It appears that Judge Jeanine got taken to the woodshed:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.

It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. The US Constitution contains no religious tests. People used to say the same things about Catholics. You are suggesting that Muslims have dual loyalty. That's pretty ironic given the topic of this thread.

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does

So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

Not true. Sharia allows for their own courts.

Oh look, a Jewish court right here in Washington, DC:

https://www.capitolk.org/beis-din.html

Whelp, I guess Jews can't serve in Congress. Not compatible with the Constitution.

Ummmm, Masterpiece Cake Shop says no, religion takes precedence over equal treatment under the law.

No. He challenged the interpretation of the law as an artist having to create a message with which he did not agree. He was willing to sell a cake off the shelf. We do have laws which protect religion, too, you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does


So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

Ummm, no. Romans 13 lays it out pretty well. Tells you basically to obey man's law.

But, put more simply: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"

Really? I guess the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop is going to burn in Hell then.

The Shaira law mention is such a dog whistle. Ugh disgusting.

I bet that poster thinks Muslim Americans shouldn’t be representatives because Shaira says they need to follow the secret Muslim agenda of infiltrating America or whatever racist nonsense these people.

It’s people that spew filth like that which results in hate crimes. Thanks for contributing to the dialogue which resulted in my 68 year old parents being menaced by burgeoning racist youth! You’re an awful person.

Anonymous wrote:

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does


So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

Ummm, no. Romans 13 lays it out pretty well. Tells you basically to obey man's law.

But, put more simply: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"

Ummmm, Masterpiece Cake Shop says no, religion takes precedence over equal treatment under the law.

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does


So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

Ummm, no. Romans 13 lays it out pretty well. Tells you basically to obey man's law.

But, put more simply: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.

It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. The US Constitution contains no religious tests. People used to say the same things about Catholics. You are suggesting that Muslims have dual loyalty. That's pretty ironic given the topic of this thread.

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does

So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

Not true. Sharia allows for their own courts.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.

It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. The US Constitution contains no religious tests. People used to say the same things about Catholics. You are suggesting that Muslims have dual loyalty. That's pretty ironic given the topic of this thread.

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does

So does Christianity. The answer is the same either way.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.

It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. The US Constitution contains no religious tests. People used to say the same things about Catholics. You are suggesting that Muslims have dual loyalty. That's pretty ironic given the topic of this thread.

Since Sharia bypasses US law, it actually does

Anonymous wrote:As a minority, I only wish my people were as effective as Jewish supporters of Israel.

I feel that as soon as my people get money in the US, they try to forget everything about their homeland.

It's sad.

Jewish solidarity, political and economic engagement, intelligence - are all amazing characteristics that other ethnicities need to learn from.

But is Jewish solidarity an ideology that shuts out the rest of mankind?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With this uproar, all I can say is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Talk about issues she raised should be tolerated.

anti-Semitism should not be used as a weapon, and you should not be over eager to play victim

The issue is how she raises them. Try to focus.

No, it has become a personal vendetta

She doesn’t mind. She has said that people should get used to it and is pleased her comments have started conversations.

Perhaps that is a good thing

But are we now having conversations about Israel's policies and America's relationship with Israel as a result of this firebrand? I'm not seeing or hearing those conversations, but maybe I've missed them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know why everyone is judging her.

She's a woman, she's young and she is a Muslim.

It's disgraceful.

And a person of color. Doomed to judgement by legions of jerks the second she came out of the womb.

She came out of the womb in Somalia to an upper class family. Are you saying that she was doomed to judgement in a country of color?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.

It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. The US Constitution contains no religious tests. People used to say the same things about Catholics. You are suggesting that Muslims have dual loyalty. That's pretty ironic given the topic of this thread.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Further justification for broadening the anti-hate resolution was just provided by Fox New's Jeanine Pirro who suggest during her Fox News show that Ilhan Omar's choice to wear a "heejaab" (as Pirro called it) indicates an attachment to her religion that is incompatible with the US constitution. Pirro's Islamophobic attack on Omar is the type of thing that would get you banned from TV if you said it about other religions, but probably will just increase her ratings on Fox.

Do you believe that Sharia Law is compatible with our Constitution?

I believe that you are too uniformed about Sharia to make a substantive discussion possible and the question itself is Islamophobic.

In other words, you choose not to answer. Got it.