The Constitution is the Constitution, anti-Muslims please read

[Bass v 2.0]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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 monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

 

[JBeukema]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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 monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

Holy crap, bass said something intelligent and reasonable.

I never thought I'd say this, but CB:

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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 monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

Holy crap, bass said something intelligent and reasonable.

I never thought I'd say this, but CB:

I don't know he started off ok
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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."

Then he started projecting so he needs to pull his head out of his ass the shit smell is getting to him

 

[JBeukema]

We're talking about CB here. Expectations are low. Let him have his gold star, asshole.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We're talking about CB here. Expectations are low. Let him have his gold star, asshole.

OK Toilet paper.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

 

[JBeukema]

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

No, it doesn't. Only non-members in a given region- same as Judaism.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

No, it doesn't.

Im thinking you hold no sway on Islamic fiqh.
Shirk is worse than Killing
Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir


Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:
﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾
(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.'' Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:
﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾
(And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) "Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.''


Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328) was a jurist of the Hanbali madhhab. He directed that "since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."


Maliki jurist, Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawani (d. 996), agrees: "Jihad is a Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have either the alternative of converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war is declared against them."

Averroes (1126-1198) says this: "the Muslims are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book . . . is twofold: either conversion to Islam, or payment of poll-tax (jizya)."


(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush), do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

 

[Skull Pilot]

What do you think of Muslims who oppose the building of a mosque at ground zero?

U.S. Muslims underestimate 9/11 effect, Muslim thinker warns – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open," said Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University in Washington, D.C

.

washingtonpost.com

 

[JBeukema]

mr faggot: try not hacking people's quotes to lie about what they said

skull: I'd tell them the same thing as everyone else- they're not building a mosque @ ground zero; railing against a non-existent thing makes you an idiot

 

[nraforlife]

Islime is NOT a 'religion', but rather a totalatarian movement which uses the cloak of 'faith' to infiltrate and paralyze other socities it plans to destroy.

 

[maineman]

ya know... if I were a public relations consultant advising the muslims in NYC, I think I would tell them that this is probably not the SMARTEST move they can make if they want to reduce the tension betweeh them and the non-muslim majority. Having said that, and considering the fact that I am NOT such a consultant, I do not see how we could legitimately interfere with the free exercise of any religion. I think this is a great test of our willingness to be a truly free nation even when someone else's legitimate exercising of their freedoms upsets us.

 

[JBeukema]

We could just kill everyone and be done with all this bullshit....

 

[007]

Well, I think we should conduct a little experiment... why don't we bomb Mecca while thousands of muslims have gathered there, and then waltz in and demand they let us build a massive Christian church right on top of our handy work.

I wonder how receptive the muslims would be to that idea?

 

[JBeukema]

We already did that in every city in Afghanistan- why stop now?

 

[OmarDaGreat]

Islime is NOT a 'religion', but rather a totalatarian movement which uses the cloak of 'faith' to infiltrate and paralyze other socities it plans to destroy.

Is that not what Christanity did when it came to the New World...after it destroyed the pagans in the Old World.

All religions want to spread their message. That's nothing new. Christanity took every pagan celebration and turned it into a Christian holiday.

But ONLY Islam wants to destroy socity...

 

[007]

We already did that in every city in Afghanistan- why stop now?

Really? Then there ought to be pictures galore of bombed out cities and then Christian churches being built there... find one...

 

[JBeukema]

My bad, i forgot- we just handed out bibles and remembered that the Church isn't in buildings of woodand stone- because then the terrorists would use that house of stone to store yellowcake uranium they bought from Hitler and build WMDs with which to clear Times Square so they could build a new mosque and take over the world

 

[Claudette]

ya know... if I were a public relations consultant advising the muslims in NYC, I think I would tell them that this is probably not the SMARTEST move they can make if they want to reduce the tension betweeh them and the non-muslim majority. Having said that, and considering the fact that I am NOT such a consultant, I do not see how we could legitimately interfere with the free exercise of any religion. I think this is a great test of our willingness to be a truly free nation even when someone else's legitimate exercising of their freedoms upsets us.

I agree. Its not a very smart thing to do and if I were a consultant I would advise against it also.

If they buy the land, which they are trying to do, then they can build whatever they want to on that land.

I sure hope they have second thoughts about building a mosque one block from ground zero. Jeeze.


Everyone accuses Americans of being insensitive. Well I think I would acuse the builders of this mosque of being totally insensitive. I don't think a mosque at that location will heal any wounds. I think it will keep wounds open and festering.

Not a good idea for Muslims or Americans.

I also wonder if they will be able to get a NYC construction crew to build a mosque that close the ground zero?? Juries out on that one.

 

[hipeter924]

The first and fourteenth amendments give the right to freedom of expression,etc but nowhere does it give Muslims the right to preach the destruction of the US or other nations, nor does it give the right to preaching of murder and violence to groups or individuals.

The US already ruled on this in 1969:

Background Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come and cover a KKK rally in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[1] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "*******," "Jews" and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute - enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare - proscribed "advocat[ing] .. . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.
The rather cursory way in which the Ohio courts dismissed Brandenburg's constitutional arguments is unsurprising in light of the state of First Amendment law in the pre-Brandenburg era. Although Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), had overturned the convictions of mid-level Communist Party members in language that seemed suggestive of a broader view of freedom of expression rights than had been accorded them in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), all Yates purported to do was construe a federal statute, the Smith Act. Thus, Dennis' reading of the First Amendment remained in force: advocacy of law violation, even as an abstract doctrine, could be punished under law consistent with the free speech clause.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus the opening post of this topic fails, on US law terms at least.

In theory you could have a Muslim preacher chucked in jail just for preaching death to the Jews, maybe set up an organization that gets people to pose as Muslims and video tape the Muslim preachers at Mosques, you could have all the Muslim preachers in America arrested and rotting in prison.