It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Corruption Exposed
What frightens me more is that this thread will most likely be full of people who agree with him- the same members who are always pointing out their displeasure about how their constitution and bill of rights are being trampled on.


Surely everyone, even here, would see the absurdity...


originally posted by: thesaneone
Do the Muslims believe in free speech?
...
Why afford them with our protections if they don't believe in our laws?


Wow...didn't even have to go halfway down the first page.




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
Do the Muslims believe in free speech?

Let's say I make a movie about .... Let's say the Innocence of Muslims, do you think they will embrace my free speech rights or do you think they want the movie banned?

How about if I were to draw a picture of Mohammad? Will my office be bombed.

Why afford them with our protections if they don't believe in our laws?


Unreal. Did American Muslims riot? Did they kill or bomb anyone/thing over that video? Nope. How about I suggest your ideology or religion or maybe just you personally be denied the 1st Amendment since you're only using it to spew hatred?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: thesaneone
Do the Muslims believe in free speech?

Let's say I make a movie about .... Let's say the Innocence of Muslims, do you think they will embrace my free speech rights or do you think they want the movie banned?

How about if I were to draw a picture of Mohammad? Will my office be bombed.

Why afford them with our protections if they don't believe in our laws?


Unreal. Did American Muslims riot? Did they kill or bomb anyone/thing over that video? Nope. How about I suggest your ideology or religion or maybe just you personally be denied the 1st Amendment since you're only using it to spew hatred?



How am I spewing hatred?

All I did is ask questions because I don't know the answers.


What a bunch of sensitive people today.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

I have a good memory, I remember many hateful posts by yourself regarding Islam. It's not hard to work it out in this thread.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


I don't hate Islam but if you can show me where I said that i would appreciate it.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
in the same fashion that religions and churches are prohibited from political speeches to their congregation, muslim churches are prohibited from trying to get their political paradigm covered under the first amendment.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Corruption Exposed

originally posted by: thesaneone
Do the Muslims believe in free speech?

Let's say I make a movie about .... Let's say the Innocence of Muslims, do you think they will embrace my free speech rights or do you think they want the movie banned?

How about if I were to draw a picture of Mohammad? Will my office be bombed.

Why afford them with our protections if they don't believe in our laws?


In your opinion, should Islam be exempted from the criteria which meets the first Amendment?



You raised some valid points, don't get me wrong, but when they come to the USA, become citizens and follow your laws their religion should not matter.


They are not valid points. Unless your goal is to force everyone into behavior that you want. The point is to model 1st Admendment behavior and show how it works for the benefit of those who have this right.

They are not valid points.

When a neighbor behaves badly, it desn't act as an excuse for behaving badly yourself.

Attend to the beam in your own eye before attending the mote in anothers.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The argument, which he is failing at, is viewing Islam as more than just a religion. Islam is a system of government, with its own laws, punishment, money system, etc. The manner it is represented by some extremist groups places Islam above the government, where violation of religious doctrine becomes a crime against the state, regardless if the person is a member of Islam or not.


To further demonstrate how wrong he is on this issue, or at least the manner in which he is trying to represent it -

Keith Ellison - Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Minnesota's 5th district


Representative Ellison is a US citizen and represents the 5th district of Minnesota in the US House. Mr. Ellison is a Sunni Muslim.

Andre Carson - Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Indiana's 7th district


Representative Carson is a Muslim as well.

Last I checked I don't see them calling for the downfall of the US or threatening to kill anyone, let alone push their religious viewpoints on others. I don't see either individual calling for Islam to replace our system of government, nor calling for Sharia law to be used in place of our hybrid English Common Law / Napoleonic code (Louisiana). The individuals in their districts voted for them, not because of their religion, but because they want to serve the people and had qualities the majority of voters agreed with when the checked the box next to their names.

This type of mindset, one based on ignorance, is not needed in our government.

What's Ironic and sad all at the same time is how Rep. Hice is attempting to deny the very amendment that protects him by allowing him to spout ignorance in the manner he did.

I think Rep. Hice should consult with the representatives from Indiana and Minnesota and get his facts correct before opening his mouth. We do not need any more of this ignorance in our government.

To borrow a quote -
I don't agree with what you are saying but I would defend to the death your right to say it.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
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.
I didn't read the guy's whole book, but it looks like a single sentence was taken out of context. I could be wrong, but I don't think he is even trying to argue that Muslims' right to pray, go to the mosque, and do what they believe is right in their personal lives is outside First Amendment protection. But the First Amendment does not and should not protect their right to impose the death penalty for apostasy, cut off the hands of (alleged) thieves, and so forth. Do you think ISIS or Al-Qaeda or the Taliban or the Mujahideen have any qualms about camps or genocide? And there they were gassing the Kurds over there in the Middle East.

As far as First Amendment rights go, consider the violent reactions of Muslims worldwide to Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses, and the more recent Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. People that "blaspheme" the Prophet Mohammed don't get much protection under the First Amendment; they have to live in fear of their lives because of what they said, wrote, or published.

Yes, it is a slippery slope and a slippery situation all around. In the Middle East, there are already plenty of refugee camps and much genocide taking place in the name of the Muslim religion. It's been going on for a long time and it doesn't show signs of stopping. And that law you're talking about just might be Shari`a under the new Worldwide Caliphate.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Corruption Exposed
In your opinion, should Islam be exempted from the criteria which meets the first Amendment?

You raised some valid points, don't get me wrong, but when they come to the USA, become citizens and follow your laws their religion should not matter.


The problem is when they come here, or anywhere else; they don't want to follow existing laws; they want to change the laws to suit their beliefs. What they are doing is what the RCC did way back when; using numbers and power to force what they believe on everyone else, as much as they are allowed to do.

That's what this fellow seems to be saying.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
It was my understanding that this thread was concerning American Muslims.

American Muslims are, in the vast majority, moderates. ...and have no interest in overthrowing our system of laws and governance. Are there some? Of course there are. There are always zealots who believe that their way is the only way...

This vilification of people who've done no one any harm is just wrong. ...and if y'all can't see that, it's really a pointless conversation.

Much of what I"m reading here reminds me all too much of things said/written during darkest times of Pre WWII Europe.

They're different. They want to change us. They don't want to live like us. ...and on and on it goes. Do any of you remember how that ended?

Untold millions of people murdered. All because they were "different", "not like us".

This is a path we should not be treading. It leads no where good.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Seconded.

It disturbs me that the discussion can even move into this phase, with people suggesting that it is acceptable to treat a whole demographic with distrust, over the actions of a small minority. There is something wrong with anyone vile enough, or stupid enough, to take up such a position, and I dearly hope that people realise this, and prevent such positions from being able to gain traction in any significant way.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Sure the focus is on American Muslims...

However we have seen in the past how national borders are of no concern to the extremist groups. Do you really think banning Islam in the US is only going to affect American Muslims?

We had the incident in Florida where the pastor was going to burn Qurans. That action set off a firestorm of protests in the Muslim world.


Burning the Quran will be a cake walk should a law be enacted banning Islam. They would take it as an attack on the religion, which in turn will rally those who may want to fight for the cause in the US.

The flaw in the discussion we are having actually revolves around the Constitution. A law cannot be passed that punishes only a segment of the population.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The problem is when they come here, or anywhere else; they don't want to follow existing laws; they want to change the laws to suit their beliefs.


I would bet that everyone does that. I admit, I don't want to follow some of our laws and I want to change some of the laws to suit my beliefs. I have the right to WANT to and so do they. Getting the laws changed is a totally different thing.

Christianity is a religion and they want to change existing laws (on abortion and gay rights, for example). There's nothing wrong with WANTING or TRYING to change the laws. Our system is set up to do just that.



What they are doing is what the RCC did way back when; using numbers and power to force what they believe on everyone else, as much as they are allowed to do.


That's what Christianity does, too.I'm not trying to rag on Christianity, either. Anyone has the right to TRY to get the laws changed.

That doesn't mean their rights should be taken away, does it?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

c'mon...it's Georgia, and it's the republicans.....you don't need no stinkin' qualifications in Georgia, all you need is a hate for gov'mnt



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
This is yet more proof that the Republican Party is now attracting some total dingbats. I mean, what the hell are these people thinking?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


The problem is when they come here, or anywhere else; they don't want to follow existing laws; they want to change the laws to suit their beliefs. What they are doing is what the RCC did way back when; using numbers and power to force what they believe on everyone else, as much as they are allowed to do.


Are you more afraid that our system doesn't work - or that it does?

:-)



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg what the hell are these people thinking?


Good question..

Lets see what the people in California were thinking when they elected Nancy Pelosi.

There will always be idiots on both sides of the aisle.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Our system worked for the last 260+ years. Only recently has that changed.

The Statue of Liberty and the quote on it was the blue print. In times of political correctness we have shifted away from the US being built by all Americans and substituted it with the (Insert country name) - American. Instead of taking the good and incorporating it to add to the US, Congress / President seem hell bent on forcing a reverse.

We cater and adapt to the people coming to the US as opposed to them coming to the US and adapting to the US.

It would be like Catholics being invited to witness a Muslim service in a Mosque. A certain respect for the traditions / customs / religious beliefs that occur in a Mosque.

What we have now would be the Catholics taking over the Mosque and demanding they accept and adapt to the Catholic doctrine.

It does not work that way.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


It does not work that way.


I beg to differ

Our system does not exist to maintain tradition - that's not what it was designed to do

The beauty of our system is that it's flexible. That it can accommodate new ideas and achieve a workable balance. We decide on things together - more or less. Not everybody wins every round

Every argument about whether or not we get to use new ornaments on our Christmas tree is an argument meant to keep things just the way they are - nice and comfy for a select few. That is not going to work for all of us

Who gives a crap who votes for which laws? The point is - we all get to vote. We all are free to say what we mean to say and ask for what we want. THAT is the point. Do you really want to change that?




top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join