Not Welcome...

People from Murfreesboro, Tenessee tried to keep Muslims, who had been living there for 30 years, from building a Mosque... it's ridiculous. This is a free country.

NOT WELCOME (rough cut) Promotional Short Version on Vimeo

Dear NP: Whether people are protesting against Muslims, Westboro Baptists, LDS leaders for hiding sexual abuse against children, the REAL issue is the lack of legal check against
religious abuses, for fear of the state intervening "prematurely" and interfering with church matters before it is legally proven that an offense has occurred.

That is the REAL issue.

You can have religious freedom, and incorporate and practice in this country.

But no corporation, church, cult or any person or group should be able to abuse that freedom as "license" to abridge, deny or violate the same rights of others, including due
process and equal protections of the laws. And then wait until "after it is proven" to be confronted by the state. In the meantime, the abuse has already occurred; and the threat of that already imposes on public safety and security, without a way to address it!

To clearly prohibit the abuse of religious authority under Shariah laws (or Westboro protestors or LDS,
or any religious following/cult, even the business that ran the sweatlodge in the negligence homicide case), ALL groups that incorporate should be REQUIRED to follow the same Bill of Rights and due process that government has to follow as a "collective" authority/institution with a chain of command over other people. This is just to follow basic civil rights that are part of the same law as religious freedom, it is not really adding any new requirements, just enforcing the ones that are already there.

That is not abridging religious freedom to require incorporated institutions to respect the SAME LAWS that recognize religious freedom within that SAME CONTEXT. It is merely to prevent abuses that would otherwise violate the same set of laws being invoked. This requires more of an educational process than anything else, but writing agreement into policy or law may be necessary to ensure public security and fairness in enforcing these standards for ALL corporations and institutions registered under the state, not targeting any one group.

Freedom of speech, press or religion cannot be taken out of context with other civil rights -- like the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition with equal defense and due process; the right to equal
representation and protection; the right to peace and security in homes, persons,
communities, without fear of imposition from someone else's abusive intent.

I think ALL citizens and ALL corporations should have to sign agreements to
uphold and respect the same civil standards and ethics that we wish to invoke
and to enforce, if we expect the same to be respected for us and for government.
And any person, born here or not, who does NOT intend to follow the laws, and does NOT agree to correction and restitution for deliberately abusing rights to violate those of others,
should have their citizenship denied or revoked, in exchange for someone on the waiting list committed to work and contribute productively in the U.S. as a law-abiding citizen.

You can't legislate this for private citizens -- that part would have to be either
voluntarily followed, or left to individuals to incorporate their own civic associations and
rules to enforce such standards locally by consent of the participating groups or districts.

But since church groups and business corporations register with the state to be recognized entities, you CAN ADD this to the requirements -- that in order to incorporate and practice in the U.S. or in that state, these organizations agree to abide by Constitutional laws and ethics. I listed these online, for other people who want to use these policies to set up
local standards in their neighborhoods, council districts or states based on the same
principles that our government officials and institutions are supposed to be following:

ethics-commission.net

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Rather than stating your bigotries, why not just say "I hate the Constitution"?

Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:

WTF?
I have the opposite problem that I keep running into.

As a progressive Democrat, I follow a very liberal interpretation of Christianity as universal inclusion/salvation but a very strict interpretation of anything Constitutional as requiring the "consent of the governed" to be lawful (including public consensus on any religious issues before a public policy can be made based on agreement that represent all views equally). If someone does not consent, I believe conflict resolution should be applied until all points or settled, and that would ensure laws accommodate and protect all interests.
If people or groups cannot agree, they should separate and localize the policies they disagree on, so they can enjoy equal protection and representation without conflict.

When I bring up my Christian or Constitutional beliefs, people question how can I be a Democrat or a liberal. I sound like a conservative Republican when I talk about people enforcing the Bill of Rights locally and individually.

In truth, I find that both parties tend to apply and defend the Bill of Rights as it applies to their own issues. The conservatives will defend gun rights from interference by govt, to the point of erring on the side of "not enough check" against criminal abuses, rather than risking imposing on law-abiding citizens; while the liberals do the same with freedom of choice in abortion! They BOTH make different issues the "litmus test" of individual freedom from state imposition. Yet, they have difficulty sympathizing with the other side though they are both arguing very similarly; the liberal pro-choice advocates are equally criticized for opposing ANY check on abortion, even at the risk of not stopping abuses that are hurting people. Same with how conservatives are criticized for opposing legislation that would protect the environment or endangered species from corporate development wiping out whole areas; or opposing any kind of gun control, etc. etc.

In the end, I find that conservatives are more vocal about limiting government and giving the private sector, including churches, charities and businesses, more room and responsibility for organizing and managing services instead of relying on state institutions.
But they are weak when it comes to holding such "private corporations" responsible for not abusing resources to override the consent of citizens and communities affected by their policies which is what CAUSES people to lobby for government regulations!

This self-regulation does not happen automatically, just because you give people the freedom to do it. But that is where liberals are criticized, for depending on "government" to force regulation and start mixing public and private institutions and policies.

So where I find there is common ground is requiring corporations to uphold the same Constitutional standards and ethics as government, and leaving it to individuals inside and outside these institutions and industries to petition to resolve conflicts and come up with solutions directly, not relying on government, but agreeing to follow the same laws.

Same with gun rights -- citizens who want to invoke the right to bear arms under the Bill of Rights, must respect the same rules and training as the "well-regulated militia" in other words the police and military who are sworn to defend the Constitution and the country and are not using arms to commit crimes or offenses against people, property or principles. This cannot be enforced by "top-down government imposition" but is best enforced by agreement among the people, individually on the local level by "consent of the governed", which is where the authority of government should come from anyway!

Maybe things are different from my perspective in Houston, Texas.

But from here it seems more that the arguments for Constitutional checks on govt are pushed more by conservative Republicans, who are framing the Democrats and liberals as abusing laws to add too much bureaucracy to government that is NOT constitutional.

http://www.houstonprogressive.org
 
Maybe if Muslims would stop trying to explode themselves amongst American civilians we'd be a bit more welcoming to them.

But they keep doing it. And the mainstream moderate Muslims aren't exactly outraged in their opposition to those radicals.

So...fuck 'em. I've got a bacon wrapped gift for the next rag head that tries to harm innocents when I'm around.

Yo.........Fucked90........wanna provide a link to the latest suicide bomber that expoded their vest in the US?
 
Rather than stating your bigotries, why not just say "I hate the Constitution"?

Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:
I have to call you out on that one. The founders were classical liberals. The ideology of current American liberals is not the same as the founders. On this particular issue, it is. But the term liberal has a different meaning today in American politics. "Liberal" today tends to refer to "modern liberalism" which was the ideology of FDR.
 
Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:
I have to call you out on that one. The founders were classical liberals. The ideology of current American liberals is not the same as the founders. On this particular issue, it is. But the term liberal has a different meaning today in American politics. "Liberal" today tends to refer to "modern liberalism" which was the ideology of FDR.

He knows that. But modern liberalism adopted the liberal moniker when progressive became a bad word in the 1920s as a way to decieve people. They still try it.
 
Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:
I have to call you out on that one. The founders were classical liberals. The ideology of current American liberals is not the same as the founders. On this particular issue, it is. But the term liberal has a different meaning today in American politics. "Liberal" today tends to refer to "modern liberalism" which was the ideology of FDR.

No such thing.

It's a conservative "catch phrase" so they can go..we are "classical" Liberals.

Liberalism is always changing. It's not stuck in one particular mindset.

For example, Liberals during that time, considered non-white people to be inferior.

That's changed.
 
I am a conservative born again christian and here is my take on this.

Let them build their house of worship it has no affect on my faith at all.

If you really beileve that a mosque is a place to recruit radical muslims then wouldn't you want to know where its at. Lets get real you cant set in a mosque and plan another 9-11 in America today without being overheard (Patriot Act).


The laws of our land do give the same rights to Muslims as Nazis.
 
That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:
I have to call you out on that one. The founders were classical liberals. The ideology of current American liberals is not the same as the founders. On this particular issue, it is. But the term liberal has a different meaning today in American politics. "Liberal" today tends to refer to "modern liberalism" which was the ideology of FDR.

He knows that. But modern liberalism adopted the liberal moniker when progressive became a bad word in the 1920s as a way to decieve people. They still try it.

Shit............it was used as a bad word in the 60's against the hippies as well.
 
Rather than stating your bigotries, why not just say "I hate the Constitution"?

Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:

Lay off the crack dude!
 
Rather than stating your bigotries, why not just say "I hate the Constitution"?

Because we're not liberals.

That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:

The Sallow Zone!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y]YouTube - ‪Twilight Zone intro.‬‏[/ame]
 
USC uses the word idiot, I assume that is because he sees one each morning when he gets up. I have no problem with the MOsque, the moment we find out that they are preaching against the US and committing terrorist act, kill them all.

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Worked then and it works now.
 
Yeah, I'm sure you're an expert on the matter too. :lol: Believe it or not, people actually go to church to worship God, and nothing else.

They are not peaceful, most of the conflicts on the globe today involve Muslims fighting with their neighbors.

Country and Main religious groups involved:
1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics
17. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
18. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
19. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
20. Xinjiang province China: Han Chinese and Muslims

Looks like there are a lot of Christians involved in those conflicts as well. I think of the top three that basically follow the same religious text...Christians are number one at war making. Islam is probably number 3..with Judaism at a solid number two.

Christians rule at warmaking and killing. :clap2:

Yes, watch out for those bloodthirsty Christians. When some Christians fly 747s into the Al Faisaliah Complex in Riyadh get back to me.
 
They are not peaceful, most of the conflicts on the globe today involve Muslims fighting with their neighbors.

Country and Main religious groups involved:
1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics
17. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
18. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
19. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
20. Xinjiang province China: Han Chinese and Muslims

Looks like there are a lot of Christians involved in those conflicts as well. I think of the top three that basically follow the same religious text...Christians are number one at war making. Islam is probably number 3..with Judaism at a solid number two.

Christians rule at warmaking and killing. :clap2:

Yes, watch out for those bloodthirsty Christians. When some Christians fly 747s into the Al Faisaliah Complex in Riyadh get back to me.

who needs a 747 when you have access to all the military toys within reach?

give a fuck for muslim collateral damage lately? Don't let the smallest violin in history bump you on the ass when you take your leave back to Fucktardville, m'kay?
 
Last edited:
That's true. Because if you were..you'd know that the Constitution, which was written by Liberals..was meant, in part, to provide everyone with Freedom of Religion.

So I guess you answered the question..why do Conservatives hate the Constitution?

Because they have no idea what it says..:eusa_shhh:
I have to call you out on that one. The founders were classical liberals. The ideology of current American liberals is not the same as the founders. On this particular issue, it is. But the term liberal has a different meaning today in American politics. "Liberal" today tends to refer to "modern liberalism" which was the ideology of FDR.

No such thing.

It's a conservative "catch phrase" so they can go..we are "classical" Liberals.

Liberalism is always changing. It's not stuck in one particular mindset.

For example, Liberals during that time, considered non-white people to be inferior.

That's changed.
No such thing as classical liberalism? I guess this is proof our public education system is useless. It is no conservative catch phrase. It is a fact that the writers of the constitution were classic liberals, not modern liberals. When an ideology changes, it reaches a point where it is not longer the same as the ideology it developed from, and to reduce confusion and deception different terms are used to clarify. That is why you have conservatism and neoconservatism, classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

The difference is clear when comparing US and European use of the words liberal. In Europe, the term liberal does not mean what it does in the US. It is defined as a more moderate view with low business regulations. That is not liberalism in the US, which is more synonymous to European social democratic parties. Here is a wiki describing social democracy, which sounds very similar to how americans define liberalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

So no, your claim that classical liberalism is nonexistent is false. Americans misuse the term liberal to describe the ideologies that are actually more in line with European social democratic parties. When referring to the foundners political ideologies, it is correct to use the term classical liberalism to clarify with people that you are not talking about the mainstream American misunderstanding of the term.
 
Last edited:
Looks like there are a lot of Christians involved in those conflicts as well. I think of the top three that basically follow the same religious text...Christians are number one at war making. Islam is probably number 3..with Judaism at a solid number two.

Christians rule at warmaking and killing. :clap2:

Yes, watch out for those bloodthirsty Christians. When some Christians fly 747s into the Al Faisaliah Complex in Riyadh get back to me.

who needs a 747 when you have access to all the military toys within reach?

give a fuck for muslim collateral damage lately? Don't let the smallest violin in history bump you on the ass when you take your leave back to Fucktardville, m'kay?

I read the President's report to congress on the Libyan mission, I couldn't find the part where Obama says the goal is to kill Muslims. :confused: Fucking libtard. :lol:
 
Yes, watch out for those bloodthirsty Christians. When some Christians fly 747s into the Al Faisaliah Complex in Riyadh get back to me.

who needs a 747 when you have access to all the military toys within reach?

give a fuck for muslim collateral damage lately? Don't let the smallest violin in history bump you on the ass when you take your leave back to Fucktardville, m'kay?

I read the President's report to congress on the Libyan mission, I couldn't find the part where Obama says the goal is to kill Muslims. :confused: Fucking libtard. :lol:

You probably also didn't catch the whole lack of WMDs last decade either. Par for your course, really.
 

Forum List

Back
Top