To: yonif
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks.
8 posted on
12/17/2004 4:02:55 PM PST by
Drango
(Those who advocate robbing (taxing) Peter to pay Paul...will always have the support of Paul.)
To: Drango
I agree-----a very slippery slope.
Most of the Muslim problem could be solved by better intelligence and protection of our borders.
12 posted on
12/17/2004 4:06:07 PM PST by
Mears
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks.
Good thing we go by the constitution and not public opinion polls.
19 posted on
12/17/2004 4:07:46 PM PST by
oldbrowser
(You lost the election.....................Get over it.)
To: Drango
There's a big difference between "can be" and "will be". It's not likely the rights of Catholics and SDAs wil be restricted no matter what happens to Moslems.
Part of the problem here is that Islam is such an antogonistic and legalistic religion that the only thing I can think of that would be comprable (although highly improbable) would be for the SDA to borrow a trick from the Catholics and run a religiously legalistic inquisition.
Obviously the Catholics and SDA are "OK" and should not be bothered.
24 posted on
12/17/2004 4:10:45 PM PST by
muawiyah
To: Drango
"If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks."So how about the mooslimes that aren't "American"?
Why even let any more in? Don't we have enough of them here yet? When they breed, their offspring can cancel my vote.
No thanks.
28 posted on
12/17/2004 4:12:05 PM PST by
Slump Tester
(John Kerry - When even your best still isn't good enough)
To: Drango
Define "muslim-Americans".
31 posted on
12/17/2004 4:13:03 PM PST by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.)
To: Drango
Why "no thanks"? With the due process for restricting, of course. As far as Mormons are concerned, there was a serious state pressure on them (there were posts on FR detailing and quoting court decisions) which forced them to abandon previous Mormon practice of polygamy. So, there is a precedent for state pressure changing religious customs and practices. And the pressure has to be restriction of rights or a threat of such restriction.
108 posted on
12/17/2004 5:34:14 PM PST by
GSlob
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. Can the civil liberties of Mormon polygamists (multiple wives), Rastafarian (marijuana as a holy sacrament), Catholics (wine as a holy sacrament during Prohibition), or the Navajo and Huichol tribes (Peyote as a holy sacrament) be restricted?
179 posted on
12/17/2004 6:32:30 PM PST by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Drango
Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks. You need to read the whole thing. The Vatican is not at war with us. Israel is not at war with us. Utah is not at war with us.
7th day Adventists? They're good-hearted, kooky cultists...not at war with us.
235 posted on
12/17/2004 7:22:05 PM PST by
BureaucratusMaximus
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" - Hillary Clinton)
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks. The foundation of the religions, the holy books, of the Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th Day Adventists don't command them to kill those that are not them and enslave the rest by force of arms.
That would be the reason their civil liberties wouldn't be restricted.
241 posted on
12/17/2004 7:45:43 PM PST by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks. The govt has already restricted the rights of the Mormons. Confiscated church property and arrested a lot of polygamists, and sent an army to keep an eye on them. Merely on the word of a few drunken lechers that weren't very religious themselves, but hated the Mormon's religion.
The Mormons actually serve as a good precedent for doing something similar to the Muslims.
And why not? The govt never apologized nor paid any reparations to the Mormon polygamists or their descendants, so that is a tacit admission the actions against the Mormons were "legal". Surely we can say all Muslims are murdering terrorists just as we said all Mormons were polygamists (even though they weren't).
265 posted on
12/17/2004 8:29:00 PM PST by
Auntie Dem
(Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks.Wrong. The ultimate goal of islam is to subvert the republic. We can, have and should restrict any groups with this ultimate goal.
349 posted on
12/18/2004 10:50:04 AM PST by
houeto
(I keep tabs of how many FReepers 'get it' and how many don't...)
To: Drango
If the civil liberties of Muslim Americans can be restricted, then the civil liberties of Catholics, Jews, Mormons and 7th day Adventists can be restricted. No thanks. I agree. Any short-term security advantages to singling out one particular group is by far offset by the long-term deterioration of liberty in general.
372 posted on
12/20/2004 8:38:26 AM PST by
nosofar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson