Posted on 02/07/2015 11:33:55 AM PST by Steve Newton
My pleasure.
Well ... opinion is one thing ... but “observation”’is another thing. You “observe” and then you tell me ... exactly WHAT is the law doing in the United States in shutting down religious Mosques, that your “opinion” says are “terrorist operations”??
My observations says that the United States law is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in shutting down any Mosque in the United States. Perhaps your observation is different. If so, I welcome your report on what Mosque that is ...
You are relying on law enforcement to find evil? Star you see the system working. I see it as broken. As I stated I do not believe the founders would have put up with accepting a, by their own admission, enemy within.
They have TOLD us what their plans are and yet we continue to allow them to operate. Fine. I simply don’t want to help them more by providing my tax dollars.
Something I just found out and I want to throw this out there. I talked with a individual who stated while he might agree with the revocation of Islam’s tax status, he will not sign a petition because he is AFRAID he will get a bomb in the mail.
I have thought about this a lot since talking with him.
What in the world have we become when we are afraid of ANYTHING. That is not the America I know and love.
We have freely given our lives for liberty but now we are afraid??
I pray this is not a sample of most Americans.
For if we don’t stand up now, to evil in whatever form, we will surely have to stand up or bow down in the end.
God help us
Hmmm ... I personally wouldn’t mind signing such a thing, if I agreed with it. But, that’s just me and some people would say I’m careless that way and don’t consider all the consequences. Some people do and consider it too big of a risk.
But I DO REALIZE that there ARE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS out there and they won’t hesitate to kill people, as we see demonstrated almost every day. I don’t cover that up or dismiss it. These Islamic Terrorist are wicked and evil people and should be put down like rabid dogs ... there’s no doubt about that.
AND ... that is how this small minority (of Islamic Terrorists) is able to control masses of Muslims, by sheer terror. It’s a clear and definite methodology for CONTROL. And all throughout history it’s been the same thing with many evil rulers and dictators ... sheer terror.
SO ... we do see, around the world, this works and works extremely well.
Even though I don’t agree with this resolution, I do agree that “Political Islam” must be stopped and stopped with the full force of the law, and we do have the laws to stop these Islamic Terrorists. We’ve actually done so, over the years, with many of them ... and I’ve reported many of these arrests and convictions.
We must not be afraid of the Islamic Terrorists. Some of our citizens WILL DIE ... but I always figure I’ll die when my time has been determined by God, so I’m not worried.
Star Traveler, we don’t have a government at all resembling the “system of government put into place by our Founding Fathers.”
The founders intended a government limited to specifically enumerated powers, but those limits are no longer recognized, resulting in a government able to exercise agendas, able to pick winners and losers in the economy, able to exercise social engineering, and able to dictate the terms of our lives.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any allowance for the federal government to write laws directly applicable to the people of the several States, yet we have a slate of federal laws above and beyond State laws, with the federal government even giving itself permission to dictate the ‘care and maintenance’ of our bodies, and compel us into a contract not of our own choosing, in violation of freedom of association. “Rights” are now so corrupted as to be used as a sort of ‘demand license’ against our fellow citizens, and given force in this by the federal government itself, when those rights were solely recognized to prohibit any action by that federal government.
Those Founders intended the federal government to be prohibited from owning any lands within a State upon Statehood, as part of the Equal Footing Doctrine, and reiterated in Pollard Lessee vs Hagan. Yet we saw the federal government entirely to blame for the standoff with Cliven Bundy that came very close to bloodshed.
The presumption we are in any way operating by the terms of the Constitution at this time, has only allowed that government to presume its own legitimacy in extending its tyranny.
No, by this I am not suggesting we further discard, the Constitution, only that the denial of Tax Exempt status to Muslim organizations and Mosques is not constitutionally prohibited, particularly given the fact that these are all political organizations, even as indicated by Islam and the Quran.
4 Star Admiral Blasts Obama Administration
over Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration
http://x2t.com/4-star-admiral-blasts-obama-admin
You said ... “No, by this I am not suggesting we further discard, the Constitution, only that the denial of Tax Exempt status to Muslim organizations and Mosques is not constitutionally prohibited, particularly given the fact that these are all political organizations, even as indicated by Islam and the Quran.”
We don’t have the Constitution prior to 1789 ... but we do have the Constitution with the next 33 Constitutional Amendments attached, ten of which are the Bill of Rights, which gives that protection to any religious practices in the USA.
AND ... as I’ve stated above, the Mosques with the religious practices of those Muslims ... are FULLY PROTECTED, as any other organization with their own religious practices are protected.
What is NOT PROTECTED is the “combination of religion into the government, by laws and force” ... which is what the RADICAL ISLAMISTS in other countries in the world ARE DOING.
The Mosques, and the Muslims within, in this country, have agreed to have ONLY RELIGIOUS PRACTICES and NOT the RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST PRACTICES ... therefore they are in full compliance with US law and are fully protected by the U.S. Constitution, in the exact same way any other organization in the USA is with their religious practices.
Just like CAIR was kicked out of the FBI and the advisory capacity they had, the Muslim Brotherhood needs to be kicked out of any government connection.
Now ... Egypt declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Since the Muslim Brotherhood is not a religious organization in the USA (and they don’t even pretend to be here), that means they can be declared to be a Terrorist organization, by law. They don’t have any protections like the Mosques do.
Mosques CANNOT BY LAW be involved in any Political activities. That’s true for all religious organizations (i.e., churches, etc.). The Muslim Brotherhood IS INVOLVED IN POLITICS because they are not a religious organization, and are allowed to be involved in Politics ... BUT ... we shouldn’t allow them in US Politics, because their involvement in our politics works against the USA.
Mercy
Thank you
Do you know that CAIR is STILL a 501 3 c organization?
They’re not a religious organization, as they engage in political campaigns and court cases. They filed the case against Oklahoma for passing the law that specified no Sharia Law allowed in the state. The problem with that law is that it actually “mentioned” Sharia Law and that got it declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That’s what happens when you “single out” just one religion and don’t apply it “across the board” equally with ALL RELIGIONS. It gets thrown out as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
NOW ... CAIR qualifies for tax exempt status. If CAIR fails to meet the requirements of the tax exemption ... they will LOSE IT! It’s that simple. In fact they did lose it once, because they failed to follow all the regulations. When they met the regulations once again, the got their tax exemption back again!
CAIR, Muslim Civil Rights Group, Regains Tax-Exempt Status
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/cair-tax-exempt-status_n_1721886.html
(RNS) The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group that has frequently drawn fire from conservatives, has regained its tax-exempt status.
The Washington, D.C.-based CAIR and its related foundation were two of about 275,000 nonprofits that lost tax exempt status last year for not filing tax returns for three years in a row. Last month, the Internal Revenue Service sent a letter to the CAIR-Foundation Inc., saying the nonprofit had regained its tax-exempt status.
“We are obviously pleased that all the paperwork issues have been resolved and our tax-exempt status has been restored,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for CAIR. Hooper did not know the details of what paperwork, including tax returns, had been filed.
The nonprofit has opposed anti-Shariah law bills across the country, fights discrimination against Muslims and aims to promote a positive image of Muslim-Americans and Islam.
Critics have used CAIR’s lost tax exemption to criticize the group. Those critics also claim CAIR has terrorist ties because it and other Muslim groups were named as unindicted co-conspirators in a 2007 trial of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation in Texas. Holy Land Foundation officials were convicted in 2009 of diverting funds to Hamas.
And by the way, do you know that CAIR fights strongly AGAINST Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and his organization of Muslims - the American Islamic Forum for Democracy? That’s because they are totally against Muslims like Dr. Jasser who want to keep to the U.S. Constitution! That tells you that Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is doing something right when CAIR opposes him!
I would suggest doing something like supporting Muslims in the USA who are fighting separating “mosque and state”.
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
http://aifdemocracy.org/about/
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.
AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.
AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.
AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims.
AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.
AIFD’s ideas will be promoted through this think tank and foundation as we take every opportunity to directly engage advocates of political Islam on the folly of their ideas. Our ideas are based in the American ideas of liberty and the separation of mosque and state without compromising the centrality of God in our life as devout Muslims.
We hope that AIFD’s ideas in the public place will ultimately serve as the seeds that will drive a prevailing liberty movement from within the American and ultimately the global Muslim consciousness to embrace the tenets of liberty and freedom. We will work to engage Muslim youth and empower them with the independence to question the ideas of imams, clerics, and so many “tribal” leaders of Muslim communities unwilling to look toward reform and modernity. We will empower Muslim youth to have the confidence to take personal intellectual ownership of their own interpretation of Islam, the Qur’an, Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad), and shariah (Islamic jurisprudence) and separate mosque and state. We will work to advocate for the ideas of gender equality, genuine religious pluralism, and an unwavering preference of the secular state and a secular law over the Islamic state among other central ideas in modernity.
The most effective counter to the current problem of Muslim radicalization is the advocacy of the American principle of liberty over the prevailing ideas of political Islam. Muslim children in America need to be taught that the principles of the United States Constitution are not only in line with their faith, but are the best way to protect the sanctity of their faith. At AIFD we recognize that these ideas require not only an advocacy for liberty but a need to create and promote deep reforms against political Islam. It is this legacy that we seek to leave future generations with our work at AIFD.
Since our inception, AIFD has seen a steady and consistent growth in our platform, our ideas, and following. Our mission is challenging on almost every front. Our primary adversaries, the advocates for political Islam do not generally promote an environment that gives anti-Islamist foundations like ours a protective or a naturally engaging environment from which to operate among Muslims and non-Muslims. AIFD has slowly and steadily built upon our body of ideas most of which are contained on this website. We have also slowly and steadily built upon our base of support nationally and internationally.
Our mission is on the frontlines of what is probably the most essential and yet contentious debate of the 21st century. So it should be easy to understand why many Muslims may agree with our mission to separate mosque and state and marginalize political Islam, but yet want to remain private and out of the public eye as supporters.
Ultimately transforming the work of AIFD as a think tank into a palpable movement by American Muslims is a tall task that will not happen until the public environment becomes more welcoming to the diversity of Muslims who disagree with the Islamist movement and its organizations. AIFD will continue to grow and advocate for our ideas and protect those of all faiths who join us in this critical venture.
You replied to Steve Newton, “They’re not a religious organization, as they engage in political campaigns and court cases. They filed the case against Oklahoma for passing the law that specified no Sharia Law allowed in the state. The problem with that law is that it actually “mentioned” Sharia Law and that got it declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That’s what happens when you “single out” just one religion and don’t apply it “across the board” equally with ALL RELIGIONS. It gets thrown out as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
Yes, and a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has actually indicated that it that the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of the rights of gays, even daring to provide a condescending lecture to those who disagree, presuming themselves morally superior, despite the fact that 1) The Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case which was resolved two courts below, 2) DOMA only applied to federal recognition of marriage, for federal purposes only, thereby being entirely within Congress’ purview; 3) Equal Protection does not guarantee equal outcome under different terms; 4) The majority was asserting an authority to actually write laws, creating a “Black-Robed Supremacy” (Scalia’s dissent) in violation of Separation of Powers.
My point in referencing DOMA is that Congress was just as within its own legitimate authority to recognize marriage, just as is Oklahoma is within its own legitimate authority to prohibit the recognition of Shariah law by its own State courts. The Constitution is the only law of the land, and Shariah, like any other legal system, has no place being recognized by our courts.
In April of 2014 the Florida legislature voted to outlaw “foreign laws” being recognized in the State courts. It really makes no matter whether those foreign laws are specifically named, or not. What is conspicuous about the Florida legislature is that every single Democrat voted against the bill, believing even that vague “foreign laws” involved direct prejudice against Muslims.
If Shariah Law is not at risk of being applied in this country, as those same Florida Democrats claimed, then why would Democrats so consistently object to something as reasonable and rational as the prohibition of foreign law under our own legal system? The unavoidable answer is that the Democratic party itself now represents an ideology hostile to this country’s principles.
And therein lies the ‘rub’. However this is not nearly the first time this country has faced “Enemies Within,” openly advocating the overthrow of our form of government. The first was no more than a decade into this country’s history, under only our 2nd presidency of John Adams.
Very well stated!
Believe me I am well aware of CAIR’s history. And copying and pasting AIFD’s mission statement does not influence me in the least.
Islam and our country will NEVER mix. It should be the job of every American to make sure they don’t get a toe hold.
If Shariah Law is not at risk of being applied in this country, as those same Florida Democrats claimed, then why would Democrats so consistently object to something as reasonable and rational as the prohibition of foreign law under our own legal system? The unavoidable answer is that the Democratic party itself now represents an ideology hostile to this country’s principles.
Again well put and needs repeating. The Democratic party seems to support a system of government not compatible with our Constitution.
The bill to not allow foreign laws to be a factor in any court in the state has to be worded right in order to not cause problems with different groups in our society.
In Oklahoma, for example, the various Indian nations here were objecting to the law, because they have different laws and they were concerned it would void their laws. Businesses in the state were concerned about it, because they were concerned that it would affect their contracts with foreign countries, where they have to take into consideration the foreign laws of that nation, in order to do business with them. Religious groups were also concerned because they have Ecclesiastical laws that they use for their internal affairs and they don’t want them voided, when they don’t accord to US law. All those groups voiced concerns about the Oklahoma bill ... which did pass, but was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the end.
It looks like the Florida bill avoided all those pitfalls, by avoiding any reference to a specific religion, not applying to businesses and not applying to Ecclesiastical matters. And so ... they took measures to make sure it would be Constitutional and that it wouldn’t inadvertently step on the toes of other groups that didn’t want the interference ... therefore that was good.
There is a lawyer that has been working with the various states to insure that these bills are Constitutional and can pass muster with the courts. The states who have been working with him have had great success, and one of the main reasons for that success is to NOT single out any particular religion and to avoid the words “Sharia Law” or “Islam”. Using those words would guarantee the law being declared Unconstitutional.
And then ... in terms of the Supreme Court decision about DOMA, if the people of the USA disagree with the Supreme Court, they do have the ability to override the decision. A Constitutional Amendment is the mechanism that gives the people of the USA, the final word over the US Suoreme Court. That’s the route to go.
I like the kind of Muslim represented by the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and what Dr. Zuhdi Jasser has been doing through them. They are the ones who will support our US Constitution.
I don’t like the kind of Muslim represented by CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood, so I like to support Muslims who will push back against them.
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.