Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned (Read 37,052 times)
Nyte_Byrd
CF Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Talk Is Cheep

Posts: 67,905
Joined: 05/09/06
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #100 - 08/08/12 at 12:58:10
Print Post  
Quote:
Religious discussion often devolves into name calling,


Which is why CF does not have a religious forum.  CF has no desyre to have religious discussions or debate.

Quote:
and I do want to understand the conservative view.


Oh, I think you already do.  You've made comments that indicate that.  From here on in, you'll have to do more 'understanding' in 'read'
mode.  It's apparent you are not a Conservative, and I am pretty sure you were told in registration, that CF is for Conservatives only,
and that all else is subject to removal, as is in most cases, when a new poster does not specify they are a Conservative in registration,
so that alone makes your intent here suspect to begin with.

Quote:
Gay marriage is a good example of this; Christians determine that gay marriage is a religious sin, and therefore want to legislate against it. That combination bothers me quite a bit. The murders of Sikh people in Wisconsin, various murders of gay people here in America and abroad, bombing of abortion clinics, the massacre in Oslo, Ku Klux Klan crimes...all are modern examples of how Christian extremists can use their faith to justify horrible crimes.


Oh PLEASE!   Roll Eyes  So it's Christians' faults what some supremacist whack job did at a Sikh temple!  Gimme a break!  If you're hear to post anti-Christian rhetoric, please take it elsewhere.

And gay marriage, is not a basic ryte despyte what you may think.

It's a 'special' ryte they seek.  And the motive is purely monetary benefits......period.   Why is that most anti-faith, pro-gay posters who sneak on here mostly seem to come out of CA?  Roll Eyes
I'm glad I was there in the mid 70's before it became pansyland.
  


If You're Here To Teach, Then You've Much To Learn
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #101 - 08/08/12 at 16:07:20
Print Post  
Awww Nyte, I was looking forward to making an example Ouroboros. "Their" comments would serve nicely as a foil to make my points. 


But I guess i can still do so in their silence. Wink
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #102 - 08/08/12 at 17:03:56
Print Post  
Quote:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Religious discussion often devolves into name calling, and I do want to understand the conservative view.
I have to say here that I am registered independent, in favor of fiscal conservatism, personal rights and minimal government. This is not coming from an ultra liberal. But it makes me very nervous when people talk about legislating or otherwise legally restricting the rights of people to practice their religion in our nation.


I think the point of this thread is that Islam is not a bona fide religion that allows freedom of faith.   In my survey of this thread, I don't recall anyone speaking about "legislating" or "legally restricting" the rights of people to practice Islam, even though the overall consensus appears to be it is a religion in name only.  However I might be mistaken.


Quote:
While I do understand that I have cited the old testament and that Christians distance themselves from these doctrines, Christian people have used the Bible in its entirety to support historic and continued violence against others.


There are many people that misquote and misapply the Old Testament, and it is not limited to non-Christians. 

You need to understand that the Old Testament does not relay "doctrines" but rather history of the Hebrews. It was largely written by Moses  to educate the Hebrews of his tribe as to their history after they were newly liberated from generations of enslavement in Egypt.  They were not relayed as fundamental doctrines, but rather  historical recountings, and as such were temporally and situationally limited.  What might be cited is not directed against other cultures and religions and are not open-ended, ongoing commands.   None of what you or others might cite are even remotely comparable  to what is repeatedly and directly indicated in Islamic text.

Throughout history many heinous acts have been done in the name of religion, but that is not the same as indicating that the fundamental religious text(s) repeatedly call for and demand those acts, as is true of Islam.

Quote:
I DO agree that the muslim faith and Koran are more overt in their controlling nature, but I would also point out that Christians, even today, are attempting to restrict the rights of others through religious doctrine. Gay marriage is a good example of this; Christians determine that gay marriage is a religious sin, and therefore want to legislate against it. That combination bothers me quite a bit.


Gay Marriage is flat-out a corruption being sought by dishonest means: by abuse of authority of state legislatures and judiciaries, assuming an authority over what constitutes marriage which is nowhere among the powers of the states,  intending to inappropriately leverage the gay marriage falsehood by abuse of the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit to compel  their nouveau view of society structure on the other 49 states.

The further dishonestly attempt to justify gay marriage by citing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, when that equal protection only involves protecting of the same rights as other citizens, under the same terms, and does not involve any guarantee of the same outcome under different terms, even of one's own choosing.  Gays are entitled to get married under the same terms as every other citizen.

Marriage is the result of how we biologically reproduce, with society being promoted and advanced by the proto-citizens that are the byproduct of that union, thereby giving this society and every other society a vested interest in recognizing those unions.  Our reproductive means is not likely to change in the near future, and even those gays are the product of just such heterosexual unions. That's just reality. "Sin" is irrelevant to the fac
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #103 - 08/08/12 at 17:47:10
Print Post  
Quote:
I have to respond to the idea of common sense values separately. That's another subject.
While I agree that democrats try to "redistribute" wealth in favor of the poor, I also think that republicans have worked to "redistribute" wealth in favor of the rich. In my eyes, neither approach is correct. Welfare programs and the like should never be handled at the federal level, just as corporations should have no hand in politics. Both sides will invariably skew our economic picture for the worse.
Democrats would have us support a welfare state and be oversensitive to the rights of people who would do us harm, yes.
But republicans would have us be a Christian dominated nation that still believes in trickle down economics. If the economic collapse has shown us anything, it's that rich people don't put their money back into the system to keep it running.

I don't agree with either. I want religion (ALL RELIGION) out of my government, I don't want the fed handing out money in the form of welfare OR tax breaks for corporations and the rich (flat tax anyone?), and I'm not interested in being told how to live my life.


While you've claimed to be more of a "fiscal conservative", you've unfortunately branded yourself as a leftist by parroting the ideas that all taxes are fundamentally government's money, and that corporations should not be able to represent themselves when they are being sued and their industry prejudicially targeted for its demise, and  that "trickle down" supply-side economics has in any way failed.

It is not 'wealth redistribution" to allow people or corporations to keep more of their own money.  It is not the government's property to begin with, but allowing an industry to keep more money, encourages that industry to remain on American soil, and to employ more Americans. There's your "trickle down" in its undeniable application, whereas centralized Keynesian government planning has invariably led to misdirected economies, unnecessary cost, and extraordinary failure. This economic collapse is the result of just that Keynesian control and involvement in the housing markets.  

Leftists invariably think it is only some sort of malevolence that leads companies to hang on to their wealth, refrain from hiring, and to direct operations to other countries less hostile to business, when intrusive government has been solely to blame.

What the economic collapse has shown is actually that wealth, those rich people, is averse to risk and threats, and this regime's ever-increasing taxation,  regulation, and dictation of all aspects of society, are threats to wealth and the very stability of this economy and country.  Rich people did not become rich by foolish disregard to threats, particularly not from a totalitarian administration that disregards the rule of law, rights to property,  and the Constitution itself.

It is profound foolishness to even imply that "trickle down" supply-side economics has anything to do with Christianity, just as is your tying your list of massacres to Christianity.  

« Last Edit: 08/09/12 at 10:41:03 by Trip »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #104 - 08/09/12 at 14:14:41
Print Post  
Quote:
There are several extremist sects that are not recognized by the United States government.  I cannot gather five people together and draft up rules that conflict with the law and expect to be covered and protected.  Islam is one of these religions, which is why the United States should ban mosques and no longer recognize it as legitimate religion.


Correct.  Islam and marriage are two examples of the need for interpretation at the constitutional level.  As it is, now, two men can "marry", and a group of Nazis could claim to be a religion, and would come under the protection of the Constitution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #105 - 08/10/12 at 03:35:30
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/09/12 at 14:14:41:
Correct.  Islam and marriage are two examples of the need for interpretation at the constitutional level.  As it is, now, two men can "marry", and a group of Nazis could claim to be a religion, and would come under the protection of the Constitution.



Well, as it is now, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) recognizes marriage to be a man and a woman, and it is society's vested interest because that union is what produces and is responsible for the upbringing of each and every member of society.

Progressives have sought to have marriage redefined on the state level via legislature or judiciary action, but there is considerable question whether this is the legitimate authority of a state since marriage is not the creation of the state, long predates this and every other country, and therefore not reasonably an original domain of the state power. Some states believe otherwise.

There is considerable risk of allowing the federal government to originally define marriage, or religion, and establish that authority in amendments to the Constitution.  Such a process would provide a means for the government to ostracize any and all religions, or to define marriage to suit its own whims.

Furthermore, there is some question as to the constitutionality of any such amendment regarding religion, as it would be challenged as "establishing" a religion or religions contrary to the prohibition in the 1st Amendment.

The flip side is that those terms that are not defined defined in the Constitution can be distorted over time, in the absence of such a definition.  One case in point would be Article II's reference to "natural born citizen" which has had a longstanding definition well before this nation's founding, and later recognized by half dozen Supreme Court cases. Yet the general public persists in believing that NBC is achieved by mere birth on U.S. soil, despite the fact that such a corrupted "birthright citizenship" only came about from distortion of the 14th Amendment 30 years after its ratification, and even then only results in a "born citizen", one naturalized upon birth.   The idea of mere birth on U.S. soil broaches the question of how we came up with qualified natural born citizen Presidents in  first 111 years of this nation, as persons merely born on U.S. soil were not even recognized as citizens, much less natural born citizens.

In fact six years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, on June 22, 1874, Congress issued a joint congressional report, House Report No. 784,  stating:

“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”


This is relevant because children of alien parents, be they legal and illegal,  are born with the allegiance of their parents.  The recognition of double allegiance did not come about by Congressional resolution, but by the issue being forced on American society by the Court as a result of the Wong Kim Ark decision fabricating from whole cloth the corruption we today know as "birthright citizenship."

I bring this up because it is human nature that people generally ignore the overwhelming volume of facts, and instead cherry-pick what they find to support their own bias.   Giving government the ability to define religion and marriage will likely have disastrous effect.

Overall I'm leery of any amendment added to the Constitution, as those amendments subsequently added have been consistently used to deny individual freedoms, being interpreted as further grants of authority to the federal government.  Rand Paul does a good job representing this consideration in interview with Rachel Maddow, in my view.  The federal government has gradually assumed a policing authority over private citizens which is nowhere a power granted by the Constitution.




 

« Last Edit: 08/10/12 at 07:04:01 by Trip »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #106 - 08/10/12 at 11:07:13
Print Post  
You are right to be cautious about constitutional amendments, but when carefully considered, they do offer a remedy for colonial-times oversights and abuses of human rights.  Dred Scott comes to mind.
I like Scalia's take on language interpretation.  He uses originalism and textualism, by which he means to determine what they meant at the time, and how they apply to today's problems.  Surely, the Court has the authority to interpret constitutional language.

Your concerns over the federal government's latitude in defining marriage or religion are well taken, but these are institutions which existed, almost universally in the human experience long before present times, and they have always enjoyed the respect of law and tradition.  

If the Constitution is ever amended to define personhood as existing from the moment of conception, the child in the womb would possess human rights, and might reasonably expect to be born into a legal marriage which would include a mother, a father and the possibility of siblings.  This the kind of human rights that have always existed and should not be changed. I would think that the federal government would have the power to insist that we adhere to ancient custom in regards to marriage and its prime purpose. This could not be construed as establishing a religion, but rather as protecting an already established function of religion.

We humans measure time as we experience it in our short lives, but the Constitution is written for the ages.  Legislation and SCOTUS decisions with which we disagree can last only as long as the citizenry permit the perpetrators to remain in power.  Assaults on the Constitution are nothing new, and it will always be subject to liberal attacks.  It is clear that eternal vigil is a must.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #107 - 08/10/12 at 15:34:02
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/10/12 at 11:07:13:
You are right to be cautious about constitutional amendments, but when carefully considered, they do offer a remedy for colonial-times oversights and abuses of human rights.  Dred Scott comes to mind.
I like Scalia's take on language interpretation.  He uses originalism and textualism, by which he means to determine what they meant at the time, and how they apply to today's problems.  Surely, the Court has the authority to interpret constitutional language.


Picker, I think overall you and I both agree on Scalia and his position. However I am somewhat leery of your last statement, which I've bolded, as this "interpretation" has given the courts broad latitude to distort the words and Constitution itself, invariably to the benefit of federal authority. \

For the benefit of those not as familiar with Scalia's position:

In a speech, in November  2008, Hon Antonin Scalia expounded on"the will of the majority" and 0riginalism in speech to the Federalist Society, indicating the following about a "living document" interpretation (video at bottom):

    Scalia: "Philosophy of the living constitution, which means it doesn't mean what the people agreed to when they adopted it, is a very seductive theory."



Quite evidently, Scalia is indicating that interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" promotes interpretations that The People did not ever agree to, resulting in opinions nowhere indicated by the document itself. Through this means, the Court is creating interpretations that no state or citizen authorized at the signing of the Constitution, which set the ONLY terms by which that government might be constituted.

Such interpretations beyond the intent of the Constitution itself are USURPATIONS by the Court without having ANY authority to do so by the Constitution. Such a practice is fundamentally unsound and unethical in contract law.

A Feb. 23, 2001 address by Scalia expands on this distinction, stating that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. Such an "originalist" interpretation does not inherently constraint interpretations to the unreasonablenes of stark denial but rather demarkates the boundaries of government and where Congress should act,either by law or Amendment; the job of the Judiciary is not to legislate from the bench, "It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" .

In contrast with many claims from the Left, Scalia asserts that the RIGIDITY is not the flaw of the Originalists but that it is the effect of those advocating the falsehood of a "Living Constitution", suggesting that supporters of the "living Constitution" view, allowing for flexible interpretations molded to meet the changing times, really wanted "rigidity".

Scalia indicates of "Living Constitution" promoters:
    "They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate … Every time you insert into the Constitution - by speculation - new rights that aren't really there you are impoverishing democracy. You are pushing one issue after another off the democratic stage."


We see these "new rights" that aren't really there time and time again, with "abortion" being one, and the "right to health care" being another - both taking rights from the states and/or Individuals and assuming the right-to-dictate by the federal government, eating up our freedoms.

  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Picker
CF Vice Presidents Club
*****
Offline

Conservative's Forum

Posts: 1,715
Joined: 07/06/11
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #108 - 08/10/12 at 20:05:19
Print Post  
Trip wrote on 08/10/12 at 15:34:02:
Picker, I think overall you and I both agree on Scalia and his position. However I am somewhat leery of your last statement, which I've bolded, as this "interpretation" has given the courts broad latitude to distort the words and Constitution itself, invariably to the benefit of federal authority. \

For the benefit of those not as familiar with Scalia's position:

In a speech, in November  2008, Hon Antonin Scalia expounded on"the will of the majority" and 0riginalism in speech to the Federalist Society, indicating the following about a "living document" interpretation (video at bottom):

    Scalia: "Philosophy of the living constitution, which means it doesn't mean what the people agreed to when they adopted it, is a very seductive theory."



Quite evidently, Scalia is indicating that interpreting the Constitution as a "living document" promotes interpretations that The People did not ever agree to, resulting in opinions nowhere indicated by the document itself. Through this means, the Court is creating interpretations that no state or citizen authorized at the signing of the Constitution, which set the ONLY terms by which that government might be constituted.

Such interpretations beyond the intent of the Constitution itself are USURPATIONS by the Court without having ANY authority to do so by the Constitution. Such a practice is fundamentally unsound and unethical in contract law.

A Feb. 23, 2001 address by Scalia expands on this distinction, stating that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. Such an "originalist" interpretation does not inherently constraint interpretations to the unreasonablenes of stark denial but rather demarkates the boundaries of government and where Congress should act,either by law or Amendment; the job of the Judiciary is not to legislate from the bench, "It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" .

In contrast with many claims from the Left, Scalia asserts that the RIGIDITY is not the flaw of the Originalists but that it is the effect of those advocating the falsehood of a "Living Constitution", suggesting that supporters of the "living Constitution" view, allowing for flexible interpretations molded to meet the changing times, really wanted "rigidity".

Scalia indicates of "Living Constitution" promoters:
    "They want the whole country to do it their way from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate … Every time you insert into the Constitution - by speculation - new rights that aren't really there you are impoverishing democracy. You are pushing one issue after another off the democratic stage."


We see these "new rights" that aren't really there time and time again, with "abortion" being one, and the "right to health care" being another - both taking rights from the states and/or Individuals and assuming the right-to-dictate by the federal government, eating up our freedoms.



By the term, interpret, you seem to mean the assignment of an open and improper meaning, giving scope that the Constitution forbids.

The same word, to me (and I think to Scalia) means to determine what the founders intended.

We're just looking at different ends of the elephant.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Trip
CF Full Member
**
Offline

facta non verba

Posts: 60
Location: Forge of Freedom
Joined: 08/05/12
Gender: Male
Re: Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned
Reply #109 - 08/10/12 at 21:29:37
Print Post  
Picker wrote on 08/10/12 at 20:05:19:
By the term, interpret, you seem to mean the assignment of an open and improper meaning, giving scope that the Constitution forbids.

The same word, to me (and I think to Scalia) means to determine what the founders intended.

We're just looking at different ends of the elephant.



Well, the Congress and the Court have "interpreted" the  meaning of "regulate" in the Interstate Commerce Clause to involve applying regulations, rather than its intention of "making regular" and not imbalanced that interstate trade, so as to prohibit cause for animosity and even warfare between the states.   

And first they 'interpreted" an authority to regulate the ferry fares in between states, and then the cargo aboard the ferries, and then the wages of those involved with the ferries and cargo transit.

And now we have them telling us that lack of participation in interstate commerce (health care), which has been prohibited from involving interstate price competition, is now somehow engaging in interstate commerce, and they have taken over ownership of our own bodies.

I'm sure you see cause for my concern.

  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 
Send TopicPrint
 
Conservative's ForumConservative's Discussion ForumsConstitutional Issues › Islam Is Not a Religion & Should Be Banned


ConservativesForum.com
CF Forums
The NCO Club - Military Forum - Constitutional Issues - Political Polls - Candidates Action - Economy
Conservative News Sources Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin forums
Political Activism, Strategy, Blogs - Conservative Sites - Games - Sports - Health - Poetry - Cooking - Library
Gun Rights - Conspiracy Theories - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5


Conservatives Directory
conservative sites:
Daily Caller
Newsmax
Drudge Report
Sean Hannity Show
Rush Limbaugh
The American Thinker
Breitbart News
FrontPage Magazine
Right Bias
Rasmussen Reports
David Limbaugh
American Conservative Union
Accuracy in Media
News Busters
Newt Gingrich
Chicks on the Right
Mark Levin Show
Tea Party Patriots
Phyllis Schlafly Report
Conservative News
TruthUSA
Michelle Malkin
Right Wing News
Accuracy in Academia
Hotair
Powerline Blog
Conservative News Source
Conservative Activist

Conservative Blogs
Proudvet's Blog
Opinion Editorials
Political Polls
Twitter CF
Conservatives Directory Add Your Site
Conservative Blog Advertising
Forum Rules, User Agreement and Privacy Policy
Registering Information and Forum Rules