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.
You might want to join the 21st century. I don't think it was fair for the Huns to invade eastern Europe, either. Or the Visigoths to take the Iberian Peninsula. Or the Mongols seizing the north of China. But I've moved on.
We might want to deal with what is on OUR plate right now. I cannot help what my fifth generation removed grandfathers did.
I agree, and the issue of islamic war/terrorism in the 21st might be the greatest political/social one to contend with, and far leftists running interference for that death cult are not helping, they are making it more difficult.
I don't have a problem with Muslims, Islam, or any other religion. Maybe if we stayed off their land and stopped killing their people, then the small hand full of radicals would stop gunning for us.
Who is "we"? It's not me. Are you part of "we"?
I'll tell you who "we" is... it's the government that you worship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko
then the small hand full of radicals would stop gunning for us.
If you understood religious fanaticism, as I'm sure you claim to do with Christians, you'd know better than to make this claim.
No, I am showing how poorly you understand the Constitution. Yes, anyone has the right to petition their representative and to exercise their freedom of speech, even for unconstitutional ideas. However if lawmakers bow to the will of the masses and try to implement something unconstitutional, like endorsing a religion or placing undue restrictions on speech, the courts have a duty to slap it down. It is not against the law to advocate taking away religious freedom, and for that you should be thankful, since that is precisely what you are doing. However no one is going to lock you up for it, no one will shoot you, or deport you for it.
A private person or group of persons cannot stop someone's free speech legally, because that requires force, and the government has a monopoly on legal coercion.The only party that can curtail free speech is the government. A group can agitate for change to the law to deny some other group their constitutional rights, we clearly see that with Prop 8, DOMA, and similar laws. It is not unconstitutional for individuals and groups to push for change. The only entity for whom constitutionality matters is the government. It would be unconstitutional if the government were to act on that pressure, just as it appears to be regarding Prop 8 and other discriminatory laws. In the same way, our checks and balances should counteract laws that discriminate based on or establish in law any particular religion.
To keep it short, citizens have every right to agitate for any change, the government does not always have the right to do what the citizens want.
-NoCapo
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-19-2014 at 12:00 PM..
Reason: Removed deleted quote
It isn't the fault of the people expressing opinions. They have the right to do it. It is the fault of weak politicians who kowtow to pressure, knowing that they are just handing the mess off to the courts. Everyone is entitled to have their view and express it. Politicians who knowing allow unconstitutional garbage through, relying on the courts to rule against it are simply useless, and should be voted out post haste. Unfortunately we the voters often over look little flaws, like not paying attention to the Constitution.
That's funny, I would argue that historical, and to a large extent modern, Christianity falls afoul of what you wrote. The way we deal with other religions is we require that they adhere to our laws, we allow the freedom to worship, and we leave it alone. It has worked out pretty well for Christianity, I don't see why it cannot work for Islam.
Make no mistake, I do not believe religious law should be the basis for any of our secular government. I believe that violence toward women and homosexuals should be punished quickly and consistently. But to arbitrarily decide that one religion is now legally anathema is clearly unconstitutional. Every individual has the right to choose what, if any God to worship, and how best to do it, within our legal system. If you don't like it, repeal the first amendment, but I will fight you all the way, because I understand that the first amendment protects all of us.
Bottom line: Punish those who commit crimes, leave law abiding citizens alone. Period, end of discussion.
-NoCapo
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-19-2014 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: Deleted quotes removed
It isn't the fault of the people expressing opinions. They have the right to do it. It is the fault of weak politicians who kowtow to pressure, knowing that they are just handing the mess off to the courts. Everyone is entitled to have their view and express it. Politicians who knowing allow unconstitutional garbage through, relying on the courts to rule against it are simply useless, and should be voted out post haste. Unfortunately we the voters often over look little flaws, like not paying attention to the Constitution.
That's funny, I would argue that historical, and to a large extent modern, Christianity falls afoul of what you wrote. The way we deal with other religions is we require that they adhere to our laws, we allow the freedom to worship, and we leave it alone. It has worked out pretty well for Christianity, I don't see why it cannot work for Islam.
Make no mistake, I do not believe religious law should be the basis for any of our secular government. I believe that violence toward women and homosexuals should be punished quickly and consistently. But to arbitrarily decide that one religion is now legally anathema is clearly unconstitutional. Every individual has the right to choose what, if any God to worship, and how best to do it, within our legal system. If you don't like it, repeal the first amendment, but I will fight you all the way, because I understand that the first amendment protects all of us.
Bottom line: Punish those who commit crimes, leave law abiding citizens alone. Period, end of discussion.
-NoCapo
"It isn't the fault of people expressing opinions?" Oh, okay. People aren't to be faulted for the opinions they hold? Thanks for clearing that up.
You don't see me defending Christianity, do you, so why bring it up? I don't see any "progressives" defending Chrisitianity either though, but they do defend Islam tooth and nail, for some unfathomable reason.
Nevertheless, if you can't see the difference between Christianity and Islam, I don't know what I can tell you. Look at that article I posted yesterday. How about this little tidbit: "Last week, Saudi courts sentenced an Australian Muslim to be flogged 500 times and sent to jail for "insulting" Muhammad." Lovely. Can you link me to a story where Christians flogged someone 500 times for insulting Jesus? And this is what you're defending. Take a bow.
In fact, looking at Freedom House's Freedom in the World survey for 2014, it looks like many of the least free countries aren't Muslim: Cuba, Russia, Belarus, North Korea, China, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, Cameroon, Congo, DR Congo, Gabon, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe.
Sorry,i don't buy western propaganda too,we need to know who is behind the "Freedom House" ?
How biaised is this survey ? What are the criteria they use to issue such a survey ?
Many western countries are not free as they claim.
Every country has it's own definition of freedom according to their history,tradition,religion,culture and constitution.
What is free in the US may not be regarded as free in France and vice versa.
So there is no legal or definitive definition of "freedom" accepted and respected by all.
This is a "legal" tool to discriminate and label poor and third world countries as "backwards" and "uncivilized"
Leave the fake religion of islam, and burn every koran you can find.
Well, Harrier isn't really a Muslim.
While Harrier has no problem acknowledging that there is no God but Allah(since there is only one God and thus it shouldn't matter what God is called) he does have somewhat of an issue with having to assert that Muhammed was his prophet.
Harrier sometimes describes himself as a Muslim Jew for Christ, and one could also call him a Protestant Catholic.
Harrier is very interested in how the Tlingit in Alaska have combined their own animist spirituality with Russian Orthodox practices to create a uniquely Tlingit form of Christianity.
I'm not actively worried about Muslims in America and I think that the average every day Muslim isn't out trying to take over the world. That being said, some of the tenets of Islam are a little concerning... yeah yeah, I know... you could cherry pick Christianity as well and find things there that are concerning as well..... it's just Crusades aside, Christians haven't been flying planes into buildings as of late......
I'm not actively worried about Muslims in America and I think that the average every day Muslim isn't out trying to take over the world. That being said, some of the tenets of Islam are a little concerning... yeah yeah, I know... you could cherry pick Christianity as well and find things there that are concerning as well..... it's just Crusades aside, Christians haven't been flying planes into buildings as of late......
Yes they did,Christians have already flown planes into buildings in 2010 against IRS building in Austin,Texas
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.