More Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Hate from the Far Right

[Mudda]

Actually, the Founding Fathers put NO limits on the First Amendment. So what SCOTUS is doing is usurping our Constitution for their own preferences. So why bother to follow the Constitution in the first place? The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed. It'll creep in, one aspect at a time, if it hasn't already. They obviously won't start by chopping someone's hand off, lol. But check out Dearborn, Michigan on google, the Muslim Britain-like ghettos have already started here.

I don't care what the founders intended. Deal with what is now. You asked me how freedom of religion is limited and I educated you about it. You don't like the answer so now you are going to pull a logical fallacy known as moving the goal post and make it about the founders intent.

Suppose you re-write the first A. in a way that you think it should be. Let's see what you got.

I don't have to rewrite it, it already allows hand chopping. A future SCOTUS will eventually have to agree.

What!! You said: The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed." How the fuck would you amend it so that "hand chopping "is not allowed. You said it should be amended...so cough it up, Bubba!

Interesting how you continue to avoid commenting on any of the points that I made about constitutional law and limits of religious freedom. It appears that you are not intelligent enough deal with that in any meaningful way.

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't care what the founders intended. Deal with what is now. You asked me how freedom of religion is limited and I educated you about it. You don't like the answer so now you are going to pull a logical fallacy known as moving the goal post and make it about the founders intent.

Suppose you re-write the first A. in a way that you think it should be. Let's see what you got.

I don't have to rewrite it, it already allows hand chopping. A future SCOTUS will eventually have to agree.

What!! You said: The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed." How the fuck would you amend it so that "hand chopping "is not allowed. You said it should be amended...so cough it up, Bubba!

Interesting how you continue to avoid commenting on any of the points that I made about constitutional law and limits of religious freedom. It appears that you are not intelligent enough deal with that in any meaningful way.

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

 

[Mudda]

I don't have to rewrite it, it already allows hand chopping. A future SCOTUS will eventually have to agree.

What!! You said: The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed." How the fuck would you amend it so that "hand chopping "is not allowed. You said it should be amended...so cough it up, Bubba!

Interesting how you continue to avoid commenting on any of the points that I made about constitutional law and limits of religious freedom. It appears that you are not intelligent enough deal with that in any meaningful way.

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What!! You said: The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed." How the fuck would you amend it so that "hand chopping "is not allowed. You said it should be amended...so cough it up, Bubba!

Interesting how you continue to avoid commenting on any of the points that I made about constitutional law and limits of religious freedom. It appears that you are not intelligent enough deal with that in any meaningful way.

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More dumb asses than you can shake a stick at.....

A board member of the militia group Oath Keepers told the conspiracy theorist network InfoWars on Saturday that it’s “guaranteed” that the United States will enter into a civil war in the next three years.

The Oath Keepers volunteered themselves to provide private security to the anti-Muslim group Act for America’s nationwide “March for Sharia” on Saturday; in an email to members last week, the group said that ACT had reached out to them to “protect their events.”

Rob Dew of the Austin-based InfoWars was on the scene of the local march, where he interviewed Oath Keepers board member and Texas chapter president Jay Stang about what Stang insisted were “paid” counter-protesters representing a “totalitarian” nexus of communism and Islam.

Do you think there’s a chance for a civil war in America in the next three years?” Dew asked Stang.

“No, I think it’s guaranteed,” he responded. Oath Keeper At Anti-Muslim Protest Says Civil War Is ‘Guaranteed’ | Right Wing Watch

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What!! You said: The only real way to limit a religion is to Amend the First Amendment. Otherwise, sharia will be allowed." How the fuck would you amend it so that "hand chopping "is not allowed. You said it should be amended...so cough it up, Bubba!

Interesting how you continue to avoid commenting on any of the points that I made about constitutional law and limits of religious freedom. It appears that you are not intelligent enough deal with that in any meaningful way.

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

 

[Billo_Really]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

 

[Billo_Really]

Not relevant.

It's very relevant. Many people think that what freedom means.

 

[Issa]

It's funny because the native Indians didnt practice Christianity but here you are denying others to pratice their religion.
And for the millionth time Muslims abide the law of the land but have also the right under the US constitution to practice sharia. And as I mentioned there are Islamic courts all over the US as there Jewish ones.
Now if you wanna go against that, you'll get in legal trouble and also you'll come out as douche bag for not remembering that Christians and others came to this country running away from bigotry and discrimination.

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

 

[Roudy]

It's funny because the native Indians didnt practice Christianity but here you are denying others to pratice their religion.
And for the millionth time Muslims abide the law of the land but have also the right under the US constitution to practice sharia. And as I mentioned there are Islamic courts all over the US as there Jewish ones.
Now if you wanna go against that, you'll get in legal trouble and also you'll come out as douche bag for not remembering that Christians and others came to this country running away from bigotry and discrimination.

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

Its funny because it's the Muslims and their Shariah law who are denying and threatening others from practicing their religion, or refusing to accept the laws of the nations they migrate to, which in the case of the US is the constitution.

 

[Roudy]

Son....there are already Islamic courts in the US, just like there are Jewish ones and others. In Texas, California, Michigan ect....
It's protected by the constitution and your opinion that your entitled to is in the. Constitution....but I hate to break it out to you....You can't throw anybody out , it's illegal.

Any Muslim who believes Shariah law supersedes the constitution should be thrown out immediately.

It is an obvious fact that Shariah law cannot coexist with freedom, democracy and human rights. Those practicing it should be thrown out, and those who are naturalized citizens should have their citizenship revoked. Shariah is a threat to our national security and way of life. If you wish to practice Shariah law you should not bother coming here, plain and simple.

If that is the case, than any religious laws that have harsh aspects to them- that have rules that are contrary to our freedoms-such as being allowed to marry the person of our choosing should also be thrown out. But, you guys don't want to mess with Christians. That would not go over well. You also refuse to acknowledge that there are Constitutional and statutory safeguards against human rights violations. It's apparent that your real motivation is to single out Muslims and deliver a slap in the fact to all, including those who abide by the law.

Yada yada yada, not all religions are the same nor do they behave the same today, as much as you Lefties love to make it a one size fits all. It is "progressive"'thinking like yours that has caused many countries to commit national suicide. No thanks.

Of course she the shit hits the fan, the first people to suddenly get mum are you lefties, who cause the problems to begin with.

 

[PixieStix]

‘A wave of anti-Muslim rallies planned for almost 30 cities across America on Saturday by far-right activists has drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and inspired counter-protests nationwide.

In cities including New York and Chicago, a few dozen “anti-sharia” demonstrators were outnumbered by counter-protesters.
[…]
The rallies have been organized by Act for America, which claims to be protesting about human rights violations but has been deemed an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The demonstrations prompted security fears at mosques across the country and come at a time when hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise.’

Anti-Muslim rallies across US denounced by civil rights groups

Such anti-Muslim organizations are as ignorant as they are bigoted, hateful, and wrong.

They are not anti Muslim. They are anti sharia law. What part of genital mutilation do you not understand?

 

[PixieStix]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

Genital mutilation and honor killings are against the law. Oh and by the way they are both anti woman

 

[Esmeralda]

Anti sharia? Hahahahaha

0.6% of Muslims is scaring the nation?
As far as I know as a Muslim, most Muslim countries don't apply sharia lol.

I think it should be rallies against, crimes (highest in the world), poverty (highest in industrialised countries), education (one of the worst out there, health (worst in G20 countries).

You are correct. Most Muslim countries do not apply sharia law.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

Genital mutilation and honor killings are against the law. Oh and by the way they are both anti woman

I'll agree with you on this one...Islam like Extreme Christianity both suck ass.

 

[PixieStix]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

Genital mutilation and honor killings are against the law. Oh and by the way they are both anti woman

I'll agree with you on this one...Islam like Extreme Christianity both suck ass.

Extreme Christianity? lol. I am not biting haha

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Ahhhh..... the "southern poverty law center".... lol

Speaking of hate groups, bigots and clueless degenerates.....

 

[Mudda]

Just amend the Constitution so that freedom of religion has limits on it. Right now it doesn't and only SCOTUS is dealing with the issue.

Jesus fucking Christ! I have lost my last ounce of patience with you . I clearly spelled out in #311 above how freedom of religion IS LIMITED and why it is already ILLEGAL to kill or mutilate someone, for any reason. Are so intellectually limited that you gained nothing from that post?

You never showed the part of the Constitution that curtails the First Amendment.

Go back, read the post again. Slowly this time . Get help from your special ed. teacher and stop bothering me.

So after all that, you have nothing. Got it.

Well, this tread cad be closed. Mudda, that main antagonist has run for cover. He can't respond in any meaningful way to my contention that never before, as far as I can tell, has anyone claimed that the wording of the first amendment allows for unrestrained exercise of religious freedom TO THE POINT where Muslims can kill, and mutilate people who violate Sharia law, with impunity.

He was challenged to come up with a single legal scholar who would support that theory and fell flat on his face.

He asked where in the constitution is freedom of religion limited. I posted the following and he just kept asking the same question over and over again, as though he had a serious brain injury. Case closed. From my previous post:

First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first amendment. I said that all rights and freedoms come with limitations and responsibilities.. The first amendment also covers free speech but do you think that means that one can slander another, threaten another or create a false public alarm?
In addition ...

Police power (United States constitutional law)



In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people. Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia
In addition, case law-court decision add the body of constitutional law. I SCOTUS precedent carries as much weight as any article or amendment. For instance, SCOTUS ruled on same sex marriage and now that is as constitutional as if it had been in the original constitution or if an amendment was passed

SCOTUS has ruled on the limits of the free exercise of religion several times. Here are two examples:

While there have not been many legal tests of the “free-exercise” clause, existing precedence has generally held federal law superior to religious practice. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

Almost a century later, Reynolds was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.

» Limits of Religious Freedom

So Chief Justice Morrison Waite was afraid to lose power over the people, so he put limits on the First Amendment, lol. So basically, the First Amendment is meaningless... until another Supreme Court decides otherwise. So the whole Constitution is meaningless, where everyone can have their own interpretation, just like the bible, and if you don't like something, just give it an alternate meaning. Like I said, the proper thing to do would be to change the Constitution to have it say what we want it to say, not to be left up to individual opinions. But just to be clear, the Constitution itself allows sharia and hand chopping, that you can't deny.

 

[Mudda]

So you agree that people who want to live under sharia should be allowed to do so. Good for you.

I believe you are free to live however anyway you want to live as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others and you don't break the law.

So the First Amenedment that says that no law shall be made to infringe on a religion, is meaningless, rendering the whole Constitution meaningless.