffered persecution perpetrated by fellow Protestants. No denomination had a unanimously positive view of non-Protestants as full American citizens, yet support for Muslim rights was expressed by some members of each.

What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job. This book documents, for the first time, how Jefferson and others, despite their negative, often incorrect understandings of Islam, pursued that ideal by advocating the rights of Muslims and all non-Protestants.

A decade before George Washington signaled openness to Muslim laborers in 1784 he had listed two slave women from West Africa among his taxable property. “Fatimer” and “Little Fatimer” were a mother and daughter—both indubitably named after the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fatima (d. 632). Washington advocated Muslim rights, never realizing that as a slaveholder he was denying Muslims in his own midst any rights at all, including the right to practice their faith. This tragic irony may well have also recurred on the plantations of Jefferson and Madison, although proof of their slaves’ religion remains less than definitive. Nevertheless, having been seized and transported from West Africa, the first American Muslims may have numbered in the tens of thousands, a population certainly greater than the resident Jews and possibly even the Catholics. Although some have speculated that a few former Muslim slaves may have served in the Continental Army, there is little direct evidence any practiced Islam and none that these individuals were known to the Founders. In any case, they had no influence on later political debates about Muslim citizenship.

The insuperable facts of race and slavery rendered invisible the very believers whose freedoms men like Jefferson, Washington, and Madison defended, and whose ancestors had resided in America since the seventeenth century, as long as Protestants had. Indeed, when the Founders imagined future Muslim citizens, they presumably imagined them as white, because by the 1790s “full American citizenship could be claimed by any free, white immigrant, regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs.”

The two actual Muslims Jefferson would wittingly meet during his lifetime were not black West African slaves but North African ambassadors of Turkish descent. They may have appeared to him to have more melanin than he did, but he never commented on their complexions or race. (Other observers either failed to mention it or simply affirmed that the ambassador in question was not black.) But then Jefferson was interested in neither diplomat for reasons of religion or race; he engaged them because of their political power. (They were, of course, also free.)

But even earlier in his political life—as an ambassador, secretary of state, and vice president—Jefferson had never perceived a predominantly religious dimension to the conflict with North African Muslim powers, whose pirates threatened American shipping in the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic. As this book demonstrates, Jefferson as president would insist to the rulers of Tripoli and Tunis that his nation harbored no anti-Islamic bias, even going so far as to express the extraordinary claim of believing in the same God as those men.

The equality of believers that Jefferson sought at home was the same one he professed abroad, in both contexts attempting to divorce religion from politics, or so it seemed. In fact, Jefferson’s limited but unique appreciation for Islam appears as a minor but active element in his presidential foreign policy with North Africa—and his most personal Deist and Unitarian beliefs. The two were quite possibly entwined, with their source Jefferson’s unsophisticated yet effective understanding of the Qur’an he owned.

Still, as a man of his time, Jefferson was not immune to negative feelings about Islam. He would even use some of the most popular anti-Islamic images inherited from Europe to drive his early political arguments about the separation of religion from government in Virginia. Yet ultimately Jefferson and others not as well known were still able to divorce the idea of Muslim citizenship from their dislike of Islam, as they forged an “imagined political community,” inclusive beyond all precedent.

The clash between principle and prejudice that Jefferson himself overcame in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries remains a test for the nation in the twenty-first. Since the late nineteenth century, the United States has in fact become home to a diverse and dynamic American Muslim citizenry, but this population has never been fully welcomed. Whereas in Jefferson’s time organized prejudice against Muslims was exercised against an exclusively foreign and imaginary nonresident population, today political attacks target real, resident American Muslim citizens. Particularly in the wake of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror, a public discourse of anti-Muslim bigotry has arisen to justify depriving American Muslim citizens of the full and equal exercise of their civil rights.

For example, recent anti-Islamic slurs used to deny the legitimacy of a presidential candidacy contained eerie echoes of founding precedents. The legal possibility of a Muslim president was first discussed with vitriol during debates involving America’s Founders. Thomas Jefferson would be the first in the history of American politics to suffer the false charge of being a Muslim, an accusation considered the ultimate Protestant slur in the eighteenth century. That a presidential candidate in the twenty-first century should have been subject to much the same false attack, still presumed as politically damning to any real American Muslim candidate’s potential for elected office, demonstrates the importance of examining how the multiple images of Islam and Muslims first entered American consciousness and how the rights of Muslims first came to be accepted as national ideals. Ultimately, the status of Muslim citizenship in America today cannot be properly appreciated without establishing the historical context of its eighteenth-century origins.

Muslim American rights became a theoretical reality early on, but as a practical one they have been much slower to evolve. In fact, they are being tested daily. Recently, John Esposito, a distinguished historian of Islam in contemporary America, observed, “Muslims are led to wonder: What are the limits of this Western pluralism?” Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an documents the origins of such pluralism in the United States in order to illuminate where, when, and how Muslims were first included in American ideals.

Until now, most historians have proposed that Muslims represented nothing more than the incarnated antithesis of American values. These same voices also insist that Protestant Americans always and uniformly defined both the religion of Islam and its practitioners as inherently un-American. Indeed, most historians posit that the emergence of the United States as an ideological and political phenomenon occurred in opposition to eighteenth-century concepts about Islam as a false religion and source of despotic government. There is certainly evidence for these assumptions in early American religious polemic, domestic politics, foreign policy, and literary sources. There are, however, also considerable observations about Islam and Muslims that cast both in a more affirmative light, including key references to Muslims as future American citizens in important founding debates about rights. These sources show that American Protestants did not monolithically view Islam as “a thoroughly foreign religion.”

This book documents the counterassertion that Muslims, far from being definitively un-American, were deeply embedded in the concept of citizenship in the United States since the country’s inception, even if these inclusive ideas were not then accepted by the majority of Americans. While focusing on Jefferson’s views of Islam, Muslims, and the Islamic world, it also analyzes the perspectives of John Adams and James Madison. Nor is it limited to these key Founders. The cast of those who took part in the contest concerning the rights of Muslims, imagined and real, is not confined to famous political elites but includes Presbyterian and Baptist protestors against Virginia’s religious establishment; the Anglican lawyers James Iredell and Samuel Johnston in North Carolina, who argued for the rights of Muslims in their state’s constitutional ratifying convention; and John Leland, an evangelical Baptist preacher and ally of Jefferson and Madison in Virginia, who agitated in Connecticut and Massachusetts in support of Muslim equality, the Constitution, the First Amendment, and the end of established religion at the state level.

The lives of two American Muslim slaves of West African origin, Ibrahima Abd al-Rahman and Omar ibn Said, also intersect this narrative. Both were literate in Arabic, the latter writing his autobiography in that language. They remind us of the presence of tens of thousands of Muslim slaves who had no rights, no voice, and no hope of American citizenship in the midst of these early discussions about religious and political equality for future, free practitioners of Islam.

Imagined Muslims, along with real Jews and Catholics, were the consummate outsiders in much of America’s political discourse at the founding. Jews and Catholics would struggle into the twentieth century to gain in practice the equal rights assured them in theory, although even this process would not entirely eradicate prejudice against either group. Nevertheless, from among the original triad of religious outsiders in the United States, only Muslims remain the objects of a substantial civic discourse of derision and marginalization, still being perceived in many quarters as not fully American. This book writes Muslims back into our founding narrative in the hope of clarifying the importance of critical historical precedents at a time when the idea of the Muslim as citizen is, once more, hotly contested.







SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:34 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Jefferson owned a Koran because islamic pirates and barbaric muslim hijackers were his enemy, he owned the Koran to better understand his enemy

Chinese military philosophy “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” China's great military writings : ' If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled ' and ' If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle'


LMFAO I almost expected you islamophiles to post this Salon crap, I almost knew you muslim-apologists were going to publish that salon sh*t

LOL!! The Salon is left-wing regressive multi-culturalist garbage, Stephen and David Talbot have always published ufo-olgy, leftist, queer trash...


Did you know that Salon, and the regressive leftist Guardian dinosaur news paper blamed “conservatives” for Paris jihad attacks, they blamed not helping blacklivesmatter for the murders and suicide bombings of Paris, they blamed white skined people for the terroristic barbarians and muslim murders in Paris, did you know that?
a bunch of psychopathic barbarians murder tennagers, women, people out eating and shopping and the left doesn't blame psychopathic barbarians but instead cracker whiteys
Do you kow what the regressive self hating liberals of Salon wrote? the and people online called their shit out on it.

"Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly."

F*CKING Deplorable.


I find them idiots at Salon racist and disgusting, the sad old angry femists of salon, the self hating marxists of salon is consistently trash....of course for standing up for American people I'll be accused now of being some deep South rightwing Christian redneck and what if I told you I'm not even white

Here let me help you out by NOT QUOTING SALON


Quote:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Jefferson later went to war with the Barbary states.

An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.


In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??



and

Quote:

Mark Twain


That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters



and

Quote:

William Eaton (1764-1811)

“Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives. The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind.”



Quote:

Churchill

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.



Quote:

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), the sixth President of the United States (1825–1829).

“The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”



Quote:

Jefferson had this to say about Islam in a passage regarding Calvinism:

Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.



and


Quote:

Thomas Carlyle (1795 - 1881) was a Scottish satirical writer, essayist, historian and teacher during the Victorian era.
... I must say, it [the Koran] is as toilsome reading as I ever undertook. A wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; — insupportable stupidity, in short! Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran ... It is the confused ferment of a great rude human soul; rude, untutored, that cannot even read; but fervent, earnest, struggling vehemently to utter itself in words ... We said "stupid:" yet natural stupidity is by no means the character of Mahomet's Book; it is natural uncultivation rather. The man has not studied speaking; in the haste and pressure of continual fighting, has not time to mature himself into fit speech ... The man was an uncultured semi-barbarous Son of Nature, much of the Bedouin still clinging to him: we must take him for that. But for a wretched Simulacrum, a hungry Impostor without eyes or heart ... we will not and cannot take him. Sincerity, in all senses, seems to me the merit of the Koran; what had rendered it precious to the wild Arab men ... Curiously, through these incondite masses of tradition, vituperation, complaint, ejaculation in the Koran, a vein of true direct insight, of what we might almost call poetry, is found straggling








There you go, Londonistan Britain Sux





and finally

No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam
https://pjmedia.com/blog/no-professor-ahmed-the-founders-were-not-so-f
ond-of-islam
/

Quote:

John Quincy Adams wrote about the Islamic prophet Mohammed:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:49 PM

THGRRI


Wow such rants JAYNZTOWN. Since you do not understand what America is about and what we are trying to accomplish, I will post my response to a question another person who knows little of what America is about asked. ( A Russian troll )

SIG

Tell me, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it specify the right of immigration?

My response

Bill of rights section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Bill of rights unmistakably state here that the congress does not have the right to stop immigration by its own authority. Clearly what many like you and JAYNZTOWN are calling for.

The great diversity of this nation was also a formidable obstacle to unity. The people who were empowered by the Constitution to elect and control their central government were of widely differing origins, beliefs and interests. Most had come from England, but Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, Prussia, Poland and many other countries also sent immigrants to the New World. Their religious beliefs were varied and in most cases strongly held. There were Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Huguenots, Lutherans, Quakers, Jews, agnostics and atheists. The backbone of the country was the middle class -- farmers, tradesmen, mechanics, sailors, shipwrights, weavers, carpenters and a host of others. To now chastise all Muslims based on a dismal percentile of the Muslim population who are extreme is an attack on diversity, tolerance and inclusion based on fear and hate.

Most of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States are based in ideas of natural law, or the principle that in a state of nature, without government interference, man naturally engages in certain activities, and that government should not be permitted to interfere with this. For example, man naturally expresses his ideas and practices his religion. Are you following any of this SIG, or should I break it down further for you? In order for the constitution to function as designed it has to work for all equally.

We grew through inclusion SIG not exclusion. In the past two centuries, the diversity of the American people has increased, and yet the essential unity of the nation has grown stronger. From the original 13 states along the Atlantic seaboard, America spread westward across the entire continent. That's the premise SIG, for all to join in, in this Philosophy of diversity. And you guys are the ones fighting it.

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Everything JAYNZTOWN stands for today if implemented would destroy the values and premise this country is built on and the world is watching with bated breath.

Do you understand any of this SIG, or because your loyalties lie with Russia are you going to be dismissive as usual of what America is truly about, and continue to only point out were we fall short at times???



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 2:58 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, articulated this point succinctly in 1788 in the debates on the wording of the Constitution:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices.... But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own (Elliot, 1836, 4:194, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=
4622

The irony perhaps is that Islam did in fact play a very important role in the early stages of the development of the United States - Islam was directly responsible for the development of the United States Navy and for the concepts that allowed for its deployment far from our coasts. The American Navy is not a river navy or coastal defense force; it is a global tool of American power whose origins can be traced directly back to an earlier American-Islam confrontation. After the American Revolution, pirates from the Barbary states (Algiers, Morcoco) attacked American shipping off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean and took the crews. This piracy against American shipping started in 1784 and finally ended in 1815. The Islamic rulers of these Barbary States demanded payment of tribute from the new country and it was paid, and paid. President Jefferson sent a naval force against the pirates in 1803-05. The Marine Corps were also sent in and after a long overland march, took the city of Tripoli in 1805 (thus "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps hymn). Is the Somali piracy of today related to the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century? When then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Ambassador from Tripoli in 1785, to reach a solution to the attacks against American shipping and crews they were dragged into a dark world in which we are still today.

"When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Source)

The Barbary piracy was based upon the doctrine of Islam, calling for endless war against the unbeliever everywhere, including at sea.

If the United States was unable to fight the pirates, they would be forced to continue to pay extortion to the Barbary States, a kind of high seas jizya. ...

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them." (source)

When he became the 3rd President, Jefferson took action, and the United States Navy was sent to deal with the Barbary Coast pirates, which they did.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

We can trace the development of the US Navy directly to Thomas Jefferson's interaction with jihadist pirates.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=
4622

Samuel Johnston, governor of North Carolina and member of the Constitution ratifying convention in 1788, likewise felt confident that Muslims should not, and hopefully would not, be allowed to become mainstream in American politics and public institutions—except in only two cases:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves

watch this woman's full lecture


personally i think she is something of a rightwing christian nut but some of her points are correct, ignore her personality and focus on her facts and message...if you liberals for one sec keep an open mind and look at her points she does have some facts you can not deny

NOT a Constitutionally-protected religion

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Jane

I see you didn't understand the article. Here's an explanation with a salient quote to follow:

The references to Islam during the Constitutional debates were about whether or not there should be a religious test for citizenship, not whether or not people at the time understood or liked Islam. The fact that they, for the most part, did neither is what made Islam the quintessential test for religious freedom.

And how did that debate turn out?

"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."

Do YOU see a phrase in there that says 'except Islam'? Or 'regarding Protestants'? Could you point out TO US ALL where the Constitution supports your ban on Muslims?

Because, if you can't - and I already know you can't - your position is - what was that word you used? - oh, yes - crap.



"What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job. This book documents, for the first time, how Jefferson and others, despite their negative, often incorrect understandings of Islam, pursued that ideal by advocating the rights of Muslims and all non-Protestants."






SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:11 PM

THGRRI


Holy shit 1kiki, I see some honest brokering of the truth going on with you. Bravo and I consider that deserving of notice. Great points and a wonderful argument against the unturths JAYNSTOWN is try to spread.



"A Mahometan," wrote a Boston newspaper columnist, "is excited to the practice of good morals in hopes that after the resurrection he shall enjoy the beautiful girls of paradise to all eternity; he is afraid to commit murder, adultery and theft, lest he should be cast into hell, where he must drink scalding water and the scum of the damned." Benjamin Rush, the Pennsylvania signer of the Declaration of Independence and friend of Adams and Jefferson, applauded this feature of Islam, asserting that he had "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What it boils down to is this:

Believe in who you want. Worship in what way you want. Eat whatever tasty foods you want or follow your religious dietary strictures, but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...

ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...

then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 3:42 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What it boils down to is this:

Believe in who you want. Worship in what way you want. Eat whatever tasty foods you want or follow your religious dietary strictures, but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...

ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...

then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.



Yep SIG and that applies to .000000001 of Muslims. The rest do not believe any of that. And fortunately you and some others here make very poor arguments as to why anyone should listen to you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 4:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


... but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...

ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...

then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.



I agree. It would be no different than if people broke OTHER laws of the land, even those without religious connotations.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 4:06 PM

JAYNEZTOWN






Look to Euro leftism and rightist political correctness of Europe, When
UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam. The British government kowtowed to Islamic supremacists “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government hounded counter-jihadists domestically and banned ones from the U.S. from entering the country “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government worked with Islamic supremacists it mistook for “moderates” “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government funded liars who exaggerated claims of Muslim victimhood “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government for years ignored an Islamic supremacist takeover of public schools “for fear of being thought as racist.” Fear of all the wrong things failed 1,400 children. How did this go on for so long? The Jay report is worth reading in full, if only to get a measure of the way apparently well-organised organisations apparently working in a joined-up way managed to fail 1,400 children (at least). But something removed the urgency and made fear of breaking a taboo and being labelled politically incorrect the bigger thing. 1,400 non-Muslim children exploited by Muslim rape gangs, authorities did nothing “for fear of being thought as racist”

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 4:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One of the things that's interesting is that we have a real problem with non-Xtians establishing a theocracy, but not so much when the Ted Cruzes and Mike Huckabees of the political world think they can make the USA an Xtian nation.

I thought one of the precepts of the Constitution was freedom FROM religion: the government could not force you to worship in any particular way. We don't we look on THEM with the same horror?


--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 4:10 PM

THGRRI


Give it up JAYNZTOWN, your argument is porous and being destroyed by all who chose to confront you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 4:24 PM

THGRRI


SIG

One of the things that's interesting is that we have a real problem with non-Xtians establishing a theocracy, but not so much when the Ted Cruzes and Mike Huckabees of the political world think they can make the USA an Xtian nation.

My response

To understand why this discussion is even taking place in America today you would have to understand gerrymandering and its consequences. This is a direct result of that. If there are no countervailing opinions in your district then you have to cater to those who cry out the loudest. You know SIG, like JAYNZTOWN.

SIG

I thought one of the precepts of the Constitution was freedom FROM religion: the government could not force you to worship in any particular way. We don't we look on THEM with the same horror?

My response

It is SIG and that is the crux of my debate with you and JAYNZTOWN. Your problem is what it always is. Selective thinking. Freedom from religion and of religion. See how that works. You can never look at just one. The answer lies in understanding the concept of both.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 5:04 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Clearly there are people here who know not what they are talking of, they just parrort what someone on the CNN ConfusedNoiseNetwork says or repeat the words of some rich journalist who takes a pay from the Qatar diplomat at the UN


My recommendation is this

Don't listen to red
Don't listen to blue
Don't listen to the right
Don't listen to the left

Go out if you are interested, but don't be foolish and so innocent go and meet muslims, observe the different ones and maybe be near them and read about muslims and islam yourself and find your own voice and own conclusion
also check those who quit
http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/
Meet the Apostates the Ex-Muslims....meet the people who have to deal with expansion of Islamic culture in Hindu India, in East Europe, in the Philippines, In Thailand....
Go out and buy the Koran or a translated copy of it, then buy the Hadith and Sunnah...if you can't buy it download it
Then read the words of founding fathers and America's icons, people like Jefferson, Adams maybe even words of iconic people like Churchill or Mark Twain....
...it may take some weeks of reading and study, it might be boring reading as you sit constipated.... but you will be better after this, come back and then post about Islam

and post if it can co-exist with Western democracy

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 22, 2015 5:24 PM

THGRRI


Sorry JAYNZTOWN, your own posts provide us with proof that you don't follow your own suggestion of gathering and posting information without bias.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2015 7:59 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
... but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...



exactly

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 23, 2015 11:33 PM

ELVISCHRIST


I don't think America can withstand ANY kind of theocracy.

And right now, there's only one kind that's trying to take over, and it's not the Islamic variety.

Christians are, and will remain, the greatest threat to this country.

If you want to wage war on a religion, start here at home with your goddamned Christians.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 15, 2015 5:54 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Ralph Nader: Sanders and Trump insurgencies; what’s next?
http://www.nhregister.com/article/NH/20151212/NEWS/151219870

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 17, 2015 2:29 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Goode to head Trump’s team in 5th District

http://www.thefranklinnewspost.com/news/goode-to-head-trump-s-team-in-
th-district/article_368c4696-9520-11e5-9fc0-8fcc9f9dd66b.html




Former congressman and Constitution party presidential candidate Virgil Goode will head Donald Trump’s 5th Congressional District leadership team, according to a news release from the Trump presidential campaign last week.

Goode, of Rocky Mount, served in Congress from 1997 to 2008 as a Democrat, independent and Republican. He is also a former state legislator.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 19, 2015 4:24 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Oh yeah, I remember that being in the Constitution. It was written and entered into the Bill of Rights by one Donald F. Trump (a distant relative of Donald J. Trump).
The F stands for Fucking and the J stands for Jackass. Still though, I learned something of value today. Fuck any immigrants who decide to grace our shores, that's exactly how this country was built.

It all started with those rascally Puritans. Wait............let me think........
yes, that's right, fuck all immigrants. "Plymouth Rock landed on us"


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What it boils down to is this:

Believe in who you want. Worship in what way you want. Eat whatever tasty foods you want or follow your religious dietary strictures, but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...

ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...

then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 19, 2015 4:30 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


And in this country we don't have any extreme-thinking people. No one comes to mind
when the word extreme is brought up. There are those that believe that worshiping with snakes...............................

"The Church of Lord Jesus with Signs Following are the name applied to Pentecostal Holiness churches that practice snake handling and drinking poison in worship services, based on an interpretation of the following biblical passage:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover,"

—?Mark 16:17-18


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Clearly there are people here who know not what they are talking of, they just parrort what someone on the CNN ConfusedNoiseNetwork says or repeat the words of some rich journalist who takes a pay from the Qatar diplomat at the UN


My recommendation is this

Don't listen to red
Don't listen to blue
Don't listen to the right
Don't listen to the left

Go out if you are interested, but don't be foolish and so innocent go and meet muslims, observe the different ones and maybe be near them and read about muslims and islam yourself and find your own voice and own conclusion
also check those who quit
http://ex-muslim.org.uk/
http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/
Meet the Apostates the Ex-Muslims....meet the people who have to deal with expansion of Islamic culture in Hindu India, in East Europe, in the Philippines, In Thailand....
Go out and buy the Koran or a translated copy of it, then buy the Hadith and Sunnah...if you can't buy it download it
Then read the words of founding fathers and America's icons, people like Jefferson, Adams maybe even words of iconic people like Churchill or Mark Twain....
...it may take some weeks of reading and study, it might be boring reading as you sit constipated.... but you will be better after this, come back and then post about Islam

and post if it can co-exist with Western democracy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL