Thread: Should HR5824 Be Made Law ?

" Should HR5824 Be Made Law ? "

* Under Mining Despot Mind Influences *

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/h...14hr5824ih.pdf

No Saudi money for American mosques | TheHill

An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.

Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the “Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act,” makes it unlawful for “foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.” Hello, Saudi Arabia!

To “promote a religion” includes funding “religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.” Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

To provide that it shall be unlawful for foreign nationals of a country
that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any
expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United
States, and for other purposes.

No. This is stupid.

Either you believe in fundamental principles that apply to everyone, or you don't believe in fundamental principles at all.

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

" Should HR5824 Be Made Law ? "

* Under Mining Despot Mind Influences *

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/h...14hr5824ih.pdf

No Saudi money for American mosques | TheHill

Useless. Not remotely governable, nevertheless enforceable.

" Nice Hue Respond Fore "

Originally Posted by StanStill

To provide that it shall be unlawful for foreign nationals of a country
that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any
expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United
States, and for other purposes.

No. This is stupid.
Either you believe in fundamental principles that apply to everyone, or you don't believe in fundamental principles at all.

* Profile Poaching *

Given that qurayshism along with torahnism are foundations for nomian legal systems and extant of each respective city state , hejaz and israel , non nomian legal systems apply deductively establishing individualism through non aggression principles .

Whence , lauding democracy espousing tyranny through majority violates the us tenth amendment against its establishment of citizen individualism , while also non aggression principles would be violated against individual self ownership and self determination .

Whence , lauding nomian legal systems within a premise for non nomian legal systems begets an additional inquiry which is whether any nomian declaration includes precepts against non aggression principles ?

Whence , literal directives exist to establish city states of israel along with hejaz , even through violence , where its kindred clad lineages would coalesce to ensure a continuance of eponymous patriarchs ishmael or isaac with a religious polity .

Whence , if a presumption for an establishment of a nomian legal system that includes directives to establish its precepts through violence is also presumed outside of some boundary or barrier , given a poorly examined history although clear indication of ideological pogroms , where is a non nomian legal system based in non aggression principles expected to weigh in , where numbers translate into votes that translate into legislated public policy ?

Whence , according to non aggression principles , any threat or act of violence against self ownership or self determination of any other individual is illegitimate and subject to reprise or retort from a greater individual of state .

Whence , how long should ignorance maintain objectivity ?

Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?

Grounding remote individuals by directly relating an understanding for bases of public policy as well as behavioral rules of non aggression with entitlement for self defense is part of informed consent for a populous .


* Rituals Wrights Rights Writes Rites *

The allegories of ishmael or isaac with respect to birth rite creating angst contemplated murder sacrifice by abraham , as ishmael was settled in par ran , as isaac was settled in is ra el , and each birth allude to haploids of matriarchs distinct in kindred clad . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve .

Libertarianism forwards individualism along with its self ownership and self determination through negative liberties with degrees of informed consent .

Whether an individual is nimbus in emulating a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition , or whether an individual is astute in affirming a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition , one may satisfy a strong anthropic principle by replication of their haploid game meets ( gamete ) , even those decided from protein racemization ( race em is zation ) , which both emulates and affirms a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition .

Whence , heterogeneous populations may elect matrimonial arrangements based upon kindred haploid clads for those interested in species of hue mam on sent tie yet net .

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

" Nice Hue Respond Fore "


* Profile Poaching *

Given that qurayshism along with torahnism are foundations for nomian legal systems and extant of each respective city state , hejaz and israel , non nomian legal systems apply deductively establishing individualism through non aggression principles .

Whence , lauding democracy espousing tyranny through majority violates the us tenth amendment against its establishment of citizen individualism , while also non aggression principles would be violated against individual self ownership and self determination .

Whence , lauding nomian legal systems within a premise for non nomian legal systems begets an additional inquiry which is whether any nomian declaration includes precepts against non aggression principles ?

Whence , literal directives exist to establish city states of israel along with hejaz , even through violence , where its kindred clad lineages would coalesce to ensure a continuance of eponymous patriarchs ishmael or isaac with a religious polity .

Whence , if a presumption for an establishment of a nomian legal system that includes directives to establish its precepts through violence is also presumed outside of some boundary or barrier , given a poorly examined history although clear indication of ideological pogroms , where is a non nomian legal system based in non aggression principles expected to weigh in , where numbers translate into votes that translate into legislated public policy ?

Whence , according to non aggression principles , any threat or act of violence against self ownership or self determination of any other individual is illegitimate and subject to reprise or retort from a greater individual of state .

Whence , how long should ignorance maintain objectivity ?

Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ?

Grounding remote individuals by directly relating an understanding for bases of public policy as well as behavioral rules of non aggression with entitlement for self defense is part of informed consent for a populous .


* Rituals Wrights Rights Writes Rites *

The allegories of ishmael or isaac with respect to birth rite creating angst contemplated murder sacrifice by abraham , as ishmael was settled in par ran , as isaac was settled in is ra el , and each birth allude to haploids of matriarchs distinct in kindred clad . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve .

Libertarianism forwards individualism along with its self ownership and self determination through negative liberties with degrees of informed consent .

Whether an individual is nimbus in emulating a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition , or whether an individual is astute in affirming a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition , one may satisfy a strong anthropic principle by replication of their haploid game meets ( gamete ) , even those decided from protein racemization ( race em is zation ) , which both emulates and affirms a quality of infinitude , by being and becoming through some transition .

Whence , heterogeneous populations may elect matrimonial arrangements based upon kindred haploid clads for those interested in species of hue mam on sent tie yet net .

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

" Nice Hue Respond Fore "


* Profile Poaching *

blablah...qurayshism blablah... torahnism blablah... nomian legal systems blablah... blablah... blablah... hejaz and israel , blablah... blablah... blablah... blablah... non aggression principles .

etc.

I know I tease you a lot Monk-Eye, but I haven't given up on engaging you in an actual give-and-take conversational discussion wherein you read what I wrote, and reply much like you might to a person at a grocery store, or on the street when someone asks for directions. I don't know how such a conversation with you might go, but I'd like to find out. Perhaps this IS your casual conversation. If so, I think it's only because you insist on fighting your natural urge to simplify what you are saying such that someone besides yourself can understand it (that is, assuming you actually do, which I kind of doubt).

This looks to be something you spent many hours composing—a giant vocab obstacle course which seems to be hiding what are very simple concepts—the simplest of which is that you think universal principles should be applied on a case by case basis where deserved. In effect, you don't believe in universal principles. You don't believe that everyone should have right of free speech. You believe in a litmus test to assess whether someone is "of decent stock and breeding to deserve freedom".

You should try to think of language more like mathematics. It's pointless to say 4(1 – x) = 3(x + 1) – 2. You could if you like, but it makes a lot more sense to people to say x=3/7. You aren't really dazzling anyone but yourself with all the qurayshism and nomian this and that. That's all just fluff you are adding in to avoid having a discussion or revealing what lies beneath. You can do better.

Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12

Useless. Not remotely governable, nevertheless enforceable.

Quite correct. If a Muslim from Saudi Arabia comes to the U.S., and joins a typically moderate mosque that skips over the socially unacceptable aspects of the Q'uran (in the same way that most churches and temples skip over most of Leviticus), there's no reason that person can't participate in the mosque's outreach program.

It's also worth noting that due to the wording of the bill, a Christian from a Muslim country could not join a U.S. church, and participate in outreach programs.

" Standing Lunar Stocks Ticks "

Originally Posted by Djinn

Quite correct. If a Muslim from Saudi Arabia comes to the U.S., and joins a typically moderate mosque that skips over the socially unacceptable aspects of the Q'uran (in the same way that most churches and temples skip over most of Leviticus), there's no reason that person can't participate in the mosque's outreach program.

* Let Sustenance See Watt Ewe Got *

Oh please elaborate further about the socially unacceptable aspects .

Please contrast how the torah specifies geographic delineation for its genetic religion , while the qurayn indirectly vaguely specifies geographic delineation for its genetic religion .

Please elaborate on the term moderate - Which Moderate Mussel Men Aspect Imply Moderation Inn High Degree Moderation ? .


* Weigh Off Track *

As has been under stood four sum while , torahnism and qurayshism are genetic religions , as well as nomian legal systems , as the validity of its laws exercises against legal positivism based upon the name of the text authors or the text themselves .

It is that non nomian legal systems assert legal positivism against nomian legal systems .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism

Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence, largely developed by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century legal thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism and logical positivism set the theoretical foundations for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writing in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who in 1958 found common usages of "positivism" as applied to law to include the contentions that:
laws are commands of human beings
there is no necessary connection between law and morals—that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be
analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions
a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations
moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof ("noncognitivism" in ethics)[1]
Historically, legal positivism sits in opposition to natural law theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer's claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

* Inferring Dichotomy Syntax *

The directives upon those emigrating to the geographic region of israel seeking to follow a religious polity based upon torah from moses expecting self incumbent volition for its city state preserving an eponymous clad of patriarchal members , the summation of which represents a nomian legal system .

Clearly , a parallel could exist between the genetic religions of torahnism and of qurayshism , where kindred clad coalesce within a bounded geographic region for preservation of an eponymous patriarchal lineage accordingly governed by a religious polity founded upon a nomian designation of its texts or authors .

At issue for any to prove or disprove is that while christianity overlooks leviticus as applicable within israel , by definition fictional ishmaelism does not include such a parallel with its own ideology and believes it to apply universally that includes the violent directives there within included .

Originally Posted by Djinn

It's also worth noting that due to the wording of the bill, a Christian from a Muslim country could not join a U.S. church, and participate in outreach programs.

* Guidelines Policies *

Sew a program adaptable for evaluating the circumstances of propensity for violence from individuals would be satisfactory ?


* Careful With Wants Eugene *

I Slam Call It Fate Rift Origins Off Sunni Versus Shia

A conjecture is that the author of qurayshism found expectations from crestianity for universalism without actually understanding logical deductions from contrasts between nomian versus non nomian legal systems .

A conjecture is that the author of qurayshism found expectations for a vengeful jesus , which seems likely as necessary militancy of roman society became a systemic legacy for christian society .

A basis of informed consent is that individuals actually understand elements of an ideology they may be asserting without their actually understanding the basis of that ideology and thus exerting events by means of bandwagon herding .

A directive to kill and be killed is not a directive of the gospel new law .

http://www.quranonline.net/html/tran...ons/sah/9.html

9:111 Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

" Formally Conditioning Systemic Outcomes "

Originally Posted by StanStill

This looks to be something you spent many hours composing—a giant vocab obstacle course which seems to be hiding what are very simple concepts—the simplest of which is that you think universal principles should be applied on a case by case basis where deserved. In effect, you don't believe in universal principles. You don't believe that everyone should have right of free speech. You believe in a litmus test to assess whether someone is "of decent stock and breeding to deserve freedom".
...
You aren't really dazzling anyone but yourself with all the qurayshism and nomian this and that. That's all just fluff you are adding in to avoid having a discussion or revealing what lies beneath. You can do better.

* Flitting Pillow Kites *

Avoiding second person accusative could forestall missed characterization as such interpretations as those are clearly mistaken and absent an accurate understanding for political science principles as applied through exemplified verses of terms and inferences .

* Other Wise *

That which lies beneath wrestles with naturalism and mortality to be subsumed and engraved " forsaken futures forever forgotten feeling fates " .


* Bonus Work *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_logic_articles

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

" Formally Conditioning Systemic Outcomes "

* Flitting Pillow Kites *

Avoiding second person accusative could forestall missed characterization as such interpretations as those are clearly mistaken and absent an accurate understanding for political science principles as applied through exemplified verses of terms and inferences .

* Other Wise *

That which lies beneath wrestles with naturalism and mortality to be subsumed and engraved " forsaken futures forever forgotten feeling fates " .


* Bonus Work *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_logic_articles

That is a very colorful quoting of what I said, along with some additional wording you added in leiu of an actual response. I can only glean what your intentions are, as they are so obscured by vocab acrobatics and flourishes. I'm not sure why you are upset with my referring to you in my responses.

Were you intending to never give us your opinions of this proposed law? I really am interested. Perhaps I got ahead of myself by trying to decode your intentions.

Also—and I've wanted to say this for a long time—but your signature is one of the most profound things I've read on this forum. I'm not just saying that to butter you up so that you'll respond. I'm serious.