CONSTITUTIONALIST PARTY PLATFORM
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:28
VIEWED: 9451
PAGE 3 of 5
I have been here since almost the beginging, since the start of this online firefly community and you still have no idea who or what I am?
Have you even read the US constitution? Do you know what they were doing when they wrote it? The people who wrote it and the times and experiences they came from?
I support muslims in their own damn place, I am for helping Arab Christians, I am not against Atheist Arabs or Agnostics from the Middle East, I am against war, I am against the military industry and the corrupt banksters who profit from sick wars, I support muslims in their own countries, over there away from America, I don't support bringing more wacko Islamics into the United States
you still have no idea who I am
Do you know of how ancient Persians and Chinese spoke of Islam and do you know of Islams critics through time? Do you know what the philosphers of France and the poets and diplomats of Asia and South America said of Islamism? Do you know the history of the US military after it won its Independence from the British Empire do you know the USA fought Islamic ships and hijackers? Do you John Quincy Adams thoughts, do you know the thoughts of Samuel Johnston, Apostolos Euangelou Vacalopoulos, India Hindus like Bhavishya Purana, Chinese military leaders, Richard Dobbs, Tocqueville, Jacob Burckhardt, James Iredell do you know what they said of Muhammedans or Mahometans? do you know of the schooner USS Enterprise and fighters like Presley O’Bannon do you know United States Marines crossed the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, do you know this fact? Do you know how Thomas Jefferson Led America’s First “War On Terror”? Do you know what America's great inventors, writers, scientists and free thinkers wrote of Islam do you know what Ben Franklin wrote? Do you know how England's Churchill spoke of radical Muslims? Do you know what John Adams wrote, do you know what Adams thought servicing as the ambassador to Britain?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/our_founding_fathers_included_islam/
Our Founding Fathers included Islam
Thomas Jefferson didn't just own a Quran -- he engaged with Islam and fought to ensure the rights of Muslims
Denise Spellberg
Excerpted from "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an"
[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”? — Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776?
At a time when most Americans were uninformed, misinformed, or simply afraid of Islam, Thomas Jefferson imagined Muslims as future citizens of his new nation. His engagement with the faith began with the purchase of a Qur’an eleven years before he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s Qur’an survives still in the Library of Congress, serving as a symbol of his and early America’s complex relationship with Islam and its adherents. That relationship remains of signal importance to this day.
That he owned a Qur’an reveals Jefferson’s interest in the Islamic religion, but it does not explain his support for the rights of Muslims. Jefferson first read about Muslim “civil rights” in the work of one of his intellectual heroes: the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. Locke had advocated the toleration of Muslims—and Jews—following in the footsteps of a few others in Europe who had considered the matter for more than a century before him. Jefferson’s ideas about Muslim rights must be understood within this older context, a complex set of transatlantic ideas that would continue to evolve most markedly from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries.
Amid the interdenominational Christian violence in Europe, some Christians, beginning in the sixteenth century, chose Muslims as the test case for the demarcation of the theoretical boundaries of their toleration for all believers. Because of these European precedents, Muslims also became a part of American debates about religion and the limits of citizenship. As they set about creating a new government in the United States, the American Founders, Protestants all, frequently referred to the adherents of Islam as they contemplated the proper scope of religious freedom and individual rights among the nation’s present and potential inhabitants. The founding generation debated whether the United States should be exclusively Protestant or a religiously plural polity. And if the latter, whether political equality—the full rights of citizenship, including access to the highest office—should extend to non-Protestants. The mention, then, of Muslims as potential citizens of the United States forced the Protestant majority to imagine the parameters of their new society beyond toleration. It obliged them to interrogate the nature of religious freedom: the issue of a “religious test” in the Constitution, like the ones that would exist at the state level into the nineteenth century; the question of “an establishment of religion,” potentially of Protestant Christianity; and the meaning and extent of a separation of religion from government.
Resistance to the idea of Muslim citizenship was predictable in the eighteenth century. Americans had inherited from Europe almost a millennium of negative distortions of the faith’s theological and political character. Given the dominance and popularity of these anti-Islamic representations, it was startling that a few notable Americans not only refused to exclude Muslims, but even imagined a day when they would be citizens of the United States, with full and equal rights. This surprising, uniquely American egalitarian defense of Muslim rights was the logical extension of European precedents already mentioned. Still, on both sides of the Atlantic, such ideas were marginal at best. How, then, did the idea of the Muslim as a citizen with rights survive despite powerful opposition from the outset? And what is the fate of that ideal in the twenty-first century?
This book provides a new history of the founding era, one that ex
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jefferson owned a Koran because islamic pirates and barbaric muslim hijackers were his enemy, he owned the Koran to better understand his enemy
Chinese military philosophy “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” China's great military writings : ' If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled ' and ' If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle'
LMFAO I almost expected you islamophiles to post this Salon crap, I almost knew you muslim-apologists were going to publish that salon sh*t
LOL!! The Salon is left-wing regressive multi-culturalist garbage, Stephen and David Talbot have always published ufo-olgy, leftist, queer trash...
Did you know that Salon, and the regressive leftist Guardian dinosaur news paper blamed “conservatives” for Paris jihad attacks, they blamed not helping blacklivesmatter for the murders and suicide bombings of Paris, they blamed white skined people for the terroristic barbarians and muslim murders in Paris, did you know that?
a bunch of psychopathic barbarians murder tennagers, women, people out eating and shopping and the left doesn't blame psychopathic barbarians but instead cracker whiteys
Do you kow what the regressive self hating liberals of Salon wrote? the and people online called their shit out on it.
"Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly."
F*CKING Deplorable.
I find them idiots at Salon racist and disgusting, the sad old angry femists of salon, the self hating marxists of salon is consistently trash....of course for standing up for American people I'll be accused now of being some deep South rightwing Christian redneck and what if I told you I'm not even white
Here let me help you out by NOT QUOTING SALON
Quote:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Jefferson later went to war with the Barbary states.
An image of the letter from Adams and Jefferson to John Jay can be found in Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, pp. 430-432. I can't link it directly, but you can go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html and then click on "From January 2, 1786" and then go to page 431.
In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....
“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"
Hhmmmm, history does have a way of rhyming, doesn't it??
and
Quote:
Mark Twain
That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any questionNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow such rants JAYNZTOWN. Since you do not understand what America is about and what we are trying to accomplish, I will post my response to a question another person who knows little of what America is about asked. ( A Russian troll )
SIG
Tell me, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it specify the right of immigration?
My response
Bill of rights section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Bill of rights unmistakably state here that the congress does not have the right to stop immigration by its own authority. Clearly what many like you and JAYNZTOWN are calling for.
The great diversity of this nation was also a formidable obstacle to unity. The people who were empowered by the Constitution to elect and control their central government were of widely differing origins, beliefs and interests. Most had come from England, but Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, Prussia, Poland and many other countries also sent immigrants to the New World. Their religious beliefs were varied and in most cases strongly held. There were Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Huguenots, Lutherans, Quakers, Jews, agnostics and atheists. The backbone of the country was the middle class -- farmers, tradesmen, mechanics, sailors, shipwrights, weavers, carpenters and a host of others. To now chastise all Muslims based on a dismal percentile of the Muslim population who are extreme is an attack on diversity, tolerance and inclusion based on fear and hate.
Most of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States are based in ideas of natural law, or the principle that in a state of nature, without government interference, man naturally engages in certain activities, and that government should not be permitted to interfere with this. For example, man naturally expresses his ideas and practices his religion. Are you following any of this SIG, or should I break it down further for you? In order for the constitution to function as designed it has to work for all equally.
We grew through inclusion SIG not exclusion. In the past two centuries, the diversity of the American people has increased, and yet the essential unity of the nation has grown stronger. From the original 13 states along the Atlantic seaboard, America spread westward across the entire continent. That's the premise SIG, for all to join in, in this Philosophy of diversity. And you guys are the ones fighting it.
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." Everything JAYNZTOWN stands for today if implemented would destroy the values and premise this country is built on and the world is watching with bated breath.
Do you understand any of this SIG, or because your loyalties lie with Russia are you going to be dismissive as usual of what America is truly about, and continue to only point out were we fall short at times???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
James Iredell, a U.S. Supreme Court judge appointed by George Washington, articulated this point succinctly in 1788 in the debates on the wording of the Constitution:
But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices.... But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own (Elliot, 1836, 4:194, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=
4622
The irony perhaps is that Islam did in fact play a very important role in the early stages of the development of the United States - Islam was directly responsible for the development of the United States Navy and for the concepts that allowed for its deployment far from our coasts. The American Navy is not a river navy or coastal defense force; it is a global tool of American power whose origins can be traced directly back to an earlier American-Islam confrontation. After the American Revolution, pirates from the Barbary states (Algiers, Morcoco) attacked American shipping off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean and took the crews. This piracy against American shipping started in 1784 and finally ended in 1815. The Islamic rulers of these Barbary States demanded payment of tribute from the new country and it was paid, and paid. President Jefferson sent a naval force against the pirates in 1803-05. The Marine Corps were also sent in and after a long overland march, took the city of Tripoli in 1805 (thus "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps hymn). Is the Somali piracy of today related to the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century? When then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the Ambassador from Tripoli in 1785, to reach a solution to the attacks against American shipping and crews they were dragged into a dark world in which we are still today.
"When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Source)
The Barbary piracy was based upon the doctrine of Islam, calling for endless war against the unbeliever everywhere, including at sea.
If the United States was unable to fight the pirates, they would be forced to continue to pay extortion to the Barbary States, a kind of high seas jizya. ...
Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason,
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jane
I see you didn't understand the article. Here's an explanation with a salient quote to follow:
The references to Islam during the Constitutional debates were about whether or not there should be a religious test for citizenship, not whether or not people at the time understood or liked Islam. The fact that they, for the most part, did neither is what made Islam the quintessential test for religious freedom.
And how did that debate turn out?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do YOU see a phrase in there that says 'except Islam'? Or 'regarding Protestants'? Could you point out TO US ALL where the Constitution supports your ban on Muslims?
Because, if you can't - and I already know you can't - your position is - what was that word you used? - oh, yes - crap.
"What the supporters of Muslim rights were proposing was extraordinary even at a purely theoretical level in the eighteenth century. American citizenship—which had embraced only free, white, male Protestants—was in effect to be abstracted from religion. Race and gender would continue as barriers, but not so faith. Legislation in Virginia would be just the beginning, the First Amendment far from the end of the story; in fact, Jefferson, Washington, and James Madison would work toward this ideal of separation throughout their entire political lives, ultimately leaving it to others to carry on and finish the job. This book documents, for the first time, how Jefferson and others, despite their negative, often incorrect understandings of Islam, pursued that ideal by advocating the rights of Muslims and all non-Protestants."
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holy shit 1kiki, I see some honest brokering of the truth going on with you. Bravo and I consider that deserving of notice. Great points and a wonderful argument against the unturths JAYNSTOWN is try to spread.
"A Mahometan," wrote a Boston newspaper columnist, "is excited to the practice of good morals in hopes that after the resurrection he shall enjoy the beautiful girls of paradise to all eternity; he is afraid to commit murder, adultery and theft, lest he should be cast into hell, where he must drink scalding water and the scum of the damned." Benjamin Rush, the Pennsylvania signer of the Declaration of Independence and friend of Adams and Jefferson, applauded this feature of Islam, asserting that he had "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What it boils down to is this:
Believe in who you want. Worship in what way you want. Eat whatever tasty foods you want or follow your religious dietary strictures, but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...
ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...
then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What it boils down to is this:
Believe in who you want. Worship in what way you want. Eat whatever tasty foods you want or follow your religious dietary strictures, but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...
ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...
then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Yep SIG and that applies to .000000001 of Muslims. The rest do not believe any of that. And fortunately you and some others here make very poor arguments as to why anyone should listen to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... but if your religious beliefs run counter to the set of ethics embedded in our laws and Constitution ...
ie your believe in human sacrifice, in selling/mutilating your girl-children, or in taking over the government with your religion ...
then your crazy-ass belongs in jail, or in deportation.
I agree. It would be no different than if people broke OTHER laws of the land, even those without religious connotations.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME