Bryan Fischer: 1st Amendment Religious Freedom only for Christianity

originally posted by: infolurker

Sounds like it. Luckily there are very few of these "Westboro" types.

When compared to the overall populace yes they are few in number. The problem however is what they lack in number they make up for in Resources. These organizations have lot's of money and power to influence changes in society. There numbers aren't insignificant though either. You're still talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of people who support them to some degree. Obviously some more than others but it's still large enough to direct the course of humanity when focused.

Here is yet another example from another high ranking member of our society.

Alabama’s chief justice: Buddha didn’t create us so First Amendment only protects Christians

Speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment only applies to Christians because “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures” who created us.

However, after making this statement which obviously resulted in some blow back a mere 4 days later he had apparently changed his tune and in another speech he said that "Religious Freedom" did in fact apply to everyone not just Christians.

Now, do I really believe that within 4 days he actually changed his tune on such a major issue or that he simply made a mistake the first time??? Absolutely not. Clearly he just realized he may have overstepped a bit and exposed his true opinion a little too early and needed to cover his ass before it was too late.

When you have clever, manipulative and patient people like him in power positions you can cause changes in society in big ways with only a few people.

a reply to: mOjOm

Wow... and he is a chief justice?
Oh just did a quick google on him and he was once removed from his post back on '03 but won the election on 2013.

Guess 10 years was enough for people to forget about that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

That's the trouble with these kinds of power hungry zealot types. They are very determined and don't give up easily. As they say, "Those who seek power the most are the least suited to have it." That is why it's very important that the rest of us keep an eye out. Because these people are very determined and do achieve positions of power because they put so much effort in getting it.

Then they find others like themselves and systematically take over more and more of those positions until before you know it a small determined group of like minded psychos have seized enough power to steer the whole of humanity in ways they wouldn't otherwise have chosen. It is no more their fault for trying to take that power than it is our fault for letting them have it unchecked.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves about some stuff that's being forced into our government.

originally posted by: odinsway
a reply to: mOjOm
Ok....so lets just get one fact straight. Our forefathers never ever could have imagined Muslims living within our boarders. There were no Muslims on the Mayflower....there were no Muslim signers of the Constitution....Why cant humans realize that keeping some ideologies seperate from others is a good thing?

They probably couldn't have imagined Buddhists or Wiccans either - or what about Jews, Hindus, or Spaghetti Monsterism. It doesn't matter! The very clear and obvious intent was for all citizens to be allowed to hold any religious beliefs they see fit. The Constitution was very clearly written to apply for all time, regardless of changes.

If God/Gods came to Earth tomorrow, would US citizens be "left out" because it would be illegal to acknowledge anything but the One Enforced Religion of the Theocratic Dictatorship of America? Sounds barbaric, tyrannical, and frankly, embarrassingly un-American at best.

I thought trump said he would go after radical mosques? Definitive word "radical".

I could care less if the christians de-righted islam to right off the continent, but I don't see it happening.
I see ratlam "exodusing!" As "economic refugees!!" Right away straight on up to Canada, now that they are essentially a moslum brotherhood dihmmi and getting those bigger benefits, gay people and police that do nothing except to actual canadians.

- a year ago, the un wanted pot illegal "worldwide" and pretty boy was against legalization
- 5 out of 7 of his issues have nothing to do with canadians well being
- he said "you can smoke pot and I will do something about indios!" and got elected.
- first thing he said after elected was "come on world tards! Canada is your oyster!".....not a word about pot or indios yet. (S-t-u-p-i-d libs...)
- it will take "oh 2 or 3 years" to write pot law, but only 2 or 3 months to take Canada forcefully to the next level of islamification.

But as to trump/haggery

Trump = kill enemies, get money

Hillary = go after more americans, get more arab money for her

a reply to: curenado

Trump did say Radical Islam. In fact even more specific he was talking about ISIS and ISIS recruits and supporters.

But again, Trump isn't the point of this thread. He's simply the one who kinda kicked off the discussion because he was being asked some questions and it came up. I'm not trying to slam Trump at all with this thread.

What I'm trying to point out is how quickly the same people who are Screaming about Losing their "Religious Freedom" don't even want or understand what it means. They think it means "Religious Freedom for Christians Only". That's isn't at all what "Religious Freedom" or "Equal Protection of Religious Worship" is about. It's actually the direct opposite and a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. Which basically means that those crying the loudest about losing their Religious Freedom are the ones who are actually tearing it apart the most. That was the point I was trying to show here.

This guy is whack for sure, but lets go down little different line of thinking.

When does it become easier to shut down mosques to stop terrorism than stopping individual terrorist acts themselves? Does that ever happen? Is it ever justifiable?

IDK the answers to these questions. Just a thought.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
This guy is whack for sure, but lets go down little different line of thinking.

When does it become easier to shut down mosques to stop terrorism than stopping individual terrorist acts themselves? Does that ever happen? Is it ever justifiable?

IDK the answers to these questions. Just a thought.

Shutting down mosques will only be seen as xenophobia which is exactly what it is. It will cause more division between Innocent Muslims and American Culture and American People. It will cause more terrorism or at least the environment that encourages it. What you want are Non-Radical Muslims on your side not less. When talking about the Muslim people in this country you want them to like America and feel like they belong. They are already here for a reason so besides the small number who might be secretly working to America's destruction, the rest choose to be here because they want to be.

Any Radical Muslims who are operating in covert ways will only find comfort and aid more by making other Moderate Muslims into "Collateral Damage" in a xenophobic battle. If you want to root out sneaky terrorists who might sabotage you at home you surround them with people who disagree with their motives. A bunch of Muslims treated like they too belong here, a land that sells itself as a land of Equality, Justice, Inclusiveness, Freedom and Liberty of the Individual, etc. don't want anyone messing it up either.

It would be the same as if we shut down Churches because a Member who worshiped there acted out as a Radical in a variety of ways which happen here all the time. That's just insane. Now, if almost the entire membership of a Church is Radicalized then it's obviously different.

But let's get real here. There are more Radicalized Dangerous Members of local street gangs in every city across this country than Islamic Terrorists. The odds on them causing you harm are way better than a damn terrorist. Hell, a possible violent dog attack is much more likely even.

originally posted by: odinsway
a reply to: mOjOm
Ok....so lets just get one fact straight. Our forefathers never ever could have imagined Muslims living within our boarders. There were no Muslims on the Mayflower....there were no Muslim signers of the Constitution....Why cant humans realize that keeping some ideologies seperate from others is a good thing?

Uh...what? Remove "Muslims", replace with Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Catholics, etc. etc. etc. You've got to be joking right?

When people make "them people's weren't even spost to be part of it" comments about American society & culture it never ceases to amaze and baffle how completely off the thought process is with some folks about what America was/is supposed to be.

Screw ideologies...how about skin color???? black people, Indian people, Asian people???

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Ah, sweet blinkered OBLIVION.

Ted Cruz. He's a mainstreamer. Ben Carson. Mike Huckabee.
ALL OF THEM want to implement theo-judicial principles IN THE U.S.A. LOOK UP THEIR PLATFORMS. Or don't. Just keep spewing your lies and misrepresentations all over the place. You've been given viable sources, and links, and extexted FACTS. If you still refuse to believe it, then frankly, ketsuko, it's willful ignorance and denial. Quite a concerted effort at sustaining it, too.

Amen.

a reply to: Boadicea

if the gov't knew that a mosque was holding a bunch of guns, missle launchers, ect, does anyone actually believe that the mosque wouldn't see the same fate as the compound in waco did? they don't need to redefine "freedom of religion" to deal with a security threat, heck they don't even need to provide you with a trial if they think you are a security threat!! We might be left bickering about weather their actions are right or wrong, or constitutional for that matter, but in the end the gov't gets to do whatever it danged well pleases!

originally posted by: odinsway
a reply to: mOjOm
Ok....so lets just get one fact straight. Our forefathers never ever could have imagined Muslims living within our boarders. There were no Muslims on the Mayflower....there were no Muslim signers of the Constitution....Why cant humans realize that keeping some ideologies seperate from others is a good thing?

you don't keep them separate by keeping your borders open and unprotected and the visas flowing like the mississippi river! and for some strange reason, the inflow of legal immigrants from arab countries saw a big increase after 9/11, a fact that kind of boggles the mind if one thinks too much about it.
you don't keep them separate by treating one group superior over the others, that just makes your country look like the middle east!

a reply to: infolurker

you know what is interesting about CAIR? back before 9/11, they out there warning people of the dangers of the radical islamists, even publishing some of the Fatwas and such. Heck some of the Muslims in america were saying that they were working on the gov't's behalf to convince us to accept a war, if I am remembering right., it might have been they were part of a group who were working to get the US into supporting their side in the war...whatever.

but, unless they have had a major change of leadership, there is something off about them and personally, I wouldn't be so sure when it comes to what their true motives are.

I'm trying to differentiate between this guys presentatioon and the news media. He's got a news desk, holding a bulletin, presents like the news people do. There is no difference. Propaganda issuing from the (School)Podium, (Church)pulpit and (News)desk is all the same.

Hating on Islam.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: buster2010

“It depends if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

Is what he said, so I guess he is saying if they can prove it is a radical mosque?
Still a sketchy comment though.

Wow. It sounds like something like this would be a bit vague to draw a line. Where do you draw it between "radical" and "rational"? I'd only say it would be justified if there was a proven link to ISIS or terrorism. Otherwise, you have to walk that same line with Christian churches as well. There are plenty of radical Christians out there that have fundamentalist interpretations of the bible, so if they are shutting down anything perceived as "radical" it is going to lead to big problems and likely hypocrisy. I don't think a law like that would ever fly.

The way I see it, if they are shutting down anything extremist or radical, then they should also be able to shut down churches that promote lies against science and evolution. It's only fair.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Ted Cruz is probably the worst out of the extremist conservatives. There is no reason to ever take anything this guy says as fact. He's a complete moron who lives his life in complete fear and projects this mentality on everyone else. I honestly don't think even most conservatives take him seriously.