TEXAS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHALLENGES "BETO" O'ROURKE TO TAKE HIS AR-15 FIREARM

Try and Take My AR-15 and 

‘See How That Goes’

TEXAS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHALLENGES "BETO" O'ROURKE TO TAKE HIS AR-15 FIREARM 

BY WARREN MASS

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/35091-texas-lieutenant-governor-challenges-beto-to-take-his-ar-15; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

The day after former Vice President Joe Biden said that Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke will “be the one who leads” his gun control campaign, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick responded by challenging O’Rourke, a former U.S. representative who lost his race for a U.S. Senate seat against incumbent Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in 2018, to come to his house and take his AR-15.

On March 4, Patrick told Fox News journalist Shannon Bream, “Joe Biden says a lot of dopey things, you have a whole list of them and play them a lot. The dumbest thing he has said is he’s going to put Beto O’Rourke in charge of getting our guns. I’m telling you, that just added two or three points to President Trump’s victory in November if it’s the ‘Biden and Beto Show.’”

Patrick extended an invitation to O’Rourke to begin his confiscation efforts at his house, saying: “[Beto] said he was coming to take our AR-15s. I have one, I want to invite him to my house first and see how that goes.” 

Patrick also stated, “When Biden surrounds himself with people like Beto O'Rourke, he’s taken on a real goofball, a guy who's a real lightweight and he proved it in this race.”

The New American reported last September that during a September 12 Democratic presidential debate, O’Rourke made an outrageous admission: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

As we observed at the time,

For years, gun-control advocates have assured Americans that it is not their intention to confiscate the weapons held lawfully by United States citizens. But now, the mask is coming off, as O’Rourke and the rest of his Democratic presidential hopefuls apparently believe gun confiscation has now become popular. Former Vice President Joe Biden said, “Over 90 percent of the American people think we have to get assault weapons off the street — period. And we have to get buy-backs and get them out of their basements.” Times have changed, Biden argued, and now public opinion favors gun control.

The “Biden and Beto Show,” as Patrick calls it, proves to be a perfect match on the issue of gun control. In an article in February, we quoted a startling statement Biden made on the campus of The College of Charleston in South Carolina on February 24: “I’ve got news for you gun manufacturers. I’m coming for you and I’m going to take you down.”

Breitbart reported that Biden made his statement targeting gun manufacturers after mentioning the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005. That law is designed to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits in cases where the guns used in crimes were legally manufactured and legally sold.

Biden has constantly criticized that law while campaigning, saying in New Hampshire that it was a “mistake” to give “gun manufacturers … a loophole that does not allow them to be sued for the carnage they are creating.”

“The first thing I’m going to do as president is work to get rid of that, and it’s going to be hard,” he added.

Related articles:

Biden to Gun Manufacturers: “I’m Going To Take You Down”

O’Rourke Peddles the Usual Leftist Platitudes in Announcing White House Bid

Texas Senate Race Pits Liberal Robert “Beto” O’Rourke vs. Ted Cruz

Joe Biden Slammed Policy That Led to the Texas Church Massacre’s Foiling

O’Rourke Intends to Confiscate Guns: “Hell yes.”

____________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: http://rightwingfolks.com/texas-lt-gov-nukes-orourke-in-fiery-statement-he-will-never-be-a-threat-in-texas-politics-again/

ELEVATION CHURCH IS FROM HELL

ELEVATION CHURCH IS FROM HELL

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/07/elevation-church-is-from-hell/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Elevation Church is one of the most subversive and dangerous pseudo-Christian movements in the world. Following in the footsteps of Hillsong, Steven Furtick, the lead pastor, has built an empire that has grown tremendously with now over 20 campuses and even internationally with campuses in Toronto.



Steven Furtick says stupid things all the time. Steven Furtick once asserted that Jesus broke the law — that is, committed sin — in order to save people. The prosperity gospel-preaching huckster out of Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC is best known for reading himself into Scripture and making it all about him. In short, he’s a narcissist.

One of the reasons Elevation Church is so subversive is that on paper — or in this case, on website — the Church holds to a seemingly orthodox statement of faith. That is, the church affirms the essential doctrines according to their “official” beliefs. This is not surprising since Steven Furtick and Elevation Church have Southern Baptist roots — Furtick knows what these essential doctrines are. However, Steven Furtick preaches and practices something completely different.

The prosperity gospel is arguably the second-most nefarious and subversive false gospel plaguing the American Church today, right behind the social justice gospel. The prosperity gospel teaches that God is, in a sense, a genie in a bottle and by having enough faith, you can get what you want from him — material gain.

The prosperity gospel in America is largely associated with celebrity hucksters like Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, and others, but the false gospel has plagued the more conservative sects as well. And while the prosperity gospel is stereotypically associated with health and wealth, the same principle applies to a multitude of selfish desires.

The prosperity gospel can range from praying for things like a new car, new house … a new private jet … to more seemingly appropriate things such as a spouse, the ability to have children, or a college degree. The principle doesn’t limit its application to the thing being desired, rather it is the motivation behind the desire that counts.

Further, the prosperity gospel isn’t limited only to seed-faith or seed-sowing which is typically associated with giving money to a preacher or ministry in exchange for promises of health and wealth. The prosperity gospel boils down selfish gain and is rooted in greed. More often than not, the prosperity gospel is simply praying for something that you want from a carnal standpoint as opposed to praying God’s will.

Steven Furtick has been completely given over to the prosperity gospel. How often does Furtick preach about the holiness of God and the detrimental state of man before him? How often does he preach about sin? How often does he preach about shed blood of Jesus being the only hope for redemption and reconciliation to God the Father?

If ever, it’s few and far between. Rather, he’s preaching about Goliath having your sword — a twisting of the Scriptures. He’s preaching the heresy of Sabellian modalism — that the Trinity “changes forms” rather than existing co-eternally — as their website statement of faith declares. He’s praising sex-traffickers and glad-handing the rank heretic, T.D. Jakes with cold, hard cash. And he’s made it clear that sound doctrine is a thing that really doesn’t matter in his church — because it’s all about self-motivation and the “experience,” not Jesus Christ.



Steven Furtick has built an empire around a false gospel and from that has emerged a false Jesus. His church steers people away from the living God and resurrected Jesus Christ and lures them into their movement of self-idolatry. Elevation Church is not of God, it is a Synagogue of Satan. Elevation Church is from the pits of Hell.

_________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/12/steven-furtick-thinks-hes-jesus-says-satan-bruised-his-heel-as-he-was-crushing-his-head-on-stage/

SBC PRESIDENT PARTNERS WITH NANCY PELOSI'S RADICAL ANTI-SEMITIC ISLAMIC EXTREMIST TO PROMOTE MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN UNITY

SBC PRESIDENT PARTNERS WITH 

NANCY PELOSI'S RADICAL ANTI-SEMITIC ISLAMIC EXTREMIST TO PROMOTE 

MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN UNITY  

SEE: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/09/sbc-president-partners-with-nancy-pelosis-radical-anti-semitic-islamic-extremist-to-promote-muslim-christian-unity/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

J.D. Greear has been a completely different kind of president than any other Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) president in history. Greear’s political and theological progressive bent can be compared to that of the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church who has been the face of the liberal shift in conservative religious circles.



Greear has ushered in a new era for the denomination with his liberal rhetoric — from calling on Christians to stand up for LGBTQ rights to now calling on Christians to stand up for Islamic rights — he has helped move the denomination from a solid, biblical God-honoring foundation to one that defies the mission of the Church.

Last week, Greear met with Omar Sulieman, a radical Islamic leftist extremist who has been denounced by conservatives across the globe for his anti-semitic views and rhetoric. Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited him to give the opening prayer which was deemed a “terribly bad call” by Republicans. Sulieman has repeatedly called for the Third Intifada, an uprising of Palestinians against Israel and has cursed Zionists as the “enemies of God,” compared “apartheid Israel” to the “Nazis,” claimed that Gaza was enduring “a Holocaust,” denounced the “Israeli regime” as “terrorist,” and compared the Israeli army to the Taliban.

Sulieman is clearly and without a doubt a radical Islamic extremist who hates every Judeo-Christian, and has mesmerized undiscerning and unintelligent Christian leaders such as Greear and Matt Chandler.

During the meeting which was sponsored by the Veritas Forum and Neighborly Faith — ecumenical organizations that serve the purpose of seeking common ground between Christianity and paganism — and hosted at NC State, Greear and Sulieman discussed issues such as mutual suspicion between Christians and Muslims. It was clear that Greear is highly uneducated on Islam and especially the history of Sulieman himself.

During the meeting, Greear insisted that Christians should be fighting for the rights of Islamics to spread their false religion because, according to Greear, that’s what the parable of the Good Samaritan was about and that’s what Jesus “would do.”

Greear stands in opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2016 resolution that supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation and rejects any calls or advances to boycott the nation. By partnering with Sulieman, Greear gives tacit approval to Sulieman who supports The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

Bottom line, Greear shows his ineptness as a leader by sitting on stage, listening to this anti-Islamic, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian extremist lie and say he wishes for peace and buying into it indiscriminately all while throwing Christians who reject the Islamic radicalization of the West under the bus. Sulieman does not wish for peace, he wishes for the destruction of Israel, the destruction of American Western civilization, and the destruction of Christianity.

And he’s willing to lie to do it — and J.D. Greear is helping him.

_____________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/06/sbc-president-says-we-fight-for-rights-of-non-christian-religions-because-thats-what-jesus-did/

LATEST SBC FIASCO IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LEADERS IGNORE DISCERNMENT MINISTRIES

LATEST SBC FIASCO IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN LEADERS IGNORE DISCERNMENT MINISTRIES

SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2020/02/19/latest-sbc-fiasco-is-what-happens-when-leaders-ignore-discernment-ministries/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

David Uth was elected as SBC Pastors’ Conference President to the sound of thunderous applause. Nominated by leftward-drifting former SBC president James Merritt, father of prominent homosexual journalist Jonathan Merritt, Uth had already been on the radar of Pulpit & Pen for several years.

We first noted Uth’s penchant for inviting troublesome speakers to fill the pulpit when he had Seventh Day Adventist cultist Ben Carson to speak at his church, FBC Orlando, in June of 2014. After Ben Carson was invited – and then disinvited – to speak at the 2015 SBC meeting, we reported that it was David Uth who rebuked the Convention for being closed-minded. In June of 2016 we reported that David Uth invited pro-homosexual clergy to speak at his church after the Pulse nightclub shooting, and stood by applauding when a preacher said that homosexuals were the chief cornerstone of the church. His church then laid “hands of anointing” on homosexuals present, praying God to bless their lifestyle, a controversy that went on for weeks and ended with David Uth praying that God would take the lives of discerning Christians because they complain so much. We then reported the foolishness of Uth being chosen as the 2020 SBC Pastor’s Conference President in light of his history of inviting cultists and pro-gay preachers to speak from his pulpit (in a post with 37.4 thousand Facebook shares, it had wide circulation).

In a perfectly predictable fashion (in fact, we predicted it), Uth went on to stack the deck of the Pastors’ Conference with heterodox preachers including female pastors, pastors with females on their church’s pastoral staff, a crazy charismatic with a past of controversies (Jim Cymbala), and a man whose church engages in gimmickry that ranges from Storm Trooper choreographed dance to a Game of Thrones sermon series.

An orthodox speaker, let alone a Southern Baptist, could hardly be found in the lineup at all.

James Merrit, who foolishly nominated Uth, showed anger toward discerning Christians upset at the speaking lineup.The “poison pen” referred to by Merritt isn’t the writing of his flamingly homosexual son who writes leftist dribble regularly dripping with journalistic faggery, but discerning believers with polemics blogs. He thinks discernment is ruining the SBC and not his trash nomination for SBC Pastor’s Conference President.

In light of public outrage, the Executive Committee of the SBC has sandbagged the conference space until Uth changes the lineup to conform with Southern Baptist beliefs.

The real story here is that the Body of Christ has suffered because a large portion of SBC leadership has a visceral hatred for Christians gifted with spiritual discernment who warned and warned them about David Uth.

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us (Romans 12:4-6).

The Evangelical Intelligentsia has routinely ignored the pleas by an important segment of the Christian church…discerners. We have been treated like second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God, routinely mocked, ridiculed, maligned, marginalized, and attacked as though unworthy of being members in Jesus’ Body.

This giant mess of a problem caused by Uth’s speaker lineup was 100% avoidable and 100% predictable – if only SBC leaders had listened to discernment ministries like Pulpit & Pen and Justin Peters (who wrote a detailed series on the problems with David Uth). Instead, they chose to “kick against the pricks,” insisting on doing things with no regard for the opinion of people gifted with the ability to discern truth from error.

In fact, if truth be told, SBC leaders often do things, coalesce with people, and make decisions based upon what is likely to make discernment ministries upset (like hiring Karen Swallow Prior at Southeastern Seminary), almost as though they get a cheap thrill from it.

Each and every single time the Evangelical Intelligentsia chooses to ignore discernment ministries they suffer for it. That’s because they despise important members in the Body of Christ and detest wise counsel.

This latest controversy is caused by nothing but the arrogance of those who ignore polemics.

______________________________________________________________

REID HENRICHS' SPEECH AT VIRGINIA MILITIA MUSTER IN FRANKLIN COUNTY

REID HENRICHS' SPEECH AT VIRGINIA MILITIA MUSTER IN FRANKLIN COUNTY 

In this informative video, Reid Henrichs of Valor Ridge gives a speech at the Franklin County Militia muster. Representatives from the VCDL also spoke at the event.

92% OF NEW MUSLIM CANDIDATES WON'T EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTION; ONE MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN MAKES IT BIPARTISAN

92% OF NEW MUSLIM CANDIDATES WON'T EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR CONSTITUTION; 

ONE MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN MAKES IT BIPARTISAN 

BY STEPHEN M. KIRBY

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/03/92-of-new-muslim-candidates-wont-express-support-for-constitution-one-mn-republican-makes-it-bipartisan; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes.

(CAIR Report 2013, Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, p. ix)

In January 2020, I wrote about the results of a survey I had done in which I presented four questions to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States; each question asked the Muslim public official to choose between following the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws or Islamic Doctrine.  An eye-opening 93% of these Muslim public officials would not express support for the U.S. Constitution or our man-made laws.  Of the six who did express this support, only two allowed me to mention their name.[1]

I also submitted these same four questions to seven prominent Muslim Americans who have been publicly aspiring to reform Islam; I sent four similar questions, based on Canadian law, to six prominent Muslim Canadians who had also been publicly aspiring to reform Islam.  Of these thirteen aspiring reformers, only two Muslim Americans and one Muslim Canadian responded saying they supported man-made laws over the commands of Allah and the teachings of Muhammad.[2]

I then decided to submit the same four questions to 36 Muslim American candidates who appeared to be seeking public office for the first time.[3]

We shall first look at the four questions I used and then examine the variety of responses I received from those Muslims seeking public office.  I then list the Muslim candidates, by State, who did not respond.  This is followed by my concluding remarks.

The Questions

On February 10, 2020, I sent the following e-mail to a group of 36 Muslims who were running, or had been running, for public office at various levels of government across the United States; on February 17th I sent it again to the Muslims who had not initially responded:[4]

I have written extensively about Islam (six books and numerous articles and brochures) and think it important that non-Muslims gain a better understanding of Islam.

 If you are elected to public office you will take an oath of office that includes swearing, or affirming, to support the United States Constitution.  With that in mind, I am interested in your response, as a candidate who follows the religion of Islam, to the following questions:

No. 1:  Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?

No. 2:  Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all.  Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?

No. 3:  According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft.   But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this.  Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?

No. 4:  According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives.  Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws.  Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?

I look forward to your responses.

Support for the U.S. Constitution

Only three Muslim candidates clearly stated that they would support the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws over Islamic Doctrine; they each gave me permission to use their name:

Deedra Abboudd (D), Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Arizona

Iman-Utopia Layjou Bah (I), U.S. House of Representatives (AZ-2)

Rashid Malik (D), U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)

Other Replies

I received various replies from five other Muslim candidates:

Leila Shukri Adan (D), U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5):  On February 17th Adan responded to my second e-mail:

Thank you so much for your email and for the reminder.  I am confirming receipt and will get back to you soon!

I have not heard back from Adan.

Muhammad Arif (D), United States Senate, Arizona:  Arif responded the same day to the February 10th e-mail.  He asked if we could meet for coffee or lunch to discuss the questions.  I explained that I lived too far away for that.  We exchanged several additional e-mails, and on February 11th he wrote:

Since you do not live in Arizona and I’m busy in my campaign because I have limited time … can I email you these answer [sic] next week … I apologize for delay [sic] because the questions I have to read carefully and answer in details [sic]

I replied that would be fine.  The “next week” came and went, and on February 22nd I sent him an e-mail asking when I could expect his responses.  I have not heard back from Arif.

Zainab Baloch (D), Mayor of Raleigh, North Carolina:  Baloch lost the 2019 general election to become the Mayor of Raleigh.  However, her subsequent social postings appeared to indicate that she was in politics for the long haul; she had written: “This isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.”  On February 17th she responded to my second e-mail:

I didn’t miss it [my first e-mail]. If I have time to respond to your harassing questions, I will. Have a great week!

I have not heard back from Baloch.

Ameena Matthews (D), U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1):  On February 24th, in reply to my second e-mail, I received the following from Dr. La’Shawn Littrice, Matthews’ Campaign Manager:

Hi, Steve. How are you?  I will forward this to Dr. Matthews and get it back to you by Wednesday [February 26th] of this week.

On February 28th I sent Littrice an e-mail asking her for an update.  I have not heard back from Littrice.

Reem Subei (D), Ohio State Senate:   In response to each of the two e-mails I sent Subei, I received the following form response:

Thank you for contacting Reem for Ohio. This campaign is about bringing justice and equality to all. Please click the link below to provide us with your preferred volunteering activity. Let’s build a system that works for everyone, because we all win when we all win. 

The link takes one to a form for volunteers to complete.  I have received no other response from Subei.

No Reply

These Muslim candidates did not reply:

California

Kaisar Ahmed (Nonpartisan) – San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors

Shahid Buttar (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-12)

Fatima Shahnaz Iqbal-Zubair (D) – California State Assembly

Cenk Uygur (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (CA-25)

Colorado

Iman Jodeh (D) – Colorado State House of Representatives

Delaware

Madinah Wilson-Anton (D) – Delaware State House of Delegates

Georgia

Nabilah Islam (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (GA-7)

Illinois

Junaid “J” Afeef (D) – Kane County State’s Attorney

Rush Darwish (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-3)

Mohammed Faheem (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)

Sarah Gad (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-1)

Inam Hussain (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (IL-8)

Moon Khan (D) – Circuit Court Clerk, DuPage County

Azam Nizamuddin (D) – Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of DuPage County

Abdelnasser Rashid (D) – Cook County Board of Review

Maryland

Saafir Rabb (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MD-7)

Massachusetts

Ihssane Leckey (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MA-4)

Nichole Mossalam (D) – Massachusetts State House of Representatives

Michigan

Solomon Rajput (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (MI-12)

Minnesota

Dalia Al-Aqidi (R) – U.S. House of Representatives (MN-5)

Omar Fateh (D) – Minnesota State Senate

New Jersey

Alp Basaran (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NJ-9)

New York

Tahanie Aboushi (D) – Manhattan District Attorney

Shaniyat Chowdhury (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-5)

Mary Jobaida (D) – New York State Assembly

Badrun Nahar Khan (D) – U.S. House of Representatives (NY-14)

Zohran Kwame Mamdani (D) – New York State Assembly

Ohio

Mohamud Jama (D) – Ohio State House of Representatives

Conclusion

These 36 Muslim Americans seeking public office would have to, if successful, take an oath of office that includes swearing (or affirming) to support the U.S. Constitution.  In theory then, one would think such Muslim Americans would be quite willing even now to express their support for that Constitution and our man-made laws.  The fact that 92% of them would not take this opportunity to express that support is troubling.

Troubling, but not surprising.  As we saw earlier, 93% of current Muslim public officials and 77% of aspiring Muslim reformers also declined to make such a choice.  This, in spite of the fact that anyone holding a public office in the United States is required to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, and we regularly hear from aspiring Muslim reformers that Islamic Doctrine needs to be modernized and made more compatible with Western laws.  But when faced with specific choices, instead of glittering generalities, 91% of all the Muslims listed in these three categories would not express support for Western laws over Islamic Doctrine.

One might wonder if it is fair to ask Muslims to make such a choice.  It certainly is because of the irreconcilable conflict between major tenets of Islamic Doctrine and Western Laws, especially the U.S. Constitution.[5]

Here is an additional consideration.  In its 2020 ‘Muslim Vote Campaign’ the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has included a questionnaire asking non-Muslim candidates and government officials whether or not they support specific “Muslim needs.”  CAIR explained:

CAIR’s 2020 questionnaire is an update to its 2016 questionnaire and provides sample questions for Muslims to ask local city council, mayoral, state legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates running for office and government officials.

Candidate responses to CAIR’s election questionnaire will assist American Muslims in evaluating each candidate’s leadership criteria and their ability to unite and engage the community on policies and programs that meet Muslim needs.

The questions and the issues included in the questionnaire emphasize the American Muslim community’s concerns, as well as those of its civil rights, immigrant rights and worker rights allies.[6]

Here is a sampling of the issues about which the American Muslim community is concerned:[7]

1. Do you plan to address the rise in Islamophobia and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States?

2. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for religious headwear, like hijabs, kufis, and other head coverings?

3. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for copies of the Quran and other religious texts, prayer mats, prayer beads, and other religious items?

4. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for modified meal schedules while fasting during Ramadan?

5. Do you support the right of Muslim inmates to make religious accommodation requests for daily congregational prayers and Friday religious services?

6. Do you support public school systems with significant Muslim populations in your congressional district and/or state closing for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, when many students or faculty would otherwise be absent?

The focus of CAIR’s questions is on the need for non-Muslims to accommodate certain Islamic religious teachings.  Since CAIR has turned the focus on certain Islamic religious teachings, it is only appropriate that the focus should now be turned on all Islamic religious teachings, especially those that are irreconcilably in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws.  Muslims running for and holding public office need to be asked about these conflicts and expected to publicly, categorically choose between the U.S. Constitution/our man-made laws and those contradictory teachings of their religion.

We need to pay heed to these words of Winston Churchill from 1940:

This is no time for ease and comfort.  It is the time to dare and endure.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

[1]           Stephen M. Kirby, “93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold,” Jihad Watch, January 7, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/93-of-muslim-public-officials-would-not-express-support-for-the-constitution-they-swore-to-uphold.

[2]           Stephen M. Kirby, “The Adventures of Asking Muslim Reformers to Categorically Choose between Western Laws and Islam,” Jihad Watch, January 16, 2020, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/the-adventures-of-asking-muslim-reformers-to-categorically-choose-between-western-laws-and-islam.

[3]           I would like to thank Deplorable Kel for a majority of these names: https://deplorablekel.com/category/u-s-elections/2020-election/.

[4]           These questions were taken from Chapter 10 of my latest book, Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019); https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/12/03/csp-press-releases-primer-on-islamic-doctrine-versus-the-u-s-constitution/.

[5]           For details about this irreconcilable conflict see Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.  For ways in which Islamic Doctrine allows Muslims to appear to take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and our man-made laws, see Chapter 1, “Taking the Oath of Office.”

[6]           “CAIR Launches 2020 ‘Muslims Vote’ Campaign with Release of Candidate Questionnaire, Calendar of Election Dates,” CAIR, January 21, 2020, https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-launches-2020-muslims-vote-campaign-with-release-of-candidate-questionnaire-calendar-of-election-dates/.

[7]           “Sample Questions for Candidates and Public Officials,” CAIR, 2020, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cairhq/pages/1125/attachments/original/1579621884/2020_Sample_Questions.pdf?1579621884.

GERMANY: COURT RULES AGAINST HIJAB IN COURTROOMS; SMASHES EFFORT TO "ENSHRINE SHARIA LAW IN GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM"

GERMANY: COURT RULES AGAINST HIJAB 

IN COURTROOMS; SMASHES EFFORT TO "ENSHRINE SHARIA LAW IN GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM" 

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/03/germany-court-rules-against-hijab-in-courtrooms-smashes-effort-to-enshrine-sharia-law-in-german-legal-system; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has made a groundbreaking ruling which has favored the constitutional rights of the people over the argument of religious rights of Muslim women to wear the Islamic headscarf in German courtrooms.

The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.

Some, like the author below, believe that “the court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.” The Moroccan law student’s lawyer has called the ban “tantamount to a declaration of war.” And that it is. The tenets of Islam mandate war between disbelieving countries (dar al harb) and Muslim ones (dar al Islam). There is an ongoing effort in Western countries to impose Islamic values; the two main areas of conflict have been the Islamic veil and free speech.

It isn’t enough that human rights abuses against women and religious minorities are a norm in Sharia states. Those who uphold the sharia — regarded as divine, immutable law in Islam — want to see Sharia imposed globally. This is a tenet of the Islamic faith.



“German Court Blocks Attempt to Enshrine Sharia Law,” by Soeren Kern, Jewish Voice, March 5, 2020:


Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms of Muslims can be curtailed if public displays of religiosity — in this case wearing Islamic headscarves in German courtrooms — endanger the ideological and religious neutrality of the state.

The court’s landmark ruling effectively smashes a backdoor effort to enshrine Sharia law into the German legal system.

The case involves a 38-year-old German-Moroccan law student who was born in Frankfurt and customarily wears a headscarf in public. In January 2017, she began legal training in the German state of Hesse, where the law bans any expression of religion in its courtrooms for judges, lawyers and legal trainees.

According to the law, legal trainees (Rechtsreferendar) are allowed to wear a headscarf — except when they are performing certain official tasks in which they serve as representatives of the judiciary or the state. This means, for instance, that trainee lawyers are not allowed to wear a headscarf when presiding over a hearing, taking evidence or representing the public prosecution office.

The complainant filed a lawsuit claiming that the headscarf ban interfered with her right to freedom of religion. She argued that she was being forced to choose between performing the intended tasks or fulfilling a religious clothing requirement that she considers imperative.

The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) ruled that, according to the law in Hesse, legal trainees have a duty to conduct themselves neutrally with respect to religion and that, when wearing a headscarf, the complainant was therefore barred from performing any tasks in the course of which she might be perceived as being a representative of the justice system or the state.

The complainant filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Hesse Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). She then filed an appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court, which affirmed the lower court rulings. In a statement published on February 27, 2020, the high court explained:

“The principle of the state’s religious and ideological neutrality can be considered a constitutional interest that may justify an interference with freedom of religion in this case. The state’s duty to be neutral necessarily also entails a duty for public officials to be neutral since the state can only act through individuals. However, when public officials exercise their fundamental rights as private individuals in the performance of their duties, this cannot be attributed to the state in every case. Yet it can potentially be attributed to the state in cases where the state has specific influence on the visible character of an official act — as is the case in the justice system.

“Freedom of religion can be subject to a further constitutional limitation inherent in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz): the proper functioning of the justice system in general, which is one of the essential elements underpinning the rule of law and is firmly rooted in the values enshrined in the Basic Law, given that every court decision ultimately serves to safeguard fundamental rights.

“The proper functioning of the justice system requires that society not only place trust in individual judges, but also in the justice system in general. It is true that it will not be possible to achieve absolute trust among the entire population. However, it falls to the state to improve levels of trust. In the present case, the negative freedom of religion afforded parties to legal proceedings is also an argument in favor of the ban on wearing a headscarf.

“In the justice system, the state exercises public authority vis-à-vis the individual in the classic hierarchical sense, which gives rise to more serious impairments than public authority exercised in interdenominational state schools, which are meant to reflect society’s pluralism in religious matters….

“From a constitutional-law perspective, the legislature’s decision to establish a duty of neutral conduct with respect to ideological and religious matters for legal trainees must therefore be respected….

“In support of the complainant’s position, it must be taken into consideration that to her, the headscarf is not only a sign of affiliation with a certain religious group that could be taken off at any time — like, for example, the cross worn on a necklace. Rather, wearing the headscarf to her means fulfilling a requirement that she considers imperative. As there is no similarly widespread equivalent requirement in the Christian faith, a general ban on manifestations of religious belief has a stronger impact on the complainant than on other religious public officials….

“In support of the constitutionality of the ban, it must be taken into consideration that it is limited to a few individual tasks. The ban applies where legal trainees perform judicial tasks, represent the public prosecution office in trial hearings and take on quasi-judicial roles. In doing so, legal trainees — like civil servants — must represent the values that the Basic Law lays down for the justice system.”

Hesse’s Minister of Justice Eva Kühne-Hörmann (CDU) described the ruling as “groundbreaking” (wegweisend):

“With this groundbreaking decision, the court sent an important signal in favor of the ideological neutrality of state institutions. Especially in today’s society, in which people from many countries around the world live with different cultural biographies and also with different religions, the state order must place more value than ever on its ideological neutrality. This is only possible if the state parties to judicial proceedings are not allowed to show religious insignia.”…