Terror on the dole (4-22-04)

Evening Standard ^ | 4-22-04 | David Cohen

[Mylo]

This is Madison:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

[Mylo]

Here is Thomas Jefferson. Read and compare his vision of religious freedom to your vision of religious tyranny.

"the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection(of religious freedom), the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."--Thomas Jefferson, from his autobiography, 1821, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1:67




"...our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opnions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950,

"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

"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protections of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."--Thomas Jefferson, from his autobiography, 1821, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1:67

[AmericanArchConservative]

Welcome Back, FRiend!

Evidently our moderate and moderately ignorant cohort is unaware that the warm and fuzzie muzzies consider Jesus as a lesser prophet, with a lesser revelation, to less holy believers.

We are not the children of a lesser god. They are.

They need to sign on to our program - not vice versa!

A.A.C.

Swift and Bloody Death unto the Murderers of my Brit friends!

[Fred Nerks]

#56

[Empireoftheatom48]

People need to wake up! The war has already started we need to get rid of these people before they get rid of us! It's that clear!

[RebelTex]

Re: # 60,61,62

You fail to grasp the meaning of my post.  I do not advocate outlawing religion - only destructive cults, and more specifically, the destructive doctrines of cults.  Where Islam advocates the death of non-members (non-believers), the destruction of society, the conquering and dismantling of established governments, then it ceases to be a legitimate religion and becomes a dangerous cult.

In order for Islam to become a legitimate and acceptable religion, then those destructive tenets must be removed from their practices, teachings, and koran.  How likely is that?

Your 1st quote in post # 60 from George Washington proves my point and I show it here with emphasis added so you may consider your own reasoning:

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy-a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

Your 2nd quote (of Madison) in post # 61 is non sequitur.   I never advocated establishing one religion in exclusion of all others.

As for your 3rd quote (of Jefferson) in post # 62, it too proves my point (which you have failed to address).  The following excerpts are the relevant portions with emphasis added:

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950,

"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

(Note: By not including the States or local governments in this statement, it shows clear intent that this action was reserved to the States and their citizenry.)

"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right.

(Comment: Where is the reason and light of mass slaughter of innocents, ritual beheadings, and forced conversion to Islam.)

Where is 'the latitude of reason and light' in your comment (shown next): 

"Here is Thomas Jefferson. Read and compare his vision of religious freedom to your vision of religious tyranny."

I do not engage in religious tyranny.  Your comments and posts do not reflect reason and common sense, nor do they contain any examples of what you term as my 'religious tyranny'.   Your arguments are weak

I respect your desire to protect religious freedom of the 1st amendment (a desire which I also share), but you ignore the realities of destructive cults and common sense.   A religion which advocates (but does not practice) destructive and evil acts might be tolerated in a civilized society, but one which engages in those same acts can not be permitted to continue unabated.

And finally, being tolerant of a religion is not the same as being a willing lamb led to the slaughter.  I recommend not  becoming a sacrificial lamb.

 

[RegulatorCountry]

"It's all the fault of the Jooooos...is that what you are trying to say?"

I think you're likely to find that you're 180 degrees off the mark with that one, as far as the poster to which you're responding is concerned.

[Happy2BMe]

No 'sanctuaries' for illegals - cities refusing to enforce immigration law are harboring terrorist.

[Dane]

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

The truth is right there.

What a bunch of degenerate scum.

[Dane]

Ya know Happy, there is a big difference between Christian hispanics and islamic jihadis.

Of course you already know that, but ignore it.

[Mylo]

You have no respect for religious freedom, 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


Your a bigot with no respect for the Constitution as evident by your views 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?

Do you see that a sword cuts both ways?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Do you see that a sword cuts both ways?"

I can't speak for "RebelTex," but I will say that our greatest strength as a society, as far as our own citizens is concerned, is being exploited by an enemy from outside and inside. This exploitation is cynical enough to imply study of our external weaknesses, and deliberate, long range planning as to how to take advantage of them. To me, the enemy is anyone who would destroy me, those who I love and my state and nation. That there is a religious component to this "enemy" does throw us into disarray, and this is not accidental, in my opinion. It seems to me that a group of easily-manipulated, hot-headed, sexually deprived men with little hope of marriage, have been steadily radicalized over decades. I do not attribute this radicalization entirely to the imams. These fanatics are like puppets on a string, and their actions can and do serve more than one master.

Do you recognize that our most cherished ideals as a nation are being cynically manipulated from without, and if so, how would you propose to respond? I suppose your answer would depend upon what you presumed the intent of these attacks to be. Is it an attempt to subsume or destroy infidel nations, or is it an attempt to get us to abandon liberal society as it is understood in the western hemisphere? Could it not be both?

[sheik yerbouty]

9/11 was merely the fruits of a n uisance weapon? Is that what you are telling us here? Are you a closet jihadiost?

[Mylo]

I would propose to respond with the invasion of Afghanistan for harboring Al Queda. Followed by the invasion of Iraq for not living up to their obligations under the cease fire agreement after the first Gulf War (Which I was a participant in). This should be followed by support, at a distance, of democratic reform in Lebanon; election reform in Egypt, and support of any elections in Saudi Arabia. We should also crack down on Libya's WMD capabilities if they don't come clean.

Oh, yeah, Bush IS doing all that....and I support him.

What we should also do is limit our support of Pakistan, cut our dependence on Saudi Arabian oil, and kick the hell out of Iran.

What we should NOT do is cede to the enemy all Islam by declaring a crusade against the worlds one billion Muslims, abandon our Constitution to outlaw a religion or exile or intern US citizens and abandon our fundamental liberties of freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and equality under the law.

[Mylo]

No. I'm saying that besides a few spectacular attacks that kill a few thousand, Terrorism is MOSTLY a nuisance weapon. They killed 50 people in London. They killed 3,000 in America. Did that change the fundamental facts that those idiots still don't produce anything of any value besides oil or opium? Did it change the focus of the modern world culture from New York and L.A. to Damascus and Cairo? Did it make their stupid backwards asses any more educated and cultured or enlightened?

No. After the smoke cleared and we counted our dead we went back to work making America the greatest nation on Earth while they went back to their ignorant dirty and savage and unproductive lives.

I fought against the foes of America, what did you ever do? Flapping your gums doesn't count. Closet jihadist? What gall!

[sheik yerbouty]

I don't buy that. There were more US casualties than Pearl Harbor, and in fact terror bombings are used as a strategic weapon against civilian populations. Sort of like a V2 rocket with feet.

[RegulatorCountry]

"abandon our Constitution to outlaw a religion or exile or intern US citizens and abandon our fundamental liberties of freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and equality under the law."

It's rather easy to say what should NOT be done internally to address the threat of terrorist attack from resident aliens, naturalized citizens or illegal immigrants smuggled across the border. Do you support monitoring and surveillance of groups possibly tied to terrorism, even though the primary factor motivating such suspicion is religion? Do you see the difficulty in attempting to prevent a repeat of 9/11, due to the very structure of our society? If a large enough series of attacks are successfully mounted in the US, the Constitution will be in grave danger. It's a rock and a hard place.

[Mylo]

But in Pearl Harbor they SUNK OUR FLEET! It was a military victory. Killing 3,000 civilians doesn't change the facts that we could fold their armies like a lawn chair. Sinking our Pacific fleet gave Japan an actual fighting chance in WWII (not much of one, as Yakamoto told them 'we will run wild in the east for a few years, then the industrial power of America would be brought to bear and we will loose').

So what have you ever done to defend America? or are you a closet jihadist? Or just a gum flapper?

[sheik yerbouty]

"You should have as much respect for my work as the four buttocks which engendered you, and for the peg of life which united them."

[Mylo]

So your a gum flapper. Should have known. It is easy for one who has never done anything to protect and defend our Constitution to accuse a military veteran and patriot of being a closet jihadist for not wanting to abandon our Constitutional freedoms because some backwards religious fanatics kill a few thousand people. But it is a bit hard to make the charge stick.

Maybe you should think more and flap your gums less.