Banning Islam and closing mosques.

Guard Dad

Guard Dad

Administrator
Staff member
I'm truly amazed at how many private posts I see and private messages I get on Facebook from people who want to do this.

Do they not know that the First Amendment protects Muslims same as it does Christians? I just got a message from an engineer who wants to.

What is wrong with people?
 
Agreed. Some people are either ignorant of the constitution or choose to ignore parts of it to support their beliefs.
 
Hmmm...

At what point do we naively give control of the hen-house to the foxes???
 
This is indeed a slippery slope and I would probably oppose a Mosque in my area. However freedom of religion, assembly and protection from persecution are cornerstones of this country even when it goes against an individuals personal beliefs. You are right banning any religion is not a good idea. Maybe I could take them to a snake handling church and convert them.
 
IMO... we need to study the founders INTENTIONS when they wrote the foundational principles of our country...
Rather @$$ume we know what they mean/meant.

As I studied... I came to this conclusion:
At the time... the Anglican church in England was semi-merged with the govt...
Meaning the church and the govt did what the left is accusing Trump of doing with the Russians... collusion... or:
Working together covertly, to gain power over the citizens.

So a simply application of logic here...
Led me to this conclusion: The goal is to keep church and state from working together to control citizens, thus usurping freedoms.

Side note... how does this work??? The church would preach that one would be in trouble with God if they did not do what the govt told them to do (specific thing)... never mind that what was being preached (the specific thing) was both NOT in the Bible, and WAS contrary to what IS in the Bible.
This is just another level of govt corruption... using the church to advance the govt's agendas/goals.
So the 'intentions' (one can also call it the spirit) of the law... was to not allow collusion between the church and govt... to control people.

Now that is a FAR CRY from allowing a barbaric religion of hate to set up shop in a modern country of peace and brotherhood!

Personal opinion: The founders did NOT mean what is contemporarily being said: we must allow this religion of hate and crime freedom on our soil... that is just not good common sense... and is definitely NOT supported by Scriptural principles.

Thomas Jefferson said:
If we degrade ourselves to enforcing the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law (spirit of the law being the intentions of the writers/founders)...
We are writing the obituary of our country!

Now was old TJ a pretty smart dude??? Yeah, I think he was... he wrote the Declaration of Independence and had a hand in writing the Constitution and Bill/Rights...
Ya think we might do well to at least study what he thought and intended...
Rather than think we know it all and screw up what the founders so carefully laid out for us???
I do... :)
 
I think the amendment was to keep government from taking over the church, as it did in England.

I do realize the potential thread from Islam, and some of the founders did as well. But we can handle that on the criminal level, we don't have to ban their faith.

As mentioned above, banning religions or practice of would be a slippery slope that would likely come back and bite us on the butt. Democrats already protect Islam over Christianity, just imagine what they would do with such power.
 
So...

How much of Islam is enough???
*Their 'bible' (the quron) demands they execute all infidels (anyone that is not a one of them)...
*They want to enact Sharia Law in the USA.. which is NOT compatible with our founding documents..
*There are already places in the USA... where a non-Muslim would be in danger after dark...
Do we really want to go down this road...

Just for some lofty (naive) ideals???
Which were not meant to be interpreted that way by the writers of the founding documents!!!

What we need... is some 're-education' so folks understand what the founders meant.

In other words...
How much pain is too much pain???
 
Some would ask how much Christianity is enough. Some Democrats, and they will eventually be in power again.

Handle Islamic terrorists the same way we handle domestic terrorists, through the justice system.
 
So Christianity is just another religion...
On an equal footing as Islam???

Maybe this question should be asked:
How much evil is acceptable...
And how much evil is too much???
 
JawJa said:
So Christianity is just another religion...
On an equal footing as Islam???

Maybe this question should be asked:
How much evil is acceptable...
And how much evil is too much???
Click to expand...

To you and me, it's not just another religion.

But because the First Amendment says government cannot respect an establishment of religion, the law cannot favor one over another.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

It's right there in clear wording.
 
As @Guard Dad pointed out, the first amendment is pretty clear. Ignoring the constitution to ban things we don't like is not how this country was designed to work.
 
Once thing we must always consider when looking at amending the constitution or expanding government power is what the other side will do with it when they get back in power, and they will eventually get back in power.

Look at how Social Security has been perverted and used for political gain. One of the fears of using the line item veto was what a Democrat president would cut out of bills when he has the opportunity.

The filibuster has been abused by both parties.

How much damage has the welfare state done to our country? It began as a compassionate idea, and has become a poison that is used by politicians to buy power.

Look at the danger in scrapping the Electoral College as the Dems want.

The safe answer is always to limit government power to the bare minimum. And that includes the ability of government to restrict free exercise of religion.
 
We cannot fear every “what if” which cycles through the current headlines. Our Constitution and legal system is designed to adequately handle any serious threat to our society. It’s the politicians who we need to be more concerned about as they change the legal boundaries to fit their current political leanings.
 
I will add...allowing the government to ban faiths and places of worship is as far removed from conservative philosophy as it gets.

Smaller government, less government, more personal liberties. That's what we believe in, but we have to be consistent in our beliefs.

We don't have to ban an entire faith to put a stop to terrorists.
 
However...

If we do not interpret what was written,

By what the writers INTENDED...

Then we are NOT upholding the spirit of the law...
And as Thomas Jefferson said... we are writing the obituary of the country.

Sorry guys... however words and phrases have different meanings in different times.
And allowing Islam to flourish in the USA is NOT covered by what the founders intended.
 
Last edited:
This brings me to something I have been thinking about for a couple of weeks now...

While the Hiway was a fun place for a while... I really do not fit in here.

It is time for me to move on.

THX for allowing me to hang out at the Hiway for a while... it was fun!

GD... you will receive a PM in a few minutes... requesting my account be closed...
Please do so.

To all the Hiway members, THX for a fun time...
See ya around...

Bye
 
Last edited:
JawJa, you may not see this but in case you do....

JawJa said:
Sorry you guys to not have the gonads to stand for what you know in your hearts is right.
Click to expand...

I know in my heart that freedom is right. You may not agree and you have the freedom to think that way but to insult others that disagree with you is childish.


JawJa said:
And given, IMO, there is a serious lack of understanding of politics here...
Click to expand...

:sarcastic:


JawJa said:
However, and this is gonna be blunt...
Some of you are just not conservative enough for me.
Click to expand...

Speaking of being blunt....I can think of a few other words that could replace conservative in your statement that would make it more accurate. One is intolerant. Another might be bigoted.


JawJa said:
Bye
Click to expand...

Adios.
 
It appears JawJa has issues when others disagree with him. I agree with him Sharia Law in this country would be a bad idea as it would violate the Constitution, but that is no excuse for banning a religion altogether in our country.

I had served in three Islamic countries during my 29 years of military service; Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There were Christian churches in Iraq and to a large degree Christians in that country are treated unfairly by the people. There are no Christian churches in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I doubt there ever will be because of the laws based upon the Quran. Although Christians are persecuted in many Islamic countries; it is no reason to persecute Muslims in ours. I strongly believe we should carefully vet anyone before granting them permission to enter our country, regardless of what country they are from.

JawJa stated there is "is a serious lack of understanding of politics here..." I don't see that at all. He says that because many here disagree with him on some political issues. It's pretty sad when a person who states he is a conservative and condemns the left of wanting to pervert the Constitution is advocating perverting the Constitution by banning a religion. It's also sad that a conservative such as him acts just as intolerant of differing political views; while also calling those on the left intolerant for the same thing. It's really sad when he as a conservative accuses other conservatives not being conservative enough; especially when those conservatives have always stated they support smaller government and the Constitution.

Cptlo is correct when he stated bigot and intolerance could be substituted for what JawJa calls conservative. I would also add "oppressor" as what he appears to support oppressing those who differ in religious beliefs and political views.
 
JJ the "Intent" of constitutional law is a matter for SCOTUS not conservatives, liberals, Christians, Muslims, etc. This is separation of powers and a brilliant cornerstone of this country. I rarely discuss religion because I believe where you stand with God is between you and God and no sect or denomination is going to change that. As for Christians being the spotless good guys of the world one might want to study world history a little closer. I also believe radical Islam is one of the biggest threats to civilization in the world. Any pro second amendment conservative should know you do not want the Feds "outlawing" any form of free speech or rights. It is a dangerous precedent giving way too much power to the Feds. Conservatism and close mindedness are two very different things. I am very conservative but not to the point of ignoring law or logical thought. Lastly if you truly believe in what you write stick by it don't take your ball home and refuse to play. Just because someone has a different view of a particular subject does not make them your arch enemy. If you do not listen to other points of view your education comes to a halt and you only cheat yourself out of knowledge.
 
Wow.

To paraphrase George Armstrong Custer..."The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." Is that conservative enough of a position? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top