Muslims hosting events to coincide with Charlotte DNC face blowback, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 12:54 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

stand by your words and try not to run away

Is this the new rule, you can't deviate in your opinion from one day to the next?

put up or shut up jmdewey60

I hope you do not mean "shut up and just put up with the way things are".
If you mean "produce results", then I can't on my own and need everyone to vote for me first.
If you mean "reinforce your argument", then that is simple enough by using other things in the First Amendment as examples. You can't actually say whatever you want even though there is a clause about freedom of speech.
You also do not have full freedom of the press where there are restrictions on where you can film things.
Freedom to assemble has been thoroughly done away with for things like a G-8 summit.
The petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances, is done away with by judges who refuse cases to be heard as a matter of course if it potentially may hamper the activities of TPTB.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:04 PM by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

stand by your words and try not to run away
Is this the new rule, you can't deviate in your opinion from one day to the next?
put up or shut up jmdewey60
I hope you do not mean "shut up and just put up with the way things are".
If you mean "produce results", then I can't on my own and need everyone to vote for me first.
If you mean "reinforce your argument", then that is simple enough by using other things in the First Amendment as examples. You can't actually say whatever you want even though there is a clause about freedom of speech.
You also do not have full freedom of the press where there are restrictions on where you can film things.
Freedom to assemble has been thoroughly done away with for things like a G-8 summit.
The petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances, is done away with by judges who refuse cases to be heard as a matter of course if it potentially may hamper the activities of TPTB.

:-)

I mean - address the comments/questions put before you - and don't run away

How is it that The Constitution was written by Christians only for Christians - come again? You believe they're the only ones that can play by the rules?

One more time - and then I think we're done here

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:24 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

How is it that The Constitution was written by Christians only for Christians - come again?

Do you think there was a delegation of American Indians at the Constitutional Convention? Obviously the US had no respect for their religion and did everything possible to eradicate it.

. ... The Convention included no women, no slaves, no Native Americans or ...Constitutional Convention of 1787

You believe they're the only ones that can play by the rules?

And, Yes, if you had a Muslim country draw up a constitution, they might write something like, "Heck Yeah!, cruel and unusual punishment, not only does it scare people into compliance, but it is fun to do or to watch, that is if you are on the right side".

edit on 1-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:36 PM by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

How is it that The Constitution was written by Christians only for Christians - come again? You believe they're the only ones that can play by the rules?
Do you think there was a delegation of American Indians at the Constitutional Convention? Obviously the US had no respect for their religion and did everything possible to eradicate it.
And, Yes, if you had a Muslim country draw up a constitution, they might write something like, "Heck Yeah!, cruel and unusual punishment, not only does it scare people into compliance, but it is fun to do or to watch, that is if you are on the right side".
edit on 1-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

thank you jmdewey

NOW we can have a conversation :-)

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

en.wikipedia.org...

Muslims get to be Muslims - and Americans - at the same time!!!

If they break the laws of this land - it will be handled exactly the same way as if you broke the laws of this land

At least - in theory. Which is why the Muslims were protesting in the first place - doesn't always work out that way

But guess what - they're allowed to protest - same as you are - and you know why?

:-)

'cause they're Americans

I forgot to add in there - see - how cool was that? That they could possibly - in that day and age - come up with something so marvelous: freedom - for everybody...

though - as I pointed out earlier - we're still working out a few of the kinks lo these many years later - but, we'll get there. Just don't you worry your pretty little head about it jmdewey

edit on 9/1/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:01 PM by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by jmdewey60

Paul quoted heavily from the OT too.

Paul quoted heavily from the OT, only when it suited him.
Much like how christians quote from the OT... of course, only when its convenient.
OT scriptures pertaining to prophecy = good
OT scriptures about tough laws and practises = not required anymore.

Some people, especially the Medieval Christian writers, thought of the Muslim religion as a heretical off-shoot of Christianity. So the "cult" label applies both ways.

Seriously, is there any religion that Christians don't think of as heretical? Christianitys various sects call each other "heretics". I suggest they resolve matters among themselves before preaching anything to anybody.

Also, the jews probably thought of Christianity as a heretical off-shoot of Judaism.
Because, after all...the first Christians, who lived during Jesus' times were all OT law-abiding jews. So Christians are basically heretics of another religion....and therefore have no ground to call anybody "heretics".

Now I could have included Judaism in my general denunciation but it should be noted that the "stoning of the woman caught in adultery" story in the Gospel of John is just that, a story, and they had quit doing that sort of thing before this event allegedly took place.

You say its a story. Other Christians say it was an actual event.

*shrugs*

Who am I to believe?

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:02 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Muslims get to be Muslims - and Americans - at the same time!!!

If they believe in a toned-down, Americanized version of Islam, similar to how American Catholics believe in a toned-down Americanized version of Catholicism.
Preaching a radical form of Salafi Islam in America could very well be a crime in itself. And I don't think people like that would be very happy living here anyway, surrounded by a "Christianized" culture.

edit on 1-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:13 PM by Spiramirabilis

reply to post by jmdewey60

If they believe in a toned-down, Americanized version of Islam, similar to how American Catholics believe in a toned-down Americanized version of Catholicism.

who gets to decide 'if'?

As long as no laws are broken - they can practice whatever form of religion they want

it's not complicated

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:19 PM by jmdewey60

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

who gets to decide 'if'?

As long as no laws are broken - they can practice whatever form of religion they want

it's not complicated

I think the original article mentioned the Patriot Act, so it makes in sort of simple in a way, that under the way things work now, the Constitution is basically out the window, and if you just act in a suspicious way, as a potential threat, then "secret" laws come into effect where people are likely to just disappear, as could happen in any country once the rights of the people has been breached.

edit on 1-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^