Posted on 10/19/2010 12:28:21 PM PDT by betty boop
Sharia is sedition.
FYI!!!
I so agree.
The constitution and Sharia law are as compatible as oil and water. Actually, even less so. The foundational beliefs upon which is built are 180 degrees from one another.
There is plenty of pontification that con go on to ‘splain it (as the article does), but that is the bottom line.
I large muslim population population, once it reaches a certain critical mass, will result in civil war. Plain and simple. I mean actual bloodshed.
It will also almost certainly dwarf the original civil war. I do know that, in the original CW there were not a lot of religious zealots going around beheading people and otherwise mangling in the name of allah. Next time it will be very different.
Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf recently declared that the U.S. Constitution is “Sharia-compliant.”
Got it wrong again ASSCLOWN
Mutually exclusive
Irreconcilable differences
Incompatible
Polar opposites
We had better soon begin to stand against these muslim invaders or we will lose our Country.
Excellent.
We are in a two-front war for civilization.
on a quick skim thru, I think I saw 8 violations of the 1st Amendment, and that was just the freedom of Religion part.
As all the bullet points are an accurate description of islam, shariah is more a declaration of WAR, rather than compliance with out Constitution.
Screw ISLAM, and the CAMEL they ****ed on the way in
Thanks for the ping.
Which is why the usurper is ripping our Constitution to shreds daily.
Civilization is not sharia compliant.
Ping to read later
Betty
GREAT POST
Catholics(illegal aliens) to the left of me, Moslems to the right and here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
Marx and Mohammed.
“The Constitution is Sharia compliant”? Who asked you and who cares? The question is, is Sharia law Constitutionally compliant? The answer, is no.
I agree with your reply. But let me clarify one thing— there are those who believe we have a “living Constitution” and to
them The Constitution means what their Judges (like Kagin— or
Breyer—or (that fug ugly old ACLU lib what’s her name) or even Phillips out in Riverside.To a too big portion of our Judiciary the Constitution does not mean what the terms used implies-but what they want us to believe it does.So the question of our Constitution being Shariah compliant depends entirely on who—or what you are speaking to-does it not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.