T. Belman. When a President takes the oath in his inauguration to uphold the constitution and law of the land, he must resist any implementation of Sharia. Cinton twittered that she disagreed with Carson. She cited the US constitution “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or Public Trust.” Obviously if a person takes the oath to uphold the constitution they are duty bound to do so even if it is contrary to Sharia. But this is not the case here. Muslims are not allowed to take an oath that violates their duty to Sharia. We have seen how the Democratic Party is running roughshod over the constitution. Bottom line is that we shouldn’t elect a Muslim to any office which requires the oath. Don’t give them the opportunity to mislead us.
What Adams was saying was that tolerance and equality are not to be extended to groups and doctrines that are subversive.
On September 21 Rush Limbaugh addressed the media’s backlash against Carson by asking how people fail to note that sharia law and U.S. constitutional law are mutually exclusive?
If you look into Sharia law, you will not find any consistency with the US Constitution. Sharia law is the law which is used to behead women in Islamic countries who have been raped. Sharia law is the reason women in Islamic countries can’t drive. Sharia law is so inconsistent with the US Constitution Ben Carson could not be more right. And the question he was asked was in that context. “Well, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?” Well, Sharia law isn’t.
Breitbart News previously reported that Founding Father Sam Adams argued against extending religious toleration to theocratic religions in 1772. Hanover College published Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists” in which Adams wrote:
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live.
Adams was suggesting that toleration for religions should be based on whether a given religion is or isn’t subversive to the principles undergirding order in American society. He intimated testing religions based on whether the “doctrines”–or teachings–of a given religion are “subversive of society” and contended that religions “are excluded from… toleration” when they “teach doctrines subversive of the civil government.”
Limbaugh contends that the incongruity between sharia law and constitutional law are obvious to the honest examiner and that the media’s “outrage” over Carson’s statement is “manufactured.” He said the criticism of Carson is “made up just like the Trump furor was.” Moreover, he says “the furor is not [even] about this specifically, but it’s about giving the media another chance, or better stated, the media taking another opportunity to point out in their minds that Republicans are bigots.”
Looking into this matter a little deeper, I learned that scholars at the various institutions of higher learned established in the colonial American era, such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and others, were delivering commencement exercises in authentic biblical Ivrit. And I am wondering. From what source could these transplanted English hard-core fundamentalist Protestants have learned not merely to read Ivrit but also to speak it?
I understand their particular culture regarded Britain and the Church of England as nothing less than the recrudescence of ancient Egypt from which they, as modern Hebrews, escaped across the ocean, to found an Original Testament society which would subdue the local American Indians, whom they regarded as he equivalent of the Canaanites who were subdued and displaced by the tribes of Moshe.
And those rock-hard men and women experienced no more sense of remorse over that than I would have over the modern Jewish nation taking additional Arab-populated lands around Eretz-Yisrael, expelling as many of them as feasible, and filling the land with more Jews. Modern liberalism has dampened that original American spirit. But something tells me that a major change is brewing in the USA; a change that liberals already fear.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
The impact would have been historically profound.
The Founders wisely believed in political pluralism. They realized that if all degenerates were executed, America would soon become a one-party state with nary a Democrat in the land. They therefore used Jewish religious law as a guidepost rather than replicating it.
@ babushka:
So why no constitutional provisions allowing for the execution of idolaters and sodomites?
@ babushka:
I have read in a history of the New England pilgrim settlements that consideration of the leadership had been given to use biblical Ivrit as the common language of their colony. Had that policy path been followed, they no doubt would have sought authentic Jewish scholars to teach in their schools. You can take it from there in projecting what all that could have developed in the history of the Jewish nation.
Arnold Harris, Outspeaker
@ Michael Ejercito:
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson each wrote that they had based the Constitution upon Old Testament law. The answer to your question is therefore, “Yes!”
is the Torah consistent with the Constitution? See these verses:
Deut 17:2-5
Lev. 20:13