Nope. The real quote says "religion" not "God"...in other words, your whole point about it having to be the same God as Judeo-Christian is wrong.
I'm glad you don't spout those made up MAdison quotes that were circulating. They are easily shown false when you look at the writings of Madison, and legislation he wrote, containing such lines as: "...all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion..."
But let's go right to the heart of the matter:
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
--James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," June 20, 1785
With an ocean between them, it likely did not strike them as necessary, but rather as a forgone conclusion that readers would understand if it ever became an issue.
Gee...they didn't seem to be so blasé about other entities across the ocean!
...both distant and recent precedent to suggest we should NOT TRUST them.
For Islamists in general, it seems very prudent not to trust them. But of all the American citizens who are Islamist, how many have demonstrated this..and how many Muslims will you lump in with them?
...wherever Islam is practiced without enforced limits or strictures, it becomes the predominant religion, to the detriment and destruction of all other religions.
I can appreciate your pragmatic, no-faith-in-Christianity's-supremacy approach, but I would suggest a second step...let's examine how such a twisted religion can gain ground. How is it able to spread if it's so vile?
When ALL of Islam (and I mean ALL) begins to...
I invite you to substitute "Christianity" in there and look at many cases where a few nuts are far from the mainstream. Should all churches be judged based on the Identity movement, for example?
The U.S. is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. We have always been a representative Republic.
It's insulting that you twist this around and make it seem like I don't know that, when I am the one bringing up Federalist X and pointing out that protection of the majority is not the question.
...this time we can take their word for things...
I'm not saying we should take their word for things. I'm saying we should simply keep our own Constitution strong and treat citizenship like the precious thing is should be...not pass it out to anyone who waltzes in across our too-porous border. I'm saying we shouldn't be harassing our own citizens...we should be addressing the problem for what it is.
...request to cite any misquoted lines which I had presented as accurate full quotes
So that's how you do it...you make claims that misrepresent the person you're "not exactly quoting"...and then claim it wasn't presented as an accurate full quote. Well, bottom line is that your Adams comment misrepresented Adams' quote.
"Strengthening our concept of citizenship" is bull-hockey, however. That sounds to me like a euphemistic way of suggesting that we do not already offer immigrants enough opportunity, or that US citizenship does not have enough benefits already.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm NOT saying we should offer more opportunity to immigrants...but am saying we must respect citizenship more and protect it more.
...to stringently, aggressively pressure their own to assimilate into our language, customs, and culture in America. Thus far they simply have not done so - not in America, nor in any other non-muslim host country that I can name. Their chief distinction is actually that they do not do that.
Maybe the Hispanic Catholic immigrants can help them out with some pointers on how to assimilate.
In WWII, against the Axis powers - Germany and Italy - more than 40% (yes that number is correct) of all enlisted men in the US Army WERE ITALIAN.
Okay, I'm going to have to call you on that. First of all, the Axis contained Japan, also (not exactly a minor combatant). Secondly, there were 1/2-million Italian-Americans in the service, which is less than the total number of Italians we interned in this country during the war (about 600,000, including Joe DiMaggio's father)! You'd have to claim an awfully large officer corps to claim 40% of the enlisted were Italian-American, with our forces numbering several million.
Note, Catholics were also mistrusted in the 19th Century, since "they put the Pope above the President".
The Muslim contribution to American cultural life, is in fact, rather negligible to this point, and too much, it could be argued is detrimental.
Would you like their contribution to increase?
(Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
You forgot "Hands full!" ;-)
Okay, I'm going to have to call you on that. First of all, the Axis contained Japan, also (not exactly a minor combatant). Secondly, there were 1/2-million Italian-Americans in the service, which is less than the total number of Italians we interned in this country during the war (about 600,000, including Joe DiMaggio's father)! You'd have to claim an awfully large officer corps to claim 40% of the enlisted were Italian-American, with our forces numbering several million.
I drew the information from a PBS program recently rebroadcast, so the numbers ought to be checked through them, but I stand by what I heard in the program, because it so astonished me.
A.A.C.
Forgot to reiterate one thing - the number is quite plausible (given 500,000 Italians enlisted as you mention) if you mark the fact that I noted specifically "the US ARMY" as opposed to the more generic "US ARMED FORCES"...
Again, I am deferring to having heard this cited on PBS.
A.A.C.