Why are they having hearings on the religion of peace?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know.......if you're gonna single out someone who uses religion for terrorist activities, then I've got one quick question...........
Where the fuck are the hearings on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?
Oh wait.......forgot......."Christians" are the peaceful ones, right?
I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
No, but his point is valid. Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?You know.......if you're gonna single out someone who uses religion for terrorist activities, then I've got one quick question...........
Where the fuck are the hearings on Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church?
Oh wait.......forgot......."Christians" are the peaceful ones, right?
The Westboro church are disgusting pigs but they play within the rules, they don't use violence against people or blow things up. I am not saying I agree with them I fucking hate them, but I don't have to worry about a Westboro Church Member blowing up me and my family at a mall.
These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.
I dont think so at all.
The fact is that the majority of terrorist activities have been carried out by people who claim Islam as their faith. This fact has led many to do what you say above and paint all muslims as terrorists.
These hearings are an opportunity for the american people to hear from and about true muslims and giving americans the opportunity to see that the majority of muslims are not like those who hijacked their religion in the name of terrorism.
I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?
I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
It is simple
Republicans want you to fear the Muslim so that you will ignore rightwing extremists
But don't people get enticed into being violent supremacists in much the same way others get enticed into being terrorists? I'm not really seeing a difference unless your point is that we are having these hearings in an effort to make more people suspicious of Muslims.Maybe a better analogy would be white supremacists...they've been in the news lately, in fact I think one tried to blow up a MLK parade. Why aren't we having hearings on them?
I'd say that white supremacists, as an entire class, are rejected by the rest of society. We don't afford any room for the one's who "play nice." The whole lot is dismissed as lunatic and fanatical. But Muslims, on the other hand, are not generally lunatic fanatics. The entire class is being inaccurately defined based on the actions and statements of a small group of radicals who happen to be Muslim. Now, I'm not defending either side in all of this. Just pointing out the difference in scenario.
Sounds like you want to piss off everybody. Anytime you have a house committee investigating some segment of the population, it turns into a witch hunt. It's just the nature of the beast. If the committee just has intelligent people testifying and saying the same old things we have heard hundreds of times, they won't get the media attention and the committee will be thought of as a waste. To justify it's existence the committee has to uncover something and bring it to public attention. The end result will most likely be less trust among both Muslim and the Non-Muslims, something we can ill afford. Over 40% to 50% of all Islamic terrorist arrests are due to tips and help from the Islamic community.Below is my opinion on how this issue should be addressed:
TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)
Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.
What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.
To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.
I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.
By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.
Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers resources:
1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.
2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.
3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).
Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.
If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:
[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally
[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.
Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).
EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.
Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of Constitutional freedoms to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.
I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas
I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute
the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.
Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:
A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)
[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]
do you mean to say they are trying to paint all Muslims as terrorists? If so, how counterproductive.I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
I think that they are trying to help the country have a better understanding of muslim viewpoints and culture with the hearings in order to gain a better understanding of the religion of choice of the majority of modern day terrorists.
Sounds like you want to piss off everybody. Anytime you have a house committee investigating some segment of the population, it turns into a witch hunt. It's just the nature of the beast. If the committee just has intelligent people testifying and saying the same old things we have heard hundreds of times, they won't get the media attention and the committee will be thought of as a waste. To justify it's existence the committee has to uncover something and bring it to public attention. The end result will most likely be less trust among both Muslim and the Non-Muslims, something we can ill afford. Over 40% to 50% of all Islamic terrorist arrests are due to tips and help from the Islamic community.Below is my opinion on how this issue should be addressed:
TO: Congressman Peter King, NY
Congressman Michael McCaul, TX
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: Constitutional checks against legal or religious abuses
by any organized group (not just Jihadists)
Dear Congressmen Peter King and Michael McCaul:
Thank you for your commitment to Constitutional protections of citizens
in addressing the issue of religious abuses that otherwise threaten public security.
What makes Jihadist beliefs unlawful in the U.S. is when a follower makes a decision to execute a killing or punishment against another person, without respect for democratic due process and defense. The solution would be to require any large religious organization, or even nonprofit or business corporations, to agree to adhere to the civil laws of due process and redressing grievances, as guaranteed to citizens under the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.
To ensure there is no religious discrimination against any one group,
I urge you to address NOT ONLY the Jihadist threat of violence or oppression,
but to EXPAND your investigation and hearings on this matter to cover ALL threats of religious abuses, INCLUDING Jihadist oppression of due process
under Shariah law, but not targeting just any one group.
I believe this would ensure the grievances brought forth are clearly CONSTITUTIONAL, and do NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.
By addressing ALL such cases of denying citizens due process, the arguments and defenses are based on Constitutional protections of ALL citizens from ALL abuses by ANY group.
Some examples of groups that have evaded due process, in committing
crimes or threats in the name of religious freedom or other civil liberties,
where prosecution through the courts or other legal actions have cost taxpayers resources:
1. The LDS scandal where religious leaders hid criminal sex abuse of children
through their cult organization and practices.
2. The Catholic church and other groups, where Elders have unequal
authority to expel or silence witnesses to sexual abuse of children
by members or by Elders themselves.
3. The Westboro Baptist group, that has claimed rights to protest by free speech, while denying or threatening the equal right of others to assembly peaceably (this conflict could also be resolved Constitutionally by requiring such groups to redress grievances in advance, instead of continued disruptions at public expense).
Even if these conflicts are within legal bounds of religious freedom and due process, the cost to taxpayers of not preventing them from escalating to legal action, violates the Code of Ethics for Government Service (attached) calling federal servants to seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.
If the Constitutional issue of oppressing or denying due process is applied to ANY large organization:
[4]. The abuse of unions and collective bargaining to gain private benefits at public expense for some workers instead of guaranteeing equal protections of all taxpayers and workers equally
[5]. The abuse of corporate personhood to exercise individual freedoms without equal responsibility for economic and environmental damage resulting from local and global business practices.
Examples: MAXXAM corporate takeover (using junk bonds bailed out by the public) [and] destruction of the Headwaters Forest in California (at a cost of over $1.6 billion to taxpayers).
EXXON Mobil and BP affiliates destruction of ocean ecosystems and related fishing businesses without full accountability for the extensive costs of damages incurred to all parties affected.
Again, all these cases of corporate or religious abuses of Constitutional freedoms to deny due process and equal protections of the interests of affected citizens, cause an obstruction of justice, and cost public resources and money.
I support you in setting up and conducting a commission or task force on legislation that would require ANY large organization or corporation, whether for business, or nonprofit, or religious, to SIGN AN AGREEMENT to abide by civil protections of due process and the redress of grievances, in order to incorporate, per State, to exercise civil liberties under the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
Houston, Texas
I am willing to volunteer or work through your offices on such a commission, which would publicly distribute
the attached documents, and assist any and all communities or organizations in implementing them internally.
Attached: Samples of Constitutional principles and policies that I propose all organizations agree to adopt in order to qualify for incorporation and the right to exercise civil liberties under governmental protection:
A. Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment
B. Code of Ethics for Government Service
C. Example of local mission statement based on Constitutional values (courtesy of Houston Police Department)
[attachments linked to http://www.ethics-commission.net]
I guess I haven't been paying attention, but wtf are we doing this for...what goal are we trying to accomplish?
And then this stupid Republican from California comes out and says they are no different than having hearings on Nazis or the KKK???
Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How nice....tho you are slightly outnumbered if they all hate you the same way.
All muslims are terrorists - the same way the Catholics were when they were chopping off heads and burning people at the stake for not being a Catholic. The same way just about every major religion has murdered people who did not believe and come around to their own way of thinking. The only people who are maybe "safe" are the people who claim to be atheists and they are only making that claim so they don't get whacked by a religion that they don't belong to.
So I guess the moral of the thread is that human rights violations and treason are A-OK w/Ravi so long as Muslims are doing it.
Thanks, Rav!
Your not to bright,islam is a murdering deathcult from hell,remember 9/11
and Fort Hood?The evil quran orders the muzzie savage animals to
do crimes against humanity.islam should be banned here!With pride I HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How nice....tho you are slightly outnumbered if they all hate you the same way.
The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: "The faith of a believer is never complete until his love is for Allah's sake and his hatred is for Allah's sake". And he also said: "Love for Allah and love for His enemy can never co-exist in the heart of a believer".