Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2016, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,647,297 times
Reputation: 15481

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Yes you can own a tank and a nuke.

Why would anyone follow a religion that was started by s child molester?
Probably the same reason why people would follow a religion that requires specific underwear. Very few religious beliefs make any sense to me. That's because religion, for the most part, is arational.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2016, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,647,297 times
Reputation: 15481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"Actually, there are threads right here on c-d urging exactly that."

My apologies, I should have made myself clearer, I was referring to people, mostly politicians who ACTUALLY matter.
Um, Trump, and now Pence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2016, 08:36 AM
 
58,623 posts, read 26,924,330 times
Reputation: 14136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
OK. People who have declared war against the US probably don't have first amendment protections. (I say probably, because courts have ruled that enemy combatants and prisoners of war do have some rights, depending on the specific situation.)

What about people who haven't declared war on the US? For instance, the estimates I've seen from our gov sources for ISIL "membership" (they don't keep a membership list or collect dues) are all less than 50,000. That's disputed of course, here's one guy who thinks it's more like 200,000 - War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader | Middle East | News | The Independent. But that still leaves more than 1.5 billion muslims who haven't declared war on the US. Should the first amendment rights of all muslims in the US be restricted? We also know that ISIL includes fighters from a number of nations, including the US. So should people of those nationalities living in the US have their first amendment rights restricted?

And no one has yet said what they mean when they say that first amendment rights should be restricted. Are we going to have a government list of approved religious beliefs? Or what, exactly?
The way I read the constitution, it ONLY applies to U.S. citizens. ALL citizens.

It is NEITHER our duty NOR our responsibility to enforce 1at amendment rights to people of other countries that are NOT U.S. citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2016, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,344 posts, read 23,925,697 times
Reputation: 32633
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Because in the case of Hindus and Buddhists , they don't have social laws.

...
What do you mean that Buddhists don't have social laws?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 11:26 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 2,506,180 times
Reputation: 2290
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ1252 View Post
The Constitution was not to grant the people certain freedoms it was to limit the power of the government.
But the 1st Amendment is one of the enumerated freedoms of the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"The entire idea of essentially outlawing Islam is insane."

I don't recall ANYBODY advocating that.

As hs been stated, I have NO problem with TEMPORARY ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. UNTIL we can have vetting system that we KNOW works.

We do NOT have one today and I doubt we ever will.

it is IMPOSSIBLE to vet Syrian refugees when there are NO records on them.
A temporary ban is the same thing as a total ban--there will be acts of terrorism and claims that the vetting system isn't good enough. This path leads to ruin. And banning one religion from entering the US is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"There are a few million Muslims in the US that are peaceful, we need to place restrictions on all Muslims because of the actions of a few?"

Lets take this idea a little further.

Only a FEW Americans commit murder in relation to the entire population of the U.S.'s so lets get rid of ALL murder LAWS.

Only a FEW americans break ALL our laws so lets get rid of the ENTIRE Justice system from the jails to the judges, attorneys on down to the local sheriff, etc. because only a few commit crimes in relation to the entire population.

Only a FEW use guns to commit crimes, yet many, you included I believe, want registration, to restrict the types of guns and mag sizes etc. for the rest of us.

Whatever happened to common sense?
We have laws against terrorism--no one is suggesting that we remove those. We don't (and should not) have laws against Islam.

It is mind-boggling to me how there is a strain of argument, especially on the right-wing, that seems to be actively trying to follow in the footsteps of 1984 or 20th century fascists. And there is a vessel for that message in a candidate for President of the United States. I never thought I would see the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Actually, there are threads right here on c-d urging exactly that. There is also one urging that we revoke citizenship for 1st and 2nd generation muslims.

But that is a de facto ban, since there is no way to predict what a person will do in the future. Why you'd trust the records of a government like Syria's is beyond me anyway.

I don't know exactly what should be done - other than do what we're already doing - keep close tabs on people and watch what they actually do. The only other option is to not let anyone in at all, but there are two problems with that - 1) it won't stop home-grown terrorists, muslim or otherwise and 2) humanitarian issues.
Agreed. One of the US's greatest strengths is its openness. Openness creates vulnerability, and terrorism uses that vulnerability as an opportunity to attack. But the response, sadly, is to eliminate the nation's openness. The consequences will be far-reaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
I was responding to a post referencing the 1 st amendment of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by jacqueg
Yes it does.

AFAIK, car bombing, etc., is illegal in every country in the world. Yes, even in muslim countries. Granted, I'm quite sure the evenness of law enforcement varies a lot. It's also true that there are jewish, christian, and hindu terrorist groups operating in the world today, although islamic terrorism gets the lion's share of attention.

My point is that illegal acts in the US are illegal no matter the religion of the people doing them. Please, exactly what further restrictions would you like to see placed on the exercise of the first amendment?
It was not clear what restrictions you were suggesting, but it is very clear that Muslims have not declared war on the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
OK. People who have declared war against the US probably don't have first amendment protections. (I say probably, because courts have ruled that enemy combatants and prisoners of war do have some rights, depending on the specific situation.)

What about people who haven't declared war on the US? For instance, the estimates I've seen from our gov sources for ISIL "membership" (they don't keep a membership list or collect dues) are all less than 50,000. That's disputed of course, here's one guy who thinks it's more like 200,000 - War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader | Middle East | News | The Independent. But that still leaves more than 1.5 billion muslims who haven't declared war on the US. Should the first amendment rights of all muslims in the US be restricted? We also know that ISIL includes fighters from a number of nations, including the US. So should people of those nationalities living in the US have their first amendment rights restricted?

And no one has yet said what they mean when they say that first amendment rights should be restricted. Are we going to have a government list of approved religious beliefs? Or what, exactly?
The question of 1st Amendment rights & war is one that, to my knowledge, has not come up before. Here is the reason for that:

The laws of war are designed for a traditional military conflict between states (or at least, non-state entities aspiring for independence or similar). When soldiers for an opposing side are taken prisoner, they are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions, and are only held until hostilities end.

The "war" on terror, poses several problems for the laws of war. 1) Enemy forces are not part of a traditional, military organization. They can live anywhere in the world, unidentified until they commit some act of terrorism (or at least have conspiratorial activity detected through intelligence collection). 2) Hostilities never end. Terrorism looks more like a law enforcement problem than a war problem, but the United States has elected to use the legal regime of war to respond to the problem. So we have individuals held under US jurisdiction without a speedy trial, without traditional criminal process, and the US government asks courts to treat them not as criminals, but as hostile forces in an ongoing military conflict.

In a traditional war, hostilities end at some point, and prisoners of war are returned to their home country. They are detained during hostilities, so the issue of Free Speech is unlikely to come up (though Free Exercise of religion might).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
The way I read the constitution, it ONLY applies to U.S. citizens. ALL citizens.

It is NEITHER our duty NOR our responsibility to enforce 1at amendment rights to people of other countries that are NOT U.S. citizens.
You are wrong about this. The US government is obligated to respect certain rights, including the Freedom of Speech, the Free Exercise of Religion, etc. Nowhere does the Constitution restrict those rights to US citizens--in fact, it frequently uses the broader terms "person" or "no person."

The 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . ." There is no exception, which could read "Congress shall make no law, except as to non-citizens . . ." The plain language thus indicates that non-citizens, too, are protected by the prohibition on laws abridging the freedom of speech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 11:53 AM
 
15,068 posts, read 6,124,011 times
Reputation: 5124
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. - Niemoller
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 12:01 PM
 
4,095 posts, read 2,554,041 times
Reputation: 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReineDeCoeur View Post
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. - Niemoller
^ The fish in the Great Lakes are not saying this about the Carp.

"Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate, That uncivilized Arabs have come to make me Muslim." - Yazdegerd III, Pre-Islamic Persian King
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 12:04 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,762,258 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by golimar View Post
^ The fish in the Great Lakes are not saying this about the Carp.

"Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate, That uncivilized Arabs have come to make me Muslim." - Yazdegerd III, Pre-Islamic Persian King
It's fortunate, then, that you live in a secular nation, where your freedom to worship in the religion of your choice is protected. Too bad, though, that you think that that freedom should not extend to others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 12:08 PM
 
4,095 posts, read 2,554,041 times
Reputation: 3973
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
It's fortunate, then, that you live in a secular nation, where your freedom to worship in the religion of your choice is protected. Too bad, though, that you think that that freedom should not extend to others.
I think it should be extended to everyone.

I also believe Islam is not a religion but a political system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-18-2016, 12:13 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,762,258 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by golimar View Post
I think it should be extended to everyone.

I also believe Islam is not a religion but a political system.
Islam is a political system in the Islamic countries that operate as theocracies.

However, the FACT that those countries do not have uniform laws or policies is a rebuttal of your belief.

And the FACT that there are Muslims living peacefully in secular nations also is a rebuttal of your belief.

Your "belief" is based on bigotry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top