Posted on Sep 24, 2014
Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?
32K
566
329
6
6
0
I want to know whether anyone believes that Islam in America demanding Sharia Law will work in America with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. With the growing Muslim population (both legally and illegally) and all of the special treatment they get regarding their religion as compared to any other in America are you worried about whether our Constitution will survive?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Islam
Constitution Islam
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 92
2
2
0
I deleted my original comment because it was too deep in legalese.
Incompatible is a tall order. I'll let it suffice to say Islam is not necessarily Sharia, and religions are protected under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Incompatible is a tall order. I'll let it suffice to say Islam is not necessarily Sharia, and religions are protected under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
PO1 Kuhn, I don't know how I missed this, but you made a number of patently false and misleading comments above. They should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. I see that MAJ Kile attempted such, but also made one particular error with point 1 and didn't really go into detail on other points, so I will.
\\1. Congress ordered American Bibles to be printed for the use in our schools to teach our children morality then ordered enough copies for everyone in all three branches of office.\\
No, they didn't. The priter, Robert Aitken, *asked* Congress to do so. The most Congress gave him was to have his version looked over by a minister to confirm whether it was accurate, and give him permission to print that along with his bibles. Why? Because printing was a challenge then, so the ability to produce a bible was a large task that showed the printer's skill. Congress acknowledged as much when the recommendation said that the work showed "an instance of the progress of arts in this country."
With the end of the war (and thus the embargos that prevented supply of all manner of things -- bibles included -- from coming in) Aitken had a glut of them that he couldn't sell. He tried to convince Congress again to buy them for personnel in all the branches of Government, which they declined. He tried to get Washingtn to urge Congress to buy them as departing gifts to Soldiers, but he declined as well. Aitken ended up taking a severe loss, unable to sell his bibles because he failed to get Congress to bail him out.
\\2. The Capitol Building and the Treasury Office were used as Churches.\\
Misleading. In the early period of the district, there were few churches. They were on Sundays used for church services, but that waned once the district grew and more churches were prevalent. The buildings were also ued for other meetings that had nothing to do with religion or congressional business when there was a shortage of other accommodations.
\\3. Many of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were authored and signed by men of faith and many were ordained ministers.\\
The signers being "men of faith" is irrelevant. In those days, pretty much everyone was *publicly* religious even when they were *privately* not. To do otherwise was career suicide. Jefferson even made a point of visibly attending churches after he was smeared by politica opponents for being a "howling atheist", an infidel, and more.
Very few were ministers. This is a common lie. Most of them were college educated, though, and the colleges of the day were *all* what we would call seminaries today. They studied and attained degrees in other things in most cases.
\\4. No where in the Constitution does it separate Church and State with the exception of limiting the federal government's power to enforce a "Nationally mandated religion" for America.\\
The concept of separation of Church & State is there because it is entirely false that the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause *only* prohibits a national church.
The drafters of the Bill of Rights went over possible wording for each amendment several times. The language that *would* have meant that only an official state church was prohibited was in fact proposed, and voted *against*. The language they put instead, about *respecting* an establishment, has a specific legal understanding (and did then as well) that precludes favoritism for religion in any form.
When trying to interpret potential uncertaincies in what a clause might mean, you must figure out legislative intent. In doing that, you cannot ignore the important clues they left, such as letters on the subject and drafting notes on the clause itself. To ignore those is dishonest. To pay attention to them shows that the concept of separation is on sound legal ground.
\\Also, the Supreme Court reaffirmed with legal precedent (something the Supreme Court did not do from 1962 on) the need for the Bible to teach pure Morality to our children.\\
Citation please? Yeah, I didn't think so. For one, SC precedent is only about what is *law*, not what things they consider *important*.
But the reason this is a plain lie is because the legal precedents go *against* what you said. Abington School District v. Schempp, from 1963 (AFTER the point you said there was no precedent) is the current precedent on the bible in school, which bans its use for religious instruction, but allows its personal use (bibles are not banned as many assume) as well as its use as historical literature.
\\1. Congress ordered American Bibles to be printed for the use in our schools to teach our children morality then ordered enough copies for everyone in all three branches of office.\\
No, they didn't. The priter, Robert Aitken, *asked* Congress to do so. The most Congress gave him was to have his version looked over by a minister to confirm whether it was accurate, and give him permission to print that along with his bibles. Why? Because printing was a challenge then, so the ability to produce a bible was a large task that showed the printer's skill. Congress acknowledged as much when the recommendation said that the work showed "an instance of the progress of arts in this country."
With the end of the war (and thus the embargos that prevented supply of all manner of things -- bibles included -- from coming in) Aitken had a glut of them that he couldn't sell. He tried to convince Congress again to buy them for personnel in all the branches of Government, which they declined. He tried to get Washingtn to urge Congress to buy them as departing gifts to Soldiers, but he declined as well. Aitken ended up taking a severe loss, unable to sell his bibles because he failed to get Congress to bail him out.
\\2. The Capitol Building and the Treasury Office were used as Churches.\\
Misleading. In the early period of the district, there were few churches. They were on Sundays used for church services, but that waned once the district grew and more churches were prevalent. The buildings were also ued for other meetings that had nothing to do with religion or congressional business when there was a shortage of other accommodations.
\\3. Many of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were authored and signed by men of faith and many were ordained ministers.\\
The signers being "men of faith" is irrelevant. In those days, pretty much everyone was *publicly* religious even when they were *privately* not. To do otherwise was career suicide. Jefferson even made a point of visibly attending churches after he was smeared by politica opponents for being a "howling atheist", an infidel, and more.
Very few were ministers. This is a common lie. Most of them were college educated, though, and the colleges of the day were *all* what we would call seminaries today. They studied and attained degrees in other things in most cases.
\\4. No where in the Constitution does it separate Church and State with the exception of limiting the federal government's power to enforce a "Nationally mandated religion" for America.\\
The concept of separation of Church & State is there because it is entirely false that the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause *only* prohibits a national church.
The drafters of the Bill of Rights went over possible wording for each amendment several times. The language that *would* have meant that only an official state church was prohibited was in fact proposed, and voted *against*. The language they put instead, about *respecting* an establishment, has a specific legal understanding (and did then as well) that precludes favoritism for religion in any form.
When trying to interpret potential uncertaincies in what a clause might mean, you must figure out legislative intent. In doing that, you cannot ignore the important clues they left, such as letters on the subject and drafting notes on the clause itself. To ignore those is dishonest. To pay attention to them shows that the concept of separation is on sound legal ground.
\\Also, the Supreme Court reaffirmed with legal precedent (something the Supreme Court did not do from 1962 on) the need for the Bible to teach pure Morality to our children.\\
Citation please? Yeah, I didn't think so. For one, SC precedent is only about what is *law*, not what things they consider *important*.
But the reason this is a plain lie is because the legal precedents go *against* what you said. Abington School District v. Schempp, from 1963 (AFTER the point you said there was no precedent) is the current precedent on the bible in school, which bans its use for religious instruction, but allows its personal use (bibles are not banned as many assume) as well as its use as historical literature.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
MAJ (Join to see)
Hammurabi was a king who reigned in Babylonia between 1792 and 1750 B.C., so we are able to assume that this was codified, and as such can be considered historiographical source. The Exodus and the Ten Commandments traditionally estimated to have been given around 1446 B.C. and while three hundred years seems like a long time in the modern world, in the large transmutation of idea of the period they are contemporary and show enough separation to not have directly come one from the other. We both know that the 800 BCE number is grossly inaccurate so I will not even go there but you miss the larger importance of the Ten Commandment, as a purely legal document, all the other sources were completely lost or forgotten. If someone was to ask a Roman at the height of the Empire about any of the Codes you listed you get a blank stare. The same society was would have a knowledge of the Ten Commandments…the same can be said for a Medieval Frank, Renaissance Florentine, Reformation Swede, Colonial Virginian, a French Republican, or any Western nation, or former colony, today. The same cannot be said for one of the codes you listed.
You are factually and intellectually incorrect about there being any long-standing interpretation about the US Government not favoring any religion. Supreme Court rulings for the entire first century of American existence boldly declared that "Christianity was a part of the common law of the land" and it has only been in the last few decades that there has been a concerted effort by Atheist to establish their minority belief as the State belief system. A belief system that forces the removal of historical legal images from court houses, removes the religion from religious holidays…while continuing to celebrate the holiday (?).
Sir, none of the Ten Commandments is Unconstitutional, not one. Even the first four do not go to establishing a State government? If your standards is that there cannot use something because someone used it before, then all your postings are plagiarism because every word was written by before we were born. I only wish you were as intellectually honest as you pretend to be.
Hammurabi was a king who reigned in Babylonia between 1792 and 1750 B.C., so we are able to assume that this was codified, and as such can be considered historiographical source. The Exodus and the Ten Commandments traditionally estimated to have been given around 1446 B.C. and while three hundred years seems like a long time in the modern world, in the large transmutation of idea of the period they are contemporary and show enough separation to not have directly come one from the other. We both know that the 800 BCE number is grossly inaccurate so I will not even go there but you miss the larger importance of the Ten Commandment, as a purely legal document, all the other sources were completely lost or forgotten. If someone was to ask a Roman at the height of the Empire about any of the Codes you listed you get a blank stare. The same society was would have a knowledge of the Ten Commandments…the same can be said for a Medieval Frank, Renaissance Florentine, Reformation Swede, Colonial Virginian, a French Republican, or any Western nation, or former colony, today. The same cannot be said for one of the codes you listed.
You are factually and intellectually incorrect about there being any long-standing interpretation about the US Government not favoring any religion. Supreme Court rulings for the entire first century of American existence boldly declared that "Christianity was a part of the common law of the land" and it has only been in the last few decades that there has been a concerted effort by Atheist to establish their minority belief as the State belief system. A belief system that forces the removal of historical legal images from court houses, removes the religion from religious holidays…while continuing to celebrate the holiday (?).
Sir, none of the Ten Commandments is Unconstitutional, not one. Even the first four do not go to establishing a State government? If your standards is that there cannot use something because someone used it before, then all your postings are plagiarism because every word was written by before we were born. I only wish you were as intellectually honest as you pretend to be.
(0)
(0)
CPT Ray Doeksen
We don't have to assume that Hammurabi's code was ... codified, because there are artifacts that survive, that exist to this day, that have them inscribed. (they're real written/carved documents)
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
MAJ (Join to see) Sorry for taking so long to return to your post. I was not ignoring you, just sometimes things slip through the cracks. With regards to the printing of the Bible in America, yes the printer did ask permission, but it was authorized by Congress for the use in our schools to teach our children morality. I do not know what different references we are using, but the annals of Congress record it. Also, a copy of the Bible was handed out to each member serving in any part of our three executive branches of government. As for the Capitol Building and Treasury Offices being used as Churches it is not so important that there were limited Churches as the people reporting on the event had their own churches to go to but decided to attend these larger public services. It is the fact that religion was (and is to a majority of Americans) an important part of our lives. They used these buildings to demonstrate that while the government could not force a religion on the people, the people were still free to practice their religion whenever and where ever they chose to. I would give you a list of the significance of many of the pictures and monuments on Capitol Hill, but if I did then you might take offense and petition them down. The bottom line, for all posturizing being done on both sides is that the Christian religion played a vital part in the formation of this nation. We made some mistakes along the way, but Christianity is woven into the fabric of our nation. If true American History were taught, it would have to include the Bible to show the motivation behind the decisions our Founding Fathers made. I have given references, I have given quotes, and I have spoken what I believe to be the truth. Everything America was built upon stems from the principles of Christianity. Now I will admit that the America of today would have our Forefathers rolling in their graves, but it does not change the facts of history.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
MAJ (Join to see) We should cut and paste this into a post, as many people need to read this but few will take the time to open the link and read it for themselves. Thank you for sharing.
Respectfully,
Steve
Respectfully,
Steve
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
...Jewish law also isn't, I don't want think we should be forced to keep kosher and have two different refrigerators and ovens!
(1)
(0)
MSgt Michelle Mondia
We don't need to fear other religions. The constitution protects us from that. Just sayin. Everyone is getting whipped up into a frenzy over this. Many religions have separate "laws" so to speak that have nothing to do with government. I would fear any religion imposing their "beliefs"...
(0)
(0)
MSgt Michelle Mondia
I know orthodox religions have strict food prep and marital laws...but that's different from paying their taxes and jury duty. I don't think we're at risk for becoming like down town Riyadh...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc
Capt Gregory Prickett It's been known to happen before.
one way of operating is to keep the farmer so busy sorting the sheep from the goats that he doesn't notice the fox in the hen house.
one way of operating is to keep the farmer so busy sorting the sheep from the goats that he doesn't notice the fox in the hen house.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
**BREAKING NEWS* * Hamas and Isis have surrendered their weapons after the 77 virgins, that will be provided by Allah upon their death, started posting selfies
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Simply put, this is a question that has an obvious answer and requires absolutely no argument:
We base our laws and the way we treat our citizens on high moral values. Sharia is the exact opposite...period.
We base our laws and the way we treat our citizens on high moral values. Sharia is the exact opposite...period.
(1)
(0)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA
PO1 Steven Kuhn - amazing, shocked to say the least. how can a State (like my homes State PA) shoot the law down, incredible! Thanks for the heads up.
Steven
Steven
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
They shoot the law down because it is a bigoted response to terrorism. It is not an issue anyway, unless you also think that the Jews are going to try and take over using their Mosaic law.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
They are already demanding it in Michigan, and Florida and have held protests against our Constitution and for Hamas. Also, with the intentionally unsecured borders, illegal aliens pouring into our country with diseases the CDC has not seen in decades, and the radical Muslims sneaking across couple with the amnesty being granted to them I think it is a definite concern. We have had to take our American flag down in several areas because it offended other citizens! If they were true citizens, they would not be offended!
(1)
(0)
CPT Ray Doeksen
Please cite specific instances. The last thing I saw that tried to say that Muslims in Dearborn, MI were rallying against "us" was utter BS, a meme-generated, photoshopped church sign from http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/, just spreading lies.
Ever seen those signs in front of churches with the moveable letters? Everwanted to rearrange the letters to make your own church sign? Well, now you can.Choose a design below, add your text, and a personalized church sign photo willbe created for you! Save it, send it to a friend, put on your website, or use ithowever you like. Enjoy!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Sharia law is by design incompatible with individual liberty, and therefore incompatible with any governmental system which embraces the same - especially our representative republic as blueprinted by the US Constitution - the one we all take an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. For a further understanding of why sharia is incompatible with our Constitution, see: http://www.politicalislam.com
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
From what I have read and understand about Sharia law, is it is in no way, shape, or form compatible with the Constitution. Under the current president, and his attempts at shredding the constitution, I am definitely concerned.
There seems to be an all-out war on Christianity in America. Sharia law would essentially make being a Christian illegal, and those who are caught practicing it would be put to death.
I am amazed that the Atheists concentrate so much on attacking Christianity when there are other religions taking hold in America that would essentially put Atheists in the same category as Christians.
After all, anyone caught denying or speaking out against the Quran or Mohammad are put to death. Show me in the bible where Christianity teaches that.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, I am a bit worried because we have a president that has Muslim roots, even though he claims he is a Christian to the certain demographics.
There seems to be an all-out war on Christianity in America. Sharia law would essentially make being a Christian illegal, and those who are caught practicing it would be put to death.
I am amazed that the Atheists concentrate so much on attacking Christianity when there are other religions taking hold in America that would essentially put Atheists in the same category as Christians.
After all, anyone caught denying or speaking out against the Quran or Mohammad are put to death. Show me in the bible where Christianity teaches that.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, I am a bit worried because we have a president that has Muslim roots, even though he claims he is a Christian to the certain demographics.
(1)
(0)
SPC Paul Shene III
I live for the wonderful place existence is. Knowing that there is no after life I do the good in the here and now. The here and now is all we get, so I won't waste it chasing an imaginary friend. I will help my real life friends. When an atheist sacrifices his life, it is a real sacrifice.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
As I said before Mr. Shene, if you truly love this country look at the quotes from our founding fathers, look at the early decisions based on precedent of the supreme court prior to 1900's, and I will continue to pray for you. America is great because
God made it so by instilling the desire to serve in people like you and me....
r/
Steve
God made it so by instilling the desire to serve in people like you and me....
r/
Steve
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SPC Shene. I agree with much of what you convey. If Christians are honest then they will agree with the idea that being a good person is not NECESSARILY synonymous with faith in Jesus Christ. Being honest, forthright, caring, ethical does NOT require faith in a superior being. One could also argue that doing so without the consequence of going to hell makes one a good person. Lastly, your sentiment that an Atheist who risks his life and loses it for his honor and beliefs does so without the expectation of a beautiful after life. Though I hesitate to use the word sacrifice, because I am an Objectivist, Philosophically speaking.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
What is Sharia Law
A quick and simple definition of the Sharia law is a prophetic law derived from the writings of the Quran, and Sunna. The actual rules and interpretations of the types of laws required by “Sharia Law” is not at all standard. Before the introduction of western colonial powers into the middle east the use of these laws were mostly to through the local community, and since they did not have judges, or courts is one of the reasons that so many of these odd requirements and punishments exist. For example the requirement that two eye witnesses be present to punish somebody for theft.
After the introduction of the western legal systems we see an attempt to move these laws to a legal system. Like most indigenous populations the introduction of these systems has sustained a conservative movement within the religion, and political frameworks that has pushed for the de-westernization. This can be seen in Iran, and Saudi Arabia whom both practice the conservative forms of the Sharia Law. Other nations have accepted westernization, and have abandoned the Sharia style laws for a completely new system of laws such as Turkey.
The most striking the situation is the harsh punishments for the breaking certain laws, most notably the haram sexual laws which are similar to those of the other Abrahamic faiths, but are actually carried out in the modern era. These things include adultery, homosexuality, and premarital sex carrying the punishment of death. Finally the most important and unfortunately not always followed provision of Sharia Law is that all non-Muslim people are to exempt from the any provisions of the laws. It was not meant for the use as national legal framework.
Where is Sharia Law really creeping into the United States?
A recent poll of North Carolinian's found that 34% of respondents would favor the establishment of Christianity as the state religion. Further to the west in the State of Oklahoma Mr. Scott Esk a candidate for the State House of Representatives actually advocated for the stoning of homosexuals in June. Further we have a large amount of candidates who display dominionism in the way they wish to appoint or only consent to appointments of Judges, and secular office holders by mandating a religious test.
While in the general definition and in the statement most people would say they are against Sharia Law, but the implementation, and protection of corporal punishments in schools (19 States still allow this practice), the push for school sanctioned prayer, and demands that the public school system teach only subjects that are parallel to the popular religion are Sharia like laws practiced in our education system today. Do I think that the people who push these laws are as bad as the Prince of Saudi Arabia? No, absolutely not, but removing the action from a word and then searching for that action shows that Islamic Americans are not the true threat to the separation of Church and State, but that Christians as the majority are.
Until recently the practice of religion and the administration of the government have always been a subject that groups have pushed, but until recently the Supreme Court of the United States has blocked or reversed these attempts, but with the recent Hobby Lobby decision it may be debatable as to the ways that the court will rule in future determinations.
The Original Question.
Does Sharia Law fall inside or outside of the U.S. Constitution; both inside and out, much like Biblical law. Sharia within the family with the expectation of the separation of interference by the Government in the practice of their religion is well protected, and does fall under the U.S. Constitution. These things include patriarchy, discipline of children, education of children, financial management, and manner of foods eaten. Also the contract of marriage for a Muslim couple is much different than that of a Non-Muslim couple making the rules for dissolution much different, and highly variable. These in so far as all persons consent to their practice is acceptable and protected under the Constitution. Practices in the middle east of female circumcision are terrible and should never be permissible in the United States.
I say look at the provision that is being called Sharia law, and consider it independent of the word. Simply saying that we have sharia law because the school district with the large Muslim population offers a halal compliant lunch at school, or that the only head covering allowed in the court room is hajab does not constitute Sharia Law. Look at the politicians who fought the installation of a foot washing basin, to find out it was meant clean the mops the custodians used….
A quick and simple definition of the Sharia law is a prophetic law derived from the writings of the Quran, and Sunna. The actual rules and interpretations of the types of laws required by “Sharia Law” is not at all standard. Before the introduction of western colonial powers into the middle east the use of these laws were mostly to through the local community, and since they did not have judges, or courts is one of the reasons that so many of these odd requirements and punishments exist. For example the requirement that two eye witnesses be present to punish somebody for theft.
After the introduction of the western legal systems we see an attempt to move these laws to a legal system. Like most indigenous populations the introduction of these systems has sustained a conservative movement within the religion, and political frameworks that has pushed for the de-westernization. This can be seen in Iran, and Saudi Arabia whom both practice the conservative forms of the Sharia Law. Other nations have accepted westernization, and have abandoned the Sharia style laws for a completely new system of laws such as Turkey.
The most striking the situation is the harsh punishments for the breaking certain laws, most notably the haram sexual laws which are similar to those of the other Abrahamic faiths, but are actually carried out in the modern era. These things include adultery, homosexuality, and premarital sex carrying the punishment of death. Finally the most important and unfortunately not always followed provision of Sharia Law is that all non-Muslim people are to exempt from the any provisions of the laws. It was not meant for the use as national legal framework.
Where is Sharia Law really creeping into the United States?
A recent poll of North Carolinian's found that 34% of respondents would favor the establishment of Christianity as the state religion. Further to the west in the State of Oklahoma Mr. Scott Esk a candidate for the State House of Representatives actually advocated for the stoning of homosexuals in June. Further we have a large amount of candidates who display dominionism in the way they wish to appoint or only consent to appointments of Judges, and secular office holders by mandating a religious test.
While in the general definition and in the statement most people would say they are against Sharia Law, but the implementation, and protection of corporal punishments in schools (19 States still allow this practice), the push for school sanctioned prayer, and demands that the public school system teach only subjects that are parallel to the popular religion are Sharia like laws practiced in our education system today. Do I think that the people who push these laws are as bad as the Prince of Saudi Arabia? No, absolutely not, but removing the action from a word and then searching for that action shows that Islamic Americans are not the true threat to the separation of Church and State, but that Christians as the majority are.
Until recently the practice of religion and the administration of the government have always been a subject that groups have pushed, but until recently the Supreme Court of the United States has blocked or reversed these attempts, but with the recent Hobby Lobby decision it may be debatable as to the ways that the court will rule in future determinations.
The Original Question.
Does Sharia Law fall inside or outside of the U.S. Constitution; both inside and out, much like Biblical law. Sharia within the family with the expectation of the separation of interference by the Government in the practice of their religion is well protected, and does fall under the U.S. Constitution. These things include patriarchy, discipline of children, education of children, financial management, and manner of foods eaten. Also the contract of marriage for a Muslim couple is much different than that of a Non-Muslim couple making the rules for dissolution much different, and highly variable. These in so far as all persons consent to their practice is acceptable and protected under the Constitution. Practices in the middle east of female circumcision are terrible and should never be permissible in the United States.
I say look at the provision that is being called Sharia law, and consider it independent of the word. Simply saying that we have sharia law because the school district with the large Muslim population offers a halal compliant lunch at school, or that the only head covering allowed in the court room is hajab does not constitute Sharia Law. Look at the politicians who fought the installation of a foot washing basin, to find out it was meant clean the mops the custodians used….
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Sir, if you love America I urge you to do an impartial study of the founding fathers and their autobiographies. America was founded on Christians principles and our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. The only difference is that we do not say Christianity of death. The moral tenets of Christianity are sorely needed in our government and society. please do the research and then get back to me with an opinion based more on actual history of our coming together as a nation, what the differences are between Christianity and Islam (Jesus said [in response to your stoning comment] "let he among you without sin cast the first stone"), and the faith and beliefs of our founding fathers, let alone a true understanding of each part of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was written. I am looking forward to hearing from you.
r/Steve
r/Steve
(0)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
Uh...no; you do the research and write me a summary. I stated my case through my reading and your response has nothing to do with my statement, while making broad assertions about founding intent that may have been present, but was not manifested into the Constitution. I appreciate the read, but I should be able to have a dissenting opinion on this site without having my love of this country questioned, and handed an assignment.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google