1 2 3
Treat of Tripoli, bitch.
And, much like your precious Ten Commandments, there are no "excepts, ifs, ands or buts" attached to "freedom of religion."
3/27/2011 5:48:10 AM
Using your rationale, only certain Christian sects are deserving of First Amendment protection then. We should eliminate any such protection for any churches and faiths that weren't specifically around at the time of the Constitution's writing. There go the Mormons, Scientology, most ultra-fundie Rapture believing mega-churches, etc.
I don't think you understand the intent of the Founders or the actual content of the Constitution.
3/27/2011 5:48:23 AM
They are entitled to the exact same benefits as Christianity, if you don't like that, please consult my two step program for solving the problem.
1. Bitch, you're already here.
2. Get the fuck out of my country.
Let your last refuge be anything but my refuge.
3/27/2011 5:51:43 AM
I think Bryan Fischer listened took Ronnie Reagan's interpretation of the First Amendment seriously when the guy already had Altzheimers.
3/27/2011 6:10:37 AM
Apart from anything else, what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?
And, Bryan, supposing some Islamists do support or plan terrorism - how does not allowing mosques stop them, exactly?
3/27/2011 6:16:41 AM
Your constitution was written to protect (among other things) the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, or no religion at all, in the privacy of your own home and in your religious building (church, temple, etc). In secular society, religion has no place.
Islam is an "ideology" very similar to Christianity; if one is totalitarian, then so is the other one too.
Plus, Islam is hundreds of years older than the US, it wasn't created to destroy the US, but to worship God.
3/27/2011 6:22:46 AM
Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam.
So the Founding Fathers really meant to write "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any religion except Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity", but just forgot in their haste to put those extra words in? How did Bryan figure that out - does he have a Way-Back Machine?
3/27/2011 6:31:40 AM
So you are saying that Islam correctly predicted the rise of America some 1200 years in advance?
That would make Islam the only religion to do so.
I guess we should all convert to Islam then.
3/27/2011 6:40:20 AM
I was born in this country and, while there are some grave injustices committed in and by America, I don't believe that the United States of America is evil. Further, my skin is whiter than death, so maybe I don't look the part, but I am proud to be an American Muslim. I hate violence and oppression, no matter who does it. Please don't take my rights away, asshole.
3/27/2011 6:47:14 AM
"Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam."
You realize that writing a law that would "protect" a specific religion would violate the First Amendment, right?
"Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy."
Surely you mean, "Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it by law. The same as all other religions."
"While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment."
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone misinterpret the First Amendment quite this badly.
"Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam."
How is it that people like you equate treating everyone the exact same fucking way as "special treatment"?
"From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America."
Actually, that's pretty much exactly what the First Amendment states.
"They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States."
"The Constitution, it bears repeating, is not a suicide pact. For Muslims, patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the First Amendment is."
You're a moron.
3/27/2011 6:49:43 AM
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
3/27/2011 7:16:45 AM
Actually, that is EXACTLY what the first ammendment says moron.
3/27/2011 7:22:07 AM
Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
Islam is a faith dedicated to the Middle Eastern god Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah. I do not agree with it, but it's as much a religion as your own cult.
3/27/2011 7:28:39 AM
Bryan has a Doctorate in Constitutional Law from Patriot University.
3/27/2011 8:01:20 AM
The first ammendment and the Treat of Tripoli don't exist then?
3/27/2011 8:01:40 AM
This is the dumbest interpretation of the First Amendment I've ever seen. Not only does the text of the Amendment not support your opinion, but there's no indication that any of the founders felt this way and intended the Amendment to be interpreted as such. You're a fucking ignoramus.
3/27/2011 8:32:35 AM
This tool went to Stanford. Think about that. Scary ain't it?
3/27/2011 8:33:45 AM
What you have to understand about many of these extreme voices on the Right is that they see the Constitution as completely negotiable.
First, they argue that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Never mind the fact that that particular expression meant that true liberty and security are not mutually exclusive -- oh, no, they have to twist it to mean that we don't have to take the Constitution seriously when survival is at stake. Next, they reinterpret statutes in the Constitution to fit this flawed understanding.
Opposing political views are socialism and thus a grave danger to the security of America, and are therefore equivalent to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Nineteen out of one billion Muslims in the world hijack several airliners and crash them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and therefore Islam as a whole is a grave threat to this country and thus is not a Constitutionally protected system of belief. An organization reports on leaked cables and airs out the government's dirty laundry but is not covered by the Constitutional protection of a free press because it makes the government look bad. And so on and so forth.
A Constitution really is just a "god-damned piece of paper" when you can find ways to ignore practically everything within it through a variety of rationalizations. It should be made perfectly clear, however, that the far right here in the US only supports the Constitution insofar as it protects themselves and no one else.
EDIT: I think what scares me the most is that, as irrational as this man's interpretation may be, there are large segments of the population who will readily agree. They don't personally know any Muslims ergo Islam is a foreign religion ergo Islam is not covered by the Constitution. For all their talk about Constitutional rights being God-given and inherent to all human beings when it's convenient, they sure do love to limit it when it comes to people that are not themselves.
3/27/2011 8:45:21 AM
It is good to see Muslims and other religious folks on FSTDT, denouncing the extremist crazies.
3/27/2011 8:46:22 AM
Last I checked, the people trying to destroy islam are christians. The people trying to destroy education are christian.
3/27/2011 8:53:13 AM
"The Constitution, it bears repeating, is not a suicide pact."
It bears repeating, freedoms extended to one group need to be extended to all groups or they are not freedoms but favoritism.
You can't just uphold the parts of the constitution that you like, BF. That misses the point of having a constitution.
3/27/2011 9:06:51 AM
This isn't an "interpretation" of the first amendment in even the loosest, most permissive sense of the word; it's nothing short of an outright dismissal of it.
And you, Bryan, possessing enough sense and wits about you to graduate from Stanford University, know that as well as I do. Your fundamentalism and seemingly insatiable lust for a fascist theocracy is little different and no less disgusting than that of a violent Muslim radical.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." — Friedrich Nietzsche
3/27/2011 9:09:28 AM
so the first amendment is where scoundrels hide?
Why do you hate freedom and America so much Bryan?
3/27/2011 9:09:39 AM
Here's something interesting (that most likely many here have noticed): authoritarians absolutely LOVE to appeal to the past. I mean even the name of the site is "Renew America" as in "bring it back to a previous state". Of course, this is almost invariably an idealized if not entirely imagined past and so they start off with a false premise as a goal which means that anything they do can only ever go wrong and often it goes HORRIBLY wrong. It's only because the general population is so pig ignorant of history (even their OWN history) that they are able to get the support to fuck things up all over again. As George Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
3/27/2011 9:11:47 AM
I suggest you read the first Amendment to the American constitution. If you still don't get it then, you are probably too stupid ever to understand it.
But to give you a clue: the first amendment doesn't mention Christianity either, so if what you say above is true for Islam, it is also true for your personal superstition as well.
3/27/2011 9:12:46 AM
1 2 3