Gingrich's Outrageous Call to Deport All Practicing U.S. Muslims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feanor2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The article is making this assumption:
he would apparently seek to deport those already resident, including perhaps American citizens,
If asked, would Gingrich have said, “yes, I meant US citizens as well,” or would he have said, “well, of course I didn’t mean US citizens as they cannot be deported.”?
 
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”.
I have a hard time imagining such a call from Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Full stop.
 
IMO, the intentions of this remark by Gingrich are to be found in when it was made - July, 2016 when DJT was the presumptive Republican presidential candidate - and that he made it on Fox, rather than in the substance of the remark. It was campaign rhetoric targeting a specific group, much like the “big beautiful concrete wall” that Mexico was going to pay for.
 
40.png
JonNC:
I also think The Atlantic’s headline is thoroughly dishonest, but it isn’t surprising coming from them.
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.

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.
That doesn’t change what appears to be a dishonest misrepresentation of Newt@s comments.

Is “strategically targeting Muslims as an election strategy” your opinion, or do you have a source from the campaign?
 
Gingrich shows a startling ignorance of the constitution and basic tenets of the Muslim faith.
what is your understanding of the relationship between sharia law and the Muslim faith?
according to The Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA)

Islam is a complete package – a complete message and way of life.

Shariah literally means ‘a well-trodden path to water,’ the source of all life, representing the Path to Allah, as given by Allah, the Originator of all life.

Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law - Shariah
now of course from here, you need to ask is the observer following a traditional or non-traditional approach to Shariah and if the concept of taqiyya is being deployed.

to find out what Islam means is easy, listen to those who are spreading it. they make the message very clear. it is different from what the casual Americans wants to believe about it.

in the end, there can only be one religion.
 
I don’t know. Quite possibly. But they were in the state constitutions. My state constitution still disqualifies atheists from office. And it was ratified after the War of Northern Agression.
 
Deus vult.

Religions that are incompatible with Western civilization have no place here. Our concepts, ethics, and culture are not a suicide pact.

The 1st Amendment only restricts Congress. The President has the necessary authority to bar the entry of any more Muslims.
 
Last edited:
The 1st Amendment only restricts Congress. The 10th Amendment protected that power for the states. The Constitution was written expressly for a Christian populace (see John Adams, also refer to the Northwest Ordinance).
 
Not true. The US was founded as a federation. The national government was not supposed to have a state church. But the individual states absolutely did. This is a historical fact. The reason for the first amendment which protects religion was so that the individual states would be superior in matters of religion.
 
It depends on what you believe about Sharia.

It’s a federal felony to advocate the overthrow of the government by force. 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

As such, it would be grounds for deportation if the perp was an alien.

But that depends on whether the alternate explanations of Sharia are credible. One can certainly make the argument from the Doctrine of Abrogation, that Islam requires violent conquest of unbelievers unless the unbelievers are too strong to overcome.

So it’s not as easy a thought process as we might think.
 
The 1st Amendment only restricts Congress. The 10th Amendment protected that power for the states. The Constitution was written expressly for a Christian populace (see John Adams, also refer to the Northwest Ordinance).
There’s a fairly large body of Supreme Court case law that says otherwise. The First Amendment has been incorporated against the states for quite some time now.
 
No worries, I didn’t notice it myself until like the third reading…
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...efended-muslim-rights/?utm_term=.73ec1fd00cac

EXCERPT:

Jefferson authored the VA Statute for Religious Freedom and asked that it be one of just three accomplishments listed on his tombstone. The VA law became the foundation of the religious freedom protections later delineated in the Constitution.

VA went from having a strong state-established church, which Virginians had to pay taxes to support, to protecting freedom of conscience and separating church and state. Jefferson specifically mentioned Muslims when describing the broad scope of protections he intended by his legislation, which was passed in 1786.

“What he wanted to do was get the state of VA out of the business of deciding which was the best religion, and who had to pay taxes to support it,” said Spellberg, a professor of history and Islamic studies at the Univ of TX…

During the bill’s debate, some legislators wanted to insert the term “Jesus Christ,” which was rejected. Writing in 1821, Jefferson reflected that “singular proposition proved that [the bill’s] protection of opinion was meant to be universal.”

Spellberg continued:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo [Hindu], and Infidel of every denomination."

Jefferson’s opinions on religious liberty were heavily influenced by John Locke,as noted by J,H. Hutson, writing in 2002 as chief of the Library of Congress’s Manuscript Division:

In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in VA, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the “Mahamdan,” the Jew and the “pagan.” Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. “True freedom,” Lee asserted, “embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion.”

James Madison, whose views on religious liberty aligned with Jefferson’s, helped usher the VA bill to final passage. In a document arguing against religious taxes that received thousands of signatures, Madison referenced foreign religious persecution — specifically the Inquisition.

He also argued that separation of church and state would actually promote Christianity, writing that an open society would be welcoming to those “remaining under the dominion of false Religions.” Establishing an official church, he wrote, “discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation.”…
 
Last edited:
Is it really a dog whistle when people are being quite clear about what they want?
 
I don’t know. Quite possibly. But they were in the state constitutions. My state constitution still disqualifies atheists from office. And it was ratified after the War of Northern Agression.
I think it is a good possibility that, if it came to the SCOTUS, it would be overturned.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top