I can't believe this hasn't been discussed yet

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Is a Muslim free zone compatible with your view that the State, in the First Amendment, can't interfere with the free exercise of religion?

Of course the document actually says that:

"CONGRESS can pass no law. . ."

Many people get that wrong, just like they think the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution--it doesn't. those were the private rants of Jefferson--not the actual law.

Just thought that might need to me pointed out.

Carry on. . .

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Jdriller

Actually I have and treat many Muslims in my practice. I get along fine with them. I don't like it that some of the female patients are not allowed to be in the same room with a male staff member or Doctor. Fortunately, I do have a female Doctor and female staff who can provide services for those females I am prohibited from treating by the males who bring them in. I bothers me that the females are being treated that way. Patriotism or not is not a factor in deciding to treat any patient.

Don't sweat these useful idiots. Their arguments are 1) its not ground zero and 2) anyone opposed to it is anti-muslim 'racist'. Since these arguments were disproved, it comes down down to fallacious slippery slope arguments. There is no 'Muslim Free Zone' - I'm sure Muslims walk on or by GZ everyday. The 'how far' argument is a distraction. Multiple mosques have been built around my subdivision since 9/11 with no dispute.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Of course the document actually says that:

"CONGRESS can pass no law. . ."

Many people get that wrong, just like they think the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution--it doesn't. those were the private rants of Jefferson--not the actual law.

Just thought that might need to me pointed out.

Carry on. . .

Thanks for the legal education. I must have missed that in my three years of law school. You apparently missed the "incorporation doctrine" in your three years of law school. Read up on it.

The First Amendment was incorporated against the States in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). So despite those who would simplistically read only the literal language of the First Amendment and think that is the entire content of the law, the Free Exercise Clause fully applies against the States and any subdivision thereof.

And I'm as well aware of Jefferson coining the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as I am of George Washington's Letter to the Jewish Congregation at Newport, which states, in relevant part, "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

I would argue that the government aiding others in treating law abiding Muslims as second class citizens because some co-religionist extremists amongst their numbers somewhere in the world committed crimes is to give bigotry sanction, and persecution assistance.

Not to mention James Madison, the man who wrote the Constitution, who wrote, "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

(Also from Madison, for those of you who actually believe in God: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered."

So he would argue that it's not your fellow man you offend by denigrating the entire Muslim religion by conflating it with the believe of a few nuts, and denying it's law abiding members the same freedom you enjoy, but it is God himself who you offend! He was one smart SOB, wasn't he!)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

. The 'how far' argument is a distraction. Multiple mosques have been built around my subdivision since 9/11 with no dispute.

So you think Houston is as close to ground zero as any newly built mosques should be. Interesting Grasshopper.

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

So despite those who would simplistically read only the literal language of the First Amendment and think that is the entire content of the law. . .

Hence, the problem with our country. It has been ruined over the course of history by people that have a law degree, but poor reading comprehension skills. This especially applies to judges that legislate from the bench and call it interpretation.

[PSD]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Hence, the problem with our country. It has been ruined over the course of history by people that have a law degree, but poor reading comprehension skills. This especially applies to judges that legislate from the bench and call it interpretation.

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but "ruined? Come on Anonone, you live in a country that guarantees your right to sit at home and surf & post on a website regarding a very illegal hobby. You also happen to be financing said hobby with the most respected and valued currency in the world.

Ruined? Break out that thesaurus, brother!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by PSD

Ruined? Break out that thesaurus, brother!

how about "impaired"?

[PSD]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

how about "impaired"?

I'll accept that! Kinda like what this hobby does to all of us!

Somehow that plays back to getting f**ed by the govt. Somebody help me here.

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by PSD

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but "ruined? Come on Anonone, you live in a country that guarantees your right to sit at home and surf & post on a website regarding a very illegal hobby. You also happen to be financing said hobby with the most respected and valued currency in the world.

Ruined? Break out that thesaurus, brother!

You are right. . .I let a bit of bitterness creep into that one.

[PSD]

Originally Posted by ANONONE

You are right. . .a let a bit of bitterness creep into that one.

Its easy to to let your beliefs, worries and frustrations, as well as the anonymity of the internet, dictate exaggerated postings...

...as well as that last showcase that made the blood flow out of your brain!

...just sayin'!

[ANONONE]

Originally Posted by PSD

Its easy to to let your beliefs, worries and frustrations, as well as the anonymity of the internet, dictate exaggerated postings...

...as well as that last showcase that made the blood flow out of your brain!

...just sayin'!

It is not an exaggerated post--ruin was just too strong of a word. Seriously impair is better.

As to the influence of emotion. . .I had a bad experience with a lawyer in a civil suit a few months back. . .and let's just say I am completely behind any agenda that has a primary focus of radical litigation reform--as in scrap the entire judicial branch and all lower court systems and start over from scratch.

I don't know if you practice with that degree you have TTH, but tell me that the courts today aren't more about precedent and procedure than the actual law, and try to keep a straight face as you do it.





We have let the lawyers run amok, long enough.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

So you think Houston is as close to ground zero as any newly built mosques should be. Interesting Grasshopper.

No, evidently you do.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

No, evidently you do.

Where then grasshopper? Come on, make a commitment.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by PSD

You also happen to be financing said hobby with the most respected and valued currency in the world.

I assume you are talking about €.

[Guest083011]

More on these creeps (just released):
September 2, 2010

Judge Overturns Nebraska Ban on Flag Mutilation

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:57 p.m. ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- A federal judge has overturned Nebraska's ban on flag mutilation.
Thursday's ruling is a victory for activists from a Kansas church who trample on the U.S. flag when they protest at military funerals.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said the state's flag-protection law can't be applied so long as members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., otherwise act peacefully.
Megan Phelps-Roper filed the lawsuit in July, saying the law violated her right to free speech.
Westboro members protest at soldier funerals across the nation because they believe U.S. troop deaths are punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality. Members often trample on the U.S. flag, wear it and display it upside-down as part of their protests.