Islam v The United States: How To Diffuse a Political Time-Bomb

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact": Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

The majority of Americans never would have allowed any Muslims to immigrate here. This problem is caused by the hatred of direct democracy by both the Left and the Right, which implies that they both come from the same class that always hates the majority.

 

Promethius, you're spamming the thread.

 

The Crusades saved civilization by delaying Islamic world conquest for 200 years, buying time for Europe to evolve out of the stagnant and weak Middle Ages. The contemporary enforced interpretation of the Crusades only came about because of the cowardice and collaboration of our reaction to the renewed jihad from 1973 to the present. Eisenhower named his book about his own saving of civilization "Crusade in Europe." Under today's distorted and unmanly meaning of the word, that would imply that he led the Nazis.

The original Crusades were provoked by a renewal of the jihad that had been stopped by the French in 732. Our present Crusade should not only stop Islam; it should make sure that this Neanderthal creed never darkens our door again.

 

Promethius, spoken exactly how a chimp would speak of the neighboring troop in the jungle.

Back up into space. Let words dissolve in your mind and merely observe the underlying mechanics of what's going on here...

No, the Crusades besmeared the teachings of the christian prophet Jesus by overruling his teachings and inserting ape violence into "the christian agenda". Just like islamics do and justify.

 

You have more posts on it than I do. But you think you have a right to, because of your feelings of intellectual superiority, which in our time is defined by how accurately you conform to the ideas the ruling class tells us we are limited to.

How did you get that unauthorized warning in there anyway? Invisible pixels? All I could see was "Spoken exactly how a chimp would speak of the neighboring troop in the jungle." To which I answer:

Big Brotherhood Is Watching You!

 

This is who Prom calls 'our proven natural enemies:

In the spring of 2009 I visited Arlington National Cemetery with Professor Akbar Ahmed to stop by the gravestones of Muslim American soldiers who died fighting in the Iraq War. Colonel Martinez of Washington's Old Guard, a regiment of the United States army, walked us around to see the resting place of several of his "great soldiers," which made feel humbled and thankful to be in the presence of such brave American citizens.

One of the soldiers was Captain Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan, a Pakistani-American who received a Purple Heart, a military decoration awarded by the President to those who have been wounded or killed in action. Next to Captain Khan was Ayman Abdelrahman Taha, an Arab-American, who also received the Purple Heart for the courage he exhibited in the Iraq War.
The graves of Captain Khan and Ayman Taha show that Muslim Americans have not only been soldiers in the United States armed forces, but that they have also brought honor to the United States for their courage and bravery in fighting for freedom.

Captain Khan and Ayman Taha are just two of the many Muslim Americans who have died fighting for the country that they love. In fact, the history of Muslim Americans' service in the United States armed forces goes back to the founding of the country in the American Revolution.


Some people judge other people by the color of their skin, others by what country they came from- and for others- they judge them by what God they worship.

And then they say we must ignore the Constitution to protect it.

What dreck.

 

Radical Islam SHOULD be banned!

If you make a speech in an American Mosque, where you say things such as "Death to America! Death to the Jews! Death to Israel! "


Well, that's hate speech. That's inciting violence from a pulpit. That's a Hate Crime. That's being a Criminal Co-Conspirator in the Commission of Mass Murder!

Let's tell a make believe tale of two Mosques; The Arab Sunrise Mosque, and the Allah's Green Meadows Mosque.

There is a Radical Imam named Bob. Now, Imam Bob, through surrogates, has gotten an appointment to give sermons at both Mosques. In his sermons, fifteen minutes into the hour long sermon, he makes statements "Death to America! Death to the Jews!"

At the Arab Sunrise Mosque, he is allowed to continue his sermon, and the regular clergy of the Mosque encourage the congregation to join in until 500+ people are all shaking their fists and chanting "Death to America! Death to the Jews!"

At the Allah's Green Meadows Mosque, when the statement is made by Imam Bob of "Death to America! Death to the Jews!", the regular clergy intercede, the sermon is tersely ended, apologies to the Congregation are made, a substitute sermon is given, and time is given to reflection on tolerance and peace. Furthermore, the details of the event are reported by the regular clergy about Imam Bob to the FBI, who has him deported.

Two weeks later, some of the congregation of the Arab Sunrise Mosque plant and set off a bomb at a public event and kill 15 people including 11 children.

Now, the congregation and the clergy of the Arab Sunrise Mosque are at this point criminal co-conspirators to mass murder! The types of penalties I outlined above, licenses to own a Koran,
restrictions on public gathering, restrictions on ownership of firearms, explosives, and poisons... All of it, now apply the Congregation and Clergy of the Arab Sunrise Mosque.

Because of congregation and clergy of Allah's Green Meadows Mosque, deliberately and actively chose to disassociate themselves from Imam Bob and his Radical Teachings, they are NOT subject to the penalties.

Is that Clear Enough?!



The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

-

 

Well see here we can find some agreement.

But I wouldn't limit that to a mosque- but to a radio host or a priest or a mayor or anyone.

Anyone who directly advocates violence against America or against specific people(the Jews) should be reported to the law, and prosecuted.

Calling for 'Death for Israel"- though personally repugnant to me- is not a threat to a person, nor a threat to America. Frankly several dozen posters on these boards I believe are guilty of that particular threat- and I don't think a single one of them is Muslim.

Now, the congregation and the clergy of the Arab Sunrise Mosque are at this point criminal co-conspirators to mass murder! The types of penalties I outlined above, licenses to own a Koran, restrictions on public gathering, restrictions on ownership of firearms, explosives, and poisons... All of it, now apply the Congregation and Clergy of the Arab Sunrise Mosque

Umm no- once again we actually have laws and the Constitution. First of all there are already restrictions on ownership of firearms, explosives and poisons, but assuming you mean further restrictions- none of them apply until each person has been arrested and convicted of a crime. And unless they are in prison, there will never be a restriction on owning a religious book.

You don't get to just make up special rules specifically for and only for Muslims.

 

The problems with Islam were inserted by Muhammad who commands the believers to "fight" "kill" "slay" and "smite the necks" Of the unbelievers "until religion should only be for Allah"

- - - Updated - - -

The problems with Islam were inserted by Muhammad who commands the believers to "fight" "kill" "slay" and "smite the necks" Of the unbelievers "until religion should only be for Allah"

 

Making threats is already illegal. If I give a sermon in which I say "kill all muslims" and someone attacks a muslim, I'm in violation of the law -- for advocating criminal activity. I cannot incite riots or encourage criminality today. I see no problem with something like that being enforced so long as it's enforced equally (i.e. if muslims can't chant "death to America" Westboro Baptist cannot chant "death to (*)(*)(*)(*)") -- the point is to prevent incitement to riot and not allow the promotion of criminality of any stripe. You could possibly take property used in the crime, it's under the RICO laws that were used against the mob, but again you can't do that just to muslims any more than you could do it just to christians. It's behavior that must be discouraged, and it has to be for all people, not just a group that you don't personally like.

 

So you're telling me that the Racial Preference Provisions added to the ObamaCare bill are illegal?

You see, they state at the onset that they are to insure diversity. But down in the details, it specifically calls out that they are to be used to increase the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics, and CANNOT be used in a situation where Whites are under represented.

By the language of the provision, you can have too few Blacks, but you can't have too many. You can have too many Whites, but you can't have too few.

So, since that is legislation targeted at a specific group of people, is it unconstitutional?

You will now pull your support for Obamacare and demand its repeal?

-

 

Ummmmm Helloooo!

Septimine, you were explaining to ignorant little me how to be constitutional, a Law must be apply evenly to all people...

So, Does that mean that you also, for the sake of Legal Consistency, see the one sided Racial Preferences put into ObamaCare as Unconstitutional?

I mean, you were saying that we must be consistent!

-

 

Thread derailment.

This thread is currently about idiotic threats to all American Muslims, not about Obama care.

 

No, its not. You brought up the issue of Consistency of Treatment under the Law.

I'm pointed out how you USE the Consistency Argument when it benefits a Liberal Cause, and completely ignore it when it doesn't.

Explain how treating people Differentially with Racial and Gender Preferences is ANY Different, than treating a Religion with History of Violence and Intolerance with sanctions appropriate to their behavior?

-

 

-

We are told that because of a demonstrated History and Attitude of discrimination toward Blacks and other minorities, that even though Affirmative Action violates the 14th amendment rights of White Americans, and Males, it is justified as a remedy for that demonstrated History and attitude.

Well, Islam has certainly shown us a forty plus year History of Violence, and an Attitude of Intolerance and Domination. So, is that justification for creating Laws and Programs which restrict them?

By what standard do you judge the acceptability the exception?

-

 

First of all, I have no idea what looney idea you are talking about

Secondly- you have jumped the track to go off on some anti-Obamacare tangent apparently because you can't figure out how to make your arguments sound even possibly Constitutional.

Argue with yourself about Obamacare. Not my issue.

 

So your response is " We TOLD you your idea is unconstitutional, we don't have to support that position, and now.... Nah, Nah, Nahhhhh, I Won't Hear you!"

Rather childish....

-

 

Getting back on topic. people who want to condemn a whole religion because one or two sects have gone over to Satan are not good Americans.

When you restrict religious freedom for one, you are on the way to restricting it for all.

Government does not get to pick a religion for either honor or humiliation.

 

-

The point is, in the past, our government, given dire circumstances, such as the deeply embedded anti-black racism in the deep south, has suspended certain Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendment Rights, for large classes of American Citizens, such as White Males having their 14th Amendment Rights violated, by Judicial Activism from the Supreme Court. We call this today Affirmative Action.

Western Law is based on Precedent, and Affirmative Actions sets a Precedent that certain rights for whole classes of people can be waived for the greater good and stability of society.

Now, many Constitutional Scholars, hold that AA is unconstitutional, because of its violation of the 14th amendment. If it has a least be implemented bi-directionally, in other words:

You can have too few Blacks, but you can also have too many.

You can have too many Whites, but you can also have too few.

If the Implementation of AA was done more fairly, many argue it might have been Constitutional.


Other Constitutional Scholars hold that it is a Living Framework, and open to interpretation of the Judges to meet the needs of the day.

Well, Imagine a world where in America, Suicide and non-Suicide Radical Islamic Bomb Attack occurred on a 2-3 times a day basis....

In that world, could an exception to the 14th Amendment Right of Equal Treatment before the law between American Christian, Hindus, Native American, Wickans, and all other Religions, compared to Muslims,...

In that world, would an exception to treat Muslims differently meet the same standard for exception that was met, in the minds of the Judges who created Affirmative Action?

This is Not a Derailing of this Thread, it is the Argument which is CENTRAL to the entire debate!

-

 

Did you ever meet Muhammad? For that matter, did you ever meet Jesus? Buddha? Let's just say that tales can get taller as they get passed on. The Bible is heavily redacted. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the Koran is too.

Any religion is a guide to keep angels who are in ape bodies to remember their roots. That's the abstract core of any religion. We are talking in abstracts on this thread, in case that escaped anyone's attention.

 

OoohhhhKay. You want abstracts. Fine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth

Joseph Campbell wrote several excellent books were he outlines the concept of the Primal Mono-Myth.

The idea is that all of the Mythology used to pass along the wisdom found in any of the major religions are really all the SAME myth, with just slight variations on the theme.

He asserts that they are all the same, because they harken back to what humans understand about themselves and their world on an instinctive level.

It wouldn't be enough of a "Universal Truth" to survive the generations of oral tradition pass along, if it didn't reach into our instinctive unconscious. He is not stating that the various mythologies had any common origin, and then differentiated, but that they start out very different and are refined into something very similar by the process of keying in on the common elements of the TRUTH about humanity and our universe.

It is this convergence on the Universal TRUTH that gives Religious Mythology its power.

-

 

Well, that's a fancy way of saying all prophets are just messengers of how to live as an angel in an ape's body and social structure. Consider that all aspects that are benevolent or friendly in any given religion are those that are the farthest away from instinctive ape behavior; except perhaps motherhood and nurturing. Of course every test is fraught with rocky roads. To pass this test we are given a cheat sheet. But very few of us remember to use it....

 

Yeah, ok, I'll bite, and the cheat sheet is?

 

we should add new last that specifically prevents any theocracy from ever happening in this county - as the states found out the hard way with vouchers.. you have to grow all religions if you grow some

we can't punish an entire religion cause a few of their members have done bad things, heck we would have to ban Christianity too.. until they have a long track record of not molesting children

want to stop terrorism, don't show them they can hurt us with something they do so cheap it costs them nothing, but costs us mega $$$ and the blood and lives of many good Americans

fear and over reaction it the terrorists main goal
.