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.
Wrong. The body of the constitution limits the power of government. The first ten amendments, the bill of rights, specifically protects certain rights of the people from government intrusion. As for the first part of the First Amendment, it protects people from religion.
This sounds contradictory. But anyway, which part of the First Amendment exactly are you saying "protects people from religion"? Because I'm not seeing it. Here is the text:
"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."
This is not protecting people from religion at all; it's protecting people's expression of religion. The only thing you can say (and actually back up) is that government cannot favor one religion through laws made by Congress.
But again, it hasn't been established by any reputable source that this is relevant to Muslims in general, and it certainly doesn't justify closing our borders to them for any length of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
And I could care less if eliminating the protection for dogmatic, violent, discriminatory religions could also include christianity and judiasm. But I suppose that would be for the courts to decide after we amend the constitution.
But being pretty sure (as we are) that the courts would not agree to eliminate protection for Christianity (depending again on what you mean by this), don't you think it'd be irresponsible and another example of blatant hypocrisy to go after Islam because it in and of itself is supposedly so bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
The government would not tell you what religion to follow, it would simply outlaw craziness.
Lol, "craziness" as their personal faith/beliefs define in a subjective way. Meaning they would get to tell us what religion to follow. And some would argue that all religions or even all faiths of any kind = craziness. Take the belief in destiny... What is there to suggest there is such a thing as destiny? Or an afterlife? Couldn't one argue that these are symptoms of craziness, to believe in things we have no real evidence of?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
I prefer my son does not live in a country where people try to make women wear complete covering in public, where men pick "brides" of 11 years old and where people endorse and support blowing up children in the name of a religion.
There is nothing to suggest America is headed that way, even if we were to assume (out of nowhere) that the majority of Muslim Americans or would-be Muslim immigrants are in favor of any of it.
I'm in a cranky mood tonight, so that being said...screw them...... tired of all this PC bullcrap we have to go thru........... Muslims want to live likes it's the 12ths century, fine... go hang out with the goats in the desert and keep selling off all of your 12 yr old daughters under the guise that Mohammad is cool with it......
There is an online petition to stop and ban immigration from Islamic nations to the United States after the Boston bombings and other radical Muslim terror against the U.S. and the west.
What do you think?
Ban Israel. Problem solved. But you won't see that on CNN. I'm surrounded by brainwashed idiots.
Stop dual-citizen Israelis like Chertoff and the usual suspects from holding sensitive positions in the U.S. government. Problem solved. Follow the "funny" money. Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
This sounds contradictory. But anyway, which part of the First Amendment exactly are you saying "protects people from religion"? Because I'm not seeing it. Here is the text:
"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."
This is not protecting people from religion at all; it's protecting people's expression of religion. The only thing you can say (and actually back up) is that government cannot favor one religion through laws made by Congress.
But again, it hasn't been established by any reputable source that this is relevant to Muslims in general, and it certainly doesn't justify closing our borders to them for any length of time.
But being pretty sure (as we are) that the courts would not agree to eliminate protection for Christianity (depending again on what you mean by this), don't you think it'd be irresponsible and another example of blatant hypocrisy to go after Islam because it in and of itself is supposedly so bad?
Lol, "craziness" as their personal faith/beliefs define in a subjective way. Meaning they would get to tell us what religion to follow. And some would argue that all religions or even all faiths of any kind = craziness. Take the belief in destiny... What is there to suggest there is such a thing as destiny? Or an afterlife? Couldn't one argue that these are symptoms of craziness, to believe in things we have no real evidence of?
There is nothing to suggest America is headed that way, even if we were to assume (out of nowhere) that the majority of Muslim Americans or would-be Muslim immigrants are in favor of any of it.
The freedom from religion clause has been expanded well beyond Congress' power to establish religion, and for good reason. Reasonable people have seen the dangers of dogmatic religion and were wise enough to protect others from its grasp. One goal of muslimism is to establish their laws based on the Koran, so yes, it does impact the anti-establishment clause. It is, in fact, anit-anti-establishment clause and therefore anti-constitutional. But I agree that if we were to prohibit the practice of islam all together in this country, we would need to tweak the free-exercise clause, which I think we should do, or at least lay down some good interpretation. I am not sure what that would do to chrisitanity and I do not care as much, as the culture around mainstream christiantiy is far more modernized and moderate than that of muslimism. But for the purpose of this thread, we do not need to amend the constitution. The federal government can not admit muslims as a matter of practice for immigration purposes.
For the record, I don't think we should support immigration from Israel either.
That would be a smart but not realistic plan. The dual-citizenship thingie worldwide makes avoiding Gitmo-esque consequences possible with the "Get Out of Jail Free" Israeli citizenship card. Ask the Russians.
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.
