Posted on 09/22/2015 11:55:12 AM PDT by redleghunter
President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the ... Holy Quran."
The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them."
In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."
Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to "dhimmi" status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.
The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech," yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.
The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," yet Islamic law states non- Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
PING
I assume by “Islamic Law” Mr. Federer is referring to Sharia Law which is not necessarily the same thing as “Islamic Law” from the Quran. Sharia Law connects the dots, so to speak and is Satanic to the core. Both the Quran and Sharia Law are to be prohibited from any legal status in the United States. The free right of exercise of religion is lost when such exercise threatens to violate others’ rights to life and liberty. Such threats should not be tolerated.
Legally, Sharia Law is void in the U.S. and judges that apply Sharia Law here should be removed.
With regards to governing this nation, the Constitution trumps any religious text. That it works best when used in conjunction with the Holy Bible is not a coincidence.
Sharia is Pirate Law.
Thanks for posting that. That needs to go viral.
Excellent pic. Thanks. Will be used:)
easy, the person taking that oath is just plainly lying.
The quran on which Ellison took his Oath of Office was from the library of Thomas Jefferson, who utilized it in order to understand the creed and patterns of thinking of the Barbary pirates who were - like today - islamist savages who took US seamen as slaves for ransom from 1801 to 1805.
Treaty was forced on the islamists, who naturally broke it (as will Iran), and were once again eventually forced to yield to combinations of American, British and Dutch naval power.
The islamists were filthy savages then and remain so to this day.
So much for Ellison and his similarly filthy islamist duplicity.
The only viable solution is for our powers-that-be to acknowledge that Islam is NOT a religion, but a socio-political system masquerading as one, not protected by the first amendment.
Good luck with that under this regime or a RINO one.
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.