Posted on 07/24/2005 3:10:02 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
I need to do some research, but I believe that islam already was officially prohibited in the latter part of the 19th century. I am not sure if it was several states or a federal law.
The crux of the problem (rather obvious after the fact) is that islam is not a religion.
Imagine a religion which incorporates, as an inseparable part of itself all the tenets of communism.
Or imagine another which in theory and in practice also had as an inseparable element of itself all the tenets of Nazi Germany's government.
Would that make the picture any clearer?
Must they be tolerated because they call themselves a religion?
A thorough knowlege of islam and history can do wonders to bring a clear picture into focus.
"They have already shown themselves as unworthy to be in society and we are allowing them to be indoctrinated in devil worship."
Sorry about that. Devil worship in prisons, for goodness sake! Good point. BTW, we do not have the Constitutional right to worship Satan or devils-- only to worship a single God.
You talk as if the winner in world conflicts makes the rules.
As an originalist, I think that as it stands, the Constitution does allow the worship of a 'One God', including Allah. But that can and should be amended. I think that most muslims may be able to get by with ankle bracelets, perhaps. And I don't want them to have the 'out' of pretending to leave that religion after an amendment is passed. There must be a new status of citizenship: the muslim citizen, who has less privacy than the rest of us.
"What a silly person! You talk as if the winner in world conflicts makes the rules."
Yep. We've never exploited a victory economically before, but we would need every advantage we could get if we suffer a nuclear attack. A change like that requires massive brain re-wiring. It seems so un-American, you know?
We probably would not need an amendment Arthur if we just get past accepting every oddball belief as a religion just because someone has figured out they get all sorts of protection by such claims. A simple test (feel free to expand upon this) can be made for a valid belief system.
1) If your belief system instructs you to kill nonbeliever's it is not a religion.
2) If your believe system instructs you to kill those who disavow or leave your belief system, it is not a religion.
THIS has been, is, and always will be the key to the "war" on terror. We can kill the fringe until the camels come home but there will always be more until the dark holes where they hide give no succor. Despite the successes in the WOT so far, the great and continuing failure is that there are vast populations that harbor or tolerate these terrorist, if for no other reason than they share the same faith, in name or in deed.
We can have troops on every street corner in the Middle East and South Asia or bring every solitary soldier home and it won't change one iota until that attitude changes across Islam - there will be more and more bombs going off killing innocents. Until the Muslims turn out the terrorists, the terror will continue.
they'll toast any conservative who doesn't grovel.
It is an accurate statement, it is also accurate he said that statement to bring attention to himself.
He could have written "the policy I stated brought much criticism" and left it at that, but the subsequent statement of
but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists."
with the use of tancredo starting a "national dialougue", IMO, shows a bit of meglomania.
tancredo is saying that it was him and him only, who brought about the debate, but that's not the truth, there has been much debate about it, before tancredo mentioned it.
He just as an elected representaive of Congress, brought cheap publicity, with the expressed content to shine attention on tancredo, IMO.
This very point is starting to be discussed in different forums/threads. Imagine if Nazi (pagan) Germany, Imperial (Shinto) Japan, and/or Communist (?) Russia had positioned itself as a religious movement? Even more alarming is that now the weakness has been exposed, how many more movements will adopt the same posture of victimhood? The Communist (Taoism/Confucianism?) Chinese? Imagine an agressive, expansionist China enjoying the protection of the West declaring that it's an ROP?
What is it about Islam that you find appealing?
I was "thinking" of the mideast in general and the fall-out from nukes in the area which would disrupt our oil supply.
Now that I've read some of your posts...nobody seems to be all that concerned about it.
BTTT
Naw it's Tancredo waving his imaginary genitalia. Some people seem to find that attractive.
There is one country that's missing from that list. And our State Department will never have the nerve to add it.
Saudi Arabia.
Everybody in the world already "knows" we have nukes and retain the option to use them.
BTTT
Today it seems it's Tommy Talkeredo
I blame entropy.
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.