More Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Hate from the Far Right

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fact that you just keep repeating the same blather over and over and over again without even attempting to present a supporting argument based on law or logic tells me all that I need to know about you.

News flash : No matter how many times you repeat horseshit , it is still horseshit and will not magically become anything else but horseshit. Horseshit will always be HORSESHIT

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. 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. A 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. Furthermore::

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

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?

Freedom does not mean the complete absence of responsibility.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?

Freedom does not mean the complete absence of responsibility.

I try hard not to call people idiots or other names but sometimes I'm tested beyond my limits of self restraint.

 

[Billo_Really]

I try hard not to call people idiots or other names but sometimes I'm tested beyond my limits of self restraint.

Just when you think it couldn't get any lower, it's like, "Oh look, we found another rock layer, lets dig a little deeper!"

 

[LuckyDuck]

‘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.

You're ignorance of true Islam its goals, methods and beliefs about anyone, not Muslim, is astounding.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

‘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.

You're ignorance of true Islam its goals, methods and beliefs about anyone, not Muslim, is astounding.

Another bigot heard from . You're a dime a dozen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Issa]

It's clear in the Koran and I have read it many times:
In Surat al Baqra #256
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Even at time of war:

“If anyone of the idolaters seek your protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who have no knowledge.” — 9:6

It's actual, and u I'm a Muslim. And no we don't implement all those punishments in most if not all Muslim countries. Just like the Christians don't anymore. There was time for those type of punishment and a contest and purely cultural and some were made up and has nothing to do with Islam.

Name the school of Islamic Jurisprudence where leaving Islam is not punishable by death.

Name the school of Islamic Jurisprudence where homosexuality is legal.

 

[Issa]

Your not you're....and my English is the 5th language I had to learn. Now what do you about us?

‘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.

You're ignorance of true Islam its goals, methods and beliefs about anyone, not Muslim, is astounding.

 

[Issa]

Of course this intolerance is not exclusive to either Turks or Muslims. According to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, Turkey scores slightly better on measures of gay rights when compared with some nearby Christian-majority nations such as Russia, Armenia and Ukraine. Indeed, Turkey’s secular laws don’t penalize sexual orientation, and some out-of-the-closet L.G.B.T. icons have long been popular as artists, singers or fashion designers. Among them are two of the most popular Turkish entertainers of the past half-century: The late Zeki Muren was flamboyantly gay and the singer Bulent Ersoy is famously transsexual. Their eccentricity has apparently added to their popularity.

 

[Roudy]

Shariah is not a religion, you ignoramus.

As far as I'm concerned it is.

Who cares what you're concerned with. Shariah is the set

Shariah is not a religion, you ignoramus.

As far as I'm concerned it is.

Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[Roudy]

Ha ha ha, look at this moron, not only does he not know what Shariah is, he supports it as well. There is nothing wrong with being a Shariah hater. It's like someone who hates the ideology of white supremacy or neo nacism.

You're going to go to your death bed thinking, "Did billo say he supported sharia law?" The answer will come back, "no", then you'll pass away knowing your greatest tragedy in life was not talking me into supporting sharia law.

Ah, that sucks dude!

...keep blabbering and acting like you know what you're talking about, maybe one day it will come true.

 

[Roudy]

The Constitution protects sharia. It needs another update ASAP!!!!!

It protects sharia the same way it protects Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

For the tenth time, you mental midget. Shariah is not a religion, including to Muslims.

 

[Roudy]

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

 

[Roudy]

Well, I'll tell you something. It's interesting that I was able to find this story in about a half dozen publications and you chose the one from Fox news that is actually just a discussion about Sharia law in general and provides no actual facts of the case. Here is the real story: Articles: Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

You will see that the case had to do with a dispute between two Muslim groups, a Mosque and a group of their trustees who were dismissed by the Mosque

The Mosque was opposed to the use of Sharia law in the arbitration

The use of religious law is not unusual to settle disputes with a religious group

In any case no one outside of a religious group is subject to religious law

So what the hell are you bleating about?

Sharia must be outlawed to protect women and children in Muslim America. Don't you agree?

Son, You apparently have not thought this through. You are either terribly confused or you are deliberately and dishonestly conflating two different issues.

Issue #1 The use of Sharia law in US Courts:

No one who goes before a US court is going to be subject to Sharia law, even if they are Muslim and somehow committed an offence against another Muslim or against Islam. No one will have a hand cut off for stealing. No one will be stoned for adultery. A Muslim before a US court who has committed a civil or criminal offence will be judged and punished in accordance with the applicable statutes and codes, and the US Constitution.

All of the hysteria about Sharia laws can be traced to instances like the Florida case where a judge allowed two Muslims parties to arbitrate a civil matter under Sharia law, but that does not mean that they would be allowed to seek a remedy that violates US law.
And, there are cases like this:

In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America. Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost

Issue 2. The use of Sharia law by Muslims in there place of worship or homes.

You want to outlaw Sharia Law to protect women and children ? Well, first of all, if you want to curtail the religious practices of Muslims, you are going run into a pesky problem called that first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

However, that does not mean that they can circumvent or violate US law or the Constitution. They can't cut off hands or stone people any more than a civil court judge can. They can't marry a 10 year old. If they do, and it comes to the attention of the authorities, they will be tried and punished in accordance with US law.

In addition, even if you could get around the first amendment , you have to other religious laws- particularly Catholicism and Judaism have there oppressive aspects as well. Now you have a problem of equal protection under the law because you are singling out Islam.
Frankly, I think that all of this anti Sharia crap is a boatload of bigoted bovine excrement. Anti Sharia is code for anti Muslim.

I might add that it's the same people who blather about protecting women and children by banning Sharia Law are all for cuts in health care services for women, nutritional programs, and loads of other stuff that benefits them? Do you agree?

If there is any part of this that you don't understand, please let me know and I'll rewrite it at a lower grade level.

Ma'am, it's exactly what I said somewhere else, the Constitution protects the use of sharia law. So unless we change the Constitution again, hands will eventually get chopped off.

Sorry but the "Law of the land" does not support a dual legal system, second: The Law does not except cruel or unusual punishments. So the Sharia law is nul and void when the Person becomes a American Citizen. If someone does not like it, then go to another Nation like England or France they might be ok with this law. The same goes for the China version of Law, of shooting suspects that are State Officials of violations of Law and Trust. Hummm might work over hear.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So sharia, being part of Islam, should be allowed.

If a law violates the constitution and the peoples human rights. It should be banned and outlawed, regardless of whether it runs under the banner of "Islamic law"

 

[Issa]

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.

 

[Mudda]

lol. There's no such Constitution right to your hand. But there is a Constitutional right for the person getting their hand chopped off to get it chopped off, if he or she so desires. I could have my hand chopped off today and nobody would care.

You are correct. When it comes to your hands, it's your call. But you can't decide to chop my hands off; that's not your call. And there is no judge in the country that could make that call. The Constitution protects persons against cruel and unusual punishment. And I don't think anyone would argue chopping someone's hands off against their will is not cruel and unusual.

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

 

[Mudda]

Ok, so tell what part of the Constitution negates the First Amendment part that I quoted ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). I'll wait while you figure it out.

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. 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. A 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. Furthermore::

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

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

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.

 

[Mudda]

So then there is no real freedom for religion. Why pretend that there is? You like living in a fantasyland?

Freedom does not mean the complete absence of responsibility.

Not relevant.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is getting really stupid but I'll play
First of all I never said that any part of the constitution negates the first A.. 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 ...

In addition, case law-court decision add the body of Constitutional law. A 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. Furthermore::

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

.”

Apparently, no one has been crazy and stupid enough to bring a case claiming that they had the right to kill or mutilate someone in the name of religious freedom.

Now, back to you. Find me one legal scholar or court of law that has said that the government does not have the legal authority to prevent citizens from killing and mutilating eachother because of religious freedom. I'll wait while YOU figure it out

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?

 

[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.