Now Who's Trying To Infringe Your Constitutional Rights?

[Annie]

Do I seriously have to teach you the civics you didn't learn in High School?

This is a simple resolution. A simple resolution does NOT Have the force of law, it is used merely to express the opinion of one chamber - in this case, the House - or, to establish the rules by which that chamber operates. A simple resolution cannot have any force of law outside of that.

You may have it confused with a JOINT resolution, which does have the force of law.


So you will still be able to burn a Koran once every Sunday after Church.

Earlier I posted that IF this were to be entered as a bill and became law...

 

[SilentKnight]

do you insult everyone you speak to.....

is there a similar resolution for the us flag?

no

therefore the koran has greater protection than the flag

Try reading the United States Code (4 USC 3, 8) as it's clear that you are erronerously under the assumption that there isn't a "similar resolution for the U.S. flag" when in fact the protection extended to the flag exceeds that of any perceived protection of the Quran by this resolution. This resolution does not have the force of law, and it merely expresses the sense of Congress that religious intolerance and bigotry should be condemned. That people would oppose a resolution calling for religious tolerance only indicts them as the bigots that they are.

Contrary to your claim that the Quran has greater protection than the flag this resolution would not have the effect of law as does the Flag Code. It's important that the facts as they stand should be debated and not your opinion that the Quran receives more protection by this resolution than does the U.S. flag when it clearly does not and the only reason that you would make such a claim is because it offends you and your bigotry that the Congress would condemn bigotry towards Muslims. You are still free to be a bigot and to say whatever you wish, and to burn the Quran and to even flush it down the toilet. All this resolution would do to you is condemn your action as the bigotry that they are.

That the House or Senate would seek to express by resolution condemnation for "bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group" including Muslims does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag. Nor does the House or Senate seeking to declare by resolution that the "civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals" including Muslims are protected does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag. That they would also recognize that "the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect" does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag.

It seems to me that you are reading into this resolution something that is not there because you have an agenda. So putting aside the bigotry, and all the fallacious reasoning that a similar resolution doesn't exist for the flag it can be concluded that since there are such resolutions (including the Codified version) and have been such resolutions in the past it is totally appropriate for the Congress to express by resolution their condemnation of religious intolerance towards Muslims. That you may be offended that Congress would directly condemn your religious bigotry should not mean that they should not do so.

 

[manu1959]

Try reading the United States Code (4 USC 3, 8) as it's clear that you are erronerously under the assumption that there isn't a "similar resolution for the U.S. flag" when in fact the protection extended to the flag exceeds that of any perceived protection of the Quran by this resolution. This resolution does not have the force of law, and it merely expresses the sense of Congress that religious intolerance and bigotry should be condemned. That people would oppose a resolution calling for religious tolerance only indicts them as the bigots that they are.

Contrary to your claim that the Quran has greater protection than the flag this resolution would not have the effect of law as does the Flag Code. It's important that the facts as they stand should be debated and not your opinion that the Quran receives more protection by this resolution than does the U.S. flag when it clearly does not and the only reason that you would make such a claim is because it offends you and your bigotry that the Congress would condemn bigotry towards Muslims. You are still free to be a bigot and to say whatever you wish, and to burn the Quran and to even flush it down the toilet. All this resolution would do to you is condemn your action as the bigotry that they are.

That the House or Senate would seek to express by resolution condemnation for "bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group" including Muslims does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag. Nor does the House or Senate seeking to declare by resolution that the "civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals" including Muslims are protected does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag. That they would also recognize that "the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect" does not mean that they are extending more protection to the Quran than the flag.

It seems to me that you are reading into this resolution something that is not there because you have an agenda. So putting aside the bigotry, and all the fallacious reasoning that a similar resolution doesn't exist for the flag it can be concluded that since there are such resolutions (including the Codified version) and have been such resolutions in the past it is totally appropriate for the Congress to express by resolution their condemnation of religious intolerance towards Muslims. That you may be offended that Congress would directly condemn your religious bigotry should not mean that they should not do so.

you can burn a us flag on the steps of the SCOTUS ... it is protected by freedom speach ....

$100 says if you do that to the koran you will be charged with a hate crime

another $100 says if you burn the bible you will be protected by freedom of speach

another $100 says if you paint a nude picture of chirst with a woodie and frame it and hang it on the wall you will be given a federal art grant

another $100 says if you paint a nude picture of allah giving head you will be charged with a hate crime then a bounty will be placed on your head

you tell me who has an agenda and who is biased against whom

hell if i am eating a ham sandwich i can't even get a cab anymore

as for my bigotry....i hate everyone....i make no special exception for muslims

 

[SpidermanTuba]

do you insult everyone you speak to.....

is there a similar resolution for the us flag?

no

The Flag Resolution of 1777, the Bradley Resolution, and the Federal Flag Code, are just some of numerous examples of how the Congress has recognized the significance of the flag as a symbol of American sovereignty.

therefore the koran has greater protection than the flag

And you still seem to fail to grasp that this resolution has no force of law. It can neither protects nor encroach upon a single liberty.

 

[manu1959]

The Flag Resolution of 1777, the Bradley Resolution, and the Federal Flag Code, are just some of numerous examples of how the Congress has recognized the significance of the flag as a symbol of American sovereignty.

you can burn a us flag on the steps of the SCOTUS ... it is protected by freedom speech ....

$100 says if you do that to the Koran you will be charged with a hate crime

find my the resolution protecting the bible and Christianity

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Earlier I posted that IF this were to be entered as a bill and became law...

It can't be entered as bill because it isn't a bill. It is written in the language of a resolution, hence the word "resolved." So you have no point. Perhaps you'd like to rewrite it in some twisted fashion - say perhaps add a penalty for those who do not "condemn bigotry", whatever that means, or some other such nonsense - to make it into a bill, but then you'd have even less of a point. You're debating about something that doesn't even exist.

 

[Annie]

It can't be entered as bill because it isn't a bill. It is written in the language of a resolution, hence the word "resolved." So you have no point. Perhaps you'd like to rewrite it in some twisted fashion to make it into a bill, but then you'd have even less of a point. You're debating about something that doesn't even exist.

Resolutions often are rewritten to bills. I never tried 'rewriting' anything, just kept pointing everyone back to it. I noticed Jillian ended up kudos for Manu.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you can burn a us flag on the steps of the SCOTUS ... it is protected by freedom speech ....

$100 says if you do that to the Koran you will be charged with a hate crime

find my the resolution protecting the bible and Christianity

I'll take that bet. Now go do it. But be careful, they will arrest and/or write you a ticket for violation of the fire code unless you get a permit.

 

[SilentKnight]

you can burn a us flag on the steps of the SCOTUS ... it is protected by freedom speach ....

$100 says if you do that to the koran you will be charged with a hate crime

another $100 says if you burn the bible you will be protected by freedom of speach

another $100 says if you paint a nude picture of chirst with a woodie and frame it and hang it on the wall you will be given a federal art grant

another $100 says if you paint a nude picture of allah giving head you will be charged with a hate crime then a bounty will be placed on your head

you tell me who has an agenda and who is biased against whom

hell if i am eating a ham sandwich i can't even get a cab anymore

as for my bigotry....i hate everyone....i make no special exception for muslims

The United States Constitution equally protects our right of freedom of speech and of religion regardless of bigotry and intolerance. I can burn the flag, the Quran, the Bible or any other thing I choose to burn if it belongs to me. This resolution does not protect the Quran from being burned but condemns the bigotry of those who do. These sort of resolutions have existed since this country was founded and do not have the full force of the law. It is like Congress expressing by resolution their condolences to the family of the 9/11 victims. It's not a law but an expression of the sense of Congress.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Resolutions often are rewritten to bills. I never tried 'rewriting' anything, just kept pointing everyone back to it. I noticed Jillian ended up kudos for Manu.

OK, so the debate is about a non-existent bill, one that hasn't even been written, that's what its about?

Talk about paranoia.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It is like Congress expressing by resolution their condolences to the family of the 9/11 victims. It's not a law but an expression of the sense of Congress.

Hey, Congress didn't express by resolution their condolences when my friend died earlier this year. By rightielogic, this must mean they value the lives and liberty of those who died in the WTC more than his.

 

[SilentKnight]

you can burn a us flag on the steps of the SCOTUS ... it is protected by freedom speech ....

$100 says if you do that to the Koran you will be charged with a hate crime

find my the resolution protecting the bible and Christianity

Let's be very clear that this resolution under question does not protect the Quran or Islam but merely expresses the sense of Congress condemning bigotry and intolerance. That said, you asked a question that I am very happy to answer which is "find me the resolution protecting the Bible and Christianity." Resolutions do not have the full effect of law, and Joint Resolutions do not have the full effect of the law if they are not signed by the President or his veto is overriden by two thirds of both House of Congress. In this case they are only binding on both House of Congress and are not law.

Congress Passed the Following Resolution in 1982

Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as The "Year of the Bible"

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders-among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson-paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982

 

[manu1959]

I'll take that bet. Now go do it. But be careful, they will arrest and/or write you a ticket for violation of the fire code unless you get a permit.

freedom to assembly and i have a right to health....so i will burn it to keep warm....

 

[manu1959]

Let's be very clear that this resolution under question does not protect the Quran or Islam but merely expresses the sense of Congress condemning bigotry and intolerance. That said, you asked a question that I am very happy to answer which is "find me the resolution protecting the Bible and Christianity." Resolutions do not have the full effect of law, and Joint Resolutions do not have the full effect of the law if they are not signed by the President or his veto is overriden by two thirds of both House of Congress. In this case they are only binding on both House of Congress and are not law.

Congress Passed the Following Resolution in 1982

you da man.....

can you get it written just like this?

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Christian faith;

declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Christian faith, should be protected;

recognizes that the Bible, the holy book of Christianity, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Christian faith.

 

[SilentKnight]

Hey, Congress didn't express by resolution their condolences when my friend died earlier this year. By rightielogic, this must mean they value the lives and liberty of those who died in the WTC more than his.

Some people just don't understand our Government and how resolutions are not binding law but are merely expressions of the sense of either or both Houses of Congress. They just can't or won't admit that Congress can and should condemn bigotry and intolerance as our country is founded upon the principles of tolerance and our individual and collective rights. I commend members of Congress who desire to condemn bigotry of any form.

 

[Annie]

Some people just don't understand our Government and how resolutions are not binding law but are merely expressions of the sense of either or both Houses of Congress. They just can't or won't admit that Congress can and should condemn bigotry and intolerance as our country is founded upon the principles of tolerance and our individual and collective rights. I commend members of Congress who desire to condemn bigotry of any form.

Yes they do. They just don't think that we should be echoing Europe.

 

[manu1959]

if we are at war with those that fight us in the name of islam (i know no all muslims are bad just the ones that are trying to kill us) does it seem odd that or own government would write a resolution such as this.

what if FDR's gov't had written

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the German Race;

declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the German Race, should be protected;

recognizes that Mein Kampf, the holy book of the German Race, as any other holy book of any race, religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the German Race.

i mean not all germans were bad....just the ones that were trying to kill us.

 

[SilentKnight]

if we are at war with those that fight us in the name of islam (i know no all muslims are bad just the ones that are trying to kill us) does it seem odd that or own government would write a resolution such as this.

what if FDR's gov't had written

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the German Race;

declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the German Race, should be protected;

recognizes that Mein Kampf, the holy book of the German Race, as any other holy book of any race, religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the German Race.

i mean not all germans were bad....just the ones that were trying to kill us.

First, Islam is no more at war with us than was the German race. I would also have supported a similar resolution for German Americans condemning bigotry, and acts of violence against Americans of German descent during World War II. I wished that a similar resolution had been in place for the Japanese so that many of my fellow Americans would not have had to suffer in American concentration camps simply because they were Japanese.

 

[SilentKnight]

OK, so the debate is about a non-existent bill, one that hasn't even been written, that's what its about?

Talk about paranoia.

Isn't it always about paranoia and about those who are unstable. The resolution in question doesn't do anything more than condemn bigotry and intolerance and re-affirm the civil rights and liberties of Americans regardless of their religious persuasion and emphasizes at a time when bigotry is directed at Muslims that they too are Americans deserving of the same rights that we are. Yet, there are those who are clearly unstable and cannot realize that their hate, bigotry, intolerance and racism is the direct cause of our present conflict with the Middle East, with Muslims and with terrorists.

 

[Annie]

First, Islam is no more at war with us than was the German race.

there is a German race?

I would also have supported a similar resolution for German Americans condemning bigotry, and acts of violence against Americans of German descent during World War II. I wished that a similar resolution had been in place for the Japanese so that many of my fellow Americans would not have had to suffer in American concentration camps simply because they were Japanese.

Concentration camps for Japanese? Hardly. Though the encampments and confiscation of property were problematic, they were not concentration camps. Reparations have been paid, wrongly to my pov. I'd not feel the same if the reparations were for loss of property, but instead done on a revisionist agenda.