“The First Amendment was not written for Muslims....."

Until the passage of the 14th Amendment, pretty much no one was granted rights at all except for white males so really everyone was "banned" from living here.

 

Honestly I think the Constitution has outlived its usefulness. We should completely scrap it except for the Bill of Rights and start from scratch.

But no input from liberals considering they have no political power their opinions are not needed in this case.

 

Yes, but one of the major problems with talking about religious views is nailing down what it means to be XYZ. For instance, do all the various Christian denominations teach as Christ taught? If so, why the need for so many different flavors? Same thing with being a "Muslim". Despite what some might think, there is no one definitive version of Islam. Clearly, there is something different between the Islam of ISIS and the Islam found in countries like Jordan.

Note that as I've argued elsewhere, an important distinction between Christians and Muslims is that fanatical Christians tend to be those who don't follow the teachings of Jesus very closely, whereas fanatical Muslims tend to be those who do follow the teachings of Mohammed very closely. That's a rather important distinction, especially for those who choose to give weight to the statements "I am Christian" or "I am Muslim" based on the lives and teachings of the central personalities of those faiths.

 

1A is OUR national law. Sharia is not. Do some Muslims follow it AS WELL as our law?

Do some Jews follow the Talmud AS WELL as our law?

The 1st Amendment was written NOT for this religion or that but for the NATION

 

Just because there are Islamic terrorists does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

 

I must have misunderstood your previous post. I agree with everything you have said in this post.

One thing that the political talking heads and the mainstream media vociferously avoid is the distinction between a Muslim, and a Muslim who is an Islamist. All Islamist's are Muslims but not all Muslims are Islamist.

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others.

An Islamist has no respect for individual rights and freedoms and believes that they are justified in forcing their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (law) or Holy Jihad.

If a Muslim wants to observe all or part of "Sharia Law" ... good for them ... observe away. Forcing others to do the same is a different issue.

The principles on which this nation was founded (as per the DOI) is based in respect for individual rights and freedoms. Why the heck would we let someone into this country who has no respect for individual rights and freedoms - the principles on which this nation was founded ?

This is not a "religious test". Not all adherents to Islam want Sharia forced on everyone else. Not all adherents to Islam practice sharia - in its entirety. My neighbor is from Iran - when he comes over he smokes and drinks .... passes on the pork though

 

You do realize scratching everything else includes the right for minorities and women to vote, equal protection under the law, the abolition of slavery, the end of Prohibition, term limits for Presidents, habeas corpus, etc

 

No it doesn't.

The problem is that the vast portion of Muslims, particularly ME, African, and SE asian Muslims, OPENLY feel Sharia should replace the laws of the countries they live in. Who knows how many just aren't being honest about it.

 

ironic, as the 1920 Immigration Act banned people from mostly Catholic nations.

 

That an asinine assertion.
Mohammad Ali was Muslim - didn't see his daughter forced into obeying Sharia Law - unless female boxing is suddenly Sharia certified ...

 

by that logic, is also doesn't include Orthodox Jews, as they follow Talmudic Law, not the Constitution.

@vman12

 

Funny how con artists are con artists: Fake Christian Right and the Fake Muslim Right have so much in common.

 

Sharia Law:

-no sex out of marriage

-abortion illegal

-homosexuality illegal

-women must obey their husbands



sounds like Conservatives should be LOVING Sharia Law!!!

 

Unlike the rest of the rw media leaders... I mean, uh, well...

 

They do. They just don't know it.

I would say, many Republicans AND alleged social conservatives. To automatically equate Republican with Conservative no longer makes sense. And I say alleged social conservatives because that only applies to their opponents. They don't hold themselves to the same standards as they do everyone else.

Lets just agree that what we are really talking about are time-warped authoritarians - it is 1950 all over again.

 

I hate to be picky but the scenario has to be precise. Those ex-pats or any other non-citizen immigrant has certain legal rights that stem from the constitution. But they are not protected nor covered under the constitution, per se.
Under some circumstances they can be deported without trial, might not get a trial by jury, might not be entitled to own a firearm, etc.

 

Sorry, no it doesn't.

 

well, it applies to non-citizens on US territory

 

the guy is a religious fanatic, all Americans regardless of religion have 1st Amendment rights, not just Christians

 

Yes. Excellent points. I did not mean to imply that all rights granted in the Constitution apply to anyone that's here, as clearly they do not. However, there are certain coverages that have been decided to apply beyond American citizens. If it's in the Constitution, it applies to an American citizen. If you are not an American citizen, we'd have to look to cases to see about answering specific questions that might arise.

 

Which part

 

immigration is another topic, be they Christians from south of the Border or Muslims

how come Trump wants to build a wall to keep Christians out, is he anti-Christian

 

Nice straw man