Ramadam a Ding Dong

[Goodoledays]

Oh! Stupid loaded question time. Cool.

Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you hate America?

It appears YOU are the one who hates the US Constitution by using it to hide your Islamsit terrorists.

Whooooooosh!

Oh did you sneeze" GOD BLESS Y0U

 

[Si modo]

Everyone who supports Islamist terrorism under the guise of religious freedom and constitutional rights. Ummm, that would be YOU.

But, see, I don't support Islamist terrorism.

No you just support the constitution giving the right to do as they please. In most cases its not good for America.

I support the Constitution. If what American Muslims do is a violation of our laws, then prosecute them. That's no different than what we do to others. We are a nation of Law, not of religion.

 

[Si modo]

It appears YOU are the one who hates the US Constitution by using it to hide your Islamsit terrorists.

Whooooooosh!

Oh did you sneeze" GOD BLESS Y0U

Actually, I make fun of morons.

Welcome to the thread!

 

[Si modo]

It's quite obvious that you do. The OP is about Islamist terrorism and YOU are the one who keeps claiming they have constitutional rights.

No, I don't support "Islamist [sic] terrorism". And, I guarantee that I am the world's foremost authority on my views. I am a ******* expert, as a matter of fact.

And, guess what? Terrorists, if American, DO have Constitutional rights.

What constitutional rights do American Islamist terrorists have?

Due Process, for one.

 

[Goodoledays]

But, see, I don't support Islamist terrorism.

It's quite obvious that you do. The OP is about Islamist terrorism and YOU are the one who keeps claiming they have constitutional rights.

No, I don't support "Islamist [sic] terrorism". And, I guarantee that I am the world's foremost authority on my views. I am a ******* expert, as a matter of fact.

And, guess what? Terrorists, if American, DO have Constitutional rights.

And they should be tended to better than Ubama's admin. does. Since he respects them because of their religion he turns a blind eye.

 

[Liability]

I fully respect the right of Muslims to worship under the religion called Islam.

I also happen to detest the religion called "Islam."

With the exception of the subset of Muslims who happen to be violently inclined (which is kind of a requirement under the tenets of that religion, unfortunately) I also don't dislike Muslims. I just dislike their faith.

 

[Si modo]

I fully respect the right of Muslims to worship under the religion called Islam.

I also happen to detest the religion called "Islam."

With the exception of the subset of Muslims who happen to be violently inclined (which is kind of a requirement under the tenets of that religion, unfortunately) I also don't dislike Muslims. I just dislike their faith.

Yup.

 

[kaz]

It's quite obvious that you do. The OP is about Islamist terrorism and YOU are the one who keeps claiming they have constitutional rights.

No, I don't support "Islamist [sic] terrorism". And, I guarantee that I am the world's foremost authority on my views. I am a ******* expert, as a matter of fact.

And, guess what? Terrorists, if American, DO have Constitutional rights.

What constitutional rights do American Islamist terrorists have?

All of them, until they are convicted of a crime

 

[Liability]

No, I don't support "Islamist [sic] terrorism". And, I guarantee that I am the world's foremost authority on my views. I am a ******* expert, as a matter of fact.

And, guess what? Terrorists, if American, DO have Constitutional rights.

What constitutional rights do American Islamist terrorists have?

All of them, until they are convicted of a crime

The danger in that reply is that it persists in the very real problem of conflating terrorism with mere criminality.

 

[kaz]

I fully respect the right of Muslims to worship under the religion called Islam.

I also happen to detest the religion called "Islam."

With the exception of the subset of Muslims who happen to be violently inclined (which is kind of a requirement under the tenets of that religion, unfortunately) I also don't dislike Muslims. I just dislike their faith.

Yup.

Ditto. Then again I'd say the same about Christianity. And every other religion. I believe in God, I hate religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Tell us who interjected the US Constitution into this thread.

The constitution is relevant as **** when you're claiming that freedom of religion shouldn't apply to a certain religion.

I am not the one who interjected the US Constitution and freedom of religion. Find out who and you'll be less confused.

Alright, we’ll try it from this angle…

It’s logical to infer from your posts and link that you advocate making Islam or some aspect of Islam ‘illegal.’

If that’s the case then such a position would be un-Constitutional.

You also seem to be making the idiotic and failed argument that because some Muslims have committed criminal acts ‘in the name of Islam’ that all Muslims have consequently forfeited their First Amendment rights and may be subject to punitive measures.

That is also un-Constitutional.

Just because individuals of a given faith have committed criminal acts does not justify criminalizing that faith.

 

[Goodoledays]

But, see, I don't support Islamist terrorism.

No you just support the constitution giving the right to do as they please. In most cases its not good for America.

I support the Constitution. If what American Muslims do is a violation of our laws, then prosecute them. That's no different than what we do to others. We are a nation of Law, not of religion.

Yes we are a nation of Law. But when you have a gov't that praises that religion and gives them a spanking when they abuse the law is not right for the rest of the people of this country.

 

[Si modo]

No you just support the constitution giving the right to do as they please. In most cases its not good for America.

I support the Constitution. If what American Muslims do is a violation of our laws, then prosecute them. That's no different than what we do to others. We are a nation of Law, not of religion.

Yes we are a nation of Law. But when you have a gov't that praises that religion and gives them a spanking when they abuse the law is not right for the rest of the people of this country.

Look, I am no fan of Obama, so I am getting a good laugh from being called a lefty in this thread.

But, if you could explain what you mean by American Muslims getting a "spanking" for terrorism from our government, I would appreciate it.

 

[Goodoledays]

Whooooooosh!

Oh did you sneeze" GOD BLESS Y0U

Actually, I make fun of morons.

Welcome to the thread!

Just like you do to the law abiding people who are worried about this country being taken down to heavily by the Islamist who want to take control.

 

[Si modo]

Oh did you sneeze" GOD BLESS Y0U

Actually, I make fun of morons.

Welcome to the thread!

Just like you do to the law abiding people who are worried about this country being taken down to heavily by the Islamist who want to take control.

The law abiding persons should realize that we are no longer a nation of LAW if we make legal decisions based on religion rather than LAW.

 

[kaz]

What constitutional rights do American Islamist terrorists have?

All of them, until they are convicted of a crime

The danger in that reply is that it persists in the very real problem of conflating terrorism with mere criminality.

Fair point. But on the flip side look at what the government does to shred the Constitution and invade our privacy in the name of the War on Drugs. Do we want government to have the power to remove Constitutional rights in the name of terror for people who haven't been convicted of anything? At what point does government itself become the greater threat? What the government does to "protect" us from drugs is scary. I quote it, because they do it to us yet we still have the drugs.

I do think that people who are convicted of terrorism through can be reasonably considered to have declared war on the United States and as such forfeited their citizenship and any further Constitutional rights. But allowing the government to bypass Constitutional rights without a convication is too far in my view.

 

[Goodoledays]

I support the Constitution. If what American Muslims do is a violation of our laws, then prosecute them. That's no different than what we do to others. We are a nation of Law, not of religion.

Yes we are a nation of Law. But when you have a gov't that praises that religion and gives them a spanking when they abuse the law is not right for the rest of the people of this country.

Look, I am no fan of Obama, so I am getting a good laugh from being called a lefty in this thread.

But, if you could explain what you mean by American Muslims getting a "spanking" for terrorism from our government, I would appreciate it.

With the many terrorist acts we have seen come about with the Muslims in the past all Ubama has been trying to do is welcome them with a praised hand. Open your eyes.

 

[Murf76]

Everyone who supports Islamist terrorism under the guise of religious freedom and constitutional rights. Ummm, that would be YOU.

But, see, I don't support Islamist terrorism.

It's quite obvious that you do. The OP is about Islamist terrorism and YOU are the one who keeps claiming they have constitutional rights.

The article you linked didn't feature Obama directly wishing terrorists a 'Happy Ramadan'. It wished Muslims a 'Happy Ramadan'.

I don't personally agree with their religion, but it's beyond obvious that not every practicing Muslim is a terrorist. You'd see a billion people engaged in daily acts of terrorism. I think it would be rather noticeable.

The Constitution IS valid to the discussion. It's always valid. It's what we stand on as a people and what we defend our freedom with. The First Amendment states clearly:
"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."

Note the phrase, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". We CANNOT interfere with a person's right to exercise their beliefs unless a given individual's actions, abrogates the like rights of another. Nor should we. Doing so, would mean abandoning the same rights we claim for ourselves.

Now, if you want to make an argument that its a noxious religion which subjugates women, or that Barack Obama spends an inordinate amount of effort kissing Muslim butt in some kind of misguided appeasement strategy, those would be different arguments than taking offense at a presidential Ramadan greeting. It's really no different than any other religious greeting from the White House.

 

[Goodoledays]

Actually, I make fun of morons.

Welcome to the thread!

Just like you do to the law abiding people who are worried about this country being taken down to heavily by the Islamist who want to take control.

The law abiding persons should realize that we are no longer a nation of LAW if we make legal decisions based on religion rather than LAW.

Its not religion. Its a cult. Its their way of life. Its called terrorism. If you can't see that you are as blind as Ubama.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your idea of "freedom" and mine are quite different. I don't respect a religion that doesn't respect the "freedom" of others.

You STILL don't get it. I am no fan of Muslims, in general, or any fundies. That doesn't matter, in the USA.

What matters is the Constitution.

You notice how those on the left only support the constitution when it fits their agenda?

No, it has nothing to do with ‘liberals.’

It has to do with a given jurisdiction, often at the behest of a religious group or religious members of government, enacting legislation or measures designed to promote religious dogma, which lack any secular motive, and manifest an unacceptable entanglement of religion and state. Such measures are consequently and correctly struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That liberals understand and accept settled First Amendment case law is no reason to disparage them.