Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
No, that is a gross oversimplification.
Rather, the Constitution protects certain basic rights of everyone against the tyranny of the majority. There are some rights we believe everyone should get no matter who is running the government.
That's the whole point of having the First Amendment.
Yes, so?
More like they developed some guidelines and established some precedent, so there just aren't that many cases that get litigated on the topic anymore. That's the genius of stare decisis.
I can pick anecdotes as well as anyone, but since you asked, the Tiza case (which is what I was talking about) is in settlement negotiations, IOW, the ACLU is forcing them to back off.
Yes, WHEN THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW. You do understand the difference between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, don't you? I wonder. The ACLU will defend Muslims - and anyone else - on Free Exercise grounds. They will also go after the same people when they try to violate the Establishment clause, as Tiza did.
It's really not that hard to undersrtand
It has nothing to do with atheists. And I think you see what you want to see, and not much else.
Yes, it can. And so what. As long as the Constitution is followed it doesn't matter.
The free exercise of Islam as a faith, will also incorporate into it, the right to representation under Sharia law, which is also their religion. (not over simplification, simple as it is though)
How is it we are any different from Canada and Europe, who have made this change within their legal systems to support Sharia?
The Constitution is a document that is open to interpretation by the Supreme Court. No one today knows what the word, 'establishment' means, as it pertains to that document. That's why the letter was needed and they used that to interpret, that one simple little word.
ACLU web site has a search field. Type in Muslim cases, then type in Christian cases, compare the types of cases they take on and support and that which they fight against.
A Muslim is not going to be told not to wear their headgear in a court house, but a Christian will be told not to pray there. The free exercise clause as practiced in today's society.
ACLU support the Muslim; Christian, not so much.
As for as the rest, as in all things, time will tell.
As partnerships are formed and collaborators established, we will find out soon enough, what will be.
In a test of wills, (which is what this is) Americans do not stand a chance, because America does not stand any more, she sways in the name of acceptance. America is not a united country in ideals or principles on which to stand. The foundation it once had has been chipped away at throughout the past 100 years, to where there is no simulation of, in the strength that was and even that strength that is now debated in the present century, so that know one knows were the truth in anything is any more. America falters while Islam observes.
We will sit down with them and have a tea party, while all the while they smile to our face; within their minds, the plot grows thicker. They do not trust us! and they never will.
I can't say as I blame them as America hasn't their mind made up yet, which principles it will use to proceed into the future. We fight among ourselves, like siblings.
We should withdraw our support from the middle east and come home. It's past time already. Secure our homeland and go about our business as usual and leave them alone already. Stop trying to do business with people who do not trust us. How many times does that have to fail, before we just go fine. Don't call us and we won't call you.
In how many ways do they have to express---we do not like you America, before we get their message.
It appears many people can not understand simple communication any more and since their minds must over complicate it---I guess they will be telling us the same thing over and over again, for a long long time, before, if ever, it will begin to sink in--by that time, it won't matter, any more.
The free exercise of Islam as a faith, will also incorporate into it, the right to representation under Sharia law, which is also their religion. (not over simplification, simple as it is though)
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It depends on the particular Muslim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
How is it we are any different from Canada and Europe, who have made this change within their legal systems to support Sharia?
You misrepresent the supposed incorporation of Shari'a into European or Canadian legal systems. Allowing Muslims to settle some civil issues through internal mediation is hardly some sort of surrender to "Islamic law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
The Constitution is a document that is open to interpretation by the Supreme Court. No one today knows what the word, 'establishment' means, as it pertains to that document. That's why the letter was needed and they used that to interpret, that one simple little word.
The establishment clause is one of the most heavily litigated constitutional provisions that exists. Simply because people insist on continuing to challenge it does not mean it is not well understood by those tasked with "interpreting" it.
To believe that most Shar'ia could ever conform to western culture and law, or that there is a genuine risk of loss of our own rights and privileges as a result is too silly to even qualify as "alarmist." It is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
ACLU web site has a search field. Type in Muslim cases, then type in Christian cases, compare the types of cases they take on and support and that which they fight against.
They take the "types of cases" that present themselves. I would suggest that the lack of the sort of cases you prefer is more indicative of the imaginary nature of your concerns than a particular sectarian agenda on the part of the ACLU.
The free exercise of Islam as a faith, will also incorporate into it, the right to representation under Sharia law, which is also their religion. (not over simplification, simple as it is though)
Free exercise doesn't mean they get to opt out of the Bill of Rights, because we have the Establishment clause.
Quote:
How is it we are any different from Canada and Europe, who have made this change within their legal systems to support Sharia?
Because we have an Establishment clause...
Quote:
The Constitution is a document that is open to interpretation by the Supreme Court.
To a certain extent, as it should be. It has to be construed and interpreted in the context of our times to remain relevant.
[quoe]No one today knows what the word, 'establishment' means, as it pertains to that document. That's why the letter was needed and they used that to interpret, that one simple little word.[/quote]
Argumentam ad ignorantum. We have defined and refined the meaning of it in many dozens of cases. We've got a better understanding of it now than anyone ever did when it was written. Again, that's one of the great things about our "organic" common-law legal system.
Quote:
ACLU web site has a search field. Type in Muslim cases, then type in Christian cases, compare the types of cases they take on and support and that which they fight against.
Sigh.
This is a silly and illogical argument. The ACLU defends ANY religion on Free Exercise grounds. The ACLU Fights for Christians - here is a list of dozens of cases of them DEFENDING Christians...
They also have a lot more cases AGAINST Christians under the Establishment clause. This is a function of demographics. Christianity is far and away the majority religion, so it is only natural that it should be involved in the majority of Establishment clause cases. Recently, Muslims have gained some majority in small, localized areas (like parts of Dearborn, MI). And guess what? Now they are running afoul of Establishment, and the ACLU is after them for it.
So your "search their website" argument really isn't an argument. It is a misinterpretation of the facts, based on an ignorance of the law and how it works in this area.
I really think you do not understand how the Establishment clause works.
Quote:
A Muslim is not going to be told not to wear their headgear in a court house, but a Christian will be told not to pray there. The free exercise clause as practiced in today's society.
That's not how it works at all. You are very misinformed about this subject.
Quote:
ACLU support the Muslim; Christian, not so much.
They support both in Free Exercise cases, they fight against both in Establishment clause cases.
Here is the ACLU going after Muslims:
ACLU-MN v TIZA :: ACLU of Minnesota (http://www.aclu-mn.org/legal/casedocket/aclumnvtiza.htm - broken link)
See my point above about demographics.
Again, you do not seem to understand the difference, and this lack of understanding leads you to erroneous conclusions.
Quote:
As for as the rest, as in all things, time will tell.
As partnerships are formed and collaborators established, we will find out soon enough, what will be.
Is that you, Tailgunner Joe?
Quote:
In a test of wills, (which is what this is) Americans do not stand a chance, because America does not stand any more, she sways in the name of acceptance.
You really don't get it.
Quote:
America is not a united country in ideals or principles on which to stand.
Sure we are. We have differences of opinion, of course. Who is telling you this nonsense?
I'd really love to know where you get all these ideas.
Quote:
The foundation it once had has been chipped away at throughout the past 100 years, to where there is no simulation of, in the strength that was and even that strength that is now debated in the present century, so that know one knows were the truth in anything is any more. America falters while Islam observes.
Assuming your paranoia has some basis in fact, just what do you propose we do about it? Bomb some shepherds? Amend the Constitution?
Internment camps?
Quote:
We will sit down with them and have a tea party, while all the while they smile to our face; within their minds, the plot grows thicker. They do not trust us! and they never will.
Irrelevant. Trust isn't an issue where the law is clear.
Quote:
I can't say as I blame them as America hasn't their mind made up yet, which principles it will use to proceed into the future. We fight among ourselves, like siblings.
You have a very bad attitude.
Quote:
We should withdraw our support from the middle east and come home. It's past time already. Secure our homeland and go about our business as usual and leave them alone already. Stop trying to do business with people who do not trust us. How many times does that have to fail, before we just go fine. Don't call us and we won't call you.
Then do what you can to support getting us off oil, because that's the only reason we give a damn about them. In the meantime, we don't really have a choice but to do business with them.
So we might as well figure out good ways to do that, instead of perpetually pissing them off.
Quote:
In how many ways do they have to express---we do not like you America, before we get their message.
It appears many people can not understand simple communication any more and since their minds must over complicate it---I guess they will be telling us the same thing over and over again, for a long long time, before, if ever, it will begin to sink in--by that time, it won't matter, any more.
Yes, we know. They don't like us.
Point is, you credit them with capabilities that they don't have.
Our culture will win in the end, in fact it already is. That's why they are so defensive.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,593,334 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Free exercise doesn't mean they get to opt out of the Bill of Rights, because we have the Establishment clause.
Because we have an Establishment clause...
To a certain extent, as it should be. It has to be construed and interpreted in the context of our times to remain relevant.
Quote:
No one today knows what the word, 'establishment' means, as it pertains to that document. That's why the letter was needed and they used that to interpret, that one simple little word.
Argumentam ad ignorantum. We have defined and refined the meaning of it in many dozens of cases. We've got a better understanding of it now than anyone ever did when it was written. Again, that's one of the great things about our "organic" common-law legal system.
Sigh.
This is a silly and illogical argument. The ACLU defends ANY religion on Free Exercise grounds. The ACLU Fights for Christians - here is a list of dozens of cases of them DEFENDING Christians...
They also have a lot more cases AGAINST Christians under the Establishment clause. This is a function of demographics. Christianity is far and away the majority religion, so it is only natural that it should be involved in the majority of Establishment clause cases. Recently, Muslims have gained some majority in small, localized areas (like parts of Dearborn, MI). And guess what? Now they are running afoul of Establishment, and the ACLU is after them for it.
So your "search their website" argument really isn't an argument. It is a misinterpretation of the facts, based on an ignorance of the law and how it works in this area.
I really think you do not understand how the Establishment clause works.
That's not how it works at all. You are very misinformed about this subject.
They support both in Free Exercise cases, they fight against both in Establishment clause cases.
Here is the ACLU going after Muslims:
ACLU-MN v TIZA :: ACLU of Minnesota (http://www.aclu-mn.org/legal/casedocket/aclumnvtiza.htm - broken link)
See my point above about demographics.
Again, you do not seem to understand the difference, and this lack of understanding leads you to erroneous conclusions.
Is that you, Tailgunner Joe?
You really don't get it.
Sure we are. We have differences of opinion, of course. Who is telling you this nonsense?
I'd really love to know where you get all these ideas.
Assuming your paranoia has some basis in fact, just what do you propose we do about it? Bomb some shepherds? Amend the Constitution?
Internment camps?
Irrelevant. Trust isn't an issue where the law is clear.
You have a very bad attitude.
Then do what you can to support getting us off oil, because that's the only reason we give a damn about them. In the meantime, we don't really have a choice but to do business with them.
So we might as well figure out good ways to do that, instead of perpetually pissing them off.
Yes, we know. They don't like us.
Point is, you credit them with capabilities that they don't have.
Our culture will win in the end, in fact it already is. That's why they are so defensive.
I understand the word 'establishment' from both sides of the argument. Many people only see one side of the argument.
Others can go to the ACLU website and come to their own understanding as well.
Quote:
I'd really love to know where you get all these ideas.
From reading the posters on c-d and listening to their words.
Quote:
You have a very bad attitude.
A practical one. Tell me do you often go to the home of a person that has nothing but contempt for you? The same should be applied to the middle east. Our government should stop talking to them, as silence is golden. More headway would be made this way, than any other way, because it is something we have never done before. It would spin their little heads around 180 degrees.
Quote:
Our culture will win in the end, in fact it already is. That's why they are so defensive.
They are not defensive at all. Where do you get that from? They do not make defensive statements, they make observation ones and it is their observation that America is weak. Weakened by a moral fabric in which to stand on. We haven't a concrete foundation for our boots anymore.
Quote:
In the meantime, we don't really have a choice but to do business with them.
That is what our government who has their agenda, would like for us to believe.
Quote:
Assuming your paranoia has some basis in fact, just what do you propose we do about it? Bomb some shepherds? Amend the Constitution?
I already said what I would do. However, you are inferring through your question comment a short sighted solution.
Quote:
Point is, you credit them with capabilities that they don't have.
What is it you are saying here, about Islam and the Middle East?
We've tried much more over time. What part of go away, does America not get. We should try that. Never know, it just might work. Listen to what they say, not what we want to hear. What a concept....
I understand the word 'establishment' from both sides of the argument. Many people only see one side of the argument.
I have no idea what this means. I know that it means what the SCOTUS says it means.
Quote:
Others can go to the ACLU website and come to their own understanding as well.
Your argument was pretty silly, actonbell. Argument by search engine isn't logical.
Quote:
From reading the posters on c-d and listening to their words.
Now that is scary.
Quote:
A practical one. Tell me do you often go to the home of a person that has nothing but contempt for you?
Actually, yes. My job requires that I have to deal with people in a confrontational, argumentative context. But unlike jeffington, I try not to be an a**hole about it.
Quote:
The same should be applied to the middle east. Our government should stop talking to them, as silence is golden. More headway would be made this way, than any other way, because it is something we have never done before. It would spin their little heads around 180 degrees.
I agree with the sentiment, but it's not practical to ignore them at this point in history, and as long as we are addicted to oil, it's not in our best interests to be at war with them, either.
When they run out of oil, they'll have nothing but sand.
Quote:
They are not defensive at all. Where do you get that from? They do not make defensive statements, they make observation ones and it is their observation that America is weak.
Have you read anything that Al-Qaeda puts out? They are terrified of us. Their whole way of life, their religion, their political philosophy is threatened by the West, and always has been. They're still crying from the Battle of Lepanto.
We're winning the economic and culture war and they know it. Hence their acts of desperation.
Quote:
Weakened by a moral fabric in which to stand on. We haven't a concrete foundation for our boots anymore. That is what our government who has their agenda, would like for us to believe.
I've not seen you post anything to make anyone believe otherwise. You do know where most of the world's oil is, right?
Quote:
I already said what I would do. However, you are inferring through your question comment a short sighted solution.
What is it you are saying here, about Islam and the Middle East?
We've tried much more over time. What part of go away, does America not get. We should try that. Never know, it just might work. Listen to what they say, not what we want to hear. What a concept....
Because WE CAN'T, for practical reasons that you conveniently ignore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that you, Tailgunner Joe?