I’m guessing Judaism isn’t the winner?
Uh, what?
This is a very stupid thing to say in this country.
This is a tough tough subject.
The constitutionalist in me sees the road block. We cannot, under our current constitutional framework, deny any citizen or even immigrant, rights over their creeds or religion. It’s fundamental to the framework we drew up.
But the realist in me sees the practical problems in a religiously pluralistic society.
Islam openly declares that it wants to destroy all other religions and convert their members to Muslims…. This is an immediate national security threat no?
If China openly said it wants to massacre every non-Chinese until they convert to CCP members, would we allow Chinese people into the country? Probably not right?
So a conversation needs to be had in order to preserve our culture and ensure our safety.
What conversation?
I believe in the constitution and the 1st amendment.
This country wasn’t built to avoid “practical problems.” It was built to be better.
^ This is the guy who calls me a fraud moderate. Well, he is clearly a fraud constitutionalist.
1 Like
Michael Flynn and the evangelicals just said they want to do the same
Curiously, you are okay with taking over private industry and now having a “conversation” about having a single, national religion.
And you call yourself a “constitutionalist.” How quaint
Seems quite radical to me, no matter the political spectrum
IS IT THAT OR IS IT THAT OTHER RELIGIONS WERE CREATED TO CAUSE THAT FRICTION?
HOW COULD THERE BE MULTIPLE RELIGIONS?
IT IS ALL PART OF THE MATEIX CONTROL THEY HAVE USED…
STORM DOESN’T BELIEVE IN ANY RELIGION JUST PEOPLE AFRAID TO DIE…
This is an odd response because I ADMITTED to having a conflict of values.
Unlike you, who disguises your intentions and values in order to gain leverage in a debate. I’m an open book.
I’m an open book too.
But if you’re open about questioning the 1st amendment, you probably shouldn’t throw stones while calling yourself a constitutionalist.
I’ve already articulated that I have a conflict.
But further - I didn’t commit to doing anything unconstitutional. I’m just saying that there is a practical problem.
We could, constitutionally, amend the constitution (via constitutional convention) to fix the problem. And my beliefs could be completely consistent. So I’m not really sure what your point is.
The point is you don’t believe in a key tenet of the constitution and of America.
1 Like
Sure I do. And I wouldn’t oppose it in its form today.
I’m simply stating that I have a conflict of first principles. At least I can admit who I am and where I’m at. You can’t.
I wouldn’t be for restricting Muslims entry into the country based on their religion TODAY. But I would be in favor of amending the constitution to allowing that prohibition.
Gotcha, so you want to change the Constitution to directly contradict its tenets but you’re a “constitutionalist.” Dude, you’re full of shit.