after Obama retires...

[John Terry]

will he tell us the truth about his birth, or will he keep it a secret and bring it into his coffin?

[admiralsnackbar]

After he retires, will anybody give a shit what people tried to make up about him? Shit, people don't even remember the truth about Reagan, either Bush, or Clinton.

All to say: learn to spell cocaine.

[DJ Mbenga]

when did he turn 65?

[ChumpDumper]

will he tell us the truth about his birth, or will he keep it a secret and bring it into his coffin?What are you saying is the truth about his birth?

[boutons_deux]

JT, you've been duped by hate media.

You'll take your stupidity to your coffin.

[Bartleby]

learn to spell cocaine.

:lol

[DMX7]

Maybe that's how the English spell it. Oh wait, it's not. lolz

[ducks]

if he says he is not born in usa then he should be tried and face the fire squad

[George Gervin's Afro]

if he says he is not born in usa then he should be tried and face the fire squad

I'd request you go first

[TDMVPDPOY]

he milkin that govt pension for lifetime...

[spursncowboys]

Doesn't he have to have a career to retire?

[spursncowboys]

Oh forgot...federal govt.

[SnakeBoy]

He was born a muslim so he'll die a muslim. Once you get muslim on you you can never get it off. That shit is stickier than gulf oil.

[boutons_deux]

BP oil spill can disappear, but Mohammedism can't?

The Constitution says their is to be NO TEST for religion to hold office, but WTF do you right-wingers know about the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with?

[ducks]

I'd request you go first

I did not lie to congress and all the people that are legal usa cititzens

[ducks]

BP oil spill can disappear, but Mohammedism can't?

The Constitution says their is to be NO TEST for religion to hold office, but WTF do you right-wingers know about the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with?

you mean people are suppose to follow the consitution?

if people would get rid of the ammendents and go back to the consitution usa would be better off

[ChumpDumper]

ducks, what is your evidence he is not a US citizen?

Amendments are part of the Constitution.

[boutons_deux]

"A Dialogue With Ducks" :lol

[panic giraffe]

if people would get rid of the ammendents and go back to the consitution usa would be better off


like which ones? equal rights? sufferage? gun ownership? freedom of speech? religion?

[Wild Cobra]

BP oil spill can disappear, but Mohammedism can't?

The Constitution says their is to be NO TEST for religion to hold office, but WTF do you right-wingers know about the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with?
I think that part needs to be changed. I think that some people of some religions should be banned. Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.

We do it the right way though. By amendment, protests, increasing knowledge, etc. Not by breaking the law.

[ChumpDumper]

Wild Cobra wants Constitutional thought police.

Nice.

[Blake]

Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.


:lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol
Christianity does not impose itself over law, nor do most other faiths.

Why is it funny for me not to want a follower of Sharia law, or other authoritarian religion, not be able to serve?

[Wild Cobra]

you mean people are suppose to follow the consitution?

if people would get rid of the ammendents and go back to the consitution usa would be better off
I started to answer this, but started a new thread for my response:

Constitutional Changes (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161142)

[ChumpDumper]

Christianity does not impose itself over law, nor do most other faiths.

Why is it funny for me not to want a follower of Sharia law, or other authoritarian religion, not be able to serve?It's religious discrimination. It's not necessarily funny by itself, but it is funny seeing you condone it so explicitly.

[LnGrrrR]

I think that part needs to be changed. I think that some people of some religions should be banned. Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.

We do it the right way though. By amendment, protests, increasing knowledge, etc. Not by breaking the law.

You do know that the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech, right?

And uhm... there's quite a few Christians out there that would be nabbed by this law.

[LnGrrrR]

Christianity does not impose itself over law, nor do most other faiths.

Why is it funny for me not to want a follower of Sharia law, or other authoritarian religion, not be able to serve?

Right.... so there wasn't any judge who tried to put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or any numerous amount of politicians who use God as a justification for policy, or use the Judeo-Christian values as a basis for morality... etc etc.

[Wild Cobra]

You do know that the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech, right?

And uhm... there's quite a few Christians out there that would be nabbed by this law.
How do you figure?

Does it meet this criteria:

Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.

[LnGrrrR]

How do you figure?


What exactly do you mean by "dictates that law" etc etc? After all, many religious folk use the Bible as justification for certain laws based off morality. Should they be unable to hold office?

What about people who are Muslims, but don't agree with enforcing their religion as law? Is that ok?

You make it sound like there's only one Islam. Islam believers have various beliefs/strengths of belief, as do Christians.

[Wild Cobra]

What exactly do you mean by "dictates that law" etc etc? After all, many religious folk use the Bible as justification for certain laws based off morality. Should they be unable to hold office?
Personal justification is not the same as having to follow a strict law of your religion. In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding. God's law if for the people. Not for the government.

What about people who are Muslims, but don't agree with enforcing their religion as law? Is that ok?
So they are false followers? Wouldn't their own disown them?

You make it sound like there's only one Islam. Islam believers have various beliefs/strengths of belief, as do Christians.

Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.

[Blake]

Personal justification is not the same as having to follow a strict law of your religion. In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding. God's law if for the people. Not for the government.

someplace in the Bible it says says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.

fuck yeah! God's law for the people!


Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.

What about anyone that tries to impose Christian law on society?

[ElNono]

In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding.

Isn't that a textbook definition of a religion 'dictating the imposition of law on society'?

[DMX7]

Gotta love those Cafeteria Christians.

[Winehole23]

Some of those who the profess traditional creeds of the USA yearn for official recognition as a protected minority against the crypto-pagan, crypto-libertarian onslaught of popular culture.

When government is called on to protect traditional values, you can be pretty sure their power and influence is reaching a low ebb in society.

[Winehole23]

Traditional values need a government bailout too.

[Blake]

Traditional values need a government bailout too.

Ive heard that traditional values is going public.

I might go in on a few shares.

[Wild Cobra]

What about anyone that tries to impose Christian law on society?
The distinction you don't see, where I draw the line, is that the Bible does not tell God's followers to impose God's will on others.

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't that a textbook definition of a religion 'dictating the imposition of law on society'?
You too?

No. It's telling God's followers to obey local laws.

It doesn't tell people to impose God's will upon others. Does it?

[LnGrrrR]

Personal justification is not the same as having to follow a strict law of your religion. In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding. God's law if for the people. Not for the government.

So if God's law conflicts with the law, like, for instance, stoning children who talk back to their parents, then...


So they are false followers? Wouldn't their own disown them?

Wouldn't this apply?


Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.

It's their right to believe whatever cuckoo nonsense they wish.

[LnGrrrR]

The distinction you don't see, where I draw the line, is that the Bible does not tell God's followers to impose God's will on others.

Uhm... are you sure about that? :lol I mean, if God commanded his followers to oeby his laws, and they conflict with a regular law, wouldn't that imply God telling his followers to impose God's will?

[Winehole23]

Ive heard that traditional values is going public.

I might go in on a few shares.http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Godfather_The/the_godfather_movie_image_marlon_brando__1_.jpg

[Winehole23]

^^^Iconic emphasis on tradition and family values. 1972.

[ElNono]

No. It's telling God's followers to obey local laws.

And what happens if they don't?


It doesn't tell people to impose God's will upon others. Does it?

Does every muslim you know tries to impose their God's will upon you? Or you don't know any muslims?

[ElNono]

Uhm... are you sure about that? :lol I mean, if God commanded his followers to oeby his laws, and they conflict with a regular law, wouldn't that imply God telling his followers to impose God's will?

Wouldn't you be called a 'false follower' (whatever that means) if you deem yourself a christian and don't follow god's laws?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So I see Darrins is still stuck on the non existent shariah issue..

[Blake]

The distinction you don't see, where I draw the line, is that the Bible does not tell God's followers to impose God's will on others.


What about anyone that tries to impose Christian law on society?