It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump paves way for Sharia Law federally

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


Except when it comes to homophobes, and transgender phobes.

That two prominent religions don't like very much.

One of the Sharia flavor and the other the evangelical flavor.

Now wut?




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Could someone point out where in the constitution the separation of church and state are written?

I don't see how an EO like this would violate the establishment clause, or the 14th for that matter. Should we bar all people who hold religious beliefs from participating in politics? Any laws supported by any religious denomination would have to be constitutional in the first place, would they not?


I'd be happy too.

No Religious Test Clause

(This is common sense in the political world)


Yo ?

What about the test people gotta pass before they can practice their second amendment right ?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


So how does this (possible) EO violate anything?



Apparently Trumps 'congress'.




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Well, as long as it can be assured that Islamists remain in a minority due to (in part) necessary restrictions on immigration, and deportations of illegal Islam believers with priority over members of other religions (because Islam is a violent religion of the sword), then no problem. Islamic money would be eclipsed by other religions.


Yeah, maybe the Islamists can influence a few local political races (such as in some areas of Michigan for example) and some other very specific localities where they are a majority, but they won't have enough contributions to sway much else in other places.

So, as long as we get some good laws, and can throw out illegals with some religious prejudice and discrimination (both words maligned by the left, but good words in the English language overall, and useful!), then no problems with Sharia law, right?



edit on 3-5-2017 by Fowlerstoad because: typos corrected, and starter ideas expounded upon



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

That just seems to clarify the establishment clause, not what I was asking.

Where in the constitution does it specifically ban any and all religions from participating in politics, or for religious adherents to hold office? Do you understand the difference? The link you posted lays out how there cannot be prerequisites for a person to be a certain religion in order to hold office, it does not ban people who hold religious beliefs from holding office, or from making decisions that align with their beliefs.

I don't see how allowing churches to donate to political campaigns and not be in fear of losing tax-exempt status be a violation of the establishment clause or the religious test clause. It would mean the Satanic church could donate without losing tax-exempt status, the Catholic church could donate, the Jewish centers, the Islamic mosques, and even the church of the flying spaghetti monster could donate to their hearts content without fear of losing tax-exempt status.

The only argument I can see from this, is that it doesn't encompass all nonprofit organizations, like the Clinton Foundation being safe from losing exempt status donating to the Clinton campaign.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor




Where in the constitution does it specifically ban any and all religions from participating in politics, or for religious adherents to hold office?


It doesn't as per the free exercise of.

It just didn't pick any favorites.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Perfectenemy



I want to ship every Sharia supporter to a a middle eastern country


You want to deport American citizens and violate Freedom of Religion?


Well i forgot to clarify that i meant my fellow germans who come up with these moronic ideas. I said nothing about the US. Btw i support the idea to ship out the idiotic german turks who condemned Turkey with there votes for a dictator too. They don't even want to live there but voted for Yes anyway. How retarded is that? If you don't like the country where you're currently living than leave. I would've taken all the no voters in and swapped them with the Yes voters.

What does freedom of religion even stand for now a days? By your logic Daesh is doing nothing wrong because they just exercise there freedom of religion. Killing all the infidels is just coincidence. Looks like you didn't thought that through didnt you?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
So, as long as we get some good laws, and can throw out illegals with some religious prejudice and discrimination (both words maligned by the left, but good words in the English language overall, and useful!), then no problems with Sharia law, right?



And of course the jooz, amirite



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX
saudis already doing that .



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

...and?

Wait a minute...

Are you saying that lifting a prohibition on religious organizations opposing or supporting a political candidate will lead to sharia law? Maybe a Christian theocracy?

No. The refusal to criticize Islam, to satire Islam, and to oppose Islamism leads to Sharia law.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Why bring up any of that when it's a thread on American policy? In America religious freedom doesn't entitle you to commit murder so DAESH, which have bastardized Islam to the point it is anti-Islamic would be SOL here.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SaturnFX

...and?

Wait a minute...

Are you saying that lifting a prohibition on religious organizations opposing or supporting a political candidate will lead to sharia law? Maybe a Christian theocracy?

No. The refusal to criticize Islam, to satire Islam, and to oppose Islamism leads to Sharia law.

It could, yes
with great money from a global economy pushing into the US to support candidates that will persue religious based influence, then over time this cancer will grow.

the catholic church is dying, islam is rising, and the influence is pushing in hard into the west.
So the idea that it is now cool for religion to support (financially) directly politicians will have effects.

You are a clever man, sometimes I agree with your stance, sometimes oppose. Tell me how this isn't a bad thing. I actually trust your judgment (even when I deem it at times different in conclusion)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm glad you finally see that Sharia and Evangelicalism are very similar.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

The cancer has already metasticized. We can look in other parts of the world to see how sharia law, such as sharia courts, have spread in the west. It's the various arbitration acts, for instance in Britain and Canada, that Muslims use as an opportunity to push Sharia. Keep your eyes on the Arbitration act of your country. I think the Othodox jews do it in America, and maybe even Muslims as well.

I think there is a concern over donations and endorsements in general. Look at the media, for instance. But if political donations are allowed, then everyone, including the Islamists and evangelicals, should be able to take part.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Look at the media, for instance. But if political donations are allowed, then everyone, including the Islamists and evangelicals, should be able to take part.

Religious organizations pay no taxes, therefore should be exempt from government say. Saying a organization that pays nothing to government should have direct influence in their rules seems a bit insane



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

As this is just a draft copy floating around, I would expect a more revised and less in breadth version.

Not to mention the legal council will need to look at this closely...

Even is not broad and turns rather narrow, it will meet with a large amount of challenges in courts..

Doubt much will come of this.

MG



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: markosity1973

I agree that there should be that separation. But I also think that if the separation is lifted, all of us should get an equal hand in it. After all, American Muslims vote, pay taxes, work, and live here too. The same goes for American Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Satanists, etc. But like I just said to Saturn, remember that it's not my religion or political "side" that's pushing this stuff.


You and the moderate Muslims are the silent majority who are simply hiding away while the debates about radical Islam rages on. Thankyou for speaking up.

To be fair, we're not silent at all. Simple google searches for "Muslims against terrorism", "Imams against extremism", etc would show countless examples of other Muslims and entire Muslim groups who speak out. It's not our fault that most MSM, "right" or "left", refuse to show it.

There are even Islamic feminism groups, Islamic-based "interfaith" groups, Islamic anti-theocracy & pro-secular groups, Islamic pro-LGBT groups, etc. But once again, Western MSM intentionally ignores those movements in order to keep perpetuating the current stereotypes. After all, they need to keep the rest of you against Islam in order to get you to keep volunteering for their Middle East wars.

Just for kicks & giggles, did you know there have been 5 Muslim winners of the Nobel Peace Prize just since 2003? Other than vaguely hearing about Malala, how many people here have even heard of the others, much less know what causes they won it for? One lady, Tawakel Karman, won it along with 2 other ladies (Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first female Head of State of Liberia & Leymah Gbowee, a Liberian peace activist). Karman won it for her women's rights and human rights work in Yemen back in 2011, yet 6 years later we're backing the Saudi coalition that's destroying Yemen.

It's like when the Bush administration backed General Musharraf's coup in Pakistan against it's elected Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (a Muslim lady). People in the West like to pretend that we care about the treatment of women in Islamic majority countries, yet we continuously back the very groups that crush the advances of women & Islamic feminist groups in those countries. Then we act outraged when we don't hear about the advances that our leaders are helping suppress and eradicate.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SaturnFX
bro, its fake news. The article that was posted is from February, and there is nothing on the radar from anybody else outside of the article by a contributing editor utilizing some anonymous inside leak and has very little editorial credentials or published experience in the last eight years.


Meh 90% of what is posted on this site is fake news. Why have you just started to care now?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX



Something about islam now being able to be directly involved with the government, with vast sums of blood oil money coming via superpacs to buy out politicians and institute their grand visions.

You mean like the way Christians do now?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SaturnFX

...and?

Wait a minute...

Are you saying that lifting a prohibition on religious organizations opposing or supporting a political candidate will lead to sharia law? Maybe a Christian theocracy?

No. The refusal to criticize Islam, to satire Islam, and to oppose Islamism leads to Sharia law.

It could, yes
with great money from a global economy pushing into the US to support candidates that will persue religious based influence, then over time this cancer will grow.

the catholic church is dying, islam is rising, and the influence is pushing in hard into the west.
So the idea that it is now cool for religion to support (financially) directly politicians will have effects.

You are a clever man, sometimes I agree with your stance, sometimes oppose. Tell me how this isn't a bad thing. I actually trust your judgment (even when I deem it at times different in conclusion)


There is NOTHING stopping religions from supporting candidates now. NOTHING. There is no law against it.
Muslims already actively support candidates.

The only law is that they can not claim tax exempt status while doing so.
That is the only thing the EO changes. It will have no effect on Muslim activism or Sharia Law.

Muslims already are actively pushing for control in government.
Example: Coalition of US Muslim Brotherhood Groups Forms Voting Bloc/MB Political Party

What kind of presence is the USCMO going to have on the American political scene? Investor’s Business Daily noted that “USCMO also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of ‘institutionalizing policies’ favorable to Islamists–that is, Shariah law.”


Perhaps allowing other religions to retain their tax exempt status while voicing their opinion about politics will encourage others to stand up to the Sharia Law movement.


Oh and - our country has freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Religion has always been a cornerstone of American society.
People who continue to try to abolish religion are the ones who are violating our constitution.

The clause in the constitution that says the government can not force one particular religion on the people is also our protection against Sharia Law.
Our forefathers were kinda geniuses.


edit on 5/4/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join