All traces of Perry/Aga Khan curriculum removed from web

Well, OBVIOUSLY Reagan was a Muslim deadhead! /sarc

I’ve gotten to the point where I accept that some here just prefer to bask in their know-it-all ignorance. It used to have the most well-informed, creative folks on the planet. There were always some who are ‘out there’ but not so many. Now, I read their crap and laugh. No sense wasting broadband trying to engage, educate or clarify for those whose minds are made up.

Oh. So you have not only changed the topic of my post, but you have completely made up your OWN topic for the entire thread. I see. ROFL

The very last sentence in my post was about Taquyya. The very first sentence in yours claimed I made things up.

DOn't insult your own intelligence by acting like a fool. I QUOTED a line from your post, and responded to the line I quoted. No rational person would think I was responding to "the last line" of your post.

And having pretended to be ignorant of the universal FR standard of italics quoting the referenced part of a comment, you would be wise not to be pretending you are a mind reader: You seem to think that America HAS to RESPECT Islam as a “Religion”.

I think no such thing. I certainly have no respect for Islam as a religion. "Congress shall make NO laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I respect the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment says that congress is forbidden to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

THe courts have consistantly ruled that this clause does NOT mean we have to allow a religion to do whatever it wants; to argue that "freedom of religion" necessitates giving people free reign under the guise of religion is simply wrong. We prohibit animal sacrifice; we prohibit the use of hallucinagenic drugs. Polygamy was forbidden, and a religion had to basically abandon that tenet of their faith to get their state into the Union.

IF a mosque is found to be training terrorists, we have every right to shut it down, to arrest the leaders, to prosecute the guilty. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

But all of this is moot -- your statement "I defy you to find a single instance in the BOR/Constitution that says “We must allow religions within our borders whose clear intent is the replacement of the Constitution”" suggests that you believe we can actually prohibit the practice of muslim worship within our borders.

How? What politician is going to take that step? What court is going to allow it? What state is going to sign on to the constitutional amendment prohibiting muslim worship? You are talking about your desires and wishes, and you act as if your conclusion is so obvious that only a fool would disagree. I'm simply pointing out that you have absolutely NO poltiical backing for your position, which also means that few people actually agree with you.

Please explain to the class why you feel the 1st Am. allows an enemy to use religion to destroy us.

I don't feel that way. However, I do feel that the 1st amendment allows people to practice a religion whose beliefs include a desire to destroy us. Just as the 1st amendment allows people to stand on a street corner and say they want our government to be overthrown.

We can pass laws to stop people from carrying out the destruction of our country. But I believe the founding fathers were a lot smarter than you are now, arguing that the 1st amendment should be suspended if it allows people to practice a religion that would destroy us, or allows people to make speeches which call for our destruction.

Now, I quoted several things you said. I made each one italics -- those are your words that I'm responding to.

I agree. I think I might actually go with Mitt over Perry if I had to at this point—and I am no fan of Mitt’s at all.

Run, Sarah, run!

How could I change the topic of your post? I merely pointed out that your post responded to my post which was about politics, with an argument that had little to do with what I was talking about.

You are certainly free to come into any thread you like, and respond to anybody’s comments you like, in whatever way you like.

Since I was discussing politics when you responded to me, I responded with a poltical discussion. I know, it’s kind of odd, but since this isn’t a religion thread, I figure talking about politics is better than talking about religion.

The topic of this thread is “All traces of Perry/Aga Khan curriculum removed from the web”. Note it’s not “the horror of islam”. THe article is a poltiical attack on Perry, suggesting he had something to do with the removal of information he would want hidden for his political campaign.

In this thread, someone argued that Perry’s appearance at the groundbreaking for a muslim center disqualified him as President. That led to the discusison of whether the 1st amendment should apply to muslims, or if we should ban the building of mosques.

That is the discussion into which you interjected your opinion, and I answered in the vein of the thread’s discussion — if banning muslims is a criteria for picking a presidential candidate, which candidate passes the test?

You can argue anything you want, but I’m not discussing the false religion of islam with you or anybody else on a political forum. In a thread attacking one candidate for not opposing Islam, I ask the one pertinent question — which candidate passes the test for opposing Islam?

I understand why you wouldn’t want to discuss that, but it makes no sense to pretend this thread is about anything else.

Spare me the self righteous BS after you hopped all over God’s creation on this thread.

“I don’t feel that way. However, I do feel that the 1st amendment allows people to practice a religion whose beliefs include a desire to destroy us. Just as the 1st amendment allows people to stand on a street corner and say they want our government to be overthrown. “

Quite obviously you do. That sentence says everything anyone needs to know about you and how you view America and the Constitution.

You cannot get it through your head that Islam is a political system, not a religion.

You cannot get it through your head that the Problem of islam would be quickly and easily solved if we had Pols that would stand up for right against wrong.

You cannot get it through your head that the BOR/Constitution does NOT allow “people to practice a religion whose beliefs include a desire to destroy us”. That is SEDITION AND TREASON you ignorant fool! Look up the definitions of those two things and get a clue.

You cannot get it through your head that by the very words of muslims themselves “The mosques are our barracks and the Minarets our missiles.”

You cannot get it through your head that a Christian nation, which we are despite Obama’s statements to the contrary, cannot coexist with something that wants it REPLACED.

You cannot get it through your head that passing 137 billiontrillionzillion and five laws makes not an iota of difference to a death cult that recognizes NO OTHER LAW BUT ISLAM. They do not care. How do govern a people who WILL NOT accept your authority? Israel has a ton of antiterror laws for dealing with the Muslim menace. How’s that working for them? It’s not and so the IDF has to deal with it. Perhaps you were unaware, but it was illegal to fly an airliner into the WTC prior to 9/11 and kill people. Didn’t stop them did it?

You cannot get it through your head that you cannot negotiate, make peace, trust or do anything with a people who lie as a matter of scripture.

And you want to give THAT 1st Amendment protection?!?!?!?

In short, you are so woefully uninformed on this topic as to look like nothing but a garden variety apologist for Islam if not a paid mouthpiece. I have argued with some mental giants on FR before, but buddy, you take the cake.

That sentence says everything anyone needs to know about you and how you view America and the Constitution.

Thanks, I'll repeat it: "the 1st amendment allows people to practice a religion whose beliefs include a desire to destroy us. Just as the 1st amendment allows people to stand on a street corner and say they want our government to be overthrown."

I assume you disagree, and your disagreement says a lot about you and how YOU view America and the constitution, and the wisdom of our founding fathers.

You cannot get it through your head that the BOR/Constitution does NOT allow “people to practice a religion whose beliefs include a desire to destroy us”. That is SEDITION AND TREASON you ignorant fool! Look up the definitions of those two things and get a clue.

SEDITION: incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

TREASON: the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

SO we can eliminate treason -- it's an ACT, not words. But Sedition is about words.

Constitutional Law -- an Introduction to the free speech clause...

Just seven years after adoption of the First Amendment, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798. The Act was enforced against Republican papers in an effort to keep Jefferson's party from defeating the Federalists in the 1800 election. Jefferson won anyway, and the Sedition Act expired by its own terms in 1801, without ever being tested by the Supreme Court. The Act did, however, touch off a lively debate on free speech issues and prompted both Madison and Jefferson to write discourses on freedom of speech and the press.

First use of sedition to block free speech -- the ruling political party to silence their opposition. Sedition and the First Amendment:

The First Amendment permits punishment of seditious utterances only if they expressly advocate immediate unlawful action and are likely to produce such action imminently (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)). In effect, the Court's affirmation of our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" renders the traditional crime of seditious libel unconstitutional (New York Times Co., 270).

Note however that the court doesn't allow unfettered free speech:

Some commentators reacted with dismay, arguing that the decision to prosecute under § 2384 rather than under general prohibitions against violence conveyed that the World Trade Center defendants were being condemned for their political and religious motivations and not just for the harms they caused. Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge patterned on this objection (United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (1999)).

Haggai 2:22-23:

‘I will overthrow the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations; and I will overthrow the chariots and their riders, and the horses and their riders will go down, everyone by the sword of another.’ 23‘On that day,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the LORD of hosts.

There are several bible commentators who argue that this verse indicates that Jesus will return, and will overthrow the nations of the earth to set up his kingdom.

That falls under the dictionary definition of "sedition". Is that not protected religious belief under the first amendment?

THe jurisprudence of the 1st amendment clearly indicates that for speech to fall outside the 1st amendment protections, it must be both clearly inciting to direct and current action, and it must reasonably be expected to lead to a direct act.

So yes, a religion can preach the eventual overthrow of our government, and still be protected by the 1st amendment. At least until such time as someone passes a law making that religion seditious, and the courts uphold that law.

Which brings us back again to the problem with your position -- there are NO elected politicians of either party that support your opinion on this matter. There IS NO POLITICIAN who will sponsor a bill doing what you claim is clearly called for.

The 1st amendment clearly allows for speech, and for religious beliefs, that call for the overthrow of our government. Only if the speech asks for people to act to overthrow the government, and there is a clear danger that people will take action based on that speech, can the speech go beyond the protections of the 1st amendment. Yes, the constitution is not a death sentence, but it is a strong protection for religious viewpoints with which we disagree vehemently.

TO argue further we'd get into an argument over whether every adherent to the "muslim" faith believes in the immediate overthrow of our government, which would be another pointless argument about something that is moot in this political discussion, because it makes no difference what you and I believe. There is no way any congress will ever pass a blanket law against the muslim faith, nor any court would rule that the muslim faith itself is a clear and present danger that circumvents the 1st amendment protections. If you disagree, point to a single elected official, or a single judicial ruling, that shows otherwise. THe rest is just an argument for the sake of argument.

Clearly I would find cases where speech should be punished, and clearly I believe that you could legally arrest a person preaching if they were directly inciting rebellion. I don't believe the 1st amendment is a blanket protection against ALL expressions of religious belief -- I've previously pointed out that we have legally prohibited acts of religious belief, so clearly I understand that point.

My soundbite is a rational one-sentence view of the 1st amendment, not an absolute statement of purity on the matter. But what you claim to be the norm is what I see as the rare exception, and i have history, judicial precedent, and virtually the entire elected officialdom backing my opinion.

You cannot get it through your head that the Problem of islam would be quickly and easily solved if we had Pols that would stand up for right against wrong.

I've expressed NO opinion on that point, as you have JUST brought it up. But it is so fascinating to me, that I am now on pins and needles. Please explain to all of us how the problem of Islam can be "quickly and easily" solved by the act of our politicians. The world is waiting for this "quick and easy" solution to the problem of Islam.

Seriously. I want to know -- what is this quick and easy solution. This should be fascinating.

“Islamic law as a political system doesn’t fall under the 1st amendment. That doesn’t mean the religion of islam doesn’t fall under the 1st amendment.”

If you could find me an Islamic-majority country that can distinguish between the two you might have a point. But you can’t.

(hint: the last one was Turkey...but they’ve now joining the other 60+ Islamic-majority countries that live under Sharia)

When I went to college, the Communists kept saying that the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, etc. were NOT Communist countries - no, they didn’t do it right. But if the US were to become Communist under them, we would have a paradise.

So keep living in your fantasy-world where Islamic-majority countries can live by secular rules - I’ll stick with reality.

...and good luck with Perry.

“Fortunately, I think it’s just a handful of star struck people that bandwagon the latest and greatest. Most will move on to another “best candidate EVER!!!” when Perry’s initial numbers settle in and the bloom wears off the rose.”

Agree - same thing happened in 2008 with Huckabee. A Republican from the South...must be a good conservative. We find out later that he’s a psycho with a great voice.

Bookmarked...whitewashing Perry’s Islam crap

David Stein: Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Shraria” School Curriculum Myth

In case you were wondering, we’re done here. I do not converse online with children.

First, I want to thank you for making your argument in a civil manner -- these discussions are something I love about FR, because i love dicussing issues and getting other points of view, but not so much when it devolves to name-calling.

You are correct that at least most islamic-majority countries also adopt an islamic political system. I don't think that negates the argument that there is a religious aspect to islam that is protected by the 1st amendment, but it is a real fear in many countries, although not so much I think here because we do have a constitution that limits the damage even a majority islamic legislature and islamic president could do.

But I'm not arguing against the long-term danger of islam, I'm arguing that we shouldn't give up the first amendment to protect us, because I think properly judiciated, the 1st amendment will protect us from things like government implementation of sharia law.

So keep living in your fantasy-world where Islamic-majority countries can live by secular rules - I’ll stick with reality.

That is a straw-man argument -- my position is that politically, there is an islamic religion protected against government interference by the 1st amendment in the United States, not that there is a majority-islamic country somewhere else that hasn't imposed Islamic law.

My point further wasn't to argue whether Islam SHOULD be protected under the 1st amendment, or whether Islam "Is" a religion under some definition, since this is not a religious forum thread, but a political thread. We were discussing vetting a particular candidate based in part on his not stopping a groundbreaking for a mosque. IN that context, all that is important is whether there are ANY candidates for that office who would agree to treat islam as if it was not a religion.

Since there are no candidates for president that would ban mosque-building, it is a moot point whether one candidate didn't do so.

Anyway, that is the entire context under which I made my 1st-amendment argument -- there is zero political support for removing religious protection from Islam. Even from those who have clearly and consistantly spoken out against the dangers of Sharia law in this country.

“I didn’t bash anyone”

I never said YOU did.

“In case you were wondering, we’re done here. I do not converse online with children.”

You Sir are an Ignoramus and dangerous to everyone around you, Be Gone!

“Since there are no candidates for president that would ban mosque-building, it is a moot point whether one candidate didn’t do so.

Anyway, that is the entire context under which I made my 1st-amendment argument — there is zero political support for removing religious protection from Islam. Even from those who have clearly and consistantly spoken out against the dangers of Sharia law in this country. “

It’s all a numbers game at this point. As the percentage of Muslims increase, friction with them gets greater. Watch Europe. They’re already banning the ski masks, they may also be banning new mosques (not sure). People may not perceive Islam as a threat here...yet, but they will, particularly as judges start to impose Sharia (and don’t for A MINUTE think that liberal judges won’t). We will follow in their footsteps, it may take a bit longer than Europe, but it WILL happen if their numbers increase.

Also look at Europe in about 20 years, when there are full-scale civil wars taking place (maybe even sooner). Bosnia and Kosovo were the canaries. But in Western Europe’s civil wars the carnage that will happen will make WW2 look like a walk in the park.

So given all that, I prefer a candidate who has a good handle on Islam and is not swayed by their pretty words - we will need very tough leaders to deal with this bunch.

Here's the difference.

Perry is having to cover up his past, or have his operatives do it.

Palin had twenty four thousand emails released, and both the New York Slimes and Washington Compost had teams ready to go on crowdsourcing them, with breathless fapping anticipation on the part of the left.

By the early part of the next week, the eagerly awaited exposition of all of Sarah's stupidity and misdeeds...

had disappeared down the memory hole.

"What email release?"

"Oh, that. We just had a couple of interns who wanted extra experience over the weekend. Nothing to it really."

Yeah, right.

Perry is a career politician who has done the opposite of Sarah: she went after the entrenched interests, even those in her party, and put a bunch of them in jail.

Perry built up his good ole' boys network (crony capitalism) in Texas, and a bunch of Texas millionaires and billionaires decided to try to astroturf his way to the nomination before Sarah declared.

His own website had a link to a speech he gave in which he quoted from the Koran; the Trans-Texas Corridor would have sent the toll payments to a SPANISH company; he's pandered to Mexico while passing cosmetic laws about Voter ID (hint: how many illegal aliens in Texas already have phony IDs, based on what we know? Remember the one in Washington State who had thirty fake IDs when caught.)

Your own posting history over the last 24-48 hours shows you engaged in personal insults to Palin supporters in default of actual relevant disputation, and in apparent contradiction to the claim on your homepage.

Cheers!

Your own posting history over the last 24-48 hours shows you engaged in personal insults to Palin supporters in default of actual relevant disputation, and in apparent contradiction to the claim on your homepage.

No, I do support both Perry and Palin. Difference is, she isn’t running. Now my posting history will show that I make all kinds of fun of the zealots, but I don’t think that I have personally attacked Sarah.