Islam - the thread of peace and tolerance

[TPRJones]

It would because there you are talking about Muslims that aren't already American citizens and only American citizens get constitutional rights. But I don't like it. There are a lot of good hard-working immigrants that become taxpaying citizens with a strong positive influence on our country, and they belong to every religion and come from every country on earth. Those are the people this country was founded by and for and cutting them off with a blanket ban would make us a lesser nation. On this just as on every other topic laws designed around unthinking zero tolerance policies are lazy and stupid.

But mostly it gets back to judging someone based entirely on things over which they had no control. Judge them based on their actions. Judge them based on their words if their actions are not sufficient to paint a full picture. Don't judge them based on where they were born and what religion their parents belonged to. That is something which I will never agree has any merit.

[Vince]

It would because there you are talking about Muslims that aren't already American citizens and American citizens don't get constitutional rights.

I think you're wrong on this. The rights of man are bestowed by God according to the founders. The Bill of Rights is just the guarantee that the government can't infringe on those rights.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment of not judging people based on their religion or race or country of origin, we can't be stupid about it either. I'm pretty sure we didn't let Japanese immigrate here during WWII.

[GORDON]

Is a religion you follow NOT something you have control over?

Serious question.

[TPRJones]

I think you're wrong on this. The rights of man are bestowed by God according to the founders. The Bill of Rights is just the guarantee that the government can't infringe on those rights for citizens.

I fixeded it for you. It doesn't say so explicitly in the document but it does specify that the document is an agreement among "We the People of the United States" which seems to imply that this agreement is between and for citizens.

Not that I'm saying that non-citizens should have no rights. Just that the way the document is written it can be inferred that they do not.

[TPRJones]

Is a religion you follow NOT something you have control over?

Serious question.

Oh, it is, absolutely. Where you start in terms of religion is determined by your parents but you can change that once you come of age. Although shaking the brainwashing that religions do at a young age can be impossible for many people, and for some religions in some places can get you killed. Were it up to me freedom of religion wouldn't be a special right. It would still exist because of the freedoms of speech and assembly, but it shouldn't be a special category.

However that's not where we are. It is a special category and a protected class and requiring someone to renounce their parents in order to come to the United States seems to me to be a big ask. Especially if we're talking about someone who has never in their life done anything to indicate that they are in any way a criminal or dangerous.

[GORDON]

I always assumed that citizens of other nations fell under whatever constitution their nation followed..... I never gave any serious thought to a bigger picture of ALL people falling under the US Constitution, by default.

Though, I did question a decade ago why Iraq was having a constitutional convention when we already had a really great, secular set of rules for them to live by.

[GORDON]

Is a religion you follow NOT something you have control over?

Serious question.

Oh, it is, absolutely. Where you start in terms of religion is determined by your parents but you can change that once you come of age. Although shaking the brainwashing that religions do at a young age can be impossible for many people, and for some religions in some places can get you killed. Were it up to me freedom of religion wouldn't be a special right. It would still exist because of the freedoms of speech and assembly, but it shouldn't be a special category.

However that's not where we are. It is a special category and a protected class and requiring someone to renounce their parents in order to come to the United States seems to me to be a big ask. Especially if we're talking about someone who has never in their life done anything to indicate that they are in any way a criminal or dangerous.

I wonder.

One could say that letting religious freedom fall under the general free speech is fine, but when you let them assemble... another constitutional freedom... then they whip themselves up into a frenzy and suddenly bad ideas, like killing unbelievers, starts sounding more reasonable and bad shit happens. Individually, people are fine. In a group, they get stupid.

One has freedom of speech, but one can't yell fire in a theater, because individually people are fine, but in a group they get stupid and someone gets trampled.

So, we can't say there is a similarity between those two circumstances?

[Vince]

It doesn't say so explicitly in the document but it does specify that the document is an agreement among "We the People of the United States" which seems to imply that this agreement is between and for citizens.

Not that I'm saying that non-citizens should have no rights. Just that the way the document is written it can be inferred that they do not.

Again, have to disagree. Would point out that a family visiting Disney World from France can't be pulled over and searched without a warrant or probably cause any more than a citizen. They can't be held indefinitely without charges or a trial (I guess this is more pre 9/11) than a US citizen. The limits on the Constitution are a matter of jurisdiction.

Even illegal aliens have a right to free speech. They don't have a right to be here to express it, and it's too bad if their home country doesn't recognize those rights (back to jurisdiction), but they have those rights as a human being and we aren't allowed to infringe on them.

[TPRJones]

I agree with you as to all that being "should" but I disagree as to it being "is" as laid out in our constitution.

For the first time go at having a nation of free people expressing their own freedom the constitution is not bad. But it could be much better.

[TheCatt]

Guns to the nuts: Hillary or Trump.

I don't believe in no win scenarios.

And now you have no nuts.

[Leisher]

Nah. You didn't recognize what I said.

Perhaps this will help?

[TPRJones]

When you can "reprogram" the general election let us know.

[Leisher]

When you can "reprogram" the general election let us know.

Why can't I? He reprogrammed it so I have to vote for one of two people. I can't vote for third party or just stay home. Thus, I think it's only fair that I can reprogram it too.

I would say this though, if I knew Republicans would control Congress, then I'd go Hillary. History says the U.S. has good economic periods when the pres is a Dem and Congress is controlled by elephants. I'd go Trump if it was the other way around. Our economy won't be able to handle much more Dem on Dem spending.

[Malcolm]

Guns to the nuts: Hillary or Trump.

I don't believe in no win scenarios.

I know what's going on. We got a bunch of fucking vampires out there, trying to get in here and suck our fucking blood. And that's it. Plain and simple. I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires," because I don't fucking believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what I saw, is fucking vampires. Now, do we all agree that what we are dealing with is vampires?

Whether or not you believe, they exist.

[GORDON]

Love that movie.

[Malcolm]

When the gays have to worry about a Baptist coming into a gay club and killing a bunch of gay rather than worrying about the Baptist not baking them a cake, then you might be onto something rather than just trolling.

Non-baptist.

[TheCatt]

When the gays have to worry about a Baptist coming into a gay club and killing a bunch of gay rather than worrying about the Baptist not baking them a cake, then you might be onto something rather than just trolling.

Non-baptist.

gay on gay violence?

[TPRJones]

Not uncommon. Often driven by someone giving in to their own torment by family regarding their orientation and externalizing that to others in the community. "Being gay is bad and you seduced me into being gay so I blame you," that sort of thinking. Although it usually doesn't lead to murder.

[GORDON]

Since violating one rule in Islam makes you not Muslim, then violating one rule of Christianity makes you not a Christian. Your argument is moot.

[Malcolm]

Since violating one rule in Islam makes you not Muslim, then violating one rule of Christianity makes you not a Christian. Your argument is moot.

Except that Christians invented a thing where you can go confess your sins to a priest and get forgiven. The only thing that theoretically boots you from consideration in that area is excommunication.