 |
Hello again, Cats:
I missed the part about Jews not being able to practice their religion freely. Christians either, and you too. Where am I wrong? Isn't this America?
Hell, you can even pray to JESUS on national TV at NASCAR races, and I'm the only one who complains about it. That sounds pretty free to me.
excon
But if a Christmas Scene or a Manora is visible from a public thoroughfare, the property owner can be sued and have it confiscated by the Sheriff. If I wished to draw a hex sign on my front lawn I can be committed, or at least detained for evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Not here in this country, Cats. You are allowed to put any religious scene on your own property in full view of ANY road. So can your neighbor, and so can I. If you have a sheriff who's doing that, sue him for violating your civil rights.
But, I don't think that happens in your town. Even dumb county sheriff's know about the First Amendment... Or, at least we HOPE they do.
excon
I have an electronic version someplace... that does not always relate to a printed page as far as page numbers go. Being I have over 40 terrabytes of datat (yes TERRABYTES) on my home computer network... I don't know exactly where it is at this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
However he did also let it slip during a covered interview on Sept 7 2008.
Obama slips on TV: 'My Muslim faith' so its NOT just in print... as much as his minnions wish to bury the subject. Along with all his supposed College records... records as senator in Illinois etc... why he and his wife lost their law licenses etc.
Incidentally... name ANY other Christian that has attended a Madras... which is a Islamic Religious school, not open to infedels as they call the rest of us.
Barack Obama did not "lose" his law license. He voluntarily surrendered his law license back in 2008 because he wasn't using it, nor did he plan to use it in the near future. I did the same thing with my state teaching certificate. I no longer teach school and allowed it to expire. I'm a professional counselor but never took the test and paid the $150 for a state license. The counseling I do doesn't demand a license, nor do I receive payment from clients' insurance companies. I'm still a bona fide counselor but have no license, just as Barack Obama is a lawyer but has no license.
You don't voluntarily "Surrender" a law license unless you are ready to get it suspended. And didn't want it to be able to be suspended. And he isn't a bona-fide lawyer... you can not practice law anywhere in the USA claiming to be a lawyer if you hold no license ot practice law. That's no different than a "Doctor" treating patients without a license to practice medicine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And that a world of difference from counceling. You won't go to jail for doing what you do without it. Besides... what proof does Obama have he ever really practiced law... can anyone quote several cases he has ever presided over in front of a Judge? We all know the answer to that one... the answer is none. After all he got a free ride at taxpayer expense for having the right skin color. Not because he earned the privilege. After all, he practically failed out of College. Why else would he spend millions hiding all of his records from the public if it wasn't to hide something he didn't want public. Same with all the Messiahs other records. What's behind all the secrecy of his past... his records. What's he hiding from the public and why aren't the democrats up in arms over it. Or is it a double standard. I'd like to see every future republican candidate do the same and when liberal reporters cry about it... claim they were fine when Obama did it, so shut up and deal with it.
And incidentally why are the results of his BAR exams secret? Was it that it took the "Smartest President ever" over 10 tries to pass it? Or MORE?
Well that's wrong. My wife is a lawyer. A few of her classmates got their degree, articled but never joined a law firm to practice law, It happens more often than you think. They then have no need to pay the license or insurance but you will always be a lawyer, just non-practicing. Should you wish to go back to practice you'll likely have to write the bar exam again.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Gettysburg PA is having a similar discussion about putting casinos near battlefields and burial grounds. I realize that there is no "Freedom of Casinos" in the constitution but Obama inadvertently raised a good point (inadvertently is about the only way he could raise a good point).
He said the constitution allowed it but he wouldn't comment on the wisdom of it. If the light turned green, would you Go--even if a tractor trailer was bearing down on you at 75mph? Why not--the law is on your side. We will continue to make fatal mistakes in the U.S. so long as we ignore common sense and wisdom because some genius interprets something enacted 234 years ago and assumes the writers could have anticipated the situations we encounter today. The bad guys are still laughing in the caves.
Of course, he's a bona fide lawyer. He is as much a lawyer as I'm a teacher. We both went to college to learn how to be something, and we both graduated and are entitled to call ourselves lawyer or teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hello smear:Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
You think religious discrimination is new? You think the founders didn't understand it? You think they didn't experience it? You think it's different today than it was then?
Think again.
excon
PS> What amazes me throughout this entire discussion, is how quickly Americans will throw their Constitution overboard.
Sort of like with the Bible, written so long ago. The writers didn't have a clue what the world would be like in 2010, so we don't have to give it much credence, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
The thing is that the FoundingFathers referenced Islam specifically when they were talking about religious freedoms. It is easily referenced .
But smearcase' and the President's point (after he flipped on the issue) about the wisdom of building the mosque there cannot be dismissed as throwing the Constitution overboard.
There is a BIG difference between the right to build ,and should it happen .It is the difference between Obama the professor making a debating point in law school or Obama the President . On Friday he tried to make it a "teachable moment "... on Saturday ,after realizing he made a blunder by not making the distinction,he corrected himself.
There is a lot of posturing going on .The only leadership I've seen is from Governor Patterson.
The big losers so far are the President ,Mayor Bloomy ,and Harry Reid... who threw the President under the bus after the President recently went out of his way to attend a Nevada fundraiser for Reid.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If given the choice between criticizing a citizen for seeking his rights, or supporting the Constitution that grants them, I'll pick the Constitution every time. In this great democracy of ours, it is NEVER wrong for a citizen to seek to be free.
That idea is what this country is founded upon. It's a fragile idea. It's like a candle in the wind. Don't let it go out.
excon
So. Lawyers in your area are so underpaid they can't afford to maintain their law license that would require taking a BAR exam AGAIN to get back? I think its time you move here, they are overpaid around this area. That's is no minor thing. Its Akin to taking and passing a First Class Radiotelepone License. Or an Electricaian turning his license in because he took a different job temporarily. No small thing to pass, and if you are not either fresh out of college or working heavily in that field something you would not pass down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Have you ever turned in your Drivers License because you didn't have a car for a short period?
That's a real lame excuse to defend Obama and his actions. And we all know you are one of his supporters. In fact I talked to one of the Lawyers I know locally at a dinner about that a month or so ago on that topic... they said why would or should they turn in their license, it doesn't cost much to maintain and its hard to get back.
I just heard the actual story on this on the radio this morning and thought I'd chime in.
This is the kind of stuff I heard on the radio, and I have to say that it's just as insensitive to prevent the mosque from ever being built. I really am sick of hearing the terms sensitivity and tolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I believe that the non-Muslims (gentiles?) protesting the construction in this case secretly don't support the construction of any mosque, but given this circumstance, it gives people a really good reason to vocalize their opposition to Islam and still act as if they're "tolerant". It'd be nice if people stopped repressing their emotions and just pick a side; you support all religious freedom or stand firmly against all of it. Or in this case, you stand against Islam or be on board with it 100% of the time.
One thing is for damn sure, once that mosque is built it's going to be a target for "hate cimes" by the folks who are pissed off by this. And it should be expected that NYPD officers who lost buddies in 9/11 to look the other way should this mosque ever take a hit. Ethically, this has bad news written all over it, but legally, they got a right and that can't be argued.
Well you have to consider they might have a legal right to build it only if the following conditions are met... #1 Zoning... they would have to have the Zoning changed, #2 Tax exemption on the property... they aren't automatically entitled to get off scott free if its not approved for local government reasons. And #3 Building Permits... those are not a legal right, and have to pass muster in most communities before they would be granted, and most cases they are subject to community review and need approval of surrounding landowners and residents. And #4, New York is a heavily Union area... this HAS to be build by Union Labor who may refuse to do the work for very valid reasons... and we are talking multiple Unions.
While everyone might have a legal right to have a CHANCE to build something... there is no legal right to actually do it. Everyone INCLUDING Muslims have to follow the same approval processes everyone else has to deal with. And in many cases request are denied for any number of reasons.
Why are Muslims exempt from this? What makes them special and above the law. You can't plop a Church just anyplace you want without jumping a lot of hurdles. Why should they be able to do that with a Mosque that's not even being paid for by Americans, and incidentally WHO is paying for this anyway? Osama Bin Laden? I haven't seen any investigation into if this money is coming from Heroin producers, terrorists, North Korea, or by any legitimate sources.
Can't speak for all. But I for one have no problems with a mosque being built almost anywhere else. In fact ,I would've objected even less to this one if the proposal hadn't given away their motivation in the name they initially gave it .Quote:
I believe that the non-Muslims (gentiles?) protesting the construction in this case secretly don't support the construction of any mosque, but given this circumstance, it gives people a really good reason to vocalize their opposition to Islam and still act as if they're "tolerant".
The people like Mayor Bloomy who profess tolerance are in denial about political Islamism/jihadism .The construction of a mosque at the site of a victory is a political act and not a religious one .
I disagree totally with this statement . The NYC police and fire depts will do their job as required in a professional manner.Quote:
One thing is for damn sure, once that mosque is built it's going to be a target for "hate cimes" by the folks who are pissed off by this. And it should be expected that NYPD officers who lost buddies in 9/11 to look the other way should this mosque ever take a hit.
However, given the fact that they are expected to protect the site ;as with every other project in the area ,they have and should have input. Given the fact that all the other projects in the area have been tied up for most of a decade over various red tape issues ,I find it curious that this one appears to be on a fast track.
If you think us non-Muslims should lose our 1st Amendment rights to protest ;perhaps the words of a patriotic Muslim should be considered .
Divisive debate on Ground ZeroQuote:
For Muslims, Ramadan is a spiritual month of fasting, prayer and self-reflection. It is an intense mental and physical experience that is a symbolic equalizer of every part of humanity, rich and poor, educated and uneducated.
We embark on this year's fast during increasingly challenging and divisive times.
Since last Ramadan, Nidal Hasan is accused of massacring 13 at Fort Hood and Umar Abdulmutallab is accused of trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. Faisal Shahzad is accused of terrorizing Times Square only to later tell America that he was a proud "Muslim soldier." And now, President Obama has weighed in, or not, on the growing controversy over the proposed mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero.
The president has fundamentally misunderstood the stakes and the sentiments of the American people. Opposition to a mammoth Islamic center near Ground Zero is not about religious freedom, it is about the significance of Ground Zero to the American psyche.
The president's admonishment on religious freedom will play on Islamist media as a lecture to the American people. With almost 70 percent of Americans opposing this center, his focus has directly fed the false Islamist narrative that most Americans want a war against Islam and Muslims.
The reality is that the impression many leading American Muslim groups leave of Islam can only be described as narcissistic spirituality. They obsess about what "we need," "I want," or what "you are doing to us." It's about what others should do for them, underlined by a demand for political correctness.
They seem to be indifferent to the feelings and needs of the majority of America, Muslim or non-Muslim.
The president is just parroting that rather than leading.
Many major Muslim groups deny any responsibility for the reforms needed to stop radicals. Instead, they obsess on victimization, make belligerent demands, and wrap themselves in the First Amendment.
This $100 million political structure is a demand that is wrong in many ways, but especially for Muslims in America.
Our spiritual journey of Ramadan is about admitting that we want equality, not special privileges. It is now that we refocus our children on what it means to put our needs a distant third to God and to those who need us, like our nation.
Our priorities need to be self-repair and humble spirituality. Introspection and humility are the only way to treat America's perception of Islam.
Islam taught me to focus on "my responsibilities," "my role as an American" and "my moral and Islamic obligations to reform" and separate mosque and state.
Denial is the tool of the narcissist. Islamists insist that they are misunderstood. But it is they who misunderstand America and ignore the pre-modern ideologies that permeate many interpretations of Islam.
So this Ramadan, I propose we focus on some core humanitarian values. Let us spend a week on each. First, we need to lift the principles of the U.S. Constitution and its Establishment Clause over any other legal system, including Shariah.
Second, we need to celebrate our devotion to American nationalism and its universal equality "under God."
Third, let us celebrate modernity and the Enlightenment and the hard work we have yet to do to bring Islamic thought into this era.
Last, let us focus on Quranic scripture and realize passages that need reinterpretation.
Our major holiday at the end of Ramadan will fall the day before the ninth anniversary of 9/11. May the lessons of Ramadan this year end with every imam asking Muslims to step away from tribal whims and demands and step towards genuine reform and the separation of mosque and state.
M. Zuhdi Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix. Reach him at [email protected].
Congress cannot make a law, but apparently local governments can.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Pro-lifers to Challenge Prayer Ban on Walkway in Front of Planned Parenthood
Activists Score Major First Amendment and Pro-Life Victory in Washington, D.C. - Christian Newswire
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is the THIRD time, by my count, that you have accused those of us, who support the imam, as people who ALSO support the LOSS of your First Amendment rights to protest against it. Where in the hell are you getting that from? The same place smoothy gets his facts?? Dude!
excon
Sounds to me like it's time for those of us in this thread to sit in the shade with a few cold ones, avoid discussion of politics or religion and just have a good time.
Your place or mine? :)
And I have been accused more than once of being against the 1st amendment for protesting the placement of the mosque. Where do you get that from ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Rick:Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
NO, they can't. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that GOVERNMENT thinks it CAN. That's why we have to be diligent against them, and not give them an INCH. I APPLAUD your pro lifers for seeking THEIR First Amendment rights, just like I applaud ANYONE who does that. Dissent is very patriotic.
No, I don't agree with their motives... What the HELL do motives have to do with Constitutional rights? That IS the central theme in this thread, isn't it? You should have Constitutional rights UNLESS I don't agree with your motives?? That ain't the way we do things here.
excon
I'm in full agreement with you. I was just pointing out that the Constitution only says that Congress cannot make a law. It does not prohibit local governments from making laws.
We've all seen the Constitution interpreted in many different ways over the years. I love that we have it, but I hate that it is so open to the interpretations of whoever is in power at the time.
The founding fathers had slaves but now we say slavery is not legal.
The founding fathers did not agree with abortion on demand for any reason but now it's OK.
The founding fathers knew the value of carrying a loaded weapon but now that right has been severely limited and even prohibited in some states.
The list goes on and on.
@smoothy
You're getting into local law, I don't know jack about that, New York is the most litigious state in the nation, no doubt they'll have to do the red-tape dance to even start planning for this mosque. When I said they had the right, I meant freedom of religion. But, I'll stop arguing the legal battle because it's bound to get confusing.
@tom
You can protest, I never said you can't.
All I really wanted to say was my theory that this is just an opportunistic and acceptable way to vocalize opposition to Islam that everyone had but kept quiet about. It's like the surgeon who chose that career because he's actually sadist and loves to cut people.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It's quite simple. I've been saying it from the start. Everyone on your side says this: "I agree with their right to build it, BUT....."
If you EMBRACE the Constitution, there are NO buts. If you BELIEVE in the concepts outlined the Constitution, there are no buts. If you understand the reasons for our founding, there are no buts. If you believe that freedom is for EVERYBODY, there are no buts. And, there are especially, no lists.
As simple as I think it is, you don't. I haven't convinced you in ten years of the rightness of my ways, and I don't think I ever will.
excon
Hello Rick:Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Yes it does. You're right, though, in that the Bill of Rights all by itself, only prohibits the FEDS from preying on its citizens. But, the Fourteenth Amendment took care of that bit of housecleaning...
Here's what it says: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That clause, basically tells the states that the Bill of Rights applies to them too.
excon
Correct you won't . Because it is not simply a matter of they have a right to build it therefore it should be built. The right to build has not been in dispute .Quote:
I haven't convinced you in ten years of the rightness of my ways, and I don't think I ever will
Stick around ;I have hardly been quite on the subject.Quote:
All I really wanted to say was my theory that this is just an opportunistic and acceptable way to vocalize opposition to Islam that everyone had but kept quiet about.
You said that you suspect that I oppose the building of all mosques ;and that is simply not the case .Then you implied that my opposition to it implicates me of being intolerant .
There is a continuous over the top theme in this thread (and also the arguments of Bloomberg and the President before he revised his comments ) that those who oppose it are against 1st amendment religious freedoms. It is not true ;an unfounded smear.
But that does not cover cities or townships or municipalities or even homeowner associations, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Rick:Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Yes, it does. It covers EVERY government agency. Even HOA's, in some jurisdictions, have been declared quasi-governmental agencies (which they are), and have been ordered to follow "due process" of law.
excon
I'm not very familiar with New York City law either, only to a small degree... and you are correct. I've heard getting anything actually done there takes major amounts of patience and perseverance.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot_oi
But we can argue against it being built. It IS our constitutional right under the First amendment. And there is no exemption for Muslims or Mosques anywhere in the Constitution. And as I did mention. Construction can be blocked for anything without a need for anything to be against the law or code, just objections from neighbors. Remember the NIMBY acronym.
That is your interpretation. And I wish it were true but clearly it is not. It says Congress in one place and States in another... but it does not say cities, townships, etc... so we just have to live with that and fight it when local governments and agencies try to make laws that we believe are unconstitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What IS in dispute then. Should this ONE guy NOT do what the Constitution says he can do? No?? And, he shouldn't do it because YOU don't think he should? He shouldn't do it because MOST people don't think he should?? Really??
Do you view YOUR Constitutional rights the same way?? Are you are THAT cavalier about them?? Nahhh. You ain't.
I don't think you should own a gun. I think it's HIGHLY insensitive that you do. I'll bet I can find a MAJORITY of Americans who agree with me too. You going to throw out your guns?? HELL no you're not! Who're you trying to kid?
excon
Hypothetically lets say legally someone could open a gay bar on the lot next to your house... Or a Dirty book store that's open 24 hours and did plan to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Do you have the right to object to it? And why is that any different?
Assume You are say, a black Church... and the KKK wants to open a club next door to you. Flags, gas fired cross and all, do they have the right do do it? A Mosque next to ground zero is NO different that that would be.
Yes we have the right to object. This is often how local zoning and licensing laws change in many areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
And that is the point I was making. We DO have the right to block anything being built. Dirty book store or Mosque... even a Church which is frequently the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hi, Ex.
I'll take 20 bucks of that action. A majority of Americans disapprove of gun ownership? Doubtful.
Exactly, only a majority of Democrats that think criminals have a constitutional right to not be shot and killed during a home robbery seem to believe that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
I know Washington DC was one place that did and has charged homeowners with attempted murder for shooting and armed robber INSIDE their own home. But the criminal with a gun they legally could not own as a convicted felon was charged with a misdemeaner.
Luckily in most cases the Jury saw it differently.
Just one of many reasons you could not pay me to live in DC.
As a Virginian, I have the right to open carry a handgun or apply for a permit for Concieled carry (and get it) and even gasp... shoot and kill any sob that I catch breaking into my house... and not get charged with it.
Here you are allowed to defend yourself, your property and your family from criminals.
And nobody is "Alledgedly" robbing your house at 2 am. If I didn't invite them in... they are guilty of doing it and I can take any and all steps I deam necessary to defend myself, my property and my family. Up to and including lethal force.
A dead robber never repeats his crime again and never comes back for vengeance.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Assuming they met local zoning and building codes, I could certainly object, as you have here. Nobody suggested you didn't have a voice. But a voice is all it is. An opinion. You're welcome to it. But, as you said, it's LEGAL. Government ISN'T going to DO a thing about it. Nor should they?
Aren't you for a free market? If I didn't like the peep show next door, I could move. I don't want the government to solve all my problems... You don't, do you, as a small government tea partier, want the government to intrude on gay bars and dirty book stores??
excon
Hello again, smoothy and you too Cats:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You miss the point. A majority of people liking it, or not, DOESN'T change your right to own a gun. You HAVE that right. You HAVE it because you're a sovereign citizen of these United States. NOBODY can take it away from you. NOBODY. There's NO DOUBT that you believe it, too. You believe it, because it's TRUE. You don't CARE if it's insensitive, either. In fact, you're clearly PROUD that it IS. I don't blame you. That's FINE with me. You don't have to make excuses to ANYBODY about your motives for seeking your RIGHTS.
excon
Enjoy them while you can, Ex. If your guy Barry (can't say boy in this case) gets re-elected, odds are you won't have as many, such as what to buy with your own money.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM. |