1 posted on
09/26/2015 7:19:50 AM PDT by
DWW1990
To: DWW1990
Nothing in the constitution limits individuals. The constitution limits the government. Every citizen is allowed to determine his own criteria for choosing for whom to vote.
To: DWW1990
Trevor reads sound bites about what Ben Carson said as he obviously didn’t read the question and answer to what Ben said. Ben does not talk in sound bites.
3 posted on
09/26/2015 7:57:00 AM PDT by
the_daug
To: DWW1990
It seems clear to me that Islam, in addition to being (possibly) a religion, is also very much a social and political entity. It appears that the two are inseparable.
It’s the social/political part that could and should be banned. Since they are inseparable, Islam should not be considered a religion at all.
4 posted on
09/26/2015 8:01:38 AM PDT by
babygene
(I'm one of the 9.4 million War Heroes that served during the Vietnam war..../s)
To: DWW1990
YouGov poll 09-26-15. That 43% also claimed that Brawndo has electrolytes:
5 posted on
09/26/2015 9:24:22 AM PDT by
Oatka
(This is America. Assimilate or evaporate. [URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/currencyjunkie/me)
To: DWW1990
Here's a way for the Islamists to have their Sharia Law right here in the U.S. of A. -- at least in a geographical sense.. I bet most
Americans would favor Sharia Camps.. and how could the Islamists refuse? Especially if most Americans say, "You're going."
Borrowing from an old U.S. Supreme Court case involving independent tribes of Native Americans.. (no insult to Native Americans intended) I suggest this.
Sharia Camps,
- being within the territorial limits of the United States,
are not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but are alien nations,
- distinct political communities,
- the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several camps
- and were not part of the people of the United States;
that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those camps
could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens
- except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty,
- or of an act of Congress;
and therefore
that "Islamists born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Sharia Camps
- (an alien, though dependent, entity),
although in a geographical sense born in the United States,
are no more 'born in the United States' than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government.
6 posted on
09/26/2015 9:46:03 AM PDT by
WilliamofCarmichael
(If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
To: DWW1990; LucyT
We have to get our act together on this issue. Because it is going to determine our chances with respect to national survival.
We have free speech and free access not limited by religious belief. Well and good. How about the guy whose religious belief is to kill all white Christians; and to replace the Constitution with his own views about how he can run the country?
Where and how do we draw the line.
You would like to force these marginal refugee quasi citizens to publically subscribe to some element of citizenship—support the Constitution to the exclusion of some other document claimed to be religious; if they fail to subscribe, you revoke their citizenship and kick them out.
Really same for the Hispanics. They have to give up the claim to Azatlan or other territorial rights inconsistent with the domain of the United States government and the various states. Also need to speak English.
9 posted on
09/26/2015 12:36:59 PM PDT by
David
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson