Georgia GOP candidate Jody Hice: Muslims not protected by the First Amendment

originally posted by: TheJourney

LadyGreenEyes
Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Ok so it's trying to make things different from how they were in the early periods of a country's history that is wrong then...gotcha...yea we really need to get this country back on track to how they used to be...like whoat dumb, progressive commie had the idea to outlaw slavery? Equal protection under the law for women and non-whites...psh...I'm sick of people thinking they can just change things from how they were in early America...

It isn't wrong to limit marriage. There are many logical and right limits in marriage, and claiming they are somehow biased is foolish. Not having it legal to murder unborn children is equally sensible and right.

Turning everything upside down, and pretending right is wrong and wrong is right, on the other hand; well the way society is going down the toilet is proof enough that isn't a good plan. Besides, this is about Muslims wanting to do away with personal freedom in favor of sharia law, which means no freedom. Stay on topic.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TheJourney

LadyGreenEyes
Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Ok so it's trying to make things different from how they were in the early periods of a country's history that is wrong then...gotcha...yea we really need to get this country back on track to how they used to be...like whoat dumb, progressive commie had the idea to outlaw slavery? Equal protection under the law for women and non-whites...psh...I'm sick of people thinking they can just change things from how they were in early America...

It isn't wrong to limit marriage. There are many logical and right limits in marriage, and claiming they are somehow biased is foolish. Not having it legal to murder unborn children is equally sensible and right.

Turning everything upside down, and pretending right is wrong and wrong is right, on the other hand; well the way society is going down the toilet is proof enough that isn't a good plan. Besides, this is about Muslims wanting to do away with personal freedom in favor of sharia law, which means no freedom. Stay on topic.

Don't make the argument that something is wrong because it is a change from how it used to be if you don't want someone to challenge that point...and it's not possible for a direct response to an on-topic post to be off-topic, so we're either both on-topic or both off-topic.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TheJourney

LadyGreenEyes
Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Ok so it's trying to make things different from how they were in the early periods of a country's history that is wrong then...gotcha...yea we really need to get this country back on track to how they used to be...like whoat dumb, progressive commie had the idea to outlaw slavery? Equal protection under the law for women and non-whites...psh...I'm sick of people thinking they can just change things from how they were in early America...

It isn't wrong to limit marriage. There are many logical and right limits in marriage, and claiming they are somehow biased is foolish. Not having it legal to murder unborn children is equally sensible and right.

Turning everything upside down, and pretending right is wrong and wrong is right, on the other hand; well the way society is going down the toilet is proof enough that isn't a good plan. Besides, this is about Muslims wanting to do away with personal freedom in favor of sharia law, which means no freedom. Stay on topic.

Don't make the argument that something is wrong because it is a change from how it used to be if you don't want someone to challenge that point...and it's not possible for a direct response to an on-topic post to be off-topic, so we're either both on-topic or both off-topic.

That isn't what I stated. I said claiming it was "wrong" in the past, and using that as a reason to support defending Muslims for wanting to promote sharia law, isn't a valid position. Pay attention.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: TheJourney

LadyGreenEyes
Actually, it's the homosexuals trying to change the laws. The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something new.

Ok so it's trying to make things different from how they were in the early periods of a country's history that is wrong then...gotcha...yea we really need to get this country back on track to how they used to be...like whoat dumb, progressive commie had the idea to outlaw slavery? Equal protection under the law for women and non-whites...psh...I'm sick of people thinking they can just change things from how they were in early America...

It isn't wrong to limit marriage. There are many logical and right limits in marriage, and claiming they are somehow biased is foolish. Not having it legal to murder unborn children is equally sensible and right.

Turning everything upside down, and pretending right is wrong and wrong is right, on the other hand; well the way society is going down the toilet is proof enough that isn't a good plan. Besides, this is about Muslims wanting to do away with personal freedom in favor of sharia law, which means no freedom. Stay on topic.

Don't make the argument that something is wrong because it is a change from how it used to be if you don't want someone to challenge that point...and it's not possible for a direct response to an on-topic post to be off-topic, so we're either both on-topic or both off-topic.

That isn't what I stated. I said claiming it was "wrong" in the past, and using that as a reason to support defending Muslims for wanting to promote sharia law, isn't a valid position. Pay attention.

What are you talking about you didn't state that...

The laws from the start of the country were against same-sex marriage, and against sodomy. Abortion was illegal as well, and rightly so. Wanting to get things back on track isn't the same as trying to alter them to something

Regardless, this conversation has nothing to do with anything at this point, and we shouldn't continue it...its about what you did or didn't say...it is now officially off the topic of OP.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: marg6043

What about Catholicism and divorce?
What about Cafeteria Catholics?

Catholicism shares some of the same basic requirements as Islam and failure to abide by those requirements can result in excommunication from the Church. We saw a possibility of what could occur when Kennedy became President. As a Catholic the Church expected him to push the religious beliefs via policy, which did not occur.

There are actions in the bible that if broken, can result in death under religious doctrine.
The same holds true for Judaism.

If we want to go down the government argument with Islam, then we need to look at the government argument with Catholicism. While Islam is a type of religious government, so is Catholicism. The Catholic religion, to my knowledge, is the only religion who is its own nation state.

Vatican City is a separate and sovereign nation. The Vatican in fact has diplomatic relations with countries and their ambassadors are referred to as Papal Nuncio's.

A religion that requires a beard, or forbids a person from working on the Sabbath, or prevents an individual from receiving communion because of divorce are all acceptable when viewed at the religious level. It only becomes a problem when violation of those areas becomes a crime against the state.

Christianity and Judaism are just as violent as Islam.

With that said trying to remove constitutional protections is not a slippery slope - Its a full speed run and jump off the sheer cliff.

Knowing that Islam is protected is the only way to know that other religions are protected.
Knowing that Islam is protected is the only way to know that Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Anarchy, Constitutional Party parties are protected.

If we really want to get down to the nitty gritty here then if we are going to "stop protecting" Islam because people don't agree with it, then we need to start with the Christian faith and its affect on the social structure of this country. Last time I checked the definition of marriage is a result of religious doctrine. The crime of adultery in some states and the military is based on religious doctrine. Attempting to ban a religion by a person of a different religion can be seen as religious doctrine codified in civil / criminal law.

I refuse to outlaw a religion simply because some cowards have decided to hijack it. I refuse to accept the eroding of Constitutional rights based on fear and ignorance of a religion. I refuse to condemn a person based solely on who they worship and the manner that occurs in.

What's the phrase so many people on this site like to use...

They came for the communists and I did nothing...

I think the very fact our founding fathers telegraphed their thoughts on religion when they included freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. The simple fact it prevents the government of establishing a state religion is another clear indication of what the Constitution says on the matter.

What's next, trying to prevent any Muslim in the United States who is a US citizen from purchasing a rifle or handgun because of their religion?

The moment we give into ignorance and paranoia and fear is the moment the terrorists win. I refuse to concede the field in that manner.

whoa, dude!

as a former catholic, i'm not aware there are any actions/sins that will get you the death penalty from the vatican.
this is not the middle ages.
even blasphemy is serious but not as serious as to putting a hit out on someone.
dan brown is to blame.

and excommunication is still in effect (see what the pope said about the mob) but not as bad as 40ya.

ahhh, vatican city. nice place, was just there this past feb.
sure it's it's own city state, why not? they aren't violent. (anymore) lol.
and they have had swiss guards for the last 500 yrs. not their own army.

it's also the center for a large world wide religion. executives and bureaucrats.
islam has mecca and medina. not really the same, tho.

kennedy's religion was a problem for a lot of people but there was no way the pope was going to run the US or would even want to.
it wasn't going to happen.

christianity and judaism is as violent as islam if you take out the whack jobs but there seems to be more islamic whack jobs running around killing people for religious reasons.

adultery is a sin in just about every religion and grounds for divorce for jews and christians.
it's a death sentence for a muslim woman.
same as homosexuality in some of the islamic world.

anyway, the RCC is getting a bad rap, imo. (oh yeah, the priest scandals)

someone with deeper info on the RCC can correct me where i am wrong.

to address the OP, let's see if he gets elected first before we condemn someone for personal views.

From the opening post -

“It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection.”

1 - He's correct, it's not just a religion, it IS a political organization and it does have a world wide caliphate as a goal. (a dangerous caliphate .. with no rights for women and no freedom of speech, etc)

2 - He's incorrect, Islam does deserve First Amendment protection.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Christianity and Judaism are just as violent as Islam.

Christianity and Judaism are held in check by two things ...

- Most Christians and Jews have evolved past the Old Testament mentality.
- Christians and Jews are held in check by secular rule of law.

Islam hasn't evolved and places that are run by Islamic rule of law (Sharia) are hell holes.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Bingo!!!! you read the entire link also, this whole anti Islam deviation is nothing but a scam, the GOP candidate is right, I am from GA and I know what he is trying to say.

It will be incredible stupid if the Islamic agenda gets to get our laws used to protect the Islamic law, when clearly they can and never coexist.

Islam is not a religion is a law first.

The agenda was first tried in the EU with disastrous consequences.

Islam law in the muslim community means the only law in the land given to them by Allah and no other laws can surpass their law.

In the US a nation of laws rule under the constitution is not other law that surpass our laws, so Islam and the US constitution can never be used to protect Islamic laws and should never be even attempted by any of our elected officials, because they have sworn to protect our laws first

Plain and simple, people needs to educate themselves before trying to justify what they can not understand.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sadly the catholic church doesn't rule our constitution, Islam law rules the muslim religious believes.

You can not compare the two.

Sorry my friend but Islam law can never exist beside our US constitutional laws.