Posted on 01/13/2005 10:33:34 AM PST by NYer
Ping!
So when are Liberals and their ilk going to be arrested for "offending" us?
One month? They ought to read some of my posts!
What about the muslims praying to allah to kill the Jews and Christians seventeen times a day at their five prayer calls. Isn't that "hate speech"? I asked this of Gov Arnold when he signed the hate speech law, but received no response.
Never. They are the enlightened ones. We are the intolerent and narrow minded ones. They know better so they are not wrong.
Right.
Hey does this mean that I can have anyone that offends me prosecuted? They don't have enough prisons in the world.
Just is just the beginning. People have warned this was coming and now it's heard. Australia, Canada and Philadelphia! So let's just sit back and do nothing and let judges rule the world.
US Constitution seems to protect it if a case can be made that calls to murder are a part of the Muslim religion. I'll let the Muslims decide what is and what isn't a part of Islam.
Calls for sexual morals, -- the subject of this thread, -- are surely a part of Christianity.
Historically, calls for just war have been made by Christians. Pope Urban II and his call for the Crusade comes to mind.
I think that generally a concurrent use of the public square by incompatible religions is a problem, and the US Constitution should have made a distinction between Christianity as a dominant religion and minority religions. Of course, mass immigration from culturally incompatible lands was not foreseen by the founding fathers.
Correction-- US Constitution as interpreted by the corrupt and Ignorant would seem to protect Muslims if
their claims could be proven a part of their religion.
Problem is there is ample evidence that supports the idea
that the founders interpreted "religion" as defined by
Webster in his An American Dictionary of the English Language ,1828 to mean ,primarily,Christian religion.
It's a good thing if the founders said "religion" and meant "Christianity"; my point is that even if they didn't, they should have. Minority religions may be tolerated but they do not have a claim on the public square in the same way as the dominant religion has.
There, now you sound like a Traditional Catholic. :^)
No, I have a problem with your correction. It is not the Constitution's job to define true religion. It is the Constitution's job to recognize the country's tradition and culture.
DO agree with your response to my correction .But disagree
with your comments about the Constitution having the "job" to recognize,(bad choice of words--) as written document the Constitution is a product of the Tradition and culture
hence my post that "religion " was understood as defined
by Webster. It cannot assume human attributes as taking on "jobs" nor "recognition" It can only reflect the
traditions and culture at the time when written.
OK.
Not just the Catholics. Put this Protestant in that corner as well. Christianity is the only true religion.
How do you put a line through a word? [Seem to have missed that one at FR's HTML kindergarten]
Blessings -- B A
One that was missed from yesterday.
If you want on/off the list let me and little jeremiah know.
This is simply out of control liberalism followed to its "final solution".
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.