 |
So ,so called religious freedom is absolute ? How about polygamy?. Human and animal sacrifice.. corporal punishment for women including stoning ? If you say yes to those then your argument about Sharia stands.
Strange case of relativism equating the Talmud with Sharia if you ask me.
No, I just don't like the way you bait us after it's already been satisfactorily answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You still mistake what most Christians mean by this being a Christian nation, as in it's a nation of mostly Christians that recognizes our history and believes - rightly so - that our country was laws and constitution are based on biblical principles. So what, we recognize your rights as well.
I've said it here many times, without your freedom I don't have my freedom, so I'll defend your right to not believe as I do. Sharia, not so much. I'm content living under our system of government, Sharia is not, and to me that has everything to do with our constitution.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think it's absolute. But, you're mixing up religious freedom with what WE have decreed, is criminal activity. According to OUR law, one can't plead religious freedom when assaulting another person, or animal for that matter. I'm fine with that.
I DO think that polygamy falls under religious freedom. I'm not talking about marrying CHILDREN, or DOGS. I'm talking about two (or three or four) ADULTS making a decision how to live their life based upon religious principles. Yes, I think smoking pot COULD be the basis for a religion.
The Talmud is religious law. Isn't that what Sharia is? You want me to judge, like you do, based upon my personal prejudices... But, I LOVE this country so much, that I overcome my initial personal reactions, and look to the CONSTITUTION for the PROPER, and AMERICAN response. I would think that the Constitution loving Tea Party would view it the same... No, huh?
excon
Sharia law says that what we say is criminal activity is permissible . Pot smoking is also criminal activity under our laws but since it complies in this case with your belief you would make that a religious exception . Polygamy is also criminal behavior but you think due to religious practice that should be a right too .
So where do you differentiate the criminal behaviors permissible under absolute religious freedoms when some you justify and others you don't ?
If religious freedoms were absolute I would agree with you .But ,just like the exceptions famously outlined concerning free speech ,we know that these freedoms have restrictions .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I speak from my Constitutional perspective... I believe the laws against pot are Unconstitutional. I believe the laws against polygamy are Unconstitutional. The fact that society has labeled THESE activities criminal, does NOT make it so. I CAN read. (You ALSO have a problem with the Commerce Clause - but NOT because it prohibits you from buying something, but because it's going to REQUIRE you to buy something - and you don't LIKE that)
I DON'T make those distinctions when it comes to ASSAULTIVE behavior. I guess until you're able to do this yourself, or at least see that I'm doing it, you're going to think I approve of man/dog marriage.
excon
How can it be absolute if you want to prohibit assaultive behavior? Both the Torah (and thus the Christians' Bible) and Qaran endorse animal sacrifice and stoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You're letting your own double standard show.
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Freedom of religion IS absolute. That has nothing to do with a book - ANY book. It also has nothing to do with beating people up.
I don't quite know what you're saying, Cats. I'm certainly not holding one religious book over another. And, I'm not holding ANY religious book over the Constitution.
excon
PS> (edited) I just read it again. If you think that freedom of religion ISN'T absolute because we won't let people commit human sacrifice, I'll agree with you. But, short of committing a CRIME, the ability of one to practice one's religion in this great county or ours, IS absolute, In my opinion.
Or, maybe because it's limited on the one hand, it CAN'T BE absolute on the other... I don't know. This is giving me a headache.
Ex I think you have just proven your constitutional freedoms are not as absolute as you think and that might mean that if one constitutional freedom is limited, then so are others such as the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech. No wonder you have a headache, but then when you speak in absolutes you get onto the horns of a dilemmaQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes ,the famous example of free speech restrictions is yelling fire in a theater ,libel etc. Registration requirements of guns falls in the category of a second amendment restriction... The government has a right to know if you have guns.Quote:
then so are others such as the right to bear arms or the right to freedom of speech.
Here are the relevant SCOTUS decisions . 'Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith' SCOTUS decided that states could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. They determined states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs if they choose to do so , but they are not required to do so.Congress passed the ' Religious Freedom Restoration Act' to get around this ruling .But SCOTUS in 'City of Boerne v. Flores 'ruled the law unconstitutional .
So some aspects of Sharia law ,or any other religious ritual ,or religious law can be constitutionally restricted by the nation,individual states ,or locality without necessarily restricting the' free exercise clause'.
In my opinion, the issue isn't the building of a mosque, it is the location. I feel it would only serve to be provocational.
It has nothing to do with freedom of religion. There are many mosques throughout the country.
There are questions regarding the history/involvement of some of the backers of the project however that should be addressed.
Freedom of religion is not absolute... the distinction is often made between beliefs and actual practices.
Hello D:Quote:
Originally Posted by DoulaLC
I'm glad you joined the discussion. It gets old arguing with the same people.
But, my argument doesn't change... Using your logic, because there are many guns around, YOUR gun rights should be curtailed... Or, because we gave the Miranda warnings to MOST people, YOUR rights should be violated...
It absolutely DOES have to do with freedom of religion. These American citizens want to put their mosque THERE. That is their RIGHT, just like it's YOUR right to put your church where ever YOU want to. Is it offensive?? Yes. Do they have the RIGHT to put it there? YES! Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. Offensive? Yes. To me, however, it's MORE offensive to see the Constitution torn asunder.
excon
And if it is used as part of the plan to destroy this country and spit in the face of Americans that's OK too? The FF's had these types of scenes in mind when they wrote the rules? What matters is what the citizens think right now. The bad guys like our simple answers to very complex issues--they have to have something to laugh about in the caves-it gets boring.
We have to keep up and the constitution has to keep up. Words are just words and can be read many ways. That's what the lawyers like about'em.
Not really the same thing. Now if you said there was an absolute right to build a Temple for the Emperor of Japan at Pearl Harbor I would say wrong.Quote:
Was the Nazi's march in downtown Skokie, Ill. Offensive?
Certainly the township would be in their right for various reasons to deny it.
Now for the record ,because some people may not be aware of the case , the Skokie, Ill. March did not actually happen in Skokie .The Nazis wanted to march there because there were a lot of holocost survivors in the town . SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Nazis.
But public pressure effectively applied ; the Nazi instead held 3 marches (poorly attended ) in the Chicago area and did not march in the area where it would've been most offensive.
Didn't the Constitution refer to some citizens as three-fifths of a real person? Did the FF's look into the crystal ball on that one?
They saw as far as they could see and did a good job. If they came back to the present day and wrote the Constitution again, they would soon realize that some expansion and clarification was needed. And if they could do a good job, we could throw out all that Sublime Court precedence stuff. Any citizen could read it and understand it but in a small number of years, it would have to be done all over again, just like any other sets of code, regulations, specifications that are used by Americans. I guess the House and Senate would have to approve it, and the citizens would vote but we have elections every two years anyhow. With regard to religion they might add: This right shall not apply to any group that subscribes to the overthrow of this U.S. Government and its people: nor to groups who have caused the muliple deaths of U.S. citizens and whose members are currently at War with the United States of America. I think they would write that, Congress would approve it, and the Citizens would approve it. Maybe it would be in the form of a definition of qualified religion. Hiding behind nebulous 234 year old simple statements to govern a modern, highly technical society, with it's future very much at stake, is silly.
Hello again, smear:Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
Couple things.
The Bill or Rights are written in plain language so that ANYBODY can understand what it says. You also point out the Amendment process. If you want to change it accordingly, I'm cool with it. But, CHANGE it - don't VIOLATE it.
excon
Smear ,the Constitution has gone through revision 27 times.
The founders did see a need for revisions and wrote the process into the Constitution. They also foresaw a day when a number of revisions would be required ,and wrote into the Constitution the process for a Constitutional Convention.
I for one do not see a need to amend the 1st Amendment here as the denial of converting the building into a Mosque is constitutional . Free exercise does not guarantee an on site edifice .
I stand by my contention that the local municipality has the right to deny it.
And the point is mute because a Mosque will be built in the historic Burlington Coat Factory building .
Good points of course. The process has to change. It stinks and it is of the lawyers, for the lawyers and by the lawyers at present. What if a mosque wanted to erect an ICBM at their site, pointed at the new WTC's future buildings, just waiting until they get them finished so they could blow them and 10,000,000 people off the map. Does Freedom of Religion give that one a green light? I know that's ludicrous but pretend for the sake of argument that it is not.
Hello again, smear:
We have laws that prevent people from ASSAULTING other people. Freedom of religion doesn't shield anyone from those laws.
Like tom, I'm pretty happy with the First Amendment. What's not to like?
"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."
excon
The 27th amendment took 40 years from introduction to passage. The issues we deal with today can't wait that long. Pick up the pace America. There is big trouble brewing and it won't wait for nine old men and women to play political football, especially when our Quarterback isn't sure which team he is on. Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership (check it out), NASA administrator on muslim esteem tours (check it out too), our 57 states (you decide). I have "refudiated" some of my friends sending me scurrilous Obama attacks that were patently false. These hold water.
No they don't. Check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
Goog "Devout muslims to homeland security", then snopes and many others.
Go to NASA.org, Boulden speech in Cairo and
Youtube Boulden interview with Al Jazeera.
I guess it all depends on who is checking where.
The 57 states is on record too but I'm not doing all your work for you. First I was a deserter, now a liar, and you still haven't given me your military bio--I gave you mine when you called me a deserter. You like to get the attention off the real issues, Need.
OK 57 States was a campaign gaff.
Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development is certainly a devote Muslim and possibly more. He is a member of "Muslim Public Affairs Council". MPAC's Senior Advisor, Maher Hathout, has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and espouses Wahhabism. That is all I know . The connection is worth exploring given the position he will hold in the national security community.
Kareem Shora , appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC),is Syrian . That is all I know about
Him .
So his assertion that the Obama Adm appointed Devout muslims to Homeland Security leadership is correct .
Smearcase already did a OP about the mission assigned to
NASA boss Charles Bolden . I believe Bolden when he said he was instructed to do an outreach to the Muslim world.
All 3 are true . 2 are significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Freedom of religion is a freedom to believe as you choose. This does not always correlate into actions. No one has said a certain religion can not be followed... there is a mosque several blocks away.
It is my understanding that it is the location, given the history of the site and those involved, that is of concern. No one has a "right" to build, they have a "right" to their religion. I could not build a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue anywhere I chose to. Nor, even if I could, would I personally be so presumptuous to consider building where I knew it would cause so many people distress, especially given that the objective of such a building is one to bring people together.
The example has been made of plenty of Japanese living in Hawaii, but people would not want a Buddhist temple built at Pearl Harbor. Much has changed in Hawaii, but it took many years after the attack and now there are many, many temples across the islands. Still you wouldn't find one at Pearl Harbor given the historical nature of the site.
This is the same situation with ground zero. It is all too fresh in the minds of many people, particularly those living in the city and the families of those who died.
It would almost be like Truman wanting to build a Christian church at Peace Park after the bombings. While there is a remnant there now, although not presented by the US, this occurred much later as part of a memorial for all to remember the horrific nature of what occurred.
Time heals... and perhaps in time, as part of a memorial to try and build a bridge of healing, understanding, and unification such a project would be viewed differently.
I just think it is not the right location, or perhaps the right time, given the circumstances. We will have to agree to disagree on this one... :)
Hello again, D:Quote:
Originally Posted by DoulaLC
I do NOT disagree with ANY of your personal sentiments. It is NOT the "right" location. It IS offensive. It's NOT the "right" time...
However, when it comes to the Constitution, it's ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME. That's why our Founding Fathers WROTE the Bill of Rights. They wanted to make SURE that feelings didn't get in the way of rights. Most of our rights aren't very popular. The majority of 'em would be done away with if we could vote on them. Freedom is messy. And yes, some people use their freedom to confront others... So what?
I've said many times on these pages, that if we don't support the Constitutional rights we DON'T like, the ones we DO like will fall by the wayside too. So, when you look to see if someone has a RIGHT to do something or not, look to the Constitution - not your feelings.
excon
Man are you guys screwed up! And all because you are trying to fulfill seventeeth century ideas of morality which were aimed at preventing the declaration of a national church and enforcing membership. Let's agree here ex, the idea that a mosque could be built on the site of the murder of 3,000+ people by muslim fanatics is offensive, not only to americans but to other nationalities who died that day and it doesn't offend your constitution which did not confer a right for any person to build a house of worship wherever they pleased, however pecularly it might be worded, otherwise I could come over there and erect a Church of the Great Rainbow Serpent on the site.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yeah, the Constitution is kind of quaint, ain't it? But, as I read it, I don't see anything old fashioned about its ideas. Here's the Amendment we're talking about. Seems to directly relate to TODAY'S problems, no?
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.
You're probably jealous because you don't have such rights.
excon
You claim we don't have such rights, but I don't hear any arguments about freedom of speech or religion where I live. Our constitution has a similar clause about religionQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Try this one on, Arizona couldn't happen here
A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.
Further, our parliament has no power to make laws regarding the exercise of magna carta rights by individuals so no provision is needed regarding free speech
Hey exie I bet you would like to have this one in your constitution
The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.
Don't know about Ex, but I'd certainly love to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'm curious, how do you feel about this:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...nJZUO86M6Txuw=
Hello Steve:
I don't FEEL anything. What's your point? Are you saying that we DON'T have to obey the First Amendment, because we FEEL a certain way?? I FEEL like I don't like guns - so what??
excon
Let me rephrase, what's your opinion of this? Is this an acceptable expression of the first amendment?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...nJZUO86M6Txuw=
Hello again, Steve:
You haven't understood a thing I've been saying here. You have the right to express yourself. The particular OBJECT you use to express yourself doesn't make your expression illegal or not... For example, an artist can depict Jesus Christ in a sexual situation... A hippie can wear a shirt made of an American flag. You can fly your flag of choice.
In other words, I don't have LISTS of THINGS that can or can't be used for political expression. You do.
excon
Yeah but public pressure ;rights not relevant... has prevented the flying of the stars and bars throughout the country.
Hello again, tom:
You're mixing apples and oranges. Government doesn't have a First Amendment right. YOU do. So, if constituents put public pressure on their government officials to do what the constituents want, that is politics in action. It's what's SUPPOSED to happen. But, it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution, or the subject at hand.
YOU, on the other hand, have the absolute RIGHT to fly the stars and bars. If you cave to your neighbors pressure, that's on you.
excon
Maybe you can get that point across to all those people defending the right to have this mosque in a most insensitive place who are also first to call for infringing on our constitutional right by banning this flag.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Why do you need ME to do that?? Maybe if you stood up for ALL of our Constitutional rights, instead of the ones you like, you'd have credibility with this group, like I do. Why do I have credibility?? Because I don't have lists... In terms of the Constitution, we've talked about LISTS before. When asked if someone can excercize a Constitutional right, you don't read the Constitution. You consult your list.
excon
I still don't know what list you're referring to, the one that says the mosque is OK as long as it meets zoning and building codes? The one that says speech zones are good and Fox News is evil? The one that says a preacher could be fined or jailed for hate speech for calling homosexuality a sin, while anti-semitic, jihad-loving professors are protected for calling for genocide? Which list?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6f6nqzFsFftrwM:If you guys are going to start flag waving how about this
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah, you're not the ONLY one with a list. I don't have one, though. That's why you LISTEN to me. I'm a PURE Constitutional Dude. I'm the guy the Tea Party should LOVE. I'm better than Judge Napalitono.
When I speak of YOUR list, I'm referring to the one you consult when asked if ______ should excercize a Constitutional right. Let me see if I've got it right. Gay people are on your list. Muslims are on your list. Detainees are on your list. Those are just for starters.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 AM. |