In All Honesty: Selective Application of the First Amendment

[TemplarKormac]

Listen to yourselves. Just stop and listen. Especially those who call themselves constitutionalists and lovers of the Constitution. This is the one and only time I will address my conservative brethren for being bigoted, because frankly, bluntly, that's all I have seen here and there in threads regarding Islam and how it should be banished from America. I will not sit here and tolerate this any further. If you value honesty, take heed. If not, carry on, because this would sadly not apply to you.

So you want to ban a religion from practicing in America? Why? So now we are suddenly choosing to selectively apply the First Amendment? To what end? How would you feel if Christianity or Judaism were banned? How would you feel if someone started selectively applying the Constitution such an end? You would most likely exclaim "what about my freedom of religion?! What about my rights?!" However, why is it fair for you to have your faith, but for Muslim to not have his or hers?

Just because you do not believe what they believe does not mean you be allowed ban them from practicing their beliefs. I pose this question: Just what kind of country would we be if we started picking and choosing what types of people and religions we tolerated within our borders? What precedent would that set? A dangerous one.

Woe unto us when we presume to call ourselves "the land of the free", if we decided to start banning whole religions from American soil. Hail to you, self proclaimed defenders of freedom, arbiters of justice, and champions of equality; wanting to take freedom, deny justice, and withhold equality from a certain religion for the sakes of a whim. Shame on you as well. I will defend the rights of any individual to practice his faith, because I wish to have the same. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you","Judge not, lest ye be judged", "Love one another", "Love thine enemies as yourself," the Bible says.

This kind of behavior was exactly why I removed myself from the Republican party and from the two party system in general. It is displays like this that show me both parties are callous and bigoted. Neither exudes any semblance or tolerance towards other people who happen to be different from them. As one who loves his country, it angers me and saddens me to see it. Dare we call ourselves "united" anymore?

I am a conservative libertarian, because if I am to be one, I must apply the Constitution I revere fairly and equally. Yes, that means granting rights to people who practice and engage in things I detest with a passion. Things that I as a Christian would condemn as sinful. I would be a hypocrite if I sat here and denied someone their rights merely for the sake of my beliefs.

I can practice my beliefs and they can practice theirs. What is done against God's will by another man is for them to settle between them, not for me to interfere. Oh, and this does work both ways. If I found a Muslim denying someone their freedoms and faith, I would not hesitate to react in the same way I have now. Not with violence, but with cold hard truth. I could go on as to how this applies to other facets of my worldview, but then again, who has that much time and patience?

Of course, what does some snot nosed 26 year old know? He barely has enough experience to lecture others on tolerance, justice or equality. He has barely lived life to understand any of these things, apparently. Carry on.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Juvenile in nature.....with ample levels of arrogance and self aggrandizement. May I suggest using even more 18th century vernacular next time. Woe is thee who begs thy favor!

Also...why the dig on "both parties" in that rant, dummy? Ain't no libs talking about banning anyone from practicing religion. We need our comedy material!

 

[BDBoop]

Juvenile in nature.....with ample levels of arrogance and self aggrandizement. May I suggest using even more 18th century vernacular next time. Woe is thee who begs thy favor!

Also...why the dig on "both parties" in that rant, dummy? Ain't no libs talking about banning anyone from practicing religion. We need our comedy material!

I can see it now. Bachmann gets jail time, and Marcus, in a fit of high hopes to FINALLY get what he's always wanted, offers to take her place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, I think you were addressing your 5th grade class. You write like a kid who thinks he knows how to write.....because he has not read enough. That final sentence may as well have said:

"How do you like that? You all thought I was too young to write something so mature and comprehensive, didn't ya? Nanner nanner boo boo!"

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is nothing so wonderful as when two intellectual dynamo's meet for some really deep conversation! Awesome!

 

[BDBoop]

There is nothing so wonderful as when two intellectual dynamo's meet for some really deep conversation! Awesome!

I'm surprised you managed to stay awake, with the fireworks of their discussion rumbling all about you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Surprised BD can comment on this board almost 24 hours a day... with no sleep at all. No matter. She has nothing productive to say anyhow.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being supressed, what that supppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being suppressed, what that suppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

Interesting reply from you, Joe. My OP is merely a response to those who wish to ban Islam and set a terrible precedent for other religions--wait, you are an Atheist Joe, why should you care? Scram!

 

[Geaux4it]

Juvenile in nature.....with ample levels of arrogance and self aggrandizement. May I suggest using even more 18th century vernacular next time. Woe is thee who begs thy favor!

Ain't no libs talking about banning anyone from practicing religion. We need our comedy material!

Is Religion Compatible with Liberal Democracy

The debate over whether religion has any "public" role in a liberal democracy is not limited to the question of electoral and legislative involvements by religious groups. Consider the following examples, most from the United States, but some from elsewhere. Note that some few involve government; many do not.



A town in Missouri refused to lease school buildings for privately sponsored social dancing, in recognition of religiously based community sentiment that regarded social dancing as immoral.

States refuse to fund abortion because many citizens object to being taxed to fund a procedure they consider (as a matter of religious teaching) murder.

The Boy Scouts insist that every scout assert a belief in God. The Scouts also reject homosexual scoutmasters because their acceptance would be inconsistent with traditional morality. Both policies have been repeatedly challenged as violations of civil rights laws.

Yale Law School refuses to allow the Christian Legal Society to recruit on campus because it discriminates in its hiring, hiring only believing Christians. Yale also refused to accommodate Orthodox Jewish students who seek an exemption from a requirement that they live in a coed dorm, which they claim violates their faith. It readily accommodates the dietary and Sabbath observance requirements of such students.

France and Turkey refuse to allow Muslim girls to attend public schools (or appear in public) wearing religiously mandated scarves, defending their decision on grounds of preserving a secular society.

In Israel, daylight savings time ended somewhat earlier than usual in order to facilitate the practice of Sephardic Jews of reciting early morning penitential prayers before the Jewish New Year. The change brought sharp criticism from secular Jews complaining of religious coercion. One remarked that the change made it more difficult for her to swim at the beach after work.

In a similar vein, religious and secular Jews fight over street closings that make it more difficult for those wishing to drive on the Jewish Sabbath to reach their destinations, but which promote a "Sabbath atmosphere" in neighborhoods in which the overwhelming number of residents are Sabbath observers. In commenting on these disputes, a retired Israeli judge insists that religion is purely a private matter that should be allowed no public expression.

Private landlords in various states refuse to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples, insisting that they should not be required to facilitate sin. Civil rights and civil liberty organizations insist that when one enters the commercial marketplace, he or she can no longer insist on observing religious precepts which disadvantage anyone else. By and large, the courts have been receptive to these arguments, which have created a furious reaction among more traditionally religious communities, who object to being told that they must leave their religious beliefs behind in the economic marketplace.

Georgetown University is in the middle of a battle between students who support the hanging of crucifixes in each classroom, and (priest!) administrators who oppose such displays because they will discourage recruitment of non-Catholic faculty and students.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being suppressed, what that suppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

Interesting reply from you, Joe. My OP is merely a response to those who wish to ban Islam and set a terrible precedent for other religions--wait, you are an Atheist Joe, why should you care? Scram!

Oh, I think the way to defeat religion is to point out how silly it all is, not by oppressing it.

But frankly, your OP sounds like you didn't take your meds this morning.

 

[martybegan]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being supressed, what that supppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

People are not punished in the case of sleeping with underage girls for merely saying its OK, they are punished for carrying through with the illegal act. The Branch Davidians were not punished for saying its OK to illegally modifying weapons to make them automatic, they were punished for actually modifying the weapons illegally.

 

[Pauli007001]

Oh boy, you figure I was addressing you, right? That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Why the dig at both parties you ask? You guys like unbiased opinions right? Or does that only simply apply to Republicans?

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being supressed, what that supppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

Except for the bit where the sexual abuse never happened .

Remember?
Janet Reno herself admitted it was a lie!
The quote was posted some months ago.
The second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, noting that that right should not be restricted.

 

[Pauli007001]

I should point out in your OP you really give no specific examples of WHAT religion is being suppressed, what that suppression consists of, or who is doing the suppressing.

If you want to give us details, that's fine.

On a more sensible note, all constitutional 'rights' need to be tempered with a lick of common sense.

For instance, the Branch Davidians thought that the first Amendment gave them the right to let their "Messiah" sleep with their underage daughters and the Second Amendment gave them the right to have a shitload of military grade weapons.

Anyone with common sense can see what a terrible idea that was.

Interesting reply from you, Joe. My OP is merely a response to those who wish to ban Islam and set a terrible precedent for other religions--wait, you are an Atheist Joe, why should you care? Scram!

uu

Oh, I think the way to defeat religion is to point out how silly it all is, not by oppressing it.

But frankly, your OP sounds like you didn't take your meds this morning.

Defeat religion?
Are you in a war on religion?
Why?

 

[JoeB131]

[

People are not punished in the case of sleeping with underage girls for merely saying its OK, they are punished for carrying through with the illegal act. The Branch Davidians were not punished for saying its OK to illegally modifying weapons to make them automatic, they were punished for actually modifying the weapons illegally.

Irrelevent...

If your magic sky man says you can bang underage girls and have weapons, you ought to be able to have them, right?

I mean, what kind of fascist are you, anyway, that you are oppressing people's rights? The Founding Fathers would totally spit on you...

 

[martybegan]

[

People are not punished in the case of sleeping with underage girls for merely saying its OK, they are punished for carrying through with the illegal act. The Branch Davidians were not punished for saying its OK to illegally modifying weapons to make them automatic, they were punished for actually modifying the weapons illegally.

Irrelevent...

If your magic sky man says you can bang underage girls and have weapons, you ought to be able to have them, right?

I mean, what kind of fascist are you, anyway, that you are oppressing people's rights? The Founding Fathers would totally spit on you...

Its OK if you believe that is true, no one should be able to punish you for it. But the act can still be made illegal. The test is if the act is purely a religous act, and more importantly does not directly impact another person's own rights at the given time. So banning communion wafers, or say circumcsion (male) would be violations of the first amendment, but banning human sacrifice would be OK, because, you know, the whole murder thing.

Its why you can't arrest those splinter mormons for believing and preaching about "marrying" underage girls, but when they do it you can sure as hell arrest them for violating the law.

 

[JoeB131]

[

People are not punished in the case of sleeping with underage girls for merely saying its OK, they are punished for carrying through with the illegal act. The Branch Davidians were not punished for saying its OK to illegally modifying weapons to make them automatic, they were punished for actually modifying the weapons illegally.

Irrelevent...

If your magic sky man says you can bang underage girls and have weapons, you ought to be able to have them, right?

I mean, what kind of fascist are you, anyway, that you are oppressing people's rights? The Founding Fathers would totally spit on you...

Its OK if you believe that is true, no one should be able to punish you for it. But the act can still be made illegal. The test is if the act is purely a religous act, and more importantly does not directly impact another person's own rights at the given time. So banning communion wafers, or say circumcsion (male) would be violations of the first amendment, but banning human sacrifice would be OK, because, you know, the whole murder thing.

Its why you can't arrest those splinter mormons for believing and preaching about "marrying" underage girls, but when they do it you can sure as hell arrest them for violating the law.

Frankly, I could make a better case for banning circumcission as common sense law than banning polygamy between consenting adults.

So what you are saying is that you are fine with restrictions on religous beliefs as long as they aren't your beliefs, eh?

 

[martybegan]

Irrelevent...

If your magic sky man says you can bang underage girls and have weapons, you ought to be able to have them, right?

I mean, what kind of fascist are you, anyway, that you are oppressing people's rights? The Founding Fathers would totally spit on you...

Its OK if you believe that is true, no one should be able to punish you for it. But the act can still be made illegal. The test is if the act is purely a religous act, and more importantly does not directly impact another person's own rights at the given time. So banning communion wafers, or say circumcsion (male) would be violations of the first amendment, but banning human sacrifice would be OK, because, you know, the whole murder thing.

Its why you can't arrest those splinter mormons for believing and preaching about "marrying" underage girls, but when they do it you can sure as hell arrest them for violating the law.

Frankly, I could make a better case for banning circumcission as common sense law than banning polygamy between consenting adults.

So what you are saying is that you are fine with restrictions on religous beliefs as long as they aren't your beliefs, eh?

Circumcsion for religous reasons is a Jewish thing, I'm not jewish, and I fine with the practice.

Animal sacrifice is part of santaria, I don't practice it, and I'm fine with it.

Segregation at religous and social functions is both a muslim and a hasidic jewish thing, I'm neither and i'm fine with that.

I really dont even care (in a governmental punishment sort of way) if some asshole Imam tries to rile up his congregation to hate the US, I just want his words exposed to the public so they can see them.

 

[JoeB131]

so let me get this straight, Marty.

Mutiliating a child's genitals without his consent- Perfectly okay with you because it's religion.

Three adults entering into a sexual relationship with full knowledge and consent- totally against the law. Even if a religion condones it.