Friday, January 23, 2015

ISLAM MUSLIMS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISONS OF SEPERATION BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Well here it is a new year, and wow did not think of my blog here.

What I will attempt here is to extract a fine line between Religion and State.  As any American knows in the country we have separation of powers, separation of church and state.  This includes muslims, who have been born here and went to our public schools.
Ok, since that is well established law. So, here is the proverbial question to all those who read this:

HOW IS IT THAT ISLAM  MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED TO BRING THEIR RELIGIOUS LAWS (SHARIA) INTO A SECULAR COURT IN AMERICA ???? 
BUT CHRISTIANS OR EVEN JEWS CANNOT?

WELL THAT ANSWER IS QUITE SIMPLE:

American Judges and Americans in general are scared, sissified and just plain stupid. Our founding fathers saw well into the future by the provisions set into play what we call the U.S. Constitution.  There is no seperation of church and state.  That in itself is a myth.  However the mere language of ". . .Congress shall not pass any laws of Establishment of a Religion. . ." this simply means that the government shall NOT have a country wide religion. nothing more, nothing less.

So, islam is an alleged religion, then alcoholic anonymous would be also a religion? under AA guidelines the 12 steps would be our text and 12 traditions would be the laws. 
So here we go again the Waco Texas incident of David Koresh and he was declared a cult by a democract white house but here this white house declares islam a PROTECTED CULT.  any religion that promotes the molestation of children should not be allowed to exist.
Also who actually declares who is a religion and who is not a religion?



"Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon Allah's decree for that of a man"

We're forced to accept it without question, on pain of charges of "Islamophobia": Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism in its ability to fit without difficulty into the Western societal framework of non-establishment of religion.
However, Sharia is an all-encompassing program for every aspect of life, including the governance of the state. In "Separation Of Church And State" at Islaam.com, Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris argues that the separation of religion and state is un-Islamic. And so once again, in the same words as before, I offer the invitation to Muslim "moderates": show where Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris is wrong on Islamic grounds. The world wants to see you refute the version of Islam of the "extremists." The "extremists," after all, aren't getting their ideas from me, but from the likes of Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris. So instead of spending all your time trying to prove me wrong, why not spend some time trying to prove them wrong - if, that is, you really oppose what they're doing? Go ahead. We're watching, and waiting.
From "Separation Of Church And State" by Dr. Ja`far Sheikh Idris at Islaam.com (thanks to Axel):
 [...] So how are Muslims to approach the modern trend of separation of religion and state? The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.
 Supporters of the secular state argue that the values of one religion cannot be imposed on members of different religions that are present in our countries. However, whether the non-Muslims in a state are few or many, secularism is not the answer. The non-Muslims in Muslim states will either be secularists themselves, in favour of abandoning the laws of Islam in the state, or will be devoted followers of their own religion, who wish that the state follow the rules of that religion. So in either case, a compromise cannot be made in accordance with the Islamic point of view. What needs to be pointed out is that under the law of Islam, other religions are not prohibited. At the same time, people are provided with doctrines for legislation and running of state that will protect people of all faiths living in the state.
 Secularists in the West will agree with this, then they will point out that under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism - which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living.
 Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is [sic] requires us to abandon Allah's decree for that of a man.

This is from an article from which i do not remember, i did save this to a word document, when i find the author i will give credit to that author using the MLA cites.

Monday, February 20, 2012

KS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Been a long while since i wrote on here, was reading on the Kansas defenders blog about a man who had his case reversed due to judicial error in NOT allowing the criminal defendant to go pro se.
Been busy but i am back the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights § 10 reads as follows:

§ 10. "In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person, or by counsel;
Now what is wrong with this picture of the Kansas Courts NOT allowing a criminal defendant to proceed PRO SE, a most recent famous case Indiana -v- Edwards a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with a person who wanted to proceed pro se, was found COMPETENT to stand trial, but NOT so much in regards to representing himself.
Now all of the cases both state and federal, that i have read over these past years always refer to the U.S. Constitution and the 6th Amendment. in which the language is more lenient in regards to the assistance of counsel. And that has been interpreted as meaning that one could represent himself as set forth in the landmark case of FARETTA -v- CALIF 1975 case.
However i guess these appellate lawyers have not read the Kansas Const. bill of rights that i mention previously.
If there is anyone who reads this respond with your comments to rabbi.josiah@gmail.com

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

here is a link i found

http://poedpatriot.blogspot.com/
Has anyone wonder why the NEW DICTATOR HUSSIN OBAMA is so against the constitution and capitalism so do i
i was able to secure a copy of the book by saul alinsky: primer for radicials and this dictator hussin obama is following that play book right down to the letter of saul alinsky dictates
more later

TEA PARTYS AND THE CONSTITUTION

Greetings fellow tea party goers, i am new at this blogging and twittering so bear with me, i will have links to other sites of tea party and constitutional sites

UNDER CONSTRUCTION