F
Feanor2
Guest
Gingrich shows a startling ignorance of the constitution and basic tenets of the Muslim faith.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Gingrich shows a startling ignorance of the constitution and basic tenets of the Muslim faith.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
I think he just doesn’t want to take any chances.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Well self-identified Christians commit thousands of more murders in the US each year than do self-identified Muslims.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Honest Abe deported a US congressman so this could hardly be more controversial. Gingrich’s proposal would be perfectly legal. All you have to do is determine the person is a traitor as Lincoln did. But even that may be unnecessary as simply being at war allows any alleged rights to be suspended again following in the footsteps of Lincoln. Anyone offended at Gingrich’s suggestion should be far more horrified at actual US history that is approved and glorified by most people.
H
HCTC
Guest
In addition to his suggestion for a religious “test” being unAmerican and unconstitutional, I wonder if Gingrich’s uncharitable bluntness causes any diplomatic embarrassment for his wife Callista who is U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.
Excerpt:
“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported,” Gingrich said on Fox News.
Excerpt:
“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported,” Gingrich said on Fox News.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
Many of the original states had religious tests at the founding of the US. So they can hardly be un-American or unconstitutional. These tests were for holding office and not for residency.In addition to his suggestion for a religious “test” being unAmerican and unconstitutional
From the article:
But people are allowed to believe what they wish in America.
Newt is correct in all but his conclusion. Sharia is incompatible with western culture. I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter and granddaughter living under such oppression.“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in sharia, they
should be deported,” Gingrich said on Fox News. “Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern
Muslims who have given up Sharia—glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door.”
But people are allowed to believe what they wish in America.
A
Annie
Guest
He seems to be talking about people who can be deported, ie, non-citizens.
I guess one could infer that, and if that is his intent, then I have no dispute with the opinion, though I’d rather wait for actions than rely on someone’s stated beliefs before deportation.He seems to be talking about people who can be deported, ie, non-citizens.
I also think The Atlantic’s headline is thoroughly dishonest, but it isn’t surprising coming from them.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Last edited:
Source…Well self-identified Christians commit thousands of more murders in the US each year than do self-identified Muslims.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
G
Guinness
Guest
Yeah, it’s getting so I can’t go to Mass without wearing a bulletproof vest or stepping over a freshly shot corpse…/sarcWell self-identified Christians commit thousands of more murders in the US each year than do self-identified Muslims.
As an aside, I have a hard time imagining a call from Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to deport all “conservative” Christians being labeled “outrageous” by “The Atlantic”.
Last edited:
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Which is a meaningless factoid unless you can p(name removed by moderator)oint that they’re doing it in accordance with the precepts of a specific Christian religion. Or that they are motivated by those precepts. It’s not just a demographic statistic, it’s what drives people to do what they do.
This is not to say I agree with Newt per se
but what you posted has little relevance
This is not to say I agree with Newt per se
but what you posted has little relevance
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Dishonest headline.
Sharia is incompatible with western culture
I am not sure what informs people sense of Sharia law. But the sensibility of Gingrich’s call, or, for that matter the Atlantic headline, hinges on that understanding. It would be good to clarify that understanding at the outset of the discussion. Too much time has been wasted on discussion the merits of a border wall, only to discover, that the wall is not a wall.I also think The Atlantic’s headline is thoroughly dishonest,
Is this a reasonable working definition?
The custom-based body of law based on the Koran and the religion of Islam [see, also, the Muslim Law Dictionary].
The sacred law of Islam; Islamic lawand also referred to as Muslim law.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/ShariaLaw.aspxBecause, by definition, Muslim states are theocracies, religious texts are law, the latter distinguished by Islam and Muslims in their application, as Sharia or Sharia law .
So thorough is the integration of the justice system and Church under Sharia law that Sharia courts are essentially religious courts; judges are usually local church (Mosque) officials.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Hardly. further into the link you have:Is this a reasonable working definition?
… it is difficult to speak of Sharia as a distinct or cohesive body of law.
H
HCTC
Guest
So I happened to have just noticed that this article was published JUL 15, 2016 - before Callista Gingrich was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See; even before DJT was elected.I also think The Atlantic’s headline is thoroughly dishonest, but it isn’t surprising coming from them.
It’s really old news (from a time when the Trump campaign was strategically targeting Muslims as an election strategy); and I have to wonder why it has been posted here now.
Last edited:
H
HCTC
Guest
What Gingrich said is: “Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background , and if they believe in sharia, they should be deported,”He seems to be talking about people who can be deported, ie, non-citizens.
In what way does what Gingrich said indicate that his suggestion applies only to “people who can be deported?”
Excerpt from article:
He would not only change who the United States allows in; he would apparently seek to deport those already resident, including perhaps American citizens, “of a Muslim background,” and he would do so on the basis of a religious test, despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom to practice religion. (Would Anglo-Saxon or African American converts to Islam be spared?)
Btw, I belatedly noticed that this article was published JUL 15, 2016. So much has happened since then, I have to wonder why it has been posted now.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.