If most Muslims are truly peaceful, then why do we have Ahmadinejad running Iran, why do we have Libyans giving Megrahi a hero's welcome? Why did the Palestinians elect Hamas to be their leader? Why aren't there more churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Why are Muslims demanding that India give up Kashmir?
Why does the NYC Imam refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization?
Liberals can be very, very naive. If a Christian ever committed an honor killing or mutilation, liberals would go crazy, yet they shrug their shoulders when Muslims do so. Why the double standard? Do liberals think so little of Muslims that they refuse to see them as worthy of the standards they apply to Christians and Jews? It shows far greater respect to Muslims to hold them accountable for their actions and beliefs.
Finally, why do feminists and gay rights activists refuse to speak out against oppression of women and gays in Muslim societies?
If most Muslims are truly peaceful, then why do we have Ahmadinejad running Iran, why do we have Libyans giving Megrahi a hero's welcome? Why did the Palestinians elect Hamas to be their leader? Why aren't there more churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Why are Muslims demanding that India give up Kashmir? Why does the NYC Imam refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization? Liberals can be very, very naive. If a Christian ever committed an honor killing or mutilation, liberals would go crazy, yet they shrug their shoulders when Muslims do so. Why the double standard? Do liberals think so little of Muslims that they refuse to see them as worthy of the standards they apply to Christians and Jews? It shows far greater respect to Muslims to hold them accountable for their actions and beliefs. Finally, why do feminists and gay rights activists refuse to speak out against oppression of women and gays in Muslim societies?
Who shrugged their shoulders at honor killings or mutilation? I have only seen shock and abhorrence in response to these atrocities.W.T.F Has this got to do with the OP
Stay happy, stay nude,
A Nude world is a happy world.
You don't sound very happy to me, LOL.
I won't argue "original intent." However, the result is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment of religion means, in its most extreme form, declaring an official state religion. The wording is such that congress must be fully neutral. I'd like to think that the people who drafted it knew what they were doing.
That's a tad incomplete.
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In the 60's the liberal supreme court interpreted this to mean "Congress shall make many laws disrespecting established religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, and prohibiting the fee exercise thereof."
It's pretty obvious the intent, both original and subsequent until recently, was to keep the state out of religion altogether, while at the same time allowing religious freedom in almost any established form, and NEVER to keep religion out of the state. The framers were very religious men, and their beliefs VERY much influenced what they wrote, and why they wrote it the way they did.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "separation of church and state" in these United States according to law.
In practice, we very much have a state religion. Secular humanism, and atheism, are quite the State Religion these days.
I'm sure the framers were quite religious. One of the reasons they and/or their ancestors left Europe was to find religious freedom. The last thing they wanted to see were religious wars, especially on the scale seen in Europe. It was reasoned that if the government did not adopt any religion as a State religion, stuck to maintaining law and order and other secular matters, and refrained from either ordering, condoning or allowing religious persecution, the churches would have less power over purely civil matters.
That's one reason why the government can't tell the Muslims to not build their mosque in that area, provided they have all the necessary building permits and are obeying all applicable laws. Islam, like Christianity, will rise or fall of its own accord, WITHOUT government help.
Yes a police officer that has a well known view that has been widely discredited by others. Jackie has a good point that many people were shocked by the viscious attacks from "people of middle eastern appearance" code for poor working class leb who were from poor backgrounds with minimal education. Many well educated Lebanese dispaired at the behaviour of some small number of youths who brought shame on their community and religion.Their attitudes are abhorent and do not represent the principles of their religion.
Jackie's statement about the majority of Moselms is pure ignorance and is not representative of most Australians. We have a politican (Pauline Hanson) who brought shame on our country from her racist ignorant rants and attracted 2% of the formal vote in the recent NSW Upper House election and failed narrowly to win the last seat in the NSW Legalistive Council.
Jackie I hope you can clarify if you support Pauline Hnson or ever voted for her. There is a small hard core racist element in Australian society that rears its head from time to time and I am afraid this smacks of that residual feeling.
When my father visited Australia House in London in 1964 he was asked to bring in his second son snce he had a birth certificate showing Dacca East Pakistan. The old White Australia policy. Thank God that was all soon to change.
I hope the local Moselms don't object to the traffic jams at easter time Jackie!es I did as a matter of fact, however the author is an ex Police Officer from Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!