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 08-25-2016, 02:59 PM
 
47,020 posts, read 26,093,286 times
Reputation: 29507

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
If we even assume Islam and mosques, costumes etc is a bona fide religion, and I don't, the government can discriminate when it has an interest to do so.
Weird. My copy of the Constitution seems to be missing that bit.

ETA: There seems to be a glitch in the matrix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2016, 02:59 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,898,992 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Guys, it's pretty simple. If you can legally put a synagogue on a plot, you can legally put a mosque there. City governments obstructing that are breaking the law. Then they get sued.

You can dream up all the alternate scenarios you like - about how the First should only apply to Christianity or how the better genetic material should prevail or how the US really should be at war with Islam - but in the real world, it really is cut-and-dried.
If we even assume Islam and sharia, mosques, muslim costumes etc is a bona fide religion, and I don't, the government can discriminate and has when it has an interest to do so. If it ever had an interests to do so this would be it. But we have progressivism that loves subversion in the West, so they can't see the interest in restricting what is really a detrimental socio-political entity.

The real matter is not what rights muslim immigrants and isalm have in America, the real matter is people from foreign, incompatible cultures should not be allowed to immigrate and they weren't until after 1965. The real issue is immigration period needs to come to an end at this point, and many decades need to pass to try to assimilate the 10's of millions of immigrants allowed in since 1965.

Last edited by mtl1; 08-25-2016 at 03:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:06 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,898,992 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Weird. My copy of the Constitution seems to be missing that bit.

ETA: There seems to be a glitch in the matrix.
It's long establish in Supreme court case law that the government can discriminate against a protected group if it has a reason. How do you think affirmative action is deemed constitutional? How do you think the Japanese were interred under the same constitution? But since about the late 1950's the progressive government only finds reason to discriminate against white Americans.

Again, progressives call for general restrictions of 1st amendment free speech and 2nd amendment rights, but find no room to restrict Islam 1st amendment rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:20 PM
 
27,219 posts, read 46,821,519 times
Reputation: 15668
I'm not against immigration obviously as an immigrant myself and having family members who had to fled Nazi Germany as well as other family members fled from Romania and Poland before WWII.'


Thanks to US soldiers part of my family survived the Holocaust! We will forever be grateful and never forget what other families suffered for people like my family members to survive.

Prior to WWII some of my family members tried to immigrate to the US and arrived at Ellis Island and were not so lucky as they were send back due to illness and at the time no sick people were allowed into the Country. Some of them died in Auswitz and I'm not blaming the US for that as it was a policy that the government had in place to protect their citizens.

Obama already let AIDS patients immigrate into the US which to me is unbelievable as who will pay the bill for their treatment unless they will pay themselves but I have seen so many credit reports with medical collections and therefore I assume that people with AIDS might not care to let society pay for the bill.

To me that is unacceptable to allow any person with a disease that can make other people sick, to allow them into the Country and giving them a Green card.

Aside from that we need strong vetting and many Countries are known for false papers and in this case we are not talking about false school transcripts that many Eastern block countries or former Easter back countries easily get away with. Just look at the athletes from. These countries and age changes on passports, etc.

We have enough lower schooled unemployed workers over here so there should be a stop for any unschooled person to be allowed for a road to a Green card.

Business related visa's like E2 should be overhauled so the kids and parents get a opportunity to get a Green card after approx. 10 years of being a profitable business.

Refugees need IMO to be helped in their own region or neighboring Country and not across the world in a society that is very different from their habits and if they don't want to assimilate than stay away.

Yesterday we were at Macy's and there was a group of 4 women all in Burka's which doesn't belong in this society. We can't see if they are male or female and what is kept underneath the clothing that might harm us.

I never understood why these women even shop for clothes if they won't show them!

If women like that go to a Women's bathroom I don't even know if they are female or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:21 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,313,697 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post

Again, progressives call for general restrictions of 1st amendment free speech and 2nd amendment rights, but find no room to restrict Islam 1st amendment rights.
I find no reason to restrict any of it.

Can I assume that you believe those who want to restrict 2nd amendments rights are wrong?

And to save time, if so why do you expect them to act differently than you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Humboldt Park, Chicago
3,502 posts, read 3,145,395 times
Reputation: 2600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Asks for sources.
Gets sources.
Decides to argue based on "innate understanding" instead.
They could have saved a lot of time and keystrokes by typing "White power!" instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:49 PM
 
Location: USA
31,132 posts, read 22,168,750 times
Reputation: 19147
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
No one does that. No one. Its treated as the law and it's noted over and over and over again that if you want to change it there is a process to do that.



They were wrong about stuff. It's why there is a process to make changes. Get busy.
The easiest process would be to take away Islam's religious status. It has it's own set of laws out side of our laws. It currently has 100s of Terrorist groups that run under its banner. What religion creates 100s if not 1000s of Terrorist groups? It's religious leaders even put out hits on it's enemies Let's find a priest, Yogi, or any other mainstream religion that does that? What other religion prays for the destruction of a country like Israel, only because they are Jweish. The evidence of it's backwardness lies in every Islamic Republic there is. It basically turns every place it touches into a 7th century cesspool. Not a whole lot different then the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones, just bigger. Lord knows its much more destructive.

It really doesn't deserve Religous status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,313,697 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by LS Jaun View Post
The easiest process would be to take away Islam's religious status. It has it's own set of laws out side of our laws. It currently has 100s of Terrorist groups that run under its banner. What religion creates 100s if not 1000s of Terrorist groups? It's religious leaders even put out hits on it's enemies Let's find a priest, Yogi, or any other mainstream religion that does that? The evidence of it's backwardness lies in every Islamic Republic there is. It basically turns every place it touches into a 7th century cesspool. Not a whole lot different then the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones, just bigger. Lord knows its much more destructive.

It really doesn't deserve Religous status.
It's really not up to you or something the courts would ever support.

You all (that argue this kind of stuff) scare me more than terrorists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 03:57 PM
 
Location: USA
31,132 posts, read 22,168,750 times
Reputation: 19147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Asks for sources.
Gets sources.
Decides to argue based on "innate understanding" instead.
Where is that house you lived in next to the Mosque again?

Last edited by LS Jaun; 08-25-2016 at 04:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2016, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,320 posts, read 27,699,206 times
Reputation: 16120
It seems that to some people, if the words don’t explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the constitution.

Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term “separation of Church and State” may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

No more churches, or Mosques. This doesn't violate ANYBODY's 1st amendment.
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
Similar Threads

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