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

a reply to: olaru12

I was talking to my friend about a similar situation, and his opinion was that the South should break away from the US, and the rest of the country use it as a feudal tribute...something like that...

I'm sure some Southereners would like that option, but they need the north like we need them for economical reasons, that's why it didn't work before in the 1860s

About Jody Hice, the candidate who thinks Muslims don't deserve first amendment rights:

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You misunderstood my post.

When people immigrate to the US, what made us great in the past was those immigrants adding to America in their own way while considering themselves Americans. Hence the term melting pot, which we not longer have.

The current situation allows people to immigrate to the US while retaining everything about the where they came from without adapting to the US. Instead of a melting pot, groups demand we adapt to them and the culture they left instead of them adapting to the US and making it better.

Having read the article and others like it, the following can be stated:

The saddest, scariest thing is that one day these very same people may get into power, having real political power to do and make policy. And on that day, it will ultimately cost the very people they represent more than what anyone should pay.

While being in public office, a part of the government does not mean that they lose the same freedoms and rights as everyone else, in fact there is only one group that loses freedoms and that is the US military. At the same time I can not help but shutter how they would alienate and ignore a segment of the population that they are expected to represent and speak for. People like that, one can only hope decides to do such in small areas, rather than affect the entire country, where they can be bigoted and prejudicial all they want.

None of those in power see the fractures, or consider there is a direct correlation between what they say in rhetoric, in an attempt to gather votes from one group, forces others away.

What should scare us all, is that one day they may get their way and the laws on the books, and make the city, county, state or country suffer from such.

a reply to: seagull

And American Muslims are in the main moderate. It's the ones who immigrate and expect to bring their own beliefs and interpretations with them and don't assimilate that the rest of us are speaking of.

It's their equivalent of waving the Mexican flag and refusing to learn English and expecting the world to conform to them except immigrants like the Mexicans I referenced above won't be able to lean on the 1st Amendment to protect their activities while those Muslims could and can.

No, I don't worry about assimilated American muslims. They enjoy what we have here just as much as I do, but it's a mistake to think that there aren't radical groups who are learning and planning to wage lawfare on us using our own freedoms and understanding of rights against us. They'll take your beliefs surrounding the 1st Amendment and your refusal to think they'd take advantage of you with it and take an entire mile plus some of your rights in the bargain.

It's like thinking that there aren't groups who use victim advocacy groups to advance their own agendas instead of realty caring about the victims.

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

So have you had any luck with proving that I hate Islam?

Nothing gets me going like ignorant fools like you who accuse people of something they are not.


And you claim to be tolerant.

originally posted by: tnhiker
Apparently proof that yes, any moron with a stance can run for political office.

I think Obama sets the example of that, or was that Biden, Kerry, Bush, Rangel, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Gore, Quayle, Nixon, I can't remember the rest it is a long list. A really long list.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

The thing about Obama is his job opportunities when he leaves office. I think he would do awesome teaming up with Peter Popov selling his miracle water.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The thing about Obama is his job opportunities when he leaves office. I think he would do awesome teaming up with Peter Popov selling his miracle water.

lol ... you just say that because its true.

a reply to: olaru12

Actually the man is right,Why? because putting the religious banging and bickering aside, Islam is not a religion, okay, get it people, learn, read and get informed first on how Islam works, Islam is a law, under the law of Islam that is where the Muslim religious views base their believes and abide by them.

Now, any born American or American citizen is protected by the US constitution, but the laws of Islam does not the reason for that is because Islamic laws can not and never can coexist with US laws

Now you get it right?, he is right.

a reply to: marg6043

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but there are plenty of religious scholars that disagree with you.

perhaps a little relevant research could clear up imo your misconception. It's worth a try.

www.religionfacts.com...

a reply to: olaru12

Is not misconceptions of any kind, let me try again, Islam is a law, meaning that the religious angle of Islam or what the Muslim believers abide is the law of Islam, you can not take what the Ga GOP candidate said and twisted for your convenience, unless you have no clue how Islam works and what Islam is per say.

He is right, this from your source that you kind of have ignored.

“Most people think Islam is a religion, it’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected (under U.S. law),” he told members of the Coweta County Tea Party Patriots in 2011, according to The Citizen.

US constitution are the law of the land,

Islam is the law and not other law can surpass the Islamic law.

Islam and US law can not coexist for only one reason, Islam can never override US law, if that happen we US citizens will have to amend our nations constitution in order to allow Islam to become the Law of the land.

Article VI





All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Islamic Laws are made up of Shari'ah ('‎شريعة Šarīʿah) and Islamic jurisprudence (فقه‎ Fiqh). Shari'ah is seen as sacred and constitutes the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah (way), which is found in the Hadith and Sira. Islamic jurisprudence is a complimentary expansion of the former by Islamic jurists.

It is a generally accepted fact among Muslims, that there is no concept of "separation of 'Church' and State" in the Islam faith.[8] We have already touched upon why Shari'ah is inseparable from the public and the personal aspects of practising Islam, so once again, we need to look to the example set forth by Muhammad. Islam, unlike many other faiths, was a theocracy from its very beginning.

wikiislam.net...

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead a person to kufr...[See Qur'an 5:49-50][15]

Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (1/373)

So base on this assetments the GOP candidate is right.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The thing about Obama is his job opportunities when he leaves office. I think he would do awesome teaming up with Peter Popov selling his miracle water.

Or a used car salesman. Like the guy in transformers, he was hilarious.

originally posted by: Corruption Exposed

originally posted by: beezzer
This topic brings to mind Japanese internment camps during WWII.

Sometimes freedom means taking risks.

This is one of those times.

Nationality and religion are completely different criteria, and in my opinion are difficult to fit within the same category. The internment of the Japanese was out of fear that Japanese Americans may be loyal to the Japanese government, so as much as I found the internment to be extreme (it happened in Canada too) I do not find it comparable to religion and here is why...

First it is important to recognize that despite understanding why it was done doesn't change just how very wrong it was. It happened, we as a nation did it, and it was wrong and diametrically opposed to what we are supposed to be.

When USA invaded Afghan then Iraq, they didn't round up all the Muslims and put them in camps. Heck, many American Muslims are white with no ties whatsoever to "Islamic countries". I guess if we were to continue with this train of thought, the next time you invaded a Muslim country, it would be okay to round up the Muslims because "freedom means taking risks" in your own words to be exact.

It didn't happen then because we fully understand now that such an action is wrong. It has nothing to do with religion vs. nationalism. Blindly herding up certain ethnic groups and imprisoning, because we are at engaged in hostilities in that part of the world is just simply unacceptable. And sadly enough when we were going there were plenty of Americans on the lock them all up bandwagon.

My main point is that I find your comparison to be flawed and unjust.

It is fairly accurate tbh.

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?

So either believe in the ideology behind the American legal system and its laws or you don't get constitutional protection...pretty sure the reason the first amendment exists is to STOP that from being the case...and I'm also pretty sure that by that criteria, many people on this very forum don't deserve constitutional protection, according to you.

a reply to: TheJourney


Okay

Also, as someone who nearly converted to Orthodox Judaism in the past, I can say that in reality 'Judaism' was originally intended to be a 'geo-political' system as well, it's being purely a religion was a necessary adjustment to circumstance...so consistency would dictate that practicing Jews lose their constitutional protections as well...all this talk of what groups of people do and don't deserve constititutional protection just makes me feel so patriotic and American...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.

No, most people that relocate to another country and culture do not demand that the country and culture they chose changes for them. Only a couple of groups do this, because those groups aren't tolerant, and they think everyone has to do as they say.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
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.

Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Islam isn't trying to change a little thing here or there; Muslims want sharia law, which is utterly against everything upon which this country was founded. THAT is the problem, and THAT is what this fellow is saying. He's right.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.

No, that's what the RCC did, and perhaps tries to do now. This will surely draw some heat from any Catholics on site, but the RCC isn't a good representative of Christianity. That has nothing to do with individual Catholics, many of whom are very sensible, and who try and live as they should. That's an organization issue.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
That doesn't mean their rights should be taken away, does it?

Taking away rights is exactly what Islam wants to do! Have you actually studied their laws? I have. Nothing free about any of it. That's why this fellow says what he does. When a group pushes for a system that removes rights, in a free country, that group CANNOT be allowed to do so, or freedom for all is lost. Think about it. You are a thinking person (even though we don't tend to agree), and I am sure you can understand this point.

LadyGreenEyes
Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Ok so it's trying to make things different from how they were in the early periods of a country's history that is wrong then...gotcha...yea we really need to get this country back on track to how they used to be...like what dumb, progressive commie had the idea to outlaw slavery? Equal protection under the law for women and non-whites...psh...I'm sick of people thinking they can just change things from how they were in early America...

a reply to: marg6043

What about Catholicism and divorce?
What about Cafeteria Catholics?

Catholicism shares some of the same basic requirements as Islam and failure to abide by those requirements can result in excommunication from the Church. We saw a possibility of what could occur when Kennedy became President. As a Catholic the Church expected him to push the religious beliefs via policy, which did not occur.

There are actions in the bible that if broken, can result in death under religious doctrine.
The same holds true for Judaism.

If we want to go down the government argument with Islam, then we need to look at the government argument with Catholicism. While Islam is a type of religious government, so is Catholicism. The Catholic religion, to my knowledge, is the only religion who is its own nation state.

Vatican City is a separate and sovereign nation. The Vatican in fact has diplomatic relations with countries and their ambassadors are referred to as Papal Nuncio's.

A religion that requires a beard, or forbids a person from working on the Sabbath, or prevents an individual from receiving communion because of divorce are all acceptable when viewed at the religious level. It only becomes a problem when violation of those areas becomes a crime against the state.

Christianity and Judaism are just as violent as Islam.

With that said trying to remove constitutional protections is not a slippery slope - Its a full speed run and jump off the sheer cliff.

Knowing that Islam is protected is the only way to know that other religions are protected.
Knowing that Islam is protected is the only way to know that Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Anarchy, Constitutional Party parties are protected.

If we really want to get down to the nitty gritty here then if we are going to "stop protecting" Islam because people don't agree with it, then we need to start with the Christian faith and its affect on the social structure of this country. Last time I checked the definition of marriage is a result of religious doctrine. The crime of adultery in some states and the military is based on religious doctrine. Attempting to ban a religion by a person of a different religion can be seen as religious doctrine codified in civil / criminal law.

I refuse to outlaw a religion simply because some cowards have decided to hijack it. I refuse to accept the eroding of Constitutional rights based on fear and ignorance of a religion. I refuse to condemn a person based solely on who they worship and the manner that occurs in.

What's the phrase so many people on this site like to use...

They came for the communists and I did nothing...

I think the very fact our founding fathers telegraphed their thoughts on religion when they included freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. The simple fact it prevents the government of establishing a state religion is another clear indication of what the Constitution says on the matter.

What's next, trying to prevent any Muslim in the United States who is a US citizen from purchasing a rifle or handgun because of their religion?

The moment we give into ignorance and paranoia and fear is the moment the terrorists win. I refuse to concede the field in that manner.