[Carry_Okie]

You can't have freedom of religion AND make one particular religion 'illegal'.... no matter how abhorrent or whacked-out someone else believes that religion to be.

MamaTexan, as you know, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of Constitutional history. Actually, I think there is a way one can exclude Islam from the social contract, because Islam excludes itself. Consider this argument I've been making for about the last five years:

The Constitution is a social contract among "We the people of the United States of America." Muslims have NO INTENTION of ever respecting that social contract. To them, you are not deserving respect for your rights or the Constitution as a fellow citizen participant in that contract. They believe that you lower than dirt, infidel. They are using YOUR respect for the Constitution against you, and laughing up their sleeves at what they intend to do to civic respect for your unalienable rights once they wield power, because they have every intention of subsuming the Constitution to Sharia. They are therefore not participants in that social contract at all, and are therefore undeserving of its protections. Whaddya think?

[Carry_Okie]

BTW, I wish to add that Muslims are not only not participants in the Constitutional social contract, they are bound to Sharia, yet another social contract that stands in opposition to the first, one that specifically commits them to violate the Constitution; else they face the penalty of death for apostasy.

Frankly, to my mind, to be a Muslim is to renounce one's US citizenship.

[kiryandil]

You have the right of it in your posts #114 & #115.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=114#114

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=115#115

Nice touch here:

Carry_Okie wrote: ...one that specifically commits them to violate the Constitution; else they face the penalty of death for apostasy.

I'll be using THAT one in the future. :)

I used to be a Constitutionalist when I first joined this site way back when.

After many years, I realized that the strategy of the ProgTard termites was to "quibble" over every word in the Constitution, seeking to tear it apart through "deconstructionism". You know the drill: "well regulated Militia", etc., etc. Apply "solution" liberally to rest of Constitution.

One day, I realized that the foundation of the "structure" known as the Constitution was the Declaration.

Now, the Constitution is fairly lengthy in relation to the Declaration, and it has many more avenues of attack available in it.

I then suddenly realized that there's one line in the Declaration that is stronger than any fortress that has ever been built on this Earth:

...that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Now, ProgTards like to pretend that the Constitution "grants" you your Natural Rights, because they can strip you of them once the Constitution collapses into termite-chewed dust.

The Declaration is like a silver cross on a vampire to ProgTards. Many of them deny a Creator, so when you (for example) raise the silver cross of "endowed by [my] Creator with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to their arguments, their tiny little heads explode.

I call them "Declaration Deniers", because it simplifies matters.

You either accept the Declaration, or you don't. And from the Declaration flows the broad river of the Constitution...

Muslims are Declaration Deniers, I reckon.

[kiryandil]

MamaTexan, as you know, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of Constitutional history.

Gads. No WONDER she's so touchy about it.

Them Texicans are pretty wrapped up in that stuff, being as how they had their original Republic of Texas founding documents, and then condescended to pay obeisance to our Constitution. :)

[MamaTexan]

Good Morning, CO!

---

The Constitution is a social contract among "We the people of the United States of America." Muslims have NO INTENTION of ever respecting that social contract. To them, you are not deserving respect for your rights or the Constitution as a fellow citizen participant in that contract.

I understand fully what you're saying, and I even agree. I never considered islam to be a religion as it doesn't promote the betterment of all mankind, but the subjugation of everything else.

But coming to a consensus among ourselves isn't the problem.

The problem is, as a country, we don't get to judge someone else's conscience. We can't assume guilt, it must be proven. Doing so is both hypocritical and dangerous, as it can create a legalistic weapon that can too easily be used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

Keeping that in mind, the only viable way I could see in extracting islam's adherents from the country while remaining true to the Constitution is by their nationality, not their religion. THEN we can figure out how to deal with the home grown ones.

---

BTW - as you can probably tell, this is one of those 'snowball' threads...you know - the ones where you say something, then your statement gets so twisted around by other posters that you know there's no way you'll manage to straighten it back out again, so you just sorta give up..