• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would US Fundie Christians Pass Trump's Ideological Test?

VanceMack said:
I realize that in many fundamentalist states it IS
Click to expand...
I was mistaken earlier on the number (weird brain fart). I still may be missing one or two, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, Qatar, Yemen, Afghanistan, all have Sharia as law.
Some countries, such as Egypt, base their laws on Sharia, but it's not as direct.
Many countries, such as Jordan, Bahrain, Israel, apply Islamic law for personal status laws (marriage, family law, inheritance) but not criminal law, and only for Muslims (or in Bahrain, only Sunni muslims).
None of the former SSRs nor Turkey base any law on Sharia.


and I also realize that over 50% of the current Muslims in England believe it SHOULD be
Click to expand...
I do not realize that and I would have to see the specific wording. There's a difference between saying that one accepts Sharia and that all should be bound under Sharia. And a difference between saying Muslims should have Sharia applied to their affairs vs Sharia should be the law of the land.

The U.S. has always allowed religious courts to act as arbiters for members of that religion, but that follows the rules of arbitration, not the institutionalized legal system.


[qutoe] and I equally realize there are a good number of fundamentalist Muslims around the world that dont give a **** about the 'laws', follow Sharia anyway, and arent opposed to killing their children in the name of honor. It already happens in the US.[/QUOTE]
And you do realize that there are at least as many non-fundamentalist Muslims around that world that don't care about Sharia? I've never met a Saudi who followed the rules outside of Saudi Arabia. I knew a Muslim from a Sharia-based country whose favorite thing about coming to the U.S. was bacon.
 
pinqy said:
I was mistaken earlier on the number (weird brain fart). I still may be missing one or two, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, Qatar, Yemen, Afghanistan, all have Sharia as law.
Some countries, such as Egypt, base their laws on Sharia, but it's not as direct.
Many countries, such as Jordan, Bahrain, Israel, apply Islamic law for personal status laws (marriage, family law, inheritance) but not criminal law, and only for Muslims (or in Bahrain, only Sunni muslims).
None of the former SSRs nor Turkey base any law on Sharia.



I do not realize that and I would have to see the specific wording. There's a difference between saying that one accepts Sharia and that all should be bound under Sharia. And a difference between saying Muslims should have Sharia applied to their affairs vs Sharia should be the law of the land.

The U.S. has always allowed religious courts to act as arbiters for members of that religion, but that follows the rules of arbitration, not the institutionalized legal system.


[qutoe] and I equally realize there are a good number of fundamentalist Muslims around the world that dont give a **** about the 'laws', follow Sharia anyway, and arent opposed to killing their children in the name of honor. It already happens in the US.
Click to expand...
And you do realize that there are at least as many non-fundamentalist Muslims around that world that don't care about Sharia? I've never met a Saudi who followed the rules outside of Saudi Arabia. I knew a Muslim from a Sharia-based country whose favorite thing about coming to the U.S. was bacon.[/QUOTE]Once you accept the reality that a fundamentalist Muslim does NOT CARE about laws...yours, mine, or anyone elses...we can have a dialogue on the appropriate way to deal with fundamentalist Muslims.

I spent 7 years in various countries in the ME and 2 tours in Saudi Arabia. Many do pretty much see fundamentalism as a curse of locale...but many are not only adherents to their Muslim faith but fundamentalist adherents. You may have read about 19 of them and their 5 year vacation to the US that ended in a rather tragic airplane ride back in 2001.
 
calamity said:
We have laws against the latter, but everyone is free to believe the former. If someone thinks hanging gays from a fig tree is what their god wants, we have no constitutional right to ban them or kick them out of the country.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? No amount of repeating this witless nonsense that something in the Constitution prevents us Americans, acting through our legislators in Congress, from excluding any alien we please, whenever we please, for whatever reason we please, one iota less false. The right to determine who comes here, and who does not, is a fundamental attribute of national sovereignty.

Aliens who have not entered U.S. territory do not enjoy any of the protections of the Constitution of the U.S. And the Supreme Court, as it has itself made clear again and again, is extremely reluctant to interfere with Congress in decisions about excluding or expelling aliens. The Court, as it itself has noted, may defer more strongly to Congress in matters of alienage than it does on any other subject.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Fundie Christians, especially of the Jerry Falwell persuasion, are definitely not truly following Christ. But, should we give them this ideological test, or will Donnie give them a pass? I suspect they will not be given the purity tests. What say you?
Click to expand...

He's no fundie, but he is light years ahead of "pseudo-christians" like Hussein Obama, Crooked Hillary and Nancy Pelosi.
 
Ikari said:
Trump's test is just for Muslims, so of course a Christian will pass, they chose the "right" religion.
Click to expand...

Radical Islam and liberals have the same goal in common - the overthrow of Western civilizations like America. The difference is that Islam wants to create an Islamic Caliphate, whereas liberals want to create a communist/socialist utopia. So the holier-than-thou left has no room to talk when they go to bash Trump supporters and Christians. At least Trumpers and the right want to keep traditional America alive.
 
Logicman said:
Radical Islam and liberals have the same goal in common - the overthrow of Western civilizations like America.
Click to expand...

Bwaahahahaha. Nothing but sensationalist exaggeration and hyperbole. Hahaha

Liberals want to overthrow Western civilization.....what garbage.
 
Ikari said:
Bwaahahahaha. Nothing but sensationalist exaggeration and hyperbole. Hahaha

Liberals want to overthrow Western civilization.....what garbage.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Liberals like Obama aren't paying attention to the Constitution anyway. And that's as good as anarchy.
 
Logicman said:
Nonsense. Liberals like Obama aren't paying attention to the Constitution anyway. And that's as good as anarchy.
Click to expand...

This is a dumb argument. What Republocrat has given heed to the Constitution over the past few decades anyway? And not paying attention to the Constitution isn't necessarily anarchy. In our case, it's a fascist, big brother, police state. Quite the opposite of anarchy.
 
Ikari said:
This is a dumb argument. What Republocrat has given heed to the Constitution over the past few decades anyway? And not paying attention to the Constitution isn't necessarily anarchy. In our case, it's a fascist, big brother, police state. Quite the opposite of anarchy.
Click to expand...

When the chief law enforcement entities in the nation break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival.
 
Logicman said:
When the chief law enforcement entities in the nation break the law, then there isn't any law - just a fight for survival.
Click to expand...

There is still law so long as that chief law enforcement entity, which gets to break the law, still upholds the law over the rest of the populace. There are plenty of governments where the head can do whatever they want with impunity, but the People are neigh enslaved. That's not anarchy, it's tyranny.
 
Logicman said:
He's no fundie, but he is light years ahead of "pseudo-christians" like Hussein Obama, Crooked Hillary and Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...

You mean light years behind.
 
matchlight said:
What on earth are you talking about? No amount of repeating this witless nonsense that something in the Constitution prevents us Americans, acting through our legislators in Congress, from excluding any alien we please, whenever we please, for whatever reason we please, one iota less false. The right to determine who comes here, and who does not, is a fundamental attribute of national sovereignty.

Aliens who have not entered U.S. territory do not enjoy any of the protections of the Constitution of the U.S. And the Supreme Court, as it has itself made clear again and again, is extremely reluctant to interfere with Congress in decisions about excluding or expelling aliens. The Court, as it itself has noted, may defer more strongly to Congress in matters of alienage than it does on any other subject.
Click to expand...

Can't make laws banning people based on religious beliefs.


I continue to contend that the U.S. government establishing a religious test for immigration and entry would violate the Constitution. I find it implausible that Founding Fathers who explicitly wrote there could not be a religious test for any office would be hunky-dory with one for citizenship or entry into the country. And I believe that a U.S. government declaration that “we will no longer allow immigration, entry, or return of U.S. citizens of a particular religious faith” constitutes prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Read more at: Donald Trump's Muslim Ban is Unconstitutional | National Review
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Born in a country for generations? Can you translate that into English please?
Click to expand...

It's already in English. The premise of the OP is itself a ridiculous negation of the right of America's existing citizenry to continue living in their own country. As socialists always do, this one seems to be insisting that the country doesn't belong to its people, and that some nanny state gets to own the country and decide who gets to live there. Sorry, but the existing citizenry of a country don't need to pass any test or justify in any why why they have a right to live there. That's why such rights are called INALIENABLE - a concept that illegal alien supporters don't seem to comprehend.
 
calamity said:
Can't make laws banning people based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Congress can make laws excluding aliens who have not yet entered U.S territory for whatever reasons it sees fit, and the Supreme Court has never even implied otherwise. Quite the contrary--as I have shown by quotations from the Court's decisions, it is very unlikely to question any law regarding the exclusion of aliens Congress may make.

Mindlessly epeating your assertion will not make it any less false. If you have any legal authority to support it, then give us a specific citation to it. You won't, because you can't.
 
calamity said:
Can't make laws banning people based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

You can sure put a strong litmus test on them. Imagine, if liberals get their way about vetting Christians coming into the country.

Question: "Are you opposed to gay marriage"? When they answer "yes," then entry denied. That's right. You and I both know if the libs could get away with that they would. In a New York minute.
 
Logicman said:
You can sure put a strong litmus test on them. Imagine, if liberals get their way about vetting Christians coming into the country.

Question: "Are you opposed to gay marriage"? When they answer "yes," then entry denied. That's right. You and I both know if the libs could get away with that they would. In a New York minute.
Click to expand...

Bravo!! In a thread about Christians banning Muslims for no other reason than hatred and bigotry, you still manage to make Christians the victim.... that takes skill you should work for FOX news
 
Logicman said:
You can sure put a strong litmus test on them. Imagine, if liberals get their way about vetting Christians coming into the country.

Question: "Are you opposed to gay marriage"? When they answer "yes," then entry denied. That's right. You and I both know if the libs could get away with that they would. In a New York minute.
Click to expand...

That's why there's a constitution--to prevent both liberals and far right nutcases from imposing their "religion" on others.
 
dimensionallava said:
Bravo!! In a thread about Christians banning Muslims for no other reason than hatred and bigotry, you still manage to make Christians the victim.... that takes skill you should work for FOX news
Click to expand...

Have you read the title of the thread?
 
apdst said:
Who says?
Click to expand...

That pesky thing called the 1st Amendment. You know. It's the one right next to that 2nd one which you probably know by heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom