Posted on 08/24/2009 10:29:17 AM PDT by foutsc
Okay, you have two names for me, Elian Gonzalez and Terri Schiavo. Do you really think any judge today in his/her right mind would want to go through those sorry scenarios again?
You are absolutely right. Equal protection under the law means that a Muslim father should be treated the same way as a Christian father.
In a few decades, gay children will run away from home, telling the authorities that their Christian parents want to beat them up; and the precedent is being set here.
A minor belongs with his or her parents. The state has no business deciding which religions are dangerous and which aren’t, that applies to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Unitarians, and others. You don’t pick and choose what groups deserve First Amendment protections.
You are correct about the court part. My argument is against public opinion that rushes to judgment based on a disfavored religion. Just look at the comments in this forum and others since last week. People were advocating taking her out of her home (or not returning her) based on what they thought might happen based on the religion of the parents. Our laws just don't work like that and thank God they don't.
If this is a case of child abuse, why bring up Islam?
Anyway time will tell. If she was indeed abused, I agree with PapaBear3625: Emancipate her.
Thank you for your patience and your charity, John. I merely wanted my fellow Freepers to ponder the constitutional issues involved. I think it's a valid point: Christianity is under attack in this country.
While my "Whatcha gonna do when they come for you" point still stands, you have made me see this a little differently, especially the part about blaming the wayward daughter instead of the legal system or the state. I am also suspicious about the motives of that facebook church, but that is my skeptical nature. I have no proof.
I have enjoyed this conversation. It makes me wish I could just do this all day instead of only during short breaks from work. :)
Okay, we certainly sound in agreement on that point, then.
I am not saying this girl is lying. She could still believe her life is in danger when in fact it is not. These two things are not contradictory.
This is true. However, I personally believe her fear is rational and reasonable.
If you point an unloaded gun at me that I think is loaded, I could feel my life is in danger even though it is not.
If I deliberately point an unloaded gun at you and you have reason to believe my intent is to do you harm, then you are justified in promptly blowing my fool head off.
My larger point is that you must treat law abiding citizens from suspect ethnic or religious groups just as you would anyone else.
Certainly, in the general principle. However, if a person is from an ethnic, religious, social, cultural or business group or affiliation that has a known and confirmed history of commiting a certain kind of crime in disproportionate numbers, particularly if that crime is a serious one such as murder, then I would argue that this particular rational suspicion is a relevant bit of information that can and should be considered in making the appropriate determination. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be considered a basis for making a decision, or that it can be justified as a basis for final decision, but it should certainly be considered a basis for careful further investigation as to whether there may be a problem in that particular area.
Put another way: If employees of ACORN have a history of voter fraud in disproportionate numbers, and I am an ACORN employee engaged in voter registration actitivies, then the law is justified in taking a closer investigative look at me than might be justified for an employee of Wal-Mart.
Similarly, if we have dozens of case files of child abuse involving members of Bob's Church of Fun (when Bob's Church of Fun only has a total of 1,100 members), then if a case involving a child comes before the court, and an allegation of child abuse is raised, the court is justified in taking a closer look at the issue of possible child abuse in this particular instance than they might be if the couple were members of First Baptist Church.
"In a few decades, gay children will run away from home, telling the authorities that their Christian parents want to beat them up; and the precedent is being set here.
A minor belongs with his or her parents. The state has no business deciding which religions are dangerous and which aren’t, that applies to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Unitarians, and others. You don’t pick and choose what groups deserve First Amendment protections."
Thank you. Finally, somebody gets it. It's already happening. A daughter can get an abortion without parental approval. Here's another one. Once gay marriage is legal and universally accepted, how long will it be before churches are charged with crimes and shut down for refusing to perform a gay wedding? I know, it's a stretch... Or is it?
I recommend everyone read Liberal Fascism. It's a brilliant history of how we got where we are now, and how the left manipulated issues just like this one.
At least, that’s my thoughts off the top of my head. Not certain whether I can fully justify that, but it certainly seems reasonable at first glance.
The problem here is that “honor killings” (a loathsome term) are known to be a problem among people of certain cultures. They are virtually nonexistent among people of other cultures.
Exactly. In this land, anyone can worship as he sees fit, without the state imposing risks and penalties based on what religion’s involved. This is liberal fascism and what with the comments I’m reading here and the similar opinion coming from the left, it looks like tyranny of the majority.
As I said before, it upsets me that we are even dealing with the issue of "honor killings" in this country. We are importing societal discord and dysfunction through stupid immigration policy. We can probably all agree on that.
“We are importing societal discord and dysfunction through stupid immigration policy. We can probably all agree on that.”
Yes. We agree on that point.
*********************
Are we? I think you underestimate the threat of Islam.
Yeah, well let's go broader.
Our government is currently engaged in doing a LOT of wasteful, stupid and at times downright idiotic things.
And I'm SURE we won't have ANY problems agreeing on THAT one!
Amen brother!
I learned everything I needed to know about Islam on September 11, 2001. You are an idiot!
I most certainly do not. I have been to the Middle East and Central Asia. I've seen it up close and I'm not a fan. I just try not to gratuitously criticize the religion of others. Look back through my comments. Not once did I defend the religion or the culture.
My defense is of the constitution and everyone's right to equal treatment under the law. Muslims live here. Some have brought their 7th century, misogynist, obscurantist practices with them. Unfortunately, we don't know which ones may decide at some future point in time to cut somebody's head off.
The question is, how do we deal with this within the constitution? You can't just go dragging people out of their homes based upon what they might do based on your opinion, no matter how informed it may be.
Remember Japanese internment during WW II? Ever heard of the Sedition Act?
Demagogic leaders love people like you
Most of the individuals involved in these cases are not natural born citizens. They are either legal or illegal immigrants, or naturalized citizens, all of whom are susceptible to having their citizenship revoked. Many thousands of German and Italian, not to mention Japanese were interned during WWII as enemy aliens. The internment of natural born Americans of Japanese descent without trial was wrong, the internment (or exile) of enemy aliens is simply one of the unpleasant aspects of war.
In a round about way, you have nailed the issue. We should not be allowing people from cultures antithetical to ours to immigrate here, especially those groups who have proven themselves to be unwilling to assimilate. We are inviting problems and social discord. That is what really upsets me. Issues like this are completely avoidable.
Once someone is here, they have equal protection. You could make a case that based on empirical evidence we are importing future murderers. How do you deal with a presumed future murderer under our constitution?
Not going to do a lot of research, but Lucky Luciano was one, and he had decisively aided our victory in WWII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.