• 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!

A simple question # 2

Lets see...Islam and the constitution dont mix well....Islam goes against everything yelling..screaming... Leftist. Leftist supposedly stand for...Violence against women...violence against gays....and Islamic acceptance of Pedophilia....Muslims still worship Mohammed .....

No modern day "Religion" acts like islam....which is not a religion (In many peoples opinion)...but more of a cult using force and death for new members and acceptance...after all that Democrats (Liberals) are still ok with that....

**>>Look at Europe and what is going on there now with the acceptance of Islam.....its called an Invasion...people dying and women getting rapped...Yet...the Ignorance of Liberalism allows this to happen...which all started with small steps to "appease"

It sounds like you should be talking to "Leftist" a "Liberal" or a "Democrat" instead of me, since you made an argument against them and I am not one of them.

Also I cannot help to wonder wtf you think of Catholics and their widespread pedophilia within in the Church, raping children for decades and decades? And how do you feel about how Christians treat women are you ok with that? Have you heard some of the things that the GOP's president has said about women? How about the religious right and their BS are you ok with that crap too?

Ah yes the Europe thing, straight from the far right playback. FYI most religion do not think that other religions count as religions either, hence why here in America we have religious freedoms, I bet you dont have that in your country.
 
Clue, Obie was handed a country in the worst economic mess since the great depression and turned it into the longest run of prosperity under one president.

AGAIN you prove what a sage you are.
That is if you call a slight 1% yearly increase in the GNP progress. Now that President Trump is in office it is over 3%.
 
Well lets see: On one hand we have religious clothing and freedom of religion. And on the other a hat created for a political campaign to get a single person elected as president.

Yup Im going with apples and oranges.

Your religious clothing is a symbol of the hatred of 9-11, and the members of Congress hate American and want some subverted muslim law, which is all against the Constutition.
 
Labeling an entire group because of the actions of a few DA’s is weak sauce. You don’t like it when others do the same with folks who share your leaning, so don’t be a hypocrite.

We don’t need to be “tolerant” of an elected official wearing a hijab on the floor of Congress, or anywhere else. It is her right to do so. Same as it is for anyone to where a MAGA hat (where hats are permitted.

But they had to change the House rules to let her wear her symbol of muslim hatred.
 
Your religious clothing is a symbol of the hatred of 9-11, and the members of Congress hate American and want some subverted muslim law, which is all against the Constutition.

I have about had it with you and 911.

Just where were you on 911 that you bring it up over and over, totally out of context?

The nerve, the ****in nerve.
 
I have about had it with you and 911.

Just where were you on 911 that you bring it up over and over, totally out of context?

The nerve, the ****in nerve.

Are you aware that muslims killed nearly 3000 Americans on that day???????????
 
Why is it we must have tolerance for a woman wearing a hijab on the floor of Congress, but the left has no tolerance for a MAGA hat? How many people wearing a MAGA hat have been attacked. How many kids have been attacked or thrown out of school for wearing a MAGA hat?

How many people wearing a MAGA hat have been attacked? A lot fewer than people with Muslim or Sikh head gear (ignorant people tend to attack the Sikh thinking that they are Muslims).
 
But they had to change the House rules to let her wear her symbol of muslim hatred.
They didn’t have to, they chose to do the right thing. By the way, the change also included yarmulkes/kippahs.

Are you aware that muslims killed nearly 3000 Americans on that day???????????
19 Muslims, not all Muslims.
 
Are you aware that muslims killed nearly 3000 Americans on that day???????????

They were Saudis, your president's friend.

But AGAIN you avoided my question.

Just where were you on 911 that you bring it up over and over, totally out of context?

likely hiding in some cow pasture
 
They were Saudis, your president's friend.

But AGAIN you avoided my question.

Just where were you on 911 that you bring it up over and over, totally out of context?

likely hiding in some cow pasture

I was at work taking a service call at a milling company. Thats at work something many liberals think they dont have to do!!!!
 
Only if tax dollars paid for the hijab. As long as my tax dollars aren't paying for the religious symbol then any politician that wants to wear a cross, a hijab or a yarmulke should be free to do so.

Separation of church and state is a very simple concept to an honest person. Don't spend tax money on religion and don't enact laws that force religion on people or give preferential treatment to the religious over the non-religious or over other religions. Simple.

We have a WWI memorial statue here in Bladensburg, MD. Been there for 100 years. The property it was on was originally private and is now public as it sits in a plot between two roads. The leftists want it torn down as a violation of church and state because it's in the form of a large concrete cross. This is what passes for an "honest" interpretation of the 1st amendment which only says that "Congress shall make no law..".
 
We have a WWI memorial statue here in Bladensburg, MD. Been there for 100 years. The property it was on was originally private and is now public as it sits in a plot between two roads. The leftists want it torn down as a violation of church and state because it's in the form of a large concrete cross. This is what passes for an "honest" interpretation of the 1st amendment which only says that "Congress shall make no law..".

The leftists = a handful of assholes.

Giving one example of a few people asking for something stupid while not providing any actual evidence of the claim does not constitute an actual argument, nor does it negate anything I said and likewise doesn't bolster any of your previous arguments.
 
The leftists = a handful of assholes.

Giving one example of a few people asking for something stupid while not providing any actual evidence of the claim does not constitute an actual argument, nor does it negate anything I said and likewise doesn't bolster any of your previous arguments.


Looks like the handful of a-holes are going to take up the time of the SC on the issue.

Supreme Court to decide fate of WWI memorial cross in church and state dispute - CNNPolitics

As for the 1st amendment, it says that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Since the left finds the mere sight of religious symbolism in public spaces a violation of the 1A, they should be protesting Omar. I imagine they'd be doing so if some Congressman wore a cap with a huge cross on it or an elected priest or pastor showed in his clerical garb. How is this any different? Because it's Islam? Keep in mind, too, that I'm not suggesting that Omar not be allowed to wear the hijab. I'm only asking for consistency from the left on the issue.
 
Looks like the handful of a-holes are going to take up the time of the SC on the issue.

Supreme Court to decide fate of WWI memorial cross in church and state dispute - CNNPolitics

As for the 1st amendment, it says that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Since the left finds the mere sight of religious symbolism in public spaces a violation of the 1A, they should be protesting Omar. I imagine they'd be doing so if some Congressman wore a cap with a huge cross on it or an elected priest or pastor showed in his clerical garb. How is this any different? Because it's Islam? Keep in mind, too, that I'm not suggesting that Omar not be allowed to wear the hijab. I'm only asking for consistency from the left on the issue.

If you'd bother to read the article, they are suing because taxpayer dollars are going to the upkeep of a religious symbol. I disagree with them. But the point they are making, that has to do with tax payer money and religious symbols, is completely separate and different than a congress member wearing a religious symbol that was purchased and is maintained by their own money.
 
If you support Donald Trump you have horrible character and we are free to judge you based upon that.

Wow, what a lovely person. You have no clue who I am but because I support him, for my own very personal reasons, I'm ok to attack? What kind of coward are you?

Also, you need to learn what the word "Islamaphobia" means. "Phobia" implies "fear." We do not fear Muslims. We disagree with the ideology called "Islam" that says it's ok to cut the genitals out of baby girls.

I couldn't give a rat's ass who worships who or what they wear on their heads. You should really educate yourself. You sound like a damned idiot.
 
If you'd bother to read the article, they are suing because taxpayer dollars are going to the upkeep of a religious symbol. I disagree with them. But the point they are making, that has to do with tax payer money and religious symbols, is completely separate and different than a congress member wearing a religious symbol that was purchased and is maintained by their own money.

Nothing in the 1A about paying for upkeep. Taxpayers pay for all sorts of stuff they disagree with. I'm not sure why this is any different.
 
Why is it we must have tolerance for a woman wearing a hijab on the floor of Congress, but the left has no tolerance for a MAGA hat? How many people wearing a MAGA hat have been attacked. How many kids have been attacked or thrown out of school for wearing a MAGA hat?

How many women in America have been ridiculed because of their hijab? NOT ALL people on the left have "no tolerance" for a maga hat. Heck "I" think you should hold on to them because by the time tRump is finished you're really going to need them.
 
Wow, what a lovely person. You have no clue who I am but because I support him, for my own very personal reasons, I'm ok to attack? What kind of coward are you?

Also, you need to learn what the word "Islamaphobia" means. "Phobia" implies "fear." We do not fear Muslims. We disagree with the ideology called "Islam" that says it's ok to cut the genitals out of baby girls.

I couldn't give a rat's ass who worships who or what they wear on their heads. You should really educate yourself. You sound like a damned idiot.

Here are some indisputable facts about the barbarity of millions of Muslims, with photographs of Muslims throwing homosexuals off rooftops, displaying heads they have cut off of those they hate, and a picture of Barack Obama showing the Shahada sign and what it means:

http://MuslimBarbarism.blogspot.com
 
Nothing in the 1A about paying for upkeep. Taxpayers pay for all sorts of stuff they disagree with. I'm not sure why this is any different.

You're changing the argument now. At first you were suggesting that they need to be consistent. Now you are going off on a tangent as to taxpayers paying for stuff they disagree with. That's not the discussion we were having.

The hijab she is wearing costs the tax payers not a single dime. A large monument actually does cost money in upkeep and cleaning and landscaping etc. I'm not arguing that the lawsuit is right. Just that they are different. Do you concede this point?
 
You're changing the argument now. At first you were suggesting that they need to be consistent. Now you are going off on a tangent as to taxpayers paying for stuff they disagree with. That's not the discussion we were having.

The hijab she is wearing costs the tax payers not a single dime. A large monument actually does cost money in upkeep and cleaning and landscaping etc. I'm not arguing that the lawsuit is right. Just that they are different. Do you concede this point?

Where did I suggest they were the same? My comment was solely in reference to the case of the WWI memorial.
 
Why is it we must have tolerance for a woman wearing a hijab on the floor of Congress, but the left has no tolerance for a MAGA hat? How many people wearing a MAGA hat have been attacked. How many kids have been attacked or thrown out of school for wearing a MAGA hat?

One is a requirement of the person's religion and the other a political statement. If you can not see the difference, well, then no one can explain it to you.
 
Where did I suggest they were the same? My comment was solely in reference to the case of the WWI memorial.

Looks like the handful of a-holes are going to take up the time of the SC on the issue.

Supreme Court to decide fate of WWI memorial cross in church and state dispute - CNNPolitics

As for the 1st amendment, it says that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Since the left finds the mere sight of religious symbolism in public spaces a violation of the 1A, they should be protesting Omar. I imagine they'd be doing so if some Congressman wore a cap with a huge cross on it or an elected priest or pastor showed in his clerical garb. How is this any different? Because it's Islam? Keep in mind, too, that I'm not suggesting that Omar not be allowed to wear the hijab. I'm only asking for consistency from the left on the issue.


You seem to be suggesting that her wearing a hijab needs to have the same protestations from the people that sue over religious symbols in public spaces or else they are being hypocritical or at the least, to use your phraseology, "inconsistent". If you didn't mean to suggest this then my apologies, but I think one can see how someone would honestly assess that you were attempting such an argument. This is why I pointed out that in the article you linked it mentioned that they were suing because taxpayer dollars go to fund the upkeep of the religious symbol, which is different than the hijab that Omar wears since she is paying for it with her own money.
 
Nothing in the 1A about paying for upkeep. Taxpayers pay for all sorts of stuff they disagree with. I'm not sure why this is any different.

Taxpayers pay in money that is given to planned parenthood that kills babies. I dont like that at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom