>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT), repo yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>

>>On Sep 10, 6:54 am, Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> wrote:

>>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:26:00 -0700 (PDT), repo yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>

>>>>Muslims don't care about their host countries and will wiggle
>>>>their Sharia laws into our system until our system is no more.
>>>>We are sleepwalking into it.

>>>
>>> So for you that means that we must give up Our principles on what a
>>> constitutional republic is and does?

>>
>>There will be no "Our principles", there will be no "constitution"
>>under sharia law.

>
>Then the best protection we have is our constitution, seems to me.
>

>>The idea for the US Constitution is to protect individual rights;
>>if sharia law however little, creeps into our system, "the
>>Constitution" and what it represents is being taken away.

>
>No religious law ought to creep into the constitution. Eternal
>Vigilance and all.
>

>>So "Our principles" and America as it is and as the founding
>>fathers intended it to be, will be no more.

>
>The FFs intended this to be a nation run on constitutional principles.
>I believe Ol' Ben himself said something like you have a republic, If
>you can keep it.
>
>We don't keep it by throwing it away when/if we feel threatened by
>some outside ideology. We keep it by holding the stronger to it.
>
>When I joined the Army, I took an oath to protect and defend the
>Constitution against *all* enemies, foreign and domestic.
>
>They are foreign enemies and You are a domestic enemy of the
>Constitution.
>

>>>>Why are public schools teaching Islam?

>>>
>>> They aren't.  They are teaching About Islam,

>>
>>Apparently you didn't even click on the links provided
>>in my previous post. A crucifix
>>would never ever be part of a public classroom for any reason.

>
>Good! Seems quite far -- though the display of one during a lecture
>wouldn't be prohibited, any more than a copy of the Holy Tome, the
>Q'ran or the Baghavad Gita would.
>

>>In many public schools under the guise of "cultural
>>diversity" or something like that, Islam is taught
>>Prayers, dress, Arabic mandated in some Public schools, ect.

>
>Oh nonsense! There are not Many public schools doing any such thing.
>Some are. They should. As part of a comparative religions class,
>such demonstrations work for a lot of different religions and
>cultures.
>
>You wish merely to focus on one. That dog don't hunt. It's all or
>none, just as I said.
>

>>I have not seen "Observant conservative Jews" shove
>>their footbaths, prayer time outs at places of employment, ect.

>
>Then you have not been paying proper attention to those of the
>Conservative sect in Judaism, or even more to the extremely
>conservative sects like the Lubavitchers.
>
>Judaism is not monolithic, any more than any of the other organized
>superstitions are.
>

>>> We have an Odd relationship with organized superstition in this
>>> nation.  But at the key, the recent court opinion wrt the Muslim cab
>>> drivers is correct -- they ought Not to be able to refuse accomodation
>>> to the public based on their religious beliefs.  I have no problem
>>> with that, and seemingly neither do you.

>>
>>Why are Muslims pushing for these seemingly minor concessions?

>
>They wish to observe Their faith as They see it.
>

>>It's because one small concession leads to the entire enchilada
>>one day. Give them an inch, they take a mile. They are not like
>>you, they are not tolerant of others, there are no human or individual
>>rights in Islam.

>
>Now who told you that? It is clearly Not true that there are none.
>
>Your adamant ignorance is showing again.
>
>We know how to set limits on things. We do it all the time. We can
>set a reasonable and constitutional limit on that too. Indeed, the
>local courts just did with the cab drivers. It's a decision that I
>fully support.
>
>And it's a decision that ought to be applied to All religions equally.
>
>Which is what I said in the first place.
>

>>They have no loyality to their host countries, not even the U.S.

>
>Few of the True Believers within any organized superstition do. They
>are more interested in the hereafter than in the here.
>

>>When their numbers are approx 10%%, they terrorize their host
>>countries, then ask for autonomy. i.e. the Philipines, ect.

>
>In which case, they are reasonably opposed and autonomy refused, seems
>to me.
>

>>> If you believe in Equal Protection Under The Law -- which is a bedrock
>>> Constitutional principle -- then that's how it properly ought to be,
>>> is it not?  Is that something you wish to give up simply because you
>>> feel threatened?

>>
>>Open your eyes, ears, and wake up. Not everyone
>>believes in "Equal Protection Under The Law", and those
>>Islamists will kill you as look at you.

>
>They'd best be pretty good at that. But yer right -- if someone wants
>to kill either of us, chances are they probably can. Their religion
>won't matter.
>
>Because it's the Actions that make them culpable, and not their
>beliefs.
>

>>> Still not a good enough reason.
>>>
>>> It's the Constitution, child.  Applying it equally to all is the way
>>> it's supposed to work.  Anything else is an abandonment of our
>>> principles.

>>
>>The Constitution could be on its way to be replaced
>>by Sharia Arab Law If America doesn't wake up.

>
>Oh, calm down here. If Murkens support and defend the Constitution
>against all enemies, furn and domestic, it'll work out just fine. If
>Murkens choose to abandon the constitution, it probably won't.
>
>Oppress one religion successfully, and the next question will be which
>one is Next on the list.
>

>>Then what will you do? Your grandchildren will either
>>be hacked or the hackee...nice future, eh.

>
>My descendants will be responsible to protect and defend the
>constitution for themselves as well. It's an obligation passed down
>through the generations. They either will or they won't.
>
>I'm betting they will, and will Not choose to follow Your lead on the
>matter.
>

>>> Our principles matter.

>>
>>Yes they do, and we want to keep it that way,

>
>Then keep it that way.
>

>>No Arab Sharia Law.

>
>There is none, and if we stick to the constituion, there won't be.
>

>>Educate everyone about Islamists,
>>what they have done, are doing, and promise to do.

>
>And educate everyone what happens when a society that Claims to have
>equal protection decides arbitrarily just to chuck it because it
>becomes slightly More difficult to live by the principle than not.
>

>> I challange
>>you to read All the following links.

>
>Good. I refuse the challenge. Heard it all before, and None of it
>persuades me to give up the Constituion and all its principles.
>
>You have now placed yourself as a domestic enemy of it, so you must be
>carefully watched and monitored into the future so you can't do any
>Real danger to it.
>
>Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty -- for everyone.
>
>Including Muslims.
>
>If they or anyone else does violence, then we ought to prosecute them
>for the violence they do.
>
>Their religious beliefs are their own, just as yours are.