Posted on 08/11/2006 6:36:37 AM PDT by Agent Smith
We had less justification (for Japanese-American internment), than we do today.
That's not saying much, since there was no justification then.
Twice nothing is still nothing. Heck, we could have ten times the justification and still have nothing.
I agree completely with your friends assessment. The people who are dropping dimes on their pals of late aren't 'good' Muslims.
They are lapsed in one way or another, because they are in 'sin' when they turn in their own to authorities - especially infidel authorities.
Not only read the Constitution, I've read the Federalist Papers, the anti-federalist papers, and the pre-republic colonial statutes and justice of the peace manuals for the founding era. I have over eight book cases full of primary materials and I have a degree in history from Stanford. Want to compare credentials?
Well, of course, no phrase has been more abused than "turn the other cheek." Jesus certainly did not mean that Christians are to forego self-defense, or tolerate continual abuse.
His admonition had to do with revenge, with a "tit-for-tat" attitude that is always seeking to somehow balance the scales when we've been wronged.
I see nothing unreasonable about that.
"Anyone in the above groups actively works against America's interests to further their political agenda."
No more than those whow would deny American citizens life, liberty or property by virtue of their religious beliefs.
I wouldn't be in favor of rounding up all Muslims, sorry. I would be in favor of tossing out or arresting those who preach jihad, aka violence.
Wasn't meant to insult...it just seems your concern is hyperbolic and out of character.
The alternative is accepting as "Right" or "True" anything that the government says or does, simply because the government says or does it. That's worship of the State. Its XX Century expressions included International Communism, National Socialism, and Japanese Imperialism.
Okay professor, what part of the First Ammendment would allow the American government to criminalize Islam?
Not only read the Constitution, I've read the Federalist Papers, the anti-federalist papers, and the pre-republic colonial statutes and justice of the peace manuals for the founding era. I have over eight book cases full of primary materials and I have a degree in history from Stanford. Want to compare credentials?
And yet, after all that reading, you still think that the Founders somehow forgot to mention that Muslims don't have the same right to freedom of religion that the rest of us do?
Read the thread, Skippy. I'm advocating another amendment.
"I don't care what they do in Baghdad because I don't let Baghdad define freedom."
"define freedom?"
Well if you don't think we are in Baghdad for freedom; what the hell do you think we're there for?
the climate?
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzz
you reeeeeeely are a waste of my time!
Well okay. I know these threads can get heated which why I hesitated before posting. I've never really trusted the government. My opinion that they'll preserve citizen's rights if there's another terrorist attack or bird flu,etc. is well...less than optimal. They won't. It's a question of how much. I've never expressed this opinion on FR before so yeah it doesn't seem a little out of character. I just don't advertise it the way some others do. I don't think the government is the complete enemy but I don't see it as my friend either.
But do you think that criminalizing a religion is in line with the intent of the Founders?
Really?
"Read the thread, Skippy. I'm advocating another amendment."
Good luck with that, Chief.
kelly, this is absurd.
If you think that Baghdad is the shining beacon of freedom, then you shouldn't have brought them up as an example of an oppressive society (in post #350).
You can't have it both ways.
Concentration camps?
Dog collars?
Stun belts?
Fire ants?
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.