NEWT CALLS FOR BAN ON SHARIA LAW IN AMERICA.

[powderman]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich-calls-for-federal-law-banning-shariah-law-in-us.php




Newt Gingrich has called for a mandatory permanent ban on sharia law in American courts. YES, it could happen here with osama in charge. Good for Newt. POWDERMAN. 

[myronman3]

normally i would think that would qualify as a "duh" but with the unbelievable stuff we see come to light, it probably is not a bad idea. 

[powderman]

MYRONMAN3. They are already talking about doing just that in Dearborn Mich. Too many libs out there to take a chance. POWDERMAN. 

[Pat/Rick]

MYRONMAN3. They are already talking about doing just that in Dearborn Mich. Too many libs out there to take a chance. POWDERMAN. 

Thats the problem, waaaaay to many in office that would be scared to endorse this as it would spell doom to their "career". I would look for an all opposed vote if it comes to it. It would surprise me to see different. BUT, good that Newt brought it up and I hope he pushes it. If enacted it would create a division in this nation that be permanent. OUR sovereignty needs to be defended regardless of the empty suits in our capitol. If they will not defend it, they should not be at all shocked to see American Patriots do it. 

[magooch]

Why not be totally clear--that whole muslim thing is not really a religion; it is a plan to dominate the world.  Ban it!

[wreckhog]

Why not be totally clear--that whole muslim thing is not really a religion; it is a plan to dominate the world.  Ban it!

the Mormoms with their posthumous baptisms of jews probably tops that.

[briarpatch]

Wreckhog, you may not like the Mormon religion or its precepts but from what I have seen they are Constitutionalist to a fault.
A big difference in someone trying to uphold your government and country and someone trying to destroy it.

[Mikey]

islamic law or sharia law is banned by the Constitution under the separation of church and state.  All it will take is one lawsuit if some stupid liberals in one of those sanctuary cities decide there is nothing wrong with it.  Of course, it could also spark a violent response.  Nobody has to take a personal stand on it, the law already provides for and requires the separation of church and state.  Hell, even in nyc where the iman who wants the mosque at Ground Zero has stated that he wants to establish sharia law in nyc, but you sure haven't heard anything further about that now, have you???

There have been examples of sharia law used in the US and those who have followed sharia law tenets have been jailed for their actions.  muslim men cannot brutalize, disfigure, beat or murder muslim women who follow American customs without facing punishment for their actions.  At least in ny, those who have committed crimes of that nature quickly find themselves behind bars.  

And, since public arrests become public information and get printed and written up in the local papers, the idiots who choose to enact and follow sharia law in the US can be easily targeted.......

[powderman]

wreckhog. Good job, I'm sure daddy tm is proud of ya, change the subject. I can't remember the last time Mormans blew up 3,000 innocent Americans.  POWDERMAN. 

[wreckhog]

wreckhog. Good job, I'm sure daddy tm is proud of ya, change the subject. I can't remember the last time Mormans blew up 3,000 innocent Americans.  POWDERMAN. 

I like that you include the couple hundred Muslims in your 3000 innocent Americans. Hope for you yet.

[powderman]

wreckhog. Your Godless friends were no more than innocent blood to those scum. They murder their own every day. Spilling blood is what they live for, even their own. As long as they can kill, the persons selected don't matter.
MIKEY. Good post, but seperation of church and state is nowhere I've seen in the constitution. The term is widely used by the libs to DENY Christians their rights. Welcome aboard. POWDERMAN. 

[Dee]

Good grief guys, the concept, and physical aspects of Sharia Law "are already banned" and it is, i.e. AGAINST THE LAW here already. We don't need that moron Newt Gingrich to announce it. Just enforce the law as it already is, and punish the wicked offender.

[Empty Quiver]

Dee, that is kinda what I was thinking. If the idea is to make sure we don't start allowing for sharia law then I would agree.

If we don't allow for religious laws will we somehow be banning a religion, or restricting a persons rights to practice that religion? My answer would be , Uh, yes as a matter of fact we are. How long would it take to establish a religion based on human sacrifice to the sun? How about poligamy or any other morality based judgement.

People came to this country for the freedom to practice their religion. You signed up too late, and we ain't gonna grandfather you in, sorry for your troubles.

[joeinwv]

Since it is legally unnecessary to ban Sharia in the US, I can only assume that as an adulterer, Gingrich wants to make certain he is not going to be stoned to death.

[Pat/Rick]

Mikey and all, The phrase "seperation of church and state", appears nowhere in the Constitituion. It was first used by SCOTUS in 18??. More recently in 1947 and times thereafter. "Seperation of......." is a SCOTUS decision.Do a search on Wikpedia if nothing else.

I agree Dee, the concept of sharia law is banned because of bodily harm and all that but, they are still trying and very well may succeed under freedom of religion. Its illegal to smoke peyote but for religious purposes, among some religions its okay as I understand it. The muzzies will keep trying, and trying, and trying. WE as a sovereign nation need the laws banning it in place IMO.There is getting to be more and more news coverage of Mexicos independence day in this country, slight, but it still erodes at our sovereignty by distancing assimilation, again IMO.As a nation, our culture needs to be preserved.

[dukkillr]

Mikey and all, The phrase "seperation of church and state", appears nowhere in the Constitituion. It was first used by SCOTUS in 18??. More recently in 1947 and times thereafter. "Seperation of......." is a SCOTUS decision.Do a search on Wikpedia if nothing else.

I agree Dee, the concept of sharia law is banned because of bodily harm and all that but, they are still trying and very well may succeed under freedom of religion. Its illegal to smoke peyote but for religious purposes, among some religions its okay as I understand it. The muzzies will keep trying, and trying, and trying. WE as a sovereign nation need the laws banning it in place IMO.There is getting to be more and more news coverage of Mexicos independence day in this country, slight, but it still erodes at our sovereignty by distancing assimilation, again IMO.As a nation, our culture needs to be preserved.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[Sourdough]

If it is not speciffically banned, they will find a way to impliment it.  I have heard it is already being implimented somewhere in Michigan.  We need to stop it now, before they get a toe hold here in this country.

[yellowtail3]

MIKEY. Good post, but seperation of church and state is nowhere I've seen in the constitution. The term is widely used by the libs to DENY Christians their rights.

give a few examples of rights that Christians are denied, by use of the term/concept of separating church from state?

[powderman]

If it is not speciffically banned, they will find a way to impliment it.  I have heard it is already being implimented somewhere in Michigan.  We need to stop it now, before they get a toe hold here in this country.

SOURDOUGH. Good post and true, it's in Dearborn Mich the Godless ones are trying this.
yt. Prayer in school, prayer at public events to name a few. Your daddy has taught you  well, you're still nitpicking. You are getting real close to being too much to bother with, seems a waste of time to answer you. POWDERMAN. 

[yellowtail3]

You are getting real close to being too much to bother with, seems a waste of time to answer you. POWDERMAN.  

Well, then, don't bother, Sport. Seems to me you don't bother much anyhow, if bother includes actual thinking. Did you read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that dukkiller posted? In the unlikely event that you actually read it, did you understand it? Anything you object to, there, assuming the language wasn't too hard for you to follow?

to the thread title & subject... ain't no Sharia law gonna be implemented in the US. Newt (whom I really liked in 1994) can call for banning it, but... nothing to be banned. Just politics. And the wall of separation some seem to be so worked up about, will suffice to keep Sharia in the newspapers and out of law here.

[BBF]

I see some difficulty of passing a law to ban a law.

I am wondering to some extend how Turkey and Indonesia for example do keep Islamic laws from becoming the law of the land.

[powderman]

Shouldn't have had to pass a law for a law abiding citizen to legally carry a gun, but we did. That should be a given, but then came the libs. As long as there are liberals we will have to SPELL out laws to fight them before they think of other ways to destroy us. POWDERMAN. 

[Dee]

Shouldn't have had to pass a law for a law abiding citizen to legally carry a gun, but we did. That should be a given, but then came the libs. As long as there are liberals we will have to SPELL out laws to fight them before they think of other ways to destroy us. POWDERMAN. 

powderman, that is very true, and the 2nd Amendment is a good example.

[magooch]

 

 

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[/quote]

Well, that pretty well says it all.  I'm not too sure what it says, but it says it.

I do have to wonder how long it will take a liberal Supreme Court to rule that the free pracice of religion would include the muslims ability to follow their religious law, which is of course--Sharia Law.

[powderman]

I do have to wonder how long it will take a liberal Supreme Court to rule that the free pracice of religion would include the muslims ability to follow their religious law, which is of course--Sharia Law.



If osama keeps appointing gay liberal females to the supreme  court it won't take long. POWDERMAN. 

[subdjoe]

MIKEY. Good post, but seperation of church and state is nowhere I've seen in the constitution. The term is widely used by the libs to DENY Christians their rights.

give a few examples of rights that Christians are denied, by use of the term/concept of separating church from state?

It took us one year plus to get a school district to allow our kids to fast during Great and Holy Lent and the Nativity Fast.  We had to threaten legal action against the district, the school, the principal, and various others before they would allow the kids to fast if they decided they wanted to do so.  And during that time, as well as after, they were ridiculed by school officials with "Oh, no one does that, how backward!" and such. 

Workers in government offices have been told that they may not...NOT...wear crosses or crucifixes.  Or have anything of a Christian (this was specified) showing at their desk, even if it was a walled off cubicle. 

You want more?

[subdjoe]

Yes, the (in)famous, and oft misused Danbury Letter.  In which Pres. Jefferson assured the small Baptist community in Connecticut that there were no plans by the federal government to impose a national religion a la The Church of England.  And that he hoped that the State of Connecticut would stop imposing the special taxes and fees on them because they were not of the majority, I think, Congregationalist sect.  It was strictly a top down, no government intrusion on the various sects or personal religious praxis.  He in no way suggests, as many of the anti-religionists claim now, that there should be no expression of religion in government. Nor does he suggest, as many claim, that any hint of religion, especially the Christian religion, by a public official is somehow "establishing" a religion.  He is fairly clear that the government should not block individual praxis.  His "wall" is to keep the government in check.

Here is the letter to which Pres. Jefferson wrote his reply:

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of

Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,

Esq., President of the United States of America.



Sir,



Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere.



Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.



Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people.



And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.



Signed in behalf of the association,  Nehemiah Dodge

                                      Ephraim Robbins

                                      Stephen S. Nelson

 

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Well, that pretty well says it all.  I'm not too sure what it says, but it says it.

I do have to wonder how long it will take a liberal Supreme Court to rule that the free pracice of religion would include the muslims ability to follow their religious law, which is of course--Sharia Law.
[/quote]

[yellowtail3]

MIKEY. Good post, but seperation of church and state is nowhere I've seen in the constitution. The term is widely used by the libs to DENY Christians their rights.

give a few examples of rights that Christians are denied, by use of the term/concept of separating church from state?

It took us one year plus to get a school district to allow our kids to fast during Great and Holy Lent and the Nativity Fast.  We had to threaten legal action against the district, the school, the principal, and various others before they would allow the kids to fast if they decided they wanted to do so.  And during that time, as well as after, they were ridiculed by school officials with "Oh, no one does that, how backward!" and such. 

I'm glad you won that one!

Workers in government offices have been told that they may not...NOT...wear crosses or crucifixes.  Or have anything of a Christian (this was specified) showing at their desk, even if it was a walled off cubicle. 

You want more?

Sure - more info is welcome. Thanks.

[gstewart44]

If osama keeps appointing gay liberal females to the supreme  court it won't take long. POWDERMAN.  

PM - the ironic thing is that if those same Liberal females allowed Sharia to become law, then they ( the women) would rule themselves out of a job and be subject to all the inequality of Sharia against women.     

[Pat/Rick]

Teacher at Stevenson,WA high school was fired for having a Bible on his desk a few years ago.
Teacher at same high school preaches and quotes scripture to students. NOT fired. She has tenure, and is quoted by some as being nuts.. Maybe therein lies the difference???