Posted on 03/11/2011 8:58:24 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Edited on 03/11/2011 9:00:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
This is just rich considering that the whole U.S. Military is illegally supporting a Usurper.
The top brass should be held accountable.
I still can’t believe this is the same America I grew up in.
The real problem is that our troops aren’t allowed to carry sidearms.
Not sure I understand the point of that....
Owebama accepts that "muslims want to kill Americans" and he supports them fully if they want to "bring a gun to a knife fight" with Republicans.
Can't remember for sure.
Said ironically after the Brits hanged Admiral John Byng for losing the Battle of Minorca.
These officers will be hung out to dry for failing to buck the same policy of Muslim-coddling and diversity-mongering that their superiors will continue to ram down the throats of the military. I'm glad I hung up my uniform years ago. Ugh.
“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”
####
So Casey, as an exploitative white male, why don’t you take a bullet to the brain yourself, clearing the way for a “person of color” to take your place, thus helping to further your sham god of “diversity”.
Your comment assumes the existence of facts not in evidence. What makes you think these two spheres of human activity and belief are inherently separate? That if a religion has political aspects it stops being a religion?
There is no reason, other than our own cultural orientation, to assume that a religion must be separate from politics. In fact, for most of the life of Western Civilization religion was almost as intimately entwined with politics as it is now in Islam.
There is no real reason to assume that a political/ideological system cannot also be a religion.
and in the meanwhile, when will they get around to calling Hassan a terrorist?
I had been involved in church activities long enough to experience that church laws are not part of civil laws. It is a fact that that within the usual activities of church law(s) there result action(s) to make/change the civil laws. In my experience the church(s) have recognized the supremacy of our civil law apart for the general public from their church laws. This is structured on our Constitution for separation of religious authority from civil authority, which seems to be be clouded by some church events. However, until the events/intentions are transferred to public laws our Constitution still holds. In very distinct contrast to and against our historical environment of church and state the Muslim culture would impose the Sharia law. It is seen today when/where Muslims are openly and adamantly proclaiming the right to a social environment based on their Sharia law. From my reading and understanding of Sharia law it is a total package, civil and religious, for the people in that society and the nature of the law makes it extremely difficult to partition. As for me, as long as any person claims to have any binds to Sharia, civil or religious, they cannot be taken as supporters of our Constitution and should not be Citizens of the USA.
I don’t disagree with anything you say, with one exception.
Having a government agency or court decide who is or is not to be considered a citizen based on their beliefs is a really bad idea. Whatever a citizen’s beliefs, he has the right to them without it impairing his status as a citizen.
Once he crosses the line from thought to action, that’s another matter.
Also, I do not believe there is any mechanism to strip citizenship from a native-born American, and removing citizenship from a naturalized citizen is quite difficult. As it should be.
Beliefs are one thing and oaths of allegience are another thing. My contention is that no person can without turpitude take an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution with It’s civil laws and religious allowances and at the same time swear any allegience to Sharia law. I need to know more about what is necessary to remove citizenship in cases of sworn disparity/conflict. Of course with birth citizenship it becomes more a matter of conscience as to which prevails as the societal guide. At that stage the beliefs and actions become a choice of patriot or traitor.
Beliefs are one thing and oaths of allegience are another thing. My contention is that no person can without turpitude take an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution with It’s civil laws and religious allowances and at the same time swear any allegience to Sharia law. I need to know more about what is necessary to remove citizenship in cases of sworn disparity/conflict. Of course with birth citizenship it becomes more a matter of conscience as to which prevails as the societal guide. At that stage the beliefs and actions become a choice of patriot or traitor.
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.