Posted on 02/20/2006 7:46:11 AM PST by Dark Skies
For instance, Findlaw defines "assault/battery" this way:
Assault/Battery In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as "assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
So anyone who publicly states that he is going to "behead the person who insulted the Prophet" should be taken seriously and locked up for assault.
In the US we are not (yet?) in the position of the Europeans where 12 and 13 year old girls are kidnapped and sent back to Pakistan to be married to their cousins. But our laws would (and should) prevent this from ever happening here.
Same thing with schooling females. And spousal abuse laws should apply whatever the religion of the person doing it.
We have the laws in place, but judging by the Europeans, it is the enforcement of the laws that is in question.
We tolerate satanism ... but not human sacrifice. We accept Mormanisn but not polygamy. The same needs to apply to Islam ... we will tolerate the cult (barely) as long as those who practice it become and remain NON -VIOLENT
Islam was twisted at it's inception; not after the fact.
I've searched my tiny mind for another example of a religion who's first and porimary goal is world domination, with a select racial elite at the top, and everyone else relegated to slavery.
Buddhism? No.
Jainism? No.
Hinduism? Heck no.
Zoroastrianism? No.
Greek Orthodoxy? No.
Judaism? No.
Daoism? Certainly not.
Christianity? No.
Druidism? No.
Animism? No.
Totemism? No.
Wicca? No.
Thor, God of Thunder? Don't think so.
In fact, the only philospohies (for lack of a better term) that DO envision world domination under a racial elite and the reduction of the rest of the world to slave status are: Islam, Nazism, Japanese Militarism and Stalinist Communism.
In fact, the only other books (other than the Koran, that is)I could immediately think of that even comes close to describing such a system was Orwell's "1984" and Hitler's "Mein Kampf".
Gee, Islam looks more an more like a "religion of peace" the more I think about it (/sarc).
Let's see here....
we aren't even fighting a majority of the Muslims in Iraq, a country of 25 million.
We aren't fighting even 5% of the Muslims that were in Afghanistan.
There are over 1 BILLION Muslims. If ALL of those Muslims were militant, terrorists or whatever you want to call them, WE would be in A LOT worse shape than we are now.
but don't let the stats and facts get in the way of your blind hate. Go ahead, make yourself look like the same thing you profess to be against.
"So anyone who publicly states that he is going to "behead the person who insulted the Prophet" should be taken seriously and locked up for assault."
Yup. Enforce the laws. Prosecute people who break them.
So the evidence that you give to back up your stated "fact" that most Muslims DO NOT endorse terrorism; is simply your experience with knowing a few of them. How many ?
Even if you know 100's, your personal experiences provide too limited a basis on which to make such a claim, especially since they have a well-known proclivity for saying one thing to non-Muslims, and another to the rest of us.
"We don't have to outlaw it, just take away their tax exempt status. That way they couldn't profit from plotting aganst us."
There are a bunch of fringe Christian churches that do not have tax-exempt status that do very nicely.
But if you're talking about revoking EVERY mosque's tax exempt status, you're still butting heads with the First Amendment.
Yeah. I naïvely believed that too. Until I had one screaming at me in my cubicle ON 9 frickin' 11.
Had the Towers not come down, and had he not objected to my support of the USofA in the heat of the moment of victory, I would have never know his true colors.
They are raised from birth to lie to nonbelievers, it's called al Taqqia (various spellings).
I was much happier living with my eyes closed, as you do...
They already hate us. I've listend many times to radio talk shows, in which a "moderate" muslim calls in to give his 2¢. The host will try to get them to condemn all terrorist acts, and the muslim invariably replies with "well, under certain circumstances..", or "well, it's a complicated question..."
Remember, these are the moderates.
So you're saying they're all bad then?
"We tolerate satanism ... but not human sacrifice. We accept Mormanisn but not polygamy. The same needs to apply to Islam ... we will tolerate the cult (barely) as long as those who practice it become and remain NON -VIOLENT
"
Exactly correct. So, when a Muslim breaks our laws, we prosecute. Very simple.
Sorry, I'm a dude. And Mrs. Wombat might have a thing or two to say about it.
No 'Brokeback Connection' here, bud.
but it is the best offer I've had all week. (/sarc)
*ouch*
Just for fun? O.K., it's like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!
;^)
Corrected Reply: Even if you know 100's, your personal experiences provide too limited a basis on which to make such a claim, especially since they have a well-known proclivity for saying one thing to Muslims, and another to the rest of us.
That's it. Base an entire 1/6th of the world's population off of a telephone call that MAY OR MAY NOT have been by someone who is as they claim to be.
Makes PERFECT sense to me.
LOL!
Prove it. Everything we have seen tells us otherwise.
When they break one of our laws, we lock them up.
The law enforcement approach does not exclude the war making approach. We can and should enforce all the local laws. In addition, we may need to destroy some of their countries. But extraterritorial war is outside the rights of American citizens spelled out in the First Amendment, which apply.
If we got to the point of a declared civil war internally, I trust we could suspend the whole of Constitutional Rights for the opponents of the Constitution. Their rejection of it would make it not apply to them. Death by bullet would be fine.
In the mean time, let's not go suspending the First Amendment for certain religions.
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.