Posted on 07/07/2005 2:35:12 PM PDT by libertarianben
Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thisislondon.co.uk ...
"because some backwards religious fanatics kill a few thousand people"
You've stated what you would not do, but what WOULD you do, to prevent another instance of the above? And, why the oddly minimizing language in reference to 9/11? You are aware that a fatwa has been issued that gives the OK to killing millions of civilians in the US, aren't you?
"I would rather those assholes kill another 30,000 Americans, me included, than abandon even one of our Constitutional freedoms."
What you're failing to consider, in my opinion, is that an attack on that scale or greater is actually an objective of the organization or organizations fielded by radical Islamists. Should an attack on such an horrific scale actually occur, do you honestly think that these freedoms will remain in place? Why do we extend the rights and privileges of citizenship to noncitizens anyway? That's a partial solution right there, or so it would seem to me.
The internal problem, if not addressed now, will lead to far more draconian restrictions upon freedom in the future, in the event of another large-scale terrorist attack; martial law would be a distinct possibility. An extended period of military government would also be likely. Seems like a rock and a hard place, as I said. Do minimal things now to prevent a repeat, or do much more onerous things later, in the aftermath. Do you really prefer the latter? I don't.
We let this happen. The blood of our children will be spilt because of this. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. What can we do? Ideas?
"I thought you guys were on my side when it came to the Constitution."
I am. However, when it comes to individuals and groups who have managed to put themselves among us to kill us, I would posit that these individuals and groups have self-defined themselves as an enemy of the Republic. The oath of office springs to mind, you know, that part about "enemies foreign or domestic?" Sounds to me as if the Founders understood that there are instances where Constitutional protections do not apply to every single human being in the country.
"That and kick the living $hit out of any nation that harbors and supports Al Queda like Syria and Iran are doing RIGHT NOW!"
Mylo, we're "harboring" al Qaeda supporters, who have cloaked themselves in religion to stimie any attempt at rooting them out, or restricting their activities. Their activities chiefly pertain to killing as many of us as possible. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we must stand idly by and allow an enemy within to destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
"Who gets to decide which US citizen does and does not get Constitutional protection?"
You're presuming that the majority of al Qaeda supporters and sympathizers are US citizens. I don't believe that to be true. Even if it were, do you actually believe that Thomas Jefferson intended to allow the "Mohametan" to slaughter the "Infidel of every denomination," utilizing his own writings to protect themselves while doing so?
Try to step back from the religious angle long enough to see that the terrorism is what is wrong. That it is primarily associated with Islam is something of a red herring. Many former Nazis, who fled and went into hiding to avoid prosecution, were at least nominally Lutheran. Would you have proposed that we (or any Israeli agents in the US) were Constitutionally prevented from pursuing them?
"You have no respect for religious freedom, ..."
Wrong - I have a high regard for religious freedom, but the freedom to worship and participate in any religion does not include a freedom to rape and pillage, commit mayhem and murder, or perform beheadings and incest.
"...your idea that Islam would be OK with the government only if they drop parts of their religion is directly contradicted by the vision of religious liberty established by our founders."
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."--Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808
Wrong again - there is nothing in the quote you provided which indicates tolerance of rape, mayhem, murder, beheadings, or incest. Find a quote from our founding fathers which explicitly states that any or all of those acts are protected when done in the name of any religion and then I will consider your argument. (hint: you won't find such a quote because it is beyond all reason and logical thought [except, of course, in Islam].)
Such barbaric behavior can not be tolerated here, even if enshrined in a religion. For example, in the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible, the punishment for prostitution was for the prostitute to be stoned to death. This has been rejected by both Jews and Christians as well as our government. Do you maintain that Islam should have more freedom and rights than Judaism or Christianity?
"Your a bigot..."
Name-calling is the hallmark of a weak argument. (BTW, the contraction for you are is you're, not the possessive pronoun your.) Why do you call me a bigot? I have not pre-judged you, but you have obviously pre-judged me.
"...with no respect for the Constitution as evident by your views..."
Wrong again - You know nothing about my views of the Constitution and you provide no quotes or examples which show a lack of respect. I strongly support and defend our Constitution.
"...and your self-affiliation with those who wished to break from our Constitutional form of government. The only thing sadder and sicker than a violent rebel in a Democracy is a FAILED rebel. Maybe the Government should round up all those who fly the flag of the failed rebellion as untrustworthy and unfaithful to our Republic? Why not, if they can round up Muslims for being untrustworthy and unfaithful, why not those who idealize rebels?
Your obvious reference to my screen name is an indication of your own prejudice and bigotry, as well as your disparaging remarks about the CSA. Apparently, your education about the Civil War is woefully inadequate. You have no clue as to why I chose my screen name or what it might mean to me. Your misdirection and ad hominem personal attacks are more common tactics of a weak and failing argument. I have tried to have a civil discussion with you, but you seem more interested in making disparaging remarks, than in reason and logic. From your own words in a post on another thread (To 26):
"Yes, I was an educator... ...I wrote up on the board "No disparaging language is allowed"; then I had to define 'disparaging' as language that attempts to make someone feel bad about themselves, and said that the people who try to make people feel bad about themselves usually don't feel too good about themselves."
Your arguments do not make any distinction between a religion and a fanatical cult that actively endorses and participates in that which we consider to be barbaric behavior. IMHO, this is your error. That such barbaric behavior is condoned, sponsored and encouraged in other countries is not reason enough for us to accept it here.
Do you see that a sword cuts both ways?
Only a double-edged sword - the Islamic sword is depicted as a single edged sword and only cuts one way, against unbelievers and apostates.
The point which I and others have tried to make and which you have yet to grasp, is that one of the major basic tenets of Islam is to subjugate and/or kill all non-believers and apostates everywhere throughout the whole world, i.e. a one world government theocracy.
The same amendment which provides for freedom of religion also provides for freedom of speech, yet it is illegal to falsely shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater because of the panic and probable injuries and death which would most likely result.
If Islam goes through a reformation (as many religions have) which rejects all such barbaric behavior, then it should enjoy the same protections under our Constitution as any other religion.
Which brings us back to the main question - How likely is that?
"Nothing prevents us from using surveillance on suspicious groups (radical Islam is definitely suspect), gathering information, kicking out illegals, denying asylum and/or denying citizenship to suspect immigrants; and to prosecute those caught attempting to or conspiring to destroy things and/or kill Americans."
If this were true, prior to the Patriot Act, then the Patriot Act would have been entirely superfluous. There are measures within the Patriot Act that just beg for future abuse. It does contain language that seems inordinately directed at ordinary citizens. Many of these potential future pitfalls have been reigned in, but not all. What would you propose, to take the place of this Patriot Act? Do you think that it is completely unnecessary? I don't, even though I have my doubts about some of the measures it contains. What is the right answer? Maybe there isn't one. It's a sad thought that we're voluntarily reducing ourselves to virtually guaranteed victimhood out of fealty to ideals. Sounds sort of like pacifists who are opposed to war under any circumstance, thereby dooming themselves to be overrun and killed. Pacifism has always struck me as having a very limited future, absent those who are not pacifists who are willing to defend themselves, and by extension, the pacifists who condemn them for doing so.
place marker for later reading
Doing away with the dole = mass exodus back to the homeland. The vermin couldn't afford to live in London without subsidy. (This could also work in the other European socialist paradises.)
I'm torn here.
I respect your constitutional absolutism.
That said - go back to the original article. What do we America, or the British, do with folks who openly call for the destruction of a nation and it's government?
How about Lincoln? He had to fiddle with the Constitution
in extreme times/war? Not saying we're there yet, but who knows...
So if there's an absolute prohibition of meddling in religion, and there's an absolute prohibition against an abrogation of free speech, then anyone can say anything, no matter how subversive/seditious/threating...no matter what?
What would you do to an American Muslim citizen who spoke the way these British Muslims speak of their nation and what they seek to see happen to it?
"How about Lincoln? He had to fiddle with the Constitution
in extreme times/war? Not saying we're there yet, but who knows."
Please tell me you're kidding. There was no need for the war to begin with. Bad analogy.
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.