Newt Gingrich Says We Should ‘Test Every Person’ Of Muslim Descent

a reply to: Miracula2

When do we start rounding them up?

a reply to: windword

How does Newt expect that testing Muslims will make us safer? They have a couple principles in Islam that demand and permit them to lie to non-Muslims to further the goal of Islam. So with that in mind, how can we "test" them?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

They have a couple principles in Islam that demand and permit them to lie to non-Muslims to further the goal of Islam.

I agree. But, those aren't the only people who live by the motto, "The ends justify the means". I believe that the Catholic Church has relied on that motto in the past, as well.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

How does Newt expect that testing Muslims will make us safer? They have a couple principles in Islam that demand and permit them to lie to non-Muslims to further the goal of Islam. So with that in mind, how can we "test" them?

the testing may come in the form of psychologically revealing questioning, such is done with potential people chosen for jury duty.

originally posted by: Miracula2
It does seem to indicate that it is violation of divine law and will.

Frankly I could not care if one or both is in 'violation of divine law', that was not that point I was making. I was correcting someone who is trying to claim that adultery and polygamy are the same act.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Miracula2
It does seem to indicate that it is violation of divine law and will.

Frankly I could not care if one or both is in 'violation of divine law', that was not that point I was making. I was correcting someone who is trying to claim that adultery and polygamy are the same act.

If one accepts the above violation then the act of polygamy is indeed an act of adultery. But, my point, again, is regarding the re-interpretation of divine law to suit man's desires.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: windword

There is nothing wrong with Sharia law. We really need to just remove all borders. These people trying to pretend that they want to "protect" Americans are just liars. This is just more covert racism. We need to be more tolerant to the Muslim race. The best thing that we can do is a country is send cruise ships to the middle east and just allow anyone that wants to get on hop on and catch a ride to the USA. We should really be more tolerant and understand that Islam is a religion of peace, and Sharia law is just a tradition of the culture. I know, I know, sometimes they stone rape victims to death, and sometimes they execute homosexuals, but #notallmuslims. America is a melting pot, and if we want to be as accepting as possible, we need to setup special neighborhoods for our Sharia brothers and sisters can rule. This way we can respect their culture and be super loving to the world.

This bigotry needs to stop please, white people.

you're so edgy. I bet you patted yourself the back after you hit the reply button

I am appalled at the rhetoric both serious and "humorous" (not) that supports trampling the US Constitution into the dirt.

Some of you need to REALLY THINK about what you're saying here, anonymous or not.

I'm pretty sure that if we start "testing" people based on the content of websites they visit, the denizens of this site would probably also deserve whatever punishment Newt is proposing. There's some evil # going on here from time to time as well.

originally posted by: InTheLight
If one accepts the above violation then the act of polygamy is indeed an act of adultery.

No, actually it undermines your point as David was a polygamist and was loved by God.

But, my point, again, is regarding the re-interpretation of divine law to suit man's desires.

Your point is to dishonestly try to change the definitions of words to suit some sort of religious agenda.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
If one accepts the above violation then the act of polygamy is indeed an act of adultery.

No, actually it undermines your point as David was a polygamist and was loved by God.

But, my point, again, is regarding the re-interpretation of divine law to suit man's desires.

Your point is to dishonestly try to change the definitions of words to suit some sort of religious agenda.

My only point is to show how man changes original divine law to suit their desires, as with all religions, nothing more. And, of course, any acts desired that went against the original devine law would be shown to be allegedly approved by their God, or their messenger of God (mortal man with all their faults).

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
If one accepts the above violation then the act of polygamy is indeed an act of adultery.

No, actually it undermines your point as David was a polygamist and was loved by God.

But, my point, again, is regarding the re-interpretation of divine law to suit man's desires.

Your point is to dishonestly try to change the definitions of words to suit some sort of religious agenda.

My only point is to show how man changes original divine law to suit their desires, as with all religions, nothing more. And, of course, any acts desired that went against the original devine law would be shown to be allegedly approved by their God, or their messenger of God (mortal man with all their faults).

originally posted by: InTheLight
My only point is to show how man changes original divine law to suit their desires...

Oh yeah? Well original original divine law says to learn how to use a dictionary since adultery and polygamy are two different things.

a reply to: InTheLight

You should ask David about Jonathan.

Then you'd have a whole 'nuther set of things to justify.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
My only point is to show how man changes original divine law to suit their desires...

Oh yeah? Well original original divine law says to learn how to use a dictionary since adultery and polygamy are two different things.

Legally yes, but morally no.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Legally yes, but morally no.

Who cares?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My government and the people who care about the ill treatment of women care, that is why polygamy is illegal here in Canada.

a reply to: InTheLight

Not my concern, if a bunch of people want to get married I say let them.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My government and the people who care about the ill treatment of women care, that is why polygamy is illegal here in Canada.

I do too, that is if the mature and informed women (not underaged girls) have a free choice.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My government and the people who care about the ill treatment of women care, that is why polygamy is illegal here in Canada.

I do too, that is if the mature and informed women (not underaged girls) have a free choice.

So you're actually not talking about polygamy, you're talking about child (sexual) abuse.