THE REASON THE AMENDMENT IS NEEDED
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz.
We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims.
In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
ping
Not just no, but hell no. You can’t sacrifice liberty to preserve America. It’s an oxymoron. One cannot exist without the other. Should this boneheaded Amendment pass, we’d cease being American at that very moment.
Religion is about man’s relationship with God.
Politics deals with man’s relationship to his fellow man.
Islam is not a religion. It is a political system where the mullahs and ayatollahs and muftis and whatever control the masses.
Evidently the idiots have now taken over FreeRepublic...
The problem isn’t islam, it’s liberalism. It’s similar to AIDS. People don’t actually die of AIDS, they die of other diseases after AIDS has ravaged their immune systems. It’s the same way with islam. America or Europe would never be at risk of succumbing to a bunch of third world cavemen if our cultural immune system hadn’t been ravaged by liberalism.
I am sure Jonh McCain will make this the first plank of the 2008 GOP Platform!
Christianity is already in the crosshairs of fedgov types who would love to kill it.
If we openly give them the power to restrict one system of belief, even one as repugnant and vile as mohammedanism, they will take that inch and run a marathon with it. No religion will be safe from the sweeping gaze and power of the federal government once they get the lumbering beast into motion.
So NO, fight the mohammedans with ferocity and fire if needs be, but do it on the field of battle, not in the arcane and morally bankrupt field of government fiat because we will all suffer.
Once the iron fist starts swinging, it is indiscriminating and relentless.
Hate to see the need.
But I’d vote for it.
Of course, the globalists will not allow it to pass.
I wonder if this is being proposed by the same people who sent the petition against Mitt Romney to John McCain.
Rule #1 is: Don't turn into your enemy while trying to destroy him.
‘”Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.”’
"§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom. The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. One hardly knows, how to repress the sentiments of strong indignation, in reading the cool vindication of the laws of England on this subject, (now, happily, for the most part abolished by recent enactments,) by Mr. Justice Blackstone, a man, in many respects distinguished for habitual moderation, and a deep sense of justice. "The second species," says he "of non-conformists, are those, who offend through a mistaken or perverse zeal. Such were esteemed by our laws, enacted since the time of the reformation, to be papists, and protestant dissenters; both of which were supposed to be equally schismatics in not communicating with the national church; with this difference, that the papists divided from it upon material, though erroneous, reasons; but many of the dissenters, upon matters of indifference, or, in other words, upon no reason at all. Yet certainly our ancestors were mistaken in their plans of compulsion and intolerance. The sin of schism, as such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. If, through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through perverseness and acerbity of temper, or, (which is often the case,) through a prospect of secular advantage in herding with a party, men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such, as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound, indeed, to protect the established church; and, if this can be better effected, by admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolument, he is certainly at liberty so to do; the disposal of offices being matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, all persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment."
§ 1842. And again: "As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain, if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."
While the second point is directed toward "papists", I see no practical difference with regard to Islam and Sharia law. Constitutional protection of freedome of religion extends only so far as the followers of a particular religion are willing to hold the Constitution superior to their own religious strictures with regards to civil law. Once they start holding their own relitiguous beliefs above the Constitution in civil matters, that arrangement is no longer in effect.
The United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a 'religious test' for participation in the body politic.
That one paragraph is enough.
BTW, focusing on Islam ignores other present or future violent, theocratic religions (remember that Shintoism drove Japan in WWII).
Setting down this road may sound good in light of what we face, but wait until a group makes the same claim about Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. Do we want to start down that slope?
| Religious Preference | % June 1996 | % March 2001 | March 2002 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christian | 84 | 82 | 82 |
| Jewish | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Muslim | * | 1 | * |
| Other non-Christian | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Atheist | * | 1 | 1 |
| Agnostic | * | 2 | 2 |
| Something else (SPECIFY) | * | 1 | 2 |
| No preference | 11 | 8 | 10 |
| Don't know/Refused | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
So we are going to ban a religion of 1% of the population? http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html |
“THE REASON THE AMENDMENT IS NEEDED”
The start of a rational approach to the invasion by Isalm !!
The stated ideas are of use if only as begin to start thinking of how to stop Islam, cold and dead in its tracts.
I suggest that the stated ideas be expanded to include Communism and other fascist notions that mask their self in a manner as does Islam.
Let us not forget that the “peaceful” adherants of Islam ARE the cover for the rest of the enemy in our midst.
More specifically, it is the Sharia Law (and its’ economic assaults, via banking, etc) and the advent of the Caliphate that are the point of attack that MUST be addressed and can not be fought without pulling all of the Islamic facade into the fracas.
It is BECAUSE of our amendment methods that allow our society to address the matter/threat at hand that was not extent when our Constitution was written.
Because we are a free society does NOT mean we are to be a stupid and indolent one as some here have suggested.
As for what to do with the Islamic 5th column that is here,
they are the enemy in the 3rd Isalamic World War and will have to be treated as such in whatever manner that makes sense under our laws and sensibilities.
Citizen or not makes no difference - Islam is more a threat than any we have faced in recent years except for the preceeding marxistLiberals who are now in COMMON cause with the Islamist at present.
It was a tenet of the GramscianMarxist analysis that made not listing Communism/Marxism (now known as 4thReich or EU or NWO)as the enemy of America in any official documents.
That tactial success has allowed Communism/Liberalism to continue to subvert America (and the entire Western society) to this moment.
Now these 2 ideologies are in concert against America so I suggest all you Freepers who have so much angst against the Amendment get a grip on the situation as it is and get behind and in synch with the notion that Islam MUST be purged completely from America soonest !!
The is too stupid for words.
This will not see the light of day.
At least I hope not.
This is not the gov’t bannimg a religon. It is us banning someone that has vowed to kill us all. Wake up, thimk!
Zero chance of ratification.