Skip to comments.
Pat Robertson stirs up debate (Islam is not a peaceful religion)
nj.com ^
| April 02, 2003
| KRYSTAL KNAPP
Posted on 04/04/2003 4:56:15 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 421-424 next last
To: wardaddy
Save your "Wardaddy is an enemy of the Constitution" wolf tickets for a chump...chump.
The fact remains that a federal "ban" on Islam ammounts to religious persecution. The First Amendment protects them against this kind of bigotry.
You and TLB can spew soundbytes till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the facts.
You're wrong. The Constitution & the Supreme Court are against you.
261
posted on
04/05/2003 5:12:59 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: TLBSHOW
Perhaps you should read before (to borrow one of your terms) "spewing" Todd.
My reply didn't address your post to Howlin, except in the general sense.
262
posted on
04/05/2003 5:16:04 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: Jhoffa_
Where did I advocate a "federal ban" on Islam.
I simply do not wish to see them hide behind the first amendment while many of them plot or support our demise either actively or passively....and yes...I think strict immigration oversight into allowing new Muslims here is appropriate.
The hostile ones which are legion should be deported.
Respect for the first amendment does not require national suicide.
263
posted on
04/05/2003 5:16:59 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
To: Howlin
How does that factor into your theory about cultist?
I dunno exactly..
I do however think that Osama would be very pleased many of the bigots I see on this thread.
This kind of hatred is exactly what he would seek to exploit to gain power and glory for himself.
264
posted on
04/05/2003 5:19:08 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: wardaddy
Where did I advocate a "federal ban" on Islam.
Then you need to re-read the thread. As that's what brought me into this argument in the first place.
Begin with post #5, that pretty much summs it up.
265
posted on
04/05/2003 5:20:35 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: Jhoffa_
By the way....now I'm a bigot since I don't support those who wish to destroy my country either from within or from abroad.
You're not always so PC...why on this one?
I'm a hard right non-pious Christian southerner with a stay at home wife and 4 kids whose holy trinity is basically RKBA, militantly anti-abortion, culture war and aggressive self defense and foreign policy and lower taxation thrown in for good measure. (major support for Israel too..but not for religious reasons)
What melts yer butter. Help me understand specifically.
266
posted on
04/05/2003 5:22:35 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
To: Jhoffa_
The Constitution & the Supreme Court are against you.
That is what Islam and people like you are hoping for. You need to show this much outrage to the democrats trashing the constitution in the Senate or show your outrage to the Muslims using the constitution to destroy us.
267
posted on
04/05/2003 5:24:03 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(Islam = Jihad Impulse-Control Disorder)
To: Jhoffa_
I asked you to show where I said anything of that nature. Being muslim per se is not enough but since nearly all surveys show that 2/3rds are against us strongly then I suppose it would make sense to publicly oppose them. However you are correct, no court is going to uphold a ban of any sort based strictly on religion..we don't even do that to Nazis.
We can however purge them in a variety of ways if they are active in their zeal. And religious freedom should not be used as a hiding place.
268
posted on
04/05/2003 5:27:32 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
To: wardaddy
What melts yer butter. Help me understand specifically.
Okay.
In plain terms: We all hate Terrorism, certainly. These people are evil and they should be punished. From Tim McVeigh right on down to the 9/11 jihadders. There's no argument there from me. No equating Christianity with Islam and no excuses being made for terrorists of any stripe. None, nada, fin.
However, a certain poster (whom I won't name) has been calling all over the forum for systematic oppression and a "ban" on peaceful Muslims. There are thousands of these people who go about their daily lives without harming a fly.
That bothers me. I cannot, as a Christian justify oppressing old women and good men, like the tipster who saved Private Jessica Lynch, simply because they worship a false God.
I don't see any moral justification for it. Nor religious justification, nor do I find anything in the Constitution to promote this notion.
I think it's wrong headed and just dangerous to begin calling for wholesale religious persecution to (possibly) nail a few bad apples.
As a Christian Conservative, I just can't buy into this..
269
posted on
04/05/2003 5:32:24 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: wardaddy
We have to be able to determine who is hostile and who isn't and I'm not for them hiding behind religious freedoms. My answer above...what part do you not "get"? So then you agree that when a poster such as TLB says the following -- "they should be banned from office and the bloody cult banned in America!" -- that they(TLB) are wrong.
270
posted on
04/05/2003 5:35:06 PM PST
by
FreeReign
(V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
To: wardaddy
And religious freedom should not be used as a hiding place.
We have laws against conspiracy and terrorism. The first amendment doesn't apply to acts of terror or conspiracy.
Further, they can be RICO'ed and taken down like a row of bowling pins if they try it.
No, no.. Terrorists are not immune from the law.
271
posted on
04/05/2003 5:36:07 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: TLBSHOW
I understood it loud and clear now from my post of Ann's what part of Satan is Islam that you do you not understand?Your question addresses nothing that I've said.
272
posted on
04/05/2003 5:37:34 PM PST
by
FreeReign
(V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
To: TLBSHOW
That is what Islam and people like you are hoping for. You need to show this much outrage to the democrats trashing the constitution in the Senate or show your outrage to the Muslims using the constitution to destroy us. the Constitution protects us -- it doesn't destroy us.
273
posted on
04/05/2003 5:39:28 PM PST
by
FreeReign
(V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
To: TLBSHOW
You need to show this much outrage to the democrats trashing the constitution in the Senate or show your outrage to the Muslims using the constitution to destroy us.
I rail against the extra-constitutional excesses of the Democrats (and Republicans, and every other group) endlessly Todd.
I have been doing this for years now, where have you been?
And as far as Islam goes, they can't even take multiple wives and hide behind the first amendment. The Supreme court said so themselves. So, what makes you think they can get away with terrorist acts? You're promoting a fairy tale here..
274
posted on
04/05/2003 5:40:25 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: Jhoffa_
275
posted on
04/05/2003 6:17:29 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(Islam = Jihad Impulse-Control Disorder)
To: Jhoffa_
It's more complicated than that.
If say immigration or the military start scrutinizing Muslims more than others then the ACLU and CAIR will go running to the courts to claim that is unconstitutional.
Banning is obviously not going to fly, but where will the line be drawn.
I would assume that you are not now in favor of unfettered mulsim immigration into this country?
The scutiny is where the constitutional battle will be fault.
276
posted on
04/05/2003 6:21:22 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
To: TLBSHOW
Pat, what are you doing?
Think about it, man.
To: wardaddy
I would assume that you are not now in favor of unfettered mulsim immigration into this country?
My position on immigration is that it should be to our benefit. As opposed to being some weird type of "aid" package we hand out willy, nilly.
It doesn't matter to me how "CAIR" feels about it. These people aren't citizens and we owe them nothing, imo.
278
posted on
04/05/2003 6:25:41 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: TLBSHOW
LOL!
How about a link to the Muslim who tipped us off about PFC Lynch? Gonna add that one also Todd?
Perhaps you would like to add a link to the DC Chapters Rally and the speaker there..? He had some interesting things to say on the subject of Islam.
279
posted on
04/05/2003 6:27:48 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: FreeReign
I do not always agree with TLB nor his well known nemisis either but I am with him more often than not and I am with him more on this issue than against him.
He and I and nopardons and a handful of others were among a handful that questioned the immediate capitulation to PC forces during the Lott Affair even though none of us felt Lott was worth defending.
I do not choose my agreements with posters based on unanimity of opinion. I have agreed with James before as I recall but in this issue we have some divergence.
About the only posters I could say I always disagree with are/were WhiskeyPapa, That Poppins Woman(ugh), MemphisBelle(double ugh) and Mortin Sult/Dutch Comfort/The Cruiser or whatever of the many other manifestations one can imagine he has invented over the years.
I'm certain there are things I agree with you on...FWIW.
You are correct. TLB's wish that the courts will ban muslims is moot...but the details of the scrutiny to be apllied to them will be rife with legal battles.
280
posted on
04/05/2003 6:29:03 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 421-424 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson