It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Georgia GOP candidate Jody Hice: Muslims not protected by the First Amendment

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am in no way in agreement with this guy I was just wondering if a Muslim was in charge of this country if they would try and change some of our rights.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:59 PM
a reply to: Corruption Exposed

Let me make it simple then.

I think this person is an idiot.

You attacked my reasoning for considering this person an idiot.

Playing games?

Not interested.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:00 PM
a reply to: seagull

I was more concerned about non citizens.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
a reply to: thesaneone

The same applies, I should think. though certainly there would be gray areas that I"m not competent to address.

The protection, and restrictions, apply to all, or to none, IMHO. At least that's how it's supposed to work.
edit on 6/23/2014 by seagull because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: olaru12


What? This is insane.

All religions have a certain degree of effect on a persons politics, and all major religions have the capacity to lobby government on matters which affect them, and which are important to them.

This is like saying murders committed with a bath towel will not attract a life sentence!

Utter bloody madness.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Constitution applies to any one on us soil. Supreme court has backed that for a while now.

I can't believe some one running for office could say this. Sad that there will be people that 100% agree with her and won't hear it any other way

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I can't help but agree with you on this point.
I have often told people that Obama is one of the best Republican presidents this country has had in a long time.
Before you attempt to rebuke me on this look at his policies. They fall very close in line with past republican policies.
Maybe this is why congress is so against him. he reminds them too much of themselves.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:14 PM
a reply to: thesaneone

Ones religious background will have an effect on their behaviour/decisions. It would be safe to say that a Muslim Presidents opinions would be colored by that. How could it not be? But no more, assuming a reasonable degree of moderation, than a Catholic of the same moderation...

It's the degree that would be the issue. ...and that's why there are checks and balances in place.

Perhaps one day, we'll find out.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:24 PM
Westoboro comes to mind and them protesting soldiers funerals.
Many believed they should of been silenced legally. I always defended their right
to protest and the counter-protests.
If it comes to a point where one side can not protests the other side because
it is considered a crime we have a problem.

As it stands now the want to be REP. here I believe is just drumming up attention
for themselves. They got the headline they wanted and us talking about them.
I do not believe much is to be worried about, everyone here will retain their freedom of speech for now.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:49 PM
a reply to: seagull

I believe this is why the founding fathers put in the provision of "natural born " to the qualifications of the president.
I do realize some one can be radicalized, but I would hope there would be some forewarning of this during the campaign process.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:54 PM

originally posted by: thesaneone
I was more concerned about non citizens.

Most rights protected by the Constitution apply to non-citizens or "the people", as long as they are exercising those rights legally. Of course, some apply only to citizens and that is specified. But the right to exercise one's religion applies to citizens and non-citizens as well, as long as no laws are broken.

The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of "people/persons" and the concept of "citizen." For example, Article I, Section 3, says "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States...".

A "person" is therefore different from a "citizen." Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens.


The first amendment applies to "people". You don't have to be a citizen to exercise your religion, again, as long as you are within the law.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: teamcommander

In all likelihood that would happen.

It would certainly be an interesting election cycle...
. The haters would truly come out to play.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:59 PM
The guy is actually right about Islam being a "complete geo-political system."

Islam has the concept of a caliphate and Shari`a law. In this sense it is a complete geo-political system. These parts of the system cannot be protected by the First Amendment freedom of the exercise of religion. The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to cut off the hand of a thief, for instance. And some Muslims do want to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose Shari`a law on the whole world.

That guy upsets the liberals more than the Muslims anyway. Maybe he was a bit impolitic in just how he said what he said, but these days it's a bit like walking on eggshells in front of the liberals lest one do or say slightly the wrong thing to offend them.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:14 PM
a reply to: jkl333

Insofar as we are talking about Islam the religious practices, then absolutely the 1st Amendment protects it, but what about when we get into the weeds of Shari'a which is considered part of Muslim religious practice despite also being Muslim legal practice?

In places like Saudi Arabia, Islam is both the religion and the government. They are the same thing, and there are some Muslims in the US who want the same version of Islam, the theocratic version, to be protected under our own 1st Amendment. This is part of what they mean when they say it's not incompatible with our COTUS. How do you parse that, especially when their own Shari'a conflicts with our own laws and unalienable rights?

Dhimmitude, for example, is part of Shari'a law and practice which would conflict directly with our 14th Amendment, but wouldn't it be protected as part of the Muslim religious practice under the 1st? Or what about the Shari'a penalties for apostasy?

I think this is what the candidate meant.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:15 PM
a reply to: jkl333

I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. ...and that idiot offended me.

That attitude is a slippery slope. Law doesn't apply? So they're fair game, right? Anything goes, correct? Camps? Genocide?

Without protection under the law, anything is allowable.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: seagull

I see. It's perfectly fine to force people of some religions to participate in practices that go against their consciences in order that some are not discriminated against, but heaven forbid we tell Muslims that their legal system is not protected under the 1st Amendment although their religious practices are.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:07 PM
I think some of you need to educate yourselves about the Muslim "religion". Why do you feel like you must be tolerant of the most intolerant people on earth? It does not matter how nice you are to them they will still hate you, even if they don't act like it to your face. They act like they like you so they can have sex with you, make money off you, or use you in some other fashion. Islam is not just a religion it is also a political system. Islam's goal is to enforce Sharia law over the entire world. This requires the overthrow of every non-Muslim government. Every Muslim that immigrates to the US that states that he does not now nor has he ever belonged to an organization that seeks the overthrow of the US government lied. Either that or he is not really a good Muslim. Islam is the only major "religion" I'm aware of that allows and encourages members to lie to nonbelievers. Nothing a Muslim says or does to an infidel is considered to be a crime or a sin. Look how women are treated in Muslim countries. Are you aware that homosexuality is a capital offense in Muslim countries? Of course this only applies to men who act in the female role. There's a saying in the Middle East. "Women are for babies, boys are for fun." Don't try to say that this is just another Christian rant in defense of another Christian because I am not a Christian by any means. Oh yeah, neither am I a Jew! You people need to wake up.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: Oudoceus

Oh man, almost 7 years later and we get your first comment!
Welcome to the ATS boards, hope to see more of ya around.

I do think this was an anti Muslim rant with some far right talking points but that is just me view of it.
Don't mean to put you in the far right corner, just how I see it
You are right on somethings, but I still feel you are classifying all Muslims as extremist and that is not right.

Every Muslim that immigrates to the US that states that he does not now nor has he ever belonged to an organization that seeks the overthrow of the US government lied.

This line specifically... Hell of thing to say IMO.
I have met plenty that don't even come close to that you describe, but i guess that was just them lying to me for all those years.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:47 PM

“Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology,” Rev. Jody Hice wrote in his 2012 book It’s Now Or Never, according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.”

Sounds more like he's referring to the social/political/economic Islamic system, not the "religious" beliefs.

Islam as a political system may be in conflict with the Judea/Christian political systems especially banking and that dreaded "interest".

Enforced laws differ widely and many "Islamic" States *ARE* very authoritarian and totalitarian.

edit on Jun-23-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:45 PM
They want Islamic law to rule the land. The only way that's going to happen is to overthrow the government we have now. True, most Muslims are not terrorists. But most Muslims are OK with it and support terrorists financially. Talk to someone in the oil business who've traveled the world and associated with the common workers. See what countries they have the lowest opinion of.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in