Newt: Deport Everyone Who Agrees With Sharia Law

[Sanguine]

The Salem Witch Trials, hangings were conducted under the auspices of "religious freedom," too.

Well, that preceded the nation and the Constitution.

[Fishrrman]

HonestJohn wrote:
"It's not the religion, but the person who interpretes and the person who follows that interpretation... that is the issue."

No.
With islam, it -IS- "the religion".

Those of islam who try to "interpret" it away from what the quran mandates are called apostates and are often killed for doing so.

[Sanguine]

And that's perfectly acceptable to determine (somehow) if new immigrants desire/adhere to it.  Just make sure to ask all immigrants that question.  Kazakhs, for one, are peaceful.  The Hui Chinese are as well. 

It's not the religion, but the person who interpretes and the person who follows that interpretation... that is the issue.

The followers of islam aren't exactly encouraged to interpret it.  In fact, they're actively discouraged by the theocrats. 

[HonestJohn]

The followers of islam aren't exactly encouraged to interpret it.  In fact, they're actively discouraged by the theocrats.

Which is the theocrats interpretation on it.

Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), on the other hand, was one of the pre-eminent philosophers in Persia and wrote to reconcile rational philosophy with Islamic theology.  He also developed the 'floating man' thought experiment, showing that a man, even cut off from all sensation, will still recognize his own existence.

Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd‎ (Averroes), also had his own thoughts on Islam... and also greatly affected the works of St. Thomas of Aquinas.

---

The point is that it's the theocrat that teaches the layman what and how to think about religion.  It *ALWAYS* boils down to some *ONE*.  Religion is just words without anyone to propagate it.

[sinkspur]

Which is the theocrats interpretation on it.

Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), on the other hand, was one of the pre-eminent philosophers in Persia and wrote to reconcile rational philosophy with Islamic theology.  He also developed the 'floating man' thought experiment, showing that a man, even cut off from all sensation, will still recognize his own existence.

Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rushd‎ (Averroes), also had his own thoughts on Islam... and also greatly affected the works of St. Thomas of Aquinas.

---

The point is that it's the theocrat that teaches the layman what and how to think about religion.  It *ALWAYS* boils down to some *ONE*.  Religion is just words without anyone to propagate it.

What a great and perceptive post!  We take in those various views and weigh them in our own experience.

I had forgotten about good old Averroes, whom I studied in basic philosophy in college, but, obviously, not very well.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think Newt is correct that anyone who believes the Constitution is inferior to Sharia law does not deserve to be enjoying the liberties of this country.

Most of the comments so far are directed towards the mechanics of determining who fit this category, not the philosophy of whether it is worthwhile to pursue.

One should be seeking agreement whether it is a worthwhile goal rather than how to do it.

As the war escalates between us, the mechanics will change and actually become simpler to execute, just like what happened during the last World War when our survival was threatened.

[austingirl]

I think Newt is correct that anyone who believes the Constitution is inferior to Sharia law does not deserve to be enjoying the liberties of this country.

Most of the comments so far are directed towards the mechanics of determining who fit this category, not the philosophy of whether it is worthwhile to pursue.

One should be seeking agreement whether it is a worthwhile goal rather than how to do it.

As the war escalates between us, the mechanics will change and actually become simpler to execute, just like what happened during the last World War when our survival was threatened.

Excellent post.

[sinkspur]

I think Newt is correct that anyone who believes the Constitution is inferior to Sharia law does not deserve to be enjoying the liberties of this country.

Most of the comments so far are directed towards the mechanics of determining who fit this category, not the philosophy of whether it is worthwhile to pursue.

One should be seeking agreement whether it is a worthwhile goal rather than how to do it.

As the war escalates between us, the mechanics will change and actually become simpler to execute, just like what happened during the last World War when our survival was threatened.

No, it's not worth pursuing because it's unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion.   You can't deport citizens, and just how would you determine who supports sharia law?

This is nothing but a nationalist talking point.  Completely unworkable in practice.

[Suppressed]

Sink, do you think the guys who wrote the First Amendment would agree with that?  That they intended islam to be treated the same way as Christianity and Judaism?

I believe so, though I'm not sinkspur.

Look at how George Washington (I know he was a Federalist, but I think it shows the feelings of the times) referred to them, in a letter to Tench Tilghman about workmen at Mount Vernon (March 24, 1784):

"If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Mohammedans/Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."

Clearly, he viewed it as a religion, like Judaism and Christianity, and he was accepting of them.

Thomas Jefferson was greatly into religious freedom, as were others.

[sneakypete]

IMHO Gingrich caught distemper from DT.

Why? He's almost right. The fact is WE are NOT at war with Islam. However,Islam IS at war with us,an has been for the last 700 + years.  This is just the most recent uprising. They have been beaten into submission before,and they need to be beaten back into submission now.

And we need to do it by cutting their finances off and cutting off the heads of their financiers,figuratively speaking.  We should just flat out kill them where and when we find them,regardless of it is in a mosque,a board meeting,or vacationing on the French Rivera. It is irrelevant if their heads come off or not because we should not only kill them,but turn their bodies into ashes that can never be found or worshipped.

THEY declared this war,not US,so let THEM do the suffering. Remember,no war was ever won by killing Privates. To win,you have to scare the hell out of or kill the Kings,Princes,and the Generals. Killing is better because dead people can't change their minds.

And that crap about Islam being protected because it is a religion won't flush,either. It's a form of dictatorial government,NOT an actual religion.

[austingirl]

Why? He's almost right. The fact is WE are NOT at war with Islam. However,Islam IS at war with us.

Guess why it just keeps getting worse from our POV.

And that crap about Islam being protected because it is a religion won't flush,either. It's a form of dictatorial government,NOT an actual religion.

Agree 100%

[sneakypete]

You mean Man - woman woman woman woman in the case of Sharia right?   Until the man says 'I divorce you' three times.  Or maybe beats her to death, thats ok too.

Can't he even sell her into slavery?

[sneakypete]

Good luck pushing that and making it into law.

It is NOT un-Constitutional to do so. We had no trouble banning Bushido in the US when we were at war with Japan. Nor did we have any Constitutional problems with putting Japanese,German,and Italian citizens in what amounts to POW camps for the duration of the war. You only hear about the Japanese internment camps because white people and white lives don't matter unless they are Jewish.

The key thing to remember is WE didn't start the war. Islam did,and they declared war on the entire non-Muslim world without being provoked.

They want war,I say we give it to them. We should start by deporting every freaking Muslim that is in the US at this time that is not a US citizen. Furthermore,we should start revoking the citizenship's of all Muslims that refuse to stand up in public and renounce their faith,and then deporting them to their home lands. They are bound to be so unhappy there after living here they might just start revolutions in their home countries. If they win,it's a win for them and the entire world.

Along with this should be the destruction of every mosque in the country.

They want war,I say we give it to them with none of this pussyfooting around nonsense. If they try to set off a bio or nuke weapon on US soil or possessions,let them know we will immediately turn Mecca into a parking lot before the Saud Royalty even have time to get on their private jets.

If we don't do all this we deserve to become slaves.

[sneakypete]

Yet there is some overlap in our principles; the question, once again, is where Gingrich wants to draw the line.

This is a war of THEIR choosing. They declared it,and they started the unprovoked attacks.

There are no freaking lines beyond warnings to the Muslim populations of every nation on Earth letting them know that if they want to keep on living,they need to kill their leadership.

[sneakypete]

idiotic.

So, a new checkbox on the visa forms. Not as if anyone would ever lie.

Are you a terrorist   Y   N
Do you believe in Sharia Law   Y    N
Do you eat people     Y    N

The most sensible thing to do is not give anyone that is a Muslim or coming from  a Muslim country a visa.  Put an embargo on blonde hookers on them. THAT will hurt the royalty like nothing else.

[Chieftain]

How about we include all of the followers of the New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam along with a few key individuals.  Liberia just had a major depopulation event with the Ebola outbreak last year, so not only is there plenty of room, they are due for some fresh blood.

They can all kiss a fat baby's ass.

 

[sneakypete]

[qdote author=truth_seeker link=topic=216035.msg967493#msg967493 date=1468605355]
Islam is clever, patient, devious, persistent. Taqiyya is their justification for lying, to advance islam.s

@truth_seeker

"CAIR will send forth lawyers, arguing on their behalfs. They will use our open, lawful system, for protection."

Only if we are foolish enough to let them. Did we let Japanese lawyers,German lawyers,or Italian lawyers into the US to lobby against us while we were at war with those nations?

THEY declared war on US,so a simple Declaration of War from us on them will nicely solve those little problems.

And speaking as a VN vet who had friends that were Korean War vets and have friends now who are vets of more current UNDECLARED wars,I can tell you that ANY president that refuses to declare war before sending troops off to fight in foreign lands needs to be removed from office and hanged.


"Sure we should let in peaceful muslims."

There ain't no such critter.  You are confusing non-combatants with citizens. Did we allow "peaceful Nazi's" or "peaceful" Bushido members into the US during WW-2?

Once again,Islam is NOT a freaking religion,it is a political system of dictatorial government!

"The San Bernardino wife could sneak in because we allowed her to do so. She murdered 14 Americans. "

This problem can be mostly eliminated in the future by deporting everyone in this country that claims or admits to being a Muslim as an enemy agent. The ones who hold citizenships here can be held in detention centers until the war is over,and then deported back to their home lands to rebuild.


"Our constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. But islam intends to make it just that if they can."

See? Even you agree with me once you leap the hurdle of religion and recognize Islam as an enemy.
[/quote]

[sneakypete]

Soo... how much Sharia law makes one deportable?  Keeping halal?  Or is it more than that?

How are we going to test?  Ask if one is Muslim?  What if they lie?

Or maybe every man, woman and child in America will have to be tested... and if one won't eat a pork sandwich, out you go?

But that'd be hit the Jews, too.  What's one more, amrite?

It's not really difficult despite your efforts to make it so. If they have been attending services at a mosque or identifying themselves as Muslims,they gotta go.

Once the masses are gone it will be easier to focus on the enemy agents that were initially overlooked.

[sneakypete]

There is  a lot of folks in this country who are Jews, Irish Catholics, Muslims, Mormons etc...

I generally agree with Newt but identifying or being identified with one group  as a cause for deportation...are you kidding me?

"I've been arguing since before 2001 we are at war with radical Islam....."

And that is where your train begins to leave the tracks. There is no such thing as a peaceful Islam. Total World domination and conversion by sword to unbelievers is one of the basic tenets of Islam.

@montanajoe

[sneakypete]

What the hell? Test everyone with a muslim background? I work with people with a muslim background, I don't need a BIG GOVERNMENT testing them for anything. Every one of them who I work with are good people and  dress like you and I, have pictures of their kids, weddins and vacations on their desk like you and I. Talk sports like you and I. And have never done anything to raise suspicion or question loyalty like you and I.

Oh,well! THAT'S different! We all know nobody would lie about their nature,right?

And "HEY! They even dress like us,so they HAVE to be alright,huh?

You know what,the Nazi's and the Soviets dress like us too,and they also liked sports.

Invite them over for a pig-picking and see what happens.

[sneakypete]

Not sure what your point is.

We don't have religious tests in America.  Islam is a religion, not a nationality.

@sinkspur

No,it's NOT. It is a form of government. It is a political system.  A dictatorial one. It controls every aspect of the lives of the people that live under it,and they either comply or die.

[sneakypete]

Islam from the start was/is a political system encompassing religion. Full exercise or Quoranic islam means government/religion rolled into one.

Examples include Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. Genital mutilation, amputations, daughter murders are condoned and common.

Don't feed me the "religion" excuse bullshit.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=sharia+law+amputations+stonings&oq=sharia+law+amputations+stonings&gs_l=hp.3...2751.9741.0.10158.33.31.0.2.2.0.642.3764.8j21j5-1.30.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.25.2669.0..0j46j35i39j0i3j0i20j0i131j0i46j0i22i30j33i21.rMf8swWygZc

@truth_seeker

 

[sneakypete]

Well, I'm glad you don't get to determine what is and is not a "religion."  You might disqualify my Catholicism because we eat flesh and drink blood.

That has been done. It was called "The Reformation",and for the most part it slapped the rabid Catholics back into line for the next several hundred years.

And for the same reasons. The Catholic Church was a de facto Government that claimed and got the right to execute anybody that wanted that "offended God". They were no different than the Muslims.

With the exception of a few Catholic brain farts like the Mary Knowllers communists and the communist idiots in Ireland,that is.

[sneakypete]

It's in the Constitution.

Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where a hostile government rates the status of a protected religion.

[sneakypete]

The general "we" disagrees with all this ban Muslim stuff.  It is simply not a workable solution.

@sinkspur

Speak for yourself,white man. There is no reason at all it won't work very well.