Politician: Discharge Muslims from U.S. Military

[PsyOps]

As far as I know once the constitution has been amended the only way to counter is with another amendment (XVIII and XXI amendments).

We’re talking about two different things. Certainly anything can happen to our constitution under the amendment process; but instituting something like Sharia, which would effectively repeal our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it would repeal the first amendment, and it would destroy the original intent of the constitution. I don’t envision the amendment process being used this way. It’s my thought that if we did end up with a 99% Muslim population aimed at instituting Sharia, they would completely dismantle our constitution and write their own. And at that point I would have long since firmly established my new residence somewhere in the Caribbean.

 

[Starman3000m]

Can the constitution be amended in a way that effectively undermines its original intent; which is, in essence, designed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Hmmm...that's what Islam claims it can do. According to Islamic leaders, Muslim apologists and "sold out" politicans, "Islam is a religion of peace" (remember?)

Where this would lie is in the USSC where such changes should be shot down.

Should be but Not if the majority of the council have become well-positioned to favor Islamic/Shari'a rule and where the liberal elected officials favoring Islam gain enough voting majority to make the necessary amendments. Do you recall several years ago that Hillary Clinton called on all Muslims to become active in the American political process to run for office and elect leaders?

 

[Starman3000m]

On A Related Note:

(article excerpt)

Obama Admin Argues Fort Hood Massacre Is Merely ‘Workplace Violence’

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

Obama Admin Argues Fort Hood Massacre Is Merely ‘Workplace Violence’ | Vision to America

 

[PsyOps]

Hmmm...that's what Islam claims it can do. According to Islamic leaders, Muslim apologists and "sold out" politicans, "Islam is a religion of peace" (remember?)

Should be but Not if the majority of the council have become well-positioned to favor Islamic/Shari'a rule and where the liberal elected officials favoring Islam gain enough voting majority to make the necessary amendments. Do you recall several years ago that Hillary Clinton called on all Muslims to become active in the American political process to run for office and elect leaders?

Well, then I guess that's why elections matter. We have to get people in the WH and congress that would put strict constructionists in our courts.

But if America is uncomfortable with a growing Muslim community, then I suggest we do things to discourage them from either thinking Sharia must be our rule of law or, if they are bent on this belief, doing all we can to discourage them from wanting to live here. Although we’re a free nation and free to practice whatever religion we want, we still have traditions and core beliefs that should reject any philosophy that aims to strangle anyone’s rights under our constitution. But I don’t think any law should be passed that would forbid any religious group from joining our military. I mean, does this mean they also shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office, or be a member of our congress, or work for the government in any capacity? You do realize there are atheists that believe the same about Christians?

 

[Merlin99]

Well, then I guess that's why elections matter. We have to get people in the WH and congress that would put strict constructionists in our courts.

But if America is uncomfortable with a growing Muslim community, then I suggest we do things to discourage them from either thinking Sharia must be our rule of law or, if they are bent on this belief, doing all we can to discourage them from wanting to live here. Although we’re a free nation and free to practice whatever religion we want, we still have traditions and core beliefs that should reject any philosophy that aims to strangle anyone’s rights under our constitution. But I don’t think any law should be passed that would forbid any religious group from joining our military. I mean, does this mean they also shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office, or be a member of our congress, or work for the government in any capacity? You do realize there are atheists that believe the same about Christians?

That might not be the best strategy, going by the exact wording it's legal to completely rewrite the constitution with the only unalterable part being about representation.

 

[Starman3000m]

Well, then I guess that's why elections matter. We have to get people in the WH and congress that would put strict constructionists in our courts.

Yes, elections do matter but the present-day elections have been allowing liberal constructionists to get into positions to effect "change they can believe in". The Tea Party has been ridiculed by the liberal media for doing what you suggest and has become an integral movement that is standing to ensure that this country does not slant toward a socialist agenda.
How effective the Tea Party will become remains to be seen.

IMO, the next presidential election will be an historical pivotal point that will solidify and determine where America's future is headed based on the (now obvious) vulnerability of our Constitution.

But if America is uncomfortable with a growing Muslim community, then I suggest we do things to discourage them from either thinking Sharia must be our rule of law or, if they are bent on this belief, doing all we can to discourage them from wanting to live here.

Can't. They have rights to ideologically believe as they want to under our Constitution (remember?) and the "religious freedom" afforded them is that they can retain their belief that Islam should become the supreme rule of whichever land they live in. Also, as you previously stated, even the Communist party is given that right. However, in the case of Muslims, I'd say their population and voting block can be and will be growing much stronger than the Communist party ever could be.

Although we’re a free nation and free to practice whatever religion we want, we still have traditions and core beliefs that should reject any philosophy that aims to strangle anyone’s rights under our constitution. But I don’t think any law should be passed that would forbid any religious group from joining our military. I mean, does this mean they also shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office, or be a member of our congress, or work for the government in any capacity? You do realize there are atheists that believe the same about Christians?

No law can be passed that denies Muslims the right to participate in our democratic system and win majority elections. That's where I see the vulnerabilty of our Constitution.

Observe what is happening in the Middle East with our military and tax-payer funded efforts to help them form "Western-style Democratic nations". Ain't happenin'.

 

[Terrid76]

Do you know if there are any Muslims in our ranks in combat units that have walked point, have engaged in fire fights, called in support, flown attack missions, pulled a trigger against the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes, there were and probably still are. I'm an OIF vet and though I was not in a combat unit we did pull convoy security. The SSG I worked for was Muslim. He had no issue pulling this duty. His primary goal was to keep our troops safe. He was outraged at the attacks of 911 and was fighting to keep his children safe in the USA where he was born as was his parents. He was as American as any other soldier that you would find in the ranks of the Army.

 

[Starman3000m]

Yes, there were and probably still are. I'm an OIF vet and though I was not in a combat unit we did pull convoy security. The SSG I worked for was Muslim. He had no issue pulling this duty. His primary goal was to keep our troops safe. He was outraged at the attacks of 911 and was fighting to keep his children safe in the USA where he was born as was his parents. He was as American as any other soldier that you would find in the ranks of the Army.

Commendable. Are you aware (or did he ever share) what sect of Islam he belonged to?

 

[PsyOps]

Commendable. Are you aware (or did he ever share) what sect of Islam he belonged to?

What difference does it make what sect of Islam this person belongs to? Your OP demands that ALL Muslims be excluded and discharged from the military, even those that have served honorably as in Terrid’s example, and you have tried to defend this. Aside from the fact that it’s narrow-minded and bigoted, it’s unconstitutional.

 

[Starman3000m]

What difference does it make what sect of Islam this person belongs to? Your OP demands that ALL Muslims be excluded and discharged from the military, even those that have served honorably as in Terrid’s example, and you have tried to defend this. Aside from the fact that it’s narrow-minded and bigoted, it’s unconstitutional.

Just wondering which Islamic school of thought the SSG may have been indoctrinated in. That's all. It appears that since the SSG and his parents were born and raised in the United States they were/are probably not that devoted to following the rules of Islam, the Qur'an and Shari'a. They would be viewed as apostate Muslims and traitors for befriending and siding with non-Muslims.

IOW: Qualifications. While the SSG claimed to be "Muslim" (by birth only) he really isn't, according to Islamic qualifications. Much the same as those who call themselves "Christian" but do not really follow nor believe the Biblical definition of a true follower of the New Testament Jesus. Or, on the other hand, they believe in a different gospel and another "Jesus" altogether.


Sunni Muslims want to establish a Caliphate rule over this world while Shi'a want to create global chaos in order to expedite the appearance of the Islamic saviour, al-Mahdi who will also appear with the islamic Jesus "Isa" to bring this world under Islamic control.

While there may be the continual sectarian differences and fighting among themselves, ALL sects of Islam are at war with countries that do not believe in their diety, Al'lah, and which also do not accept their prophet, Muhammad, as the last and final prophet of mankind.

As pointed out several times, Islam is more than just a "religion"and its social/political and theological philosophies are inter-twined, inseparable, and completely in opposition to the U.S. Constitution. True Muslims are required to use their abilities in whichever capacity to advance Islam to the position of the superior way of life on this earth and subjugate Jews and Christians and to kill off Atheists and those of all other religions.

As Representative Womick pointed out, this is not about "religion" but about the adhering to one's ideological differences between Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Since, true Muslims are obligated to engage in Taqiyya, it is therefore not possible to know which soldier is a true Muslim or Muslim in name only. That's the dilemma and, since the safety of American troops and national security is at hand, you are then faced with which Muslim can be trusted at this point.

In conclusion, PsyOps, this is still a free country and you can disagree with my point on this all you want. For your comfort and wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, Muslims are still going to be allowed to join our military. I will tell you this, however, that if another fragging incident by a Muslim takes place at a military base in this country or in an encampment abroad, the incident could have been prevented if better screening would have taken place about his/her ideological leaning.

So. at this point, let's agree to disagree. You have stated your point - I have stated mine. Now, I'll be glad to continue as long as you want to argue your point but what good will it do? It is what it is.

 

[PsyOps]

In conclusion, PsyOps, this is still a free country and you can disagree with my point on this all you want. For your comfort and wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, Muslims are still going to be allowed to join our military. I will tell you this, however, that if another fragging incident by a Muslim takes place at a military base in this country or in an encampment abroad, the incident could have been prevented if better screening would have taken place about his/her ideological leaning.

So. at this point, let's agree to disagree. You have stated your point - I have stated mine. Now, I'll be glad to continue as long as you want to argue your point but what good will it do? It is what it is.

I don't agree to disagree. You're wrong in believing this is any sort of solution to the radical Islam problem. So you can dispense with the 'comfort' bit. I find little comfort in knowing there are Christian Americans, knowing our own history of committing heinous acts of violence, and still enjoying the protected freedom of practicing our own faith, would even think prohibiting other Americans from serving based on their religion is a good idea.

Bradley Manning, an average American white guy, probably did more damage to this country than Nadal Hasan. Some say we’re still recovering from the damage Christopher Boyce (another average white guy) inflicted on this country. If you know anything about him, he was going to become a priest but decided he couldn’t live in celibacy. Robert Hanssen, another average white guy, sits at the top of the list of a history of spies. He did so much damage to intel and this country that it’s impossible to calculate how many people might have died as a result and how many more will die.

Based on your standard, we should ban average white guys from joining the military. It’s obvious they pose a grave risk of becoming spies and would likely do major damage to our country. You obviously aren’t interested in our constitution as it was intended; you’re only interested in selectively applying where it makes you feel more comfortable.

 

[Starman3000m]

I don't agree to disagree. You're wrong in believing this is any sort of solution to the radical Islam problem. So you can dispense with the 'comfort' bit. I find little comfort in knowing there are Christian Americans, knowing our own history of committing heinous acts of violence, and still enjoying the protected freedom of practicing our own faith, would even think prohibiting other Americans from serving based on their religion is a good idea.

Bradley Manning, an average American white guy, probably did more damage to this country than Nadal Hasan. Some say we’re still recovering from the damage Christopher Boyce (another average white guy) inflicted on this country. If you know anything about him, he was going to become a priest but decided he couldn’t live in celibacy. Robert Hanssen, another average white guy, sits at the top of the list of a history of spies. He did so much damage to intel and this country that it’s impossible to calculate how many people might have died as a result and how many more will die.

Based on your standard, we should ban average white guys from joining the military. It’s obvious they pose a grave risk of becoming spies and would likely do major damage to our country. You obviously aren’t interested in our constitution as it was intended; you’re only interested in selectively applying where it makes you feel more comfortable.

There's a difference between the individuals you mentioned:

1.) Those who have ever killed others by claiming to be acting in the name of "Christianity" do not abide by Jesus' command that calls for never taking retribution against anyone and to put away the sword. They would not be considered true Christians.

2.) Those who deceive and plot to kill others in the name of Allah have been commanded to do so by the very tenets of their ideology based upon the Qur'an, Sharia and their prophet, Muhammad who proclaimed that "peace" is found under the shades of the sword. They would be considered true Muslims.

All I am saying is that it should give you comfort that I am admitting you are correct in your argument that, under our Constitution, our Government should continue to allow those of differing ideologies to join the military - including the ones who want to destroy the American way of life and plot inside-attacks against the uniformed men and women soldiers who are truly serving to protect all U.S. citizens and preserve the freedom of America. It is what it is.

 

[foodcritic]

John Jay

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

John Jay

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]

So you're just going to keep satin that we're a Christian nation without showing any of your evidence? OK...

 

[Starman3000m]

Wirelessly posted

So you're just going to keep satin that we're a Christian nation without showing any of your evidence? OK...

Hi Una,

The evidence is that America was established as a free nation with laws based upon Judeo/Christian principles. While the founding fathers absolved themselves of being under the rule of a monarchy, they gravitated toward the Biblical guidlines for establishing personal rights and freedoms, justice, law and order, and the opportunity to have religious freedoms for the citizenry.

Had America been declared a "Christian nation" by the founders they would have established a theocracy. However, when you read many of the historical documents, speeches and biographies, you will see that many of those who helped establish this country had a professed faith and belief in the Biblical teachings which guided their life and work as leaders.

The freedom America gives its citizenry is similar to the free-will that God gives to mankind. You can choose to side with those who say they don't believe in God or with those who say "In God We Trust" and have no qualms about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the phrase "One Nation Under God..."

 

[foodcritic]

Wirelessly posted[/SIZE
So you're just going to keep satin that we're a Christian nation without showing any of your evidence? OK...

A quote from John Jay is evidence silly.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

1796
GW Farewell address . Might be good reading for a publik skool....just saying.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

So you're just going to keep satin that we're a Christian nation without showing any of your evidence? OK...

Hi Una,

The evidence is that America was established as a free nation with laws based upon Judeo/Christian principles. While the founding fathers absolved themselves of being under the rule of a monarchy, they gravitated toward the Biblical guidlines for establishing personal rights and freedoms, justice, law and order, and the opportunity to have religious freedoms for the citizenry.

Had America been declared a "Christian nation" by the founders they would have established a theocracy. However, when you read many of the historical documents, speeches and biographies, you will see that many of those who helped establish this country had a professed faith and belief in the Biblical teachings which guided their life and work as leaders.

The freedom America gives its citizenry is similar to the free-will that God gives to mankind. You can choose to side with those who say they don't believe in God or with those who say "In God We Trust" and have no qualms about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that includes the phrase "One Nation Under God..."

Our founding fathers intentionally left God and/or religion out of the Constitution. If they had intended for ours to be a Christian they would have most certainly said so and saying such would not have made this a theocracy. A theocracy is a government ruled by the church. 

This lack of God in the Constitution was greatly criticized and debated at the time. The "Godlessness of the Constitution" was intentional and (for some) controversial. The unique secularism of the document was challenged; modifications were offered by the religious right and ALL were voted down.

The religious right contested it endlessly until the 1950's when (suddenly) they began claiming that we'd always been a Christian nation so add it to the pledge and change the motto.

Why the sudden change? Why are people like you ignoring history? If we've always be a Christian nation, why were people so upset? Why did people continue to push for ADDING God and Christianity to the Constitution?

George Washington was a Christian; the quote is applicable to him not our nation as a whole. ...and since he wasn't directly involved with the writing nor ratification {debates} of the Constitution; I don't think George Washington is necessarily applicable to this discussion.  He upheld the document as it was and (as far as I know) never pushed for it to be 'Christian-ized'. 

 

[Starman3000m]

Wirelessly posted

Our founding fathers intentionally left God and/or religion out of the Constitution. If they had intended for ours#to be a Christian they would have most certainly said so and saying such would not have made this a theocracy. A theocracy is a government ruled by the church.#

This lack of God in the Constitution was greatly criticized and debated at the time. The "Godlessness of the Constitution" was intentional and (for some) controversial. The unique secularism of the document was challenged; modifications were offered by the religious right and ALL were voted down.

The religious right contested it endlessly until the 1950's when (suddenly) they began claiming that we'd always been a Christian nation so add it to the pledge and change the motto.

Why the sudden change? Why are people like you ignoring history? If we've always be a Christian nation, why were people so upset? Why did people continue to push for ADDING God and Christianity to the Constitution?

George Washington was a Christian; the quote is applicable to him not our nation as a whole. ...and since he wasn't directly involved with the writing nor ratification {debates} of the Constitution; I don't think George Washington is necessarily applicable to this discussion. #He upheld the document as it was and (as far as I know) never pushed for it to be 'Christian-ized'.#

Compare our Constitution with those of other nations. You will definitely see which are patterned with Judeo/Christian principles and which are not.

However, as I previously stated, had the founding father's declared America as a "Christian nation" , they would have set a governmental precedence for a preferential religion over all others. You don't think that would lean toward a theocracy?

BTW: While we all debate the ongoing issue of whether America is or is not a Christian-influenced nation, Islam is continually slipping in to change all of that through political influences that could very well replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia laws and an eventual bonafide theocracy under Islamic rule.

 

[Merlin99]

Compare our Constitution with those of other nations. You will definitely see which are patterned with Judeo/Christian principles and which are not.

However, as I previously stated, had the founding father's declared America as a "Christian nation" , they would have set a governmental precedence for a preferential religion over all others. You don't think that would lean toward a theocracy?

BTW: While we all debate the ongoing issue of whether America is or is not a Christian-influenced nation, Islam is continually slipping in to change all of that through political influences that could very well replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia laws and an eventual bonafide theocracy under Islamic rule.

If they do it constitutionally why would you object?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted

Our founding fathers intentionally left God and/or religion out of the Constitution. If they had intended for ours#to be a Christian they would have most certainly said so and saying such would not have made this a theocracy. A theocracy is a government ruled by the church.#

This lack of God in the Constitution was greatly criticized and debated at the time. The "Godlessness of the Constitution" was intentional and (for some) controversial. The unique secularism of the document was challenged; modifications were offered by the religious right and ALL were voted down.

The religious right contested it endlessly until the 1950's when (suddenly) they began claiming that we'd always been a Christian nation so add it to the pledge and change the motto.

Why the sudden change? Why are people like you ignoring history? If we've always be a Christian nation, why were people so upset? Why did people continue to push for ADDING God and Christianity to the Constitution?

George Washington was a Christian; the quote is applicable to him not our nation as a whole. ...and since he wasn't directly involved with the writing nor ratification {debates} of the Constitution; I don't think George Washington is necessarily applicable to this discussion. #He upheld the document as it was and (as far as I know) never pushed for it to be 'Christian-ized'.#

Compare our Constitution with those of other nations. You will definitely see which are patterned with Judeo/Christian principles and which are not.

However, as I previously stated, had the founding father's declared America as a "Christian nation" , they would have set a governmental precedence for a preferential religion over all others. You don't think that would lean toward a theocracy?

BTW: While we all debate the ongoing issue of whether America is or is not a Christian-influenced nation, Islam is continually slipping in to change all of that through political influences that could very well replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia laws and an eventual bonafide theocracy under Islamic rule.

I will admit that I have not read the founding documents of other nations; maybe I should. I don't see how that applies to a conservation about OUR founding documents, however. 

Theocracy: "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided" (Webster's). I'm taking the definition literally. If the founding fathers wanted to state that we were a Christian nation (or one founded on Christian principles) they would have said "We the people of the United States in a firm belief of the being and perfection of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the World, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws... do ordain, etc." rather than what we have now (what they originally and intentionally wrote). (The above quote is actually from William Williams of the Constitutional Congress. He proposed this as the preamble...now why would he have done that if we were always a Christian nation?)

What I'm addressing here is that many claim that we are a Christian nation; you switched the wording to 'Christian-influenced' nation. I cannot argue that our laws are 'Christian-influenced' in so much as one could say ANY law stating that one shall not lie is 'Christian-influenced' because it happens to be in the Bible.

This is where the debate often turns from "America is, and has always been, a Christian nation" to "well, America is influenced by the laws of Christianity" and we begin the discussion about where morals/ethics come from.