Cain - First Amendment is Garbage

[ASUMountaineer]

Ok, let's set something aside for a second. Your wording is such that you think I'm not American and that I'm Muslim. I'm born and raised here and as American as you. Second, I'm not a Muslim; I'm not religious in any way. Do I have a Muslim upbringing? Yes. Am I a follower of the religion? No.

Second, it is an irrational fear. American Muslims are just that, Americans that practice a different religion. I've had a few times where I've gone out with my mother shopping and because she wears a hijab, she's been told racial slurs; I've gotten into a few verbal altercations for **** like that. And I can't even recall the amount of dirty looks she's gotten. As for my father, he owns a small business and he's actually had people stop dealing with him when they found out his religion. My parents are two people who have lived here 30+ years just trying to live the "American Dream," and just 'cause some people have an irrational fear of Muslims in this country, it doesn't mean people have to be looked at differently on an individual level. Again, it's what's inside someone's heart that counts. This country is supposed to be the beacon of freedom that all others are measured by, or at least I'd like to think. We shouldn't be regressing backwards to darker times in our country's history. We should be progressing forward and setting good examples for the next generation of Americans to continue what makes the US amazing.

And look man, I'm not telling you not to debate it; everyone has the right to say anything they want. But I think it's a waste of time and money (things we're lacking right now) when we start arguing stuff like this on the goverment level. The Constitution is clear; it is the supreme law of the land and all our citizens are protected under it's words.

So in conclusion, the world is a **** up place.

Good post.

There have been some good posts on this thread, Citdog's notwithstanding. I have enjoyed reading the discussion. Carry on...

[AZGrizFan]

No rational logic my ass. In the last decade:

...

Yeah, because other people from different cultural and religious backgrounds haven't gone on shooting sprees or murdered people in the last decade either? Oh wait, didn't a white guy kill five people in January when he tried assassinating a representative, or how 'bout the black dude that killed 7 in a Michigan shooting spree less than two weeks ago, or how 'bout that Asian that killed 32 in 2007? Should we really list all the murders in the last decade and the ethnicities of those who committed them?

Whoops. Trip, you just lost the argument.

[GSUhooligan]

This issue, and those like it, tear me apart.

As an Orthodox Christian who sees what predominantly Muslim countries do to the Christians and Jews in those areas, even in "moderate" and "secular" Turkey who is a US ally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sas ... 01047.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I absolutely want to "return the favor" and treat them as they treat us.

But as an American, I can't let my personal beliefs muddy the perfectly clear waters of our constitution and the rights that are provided therein.

I'm also torn that I believe that a lot of the hatred towards the U.S. from extreme Muslims has been brought on ourselves and that if we were to disengage the middle east, we may be able to calm things down for us (things will never be calm over there.) But on the other hand, since we're dealing with such loyal and resolute people, perhaps it is too late now that they have started down this path. Who knows?

[Rob Iola]

This issue, and those like it, tear me apart.

As an Orthodox Christian who sees what predominantly Muslim countries do to the Christians and Jews in those areas, even in "moderate" and "secular" Turkey who is a US ally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sas ... 01047.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I absolutely want to "return the favor" and treat them as they treat us.

But as an American, I can't let my personal beliefs muddy the perfectly clear waters of our constitution and the rights that are provided therein.

I'm also torn that I believe that a lot of the hatred towards the U.S. from extreme Muslims has been brought on ourselves and that if we were to disengage the middle east, we may be able to calm things down for us (things will never be calm over there.) But on the other hand, since we're dealing with such loyal and resolute people, perhaps it is too late now that they have started down this path. Who knows?

How exactly do we disengage from the middle east? Prior to 9/11 we bought their oil, supported Israel, and provided an alternative culture to their young people. Post 9/11 we continue to do those things, but now have fought/continue to fight 2 wars on their lands. What exactly did we do prior to 9/11 that brought it on ourselves?

[GSUhooligan]

By disengage, I meant militarily. Even before 9/11 we were over there in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iran et al fighting wars and side projects which amassed collateral damage. We've built military bases on holy lands, deposed and inserted national leaders etc. None of those generate good will and peace.

I say we maintain trade and cultural exchange, but militarily disengage.

[citdog]

Ok, let's set something aside for a second. Your wording is such that you think I'm not American and that I'm Muslim. I'm born and raised here and as American as you. Second, I'm not a Muslim; I'm not religious in any way. Do I have a Muslim upbringing? Yes. Am I a follower of the religion? No.

Second, it is an irrational fear. American Muslims are just that, Americans that practice a different religion. I've had a few times where I've gone out with my mother shopping and because she wears a hijab, she's been told racial slurs; I've gotten into a few verbal altercations for **** like that. And I can't even recall the amount of dirty looks she's gotten. As for my father, he owns a small business and he's actually had people stop dealing with him when they found out his religion. My parents are two people who have lived here 30+ years just trying to live the "American Dream," and just 'cause some people have an irrational fear of Muslims in this country, it doesn't mean people have to be looked at differently on an individual level. Again, it's what's inside someone's heart that counts. This country is supposed to be the beacon of freedom that all others are measured by, or at least I'd like to think. We shouldn't be regressing backwards to darker times in our country's history. We should be progressing forward and setting good examples for the next generation of Americans to continue what makes the US amazing.

And look man, I'm not telling you not to debate it; everyone has the right to say anything they want. But I think it's a waste of time and money (things we're lacking right now) when we start arguing stuff like this on the goverment level. The Constitution is clear; it is the supreme law of the land and all our citizens are protected under it's words.

So in conclusion, the world is a **** up place.

Good post.

There have been some good posts on this thread, Citdog's notwithstanding. I have enjoyed reading the discussion. Carry on...

Nuzzle my Rebel Schmeckle.

we Jews know how to deal with this scum and we know that the only thing they understand is the sword. We have tried to warn you. You will not listen now but you will when you have soldiers at checkpoints because of suicide bombings at restaurants and clubs. By then it will be FAR to late. The muslim LIES TO THE INFIDEL TO FURTHER HIS GOALS WHICH ARE CLEARLY STATED. ISLAM RULING THE WORLD UNDER shariah law AND DEATH OR CONVERSION TO THE REST OF US. Keep your heads buried in the sand if you wish and believe the TAQUUIA that this arab scum posts but do not say you were not warned. Spend a month in Israel and you will begin to understand.

[ODUsmitty]

This has been a decent debate. While I have my own bias based upon recent events involving Muslim extremists, I respect the fact that Smudge has attempted to offer a counter point-of-view.

Knowing him personally, I judge the person and not the stereotype, and hold him in the highest regard. I only wish our participants from the 2nd best military school in the South (behind VMI) would show some shred of civility when trying to make some very valid points of their own.

[CID1990]

By disengage, I meant militarily. Even before 9/11 we were over there in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iran et al fighting wars and side projects which amassed collateral damage. We've built military bases on holy lands, deposed and inserted national leaders etc. None of those generate good will and peace.

I say we maintain trade and cultural exchange, but militarily disengage.

I'm all for leaving the entire Middle East to its own devices. They will all be at war with each other within 10 years when Iran decides to own them, and then we will be right back there, providing humanitarian assistance because we'll still blame ourselves for all of their problems going all the way back to the beginning of time.

However, point of order on your post:

Before 9-11 we were not in Iraq. Nor were we in Afghanistan or Iran.

We were in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We were in those countries because we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis, and we maintained a presence there as well as in Saudi Arabia (at those countries' insistence) in order to be a deterrent to further aggression from Saddam, and to enforce the various no-fly zone operations.

I guess it could be argued that our money was in Afghanistan in the form of aid to the Mujaheddin.

We also supported Saddam in his war against Iran, but we were never actually there, and have not been since they released the hostages after their blatant violation of international diplomatic conventions (Seems like Muslim theocracies have a problem with those). I'm happy knowing that US aid to Saddam in those days helped kill Revolutionary Guard soldiers.

Today, we look at these presences and affiliations as if we were somehow dumb to have been over there, but if we could re-live those days we would do exactly the same things, because US interests were and still are at stake. Yes, mostly that means oil. If not for the oil, then those countries would be Uganda and Kyrgystan to us.

Before we disengage from the Middle East, we need to figure out where we are going to get our oil when Iran cuts it all off. Solar and wind are pipe dreams. The greens are afraid of nuclear. The current administration is daily throwing up roadblocks to developing our own fossil fuel resources. With all of this in mind, I am ready for us to leave the Middle East, but I am not ready to pay $10 per gallon at the pump. It is easy to say that we should just pull out of the Middle East, but you must also be prepared to say that we need to start with unrestricted development in Alaska, offshore, everywhere we can find it in our own borders. You also will need to say that we need to start cranking out nuclear plants. You'll also need to be prepared to pay five times as much for anything you own that contains plastic. You also need to be prepared for near immediate Chinese world hegemony, because they will be more than happy to soak up the resources in the Middle East that were once earmarked for us.

You choose your poison.

[∞∞∞]

This has been a decent debate. While I have my own bias based upon recent events involving Muslim extremists, I respect the fact that Smudge has attempted to offer a counter point-of-view.

Knowing him personally, I judge the person and not the stereotype, and hold him in the highest regard. I only wish our participants from the 2nd best military school in the South (behind VMI) would show some shred of civility when trying to make some very valid points of their own.

Thanks a lot smitty! Sorry I didn't make fun of the stereotype in this thread. I'm usually all for it, but I can't be non-serious all the time, you know? Hopefully when football season comes around, we can take some shots, strap on some ODU gear, and have a blast.

edit: ok that last sentence was supposed to be full of terrorist innuendos, but after reading it again out loud...

[CID1990]

This has been a decent debate. While I have my own bias based upon recent events involving Muslim extremists, I respect the fact that Smudge has attempted to offer a counter point-of-view.

Knowing him personally, I judge the person and not the stereotype, and hold him in the highest regard. I only wish our participants from the 2nd best military school in the South (behind VMI) would show some shred of civility when trying to make some very valid points of their own.

Coming from a fan of the 20th best college in all of Virginia, point taken.

[Cap'n Cat]

He is not banning a religion, he is banning a building..................it happens all the time.


Oh and you can have your opinion (1st amendment) about him being an idiot, I find him refreshing and honest and I like him more and more all the time.

[ASUMountaineer]

Good post.

There have been some good posts on this thread, Citdog's notwithstanding. I have enjoyed reading the discussion. Carry on...

Nuzzle my Rebel Schmeckle.

we Jews know how to deal with this scum and we know that the only thing they understand is the sword. We have tried to warn you. You will not listen now but you will when you have soldiers at checkpoints because of suicide bombings at restaurants and clubs. By then it will be FAR to late. The muslim LIES TO THE INFIDEL TO FURTHER HIS GOALS WHICH ARE CLEARLY STATED. ISLAM RULING THE WORLD UNDER shariah law AND DEATH OR CONVERSION TO THE REST OF US. Keep your heads buried in the sand if you wish and believe the TAQUUIA that this arab scum posts but do not say you were not warned. Spend a month in Israel and you will begin to understand.

Perhaps you've forgotten that I married into a Jewish family, so I get what you're saying. Oh, and I'm also from the South...you're about as much a rebel as Travis is straight. When you attack DC, I'll call you a rebel.

In regards to "the muslim," I get it...you feel about Muslims as many of them feel about Jews. As to "understanding," I don't care to spend a month in Israel, it's your "homeland" not mine.

BTW Nancy, this...

There have been some good posts on this thread, Citdog's notwithstanding.

is a joke. How do you not get that by now?

Thanks for the education, though...now, go be a good little rebel Heeb like Joshua and march around Jericho.

[CID1990]

Nuzzle my Rebel Schmeckle.

we Jews know how to deal with this scum and we know that the only thing they understand is the sword. We have tried to warn you. You will not listen now but you will when you have soldiers at checkpoints because of suicide bombings at restaurants and clubs. By then it will be FAR to late. The muslim LIES TO THE INFIDEL TO FURTHER HIS GOALS WHICH ARE CLEARLY STATED. ISLAM RULING THE WORLD UNDER shariah law AND DEATH OR CONVERSION TO THE REST OF US. Keep your heads buried in the sand if you wish and believe the TAQUUIA that this arab scum posts but do not say you were not warned. Spend a month in Israel and you will begin to understand.

Perhaps you've forgotten that I married into a Jewish family, so I get what you're saying. Oh, and I'm also from the South...you're about as much a rebel as Travis is straight. When you attack DC, I'll call you a rebel.

In regards to "the muslim," I get it...you feel about Muslims as many of them feel about Jews. As to "understanding," I don't care to spend a month in Israel, it's your "homeland" not mine.

BTW Nancy, this...

There have been some good posts on this thread, Citdog's notwithstanding.

is a joke. How do you not get that by now?

Thanks for the education, though...now, go be a good little rebel Heeb like Joshua and march around Jericho.

Travis is straight?

[kalm]

By disengage, I meant militarily. Even before 9/11 we were over there in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iran et al fighting wars and side projects which amassed collateral damage. We've built military bases on holy lands, deposed and inserted national leaders etc. None of those generate good will and peace.

I say we maintain trade and cultural exchange, but militarily disengage.

I'm all for leaving the entire Middle East to its own devices. They will all be at war with each other within 10 years when Iran decides to own them, and then we will be right back there, providing humanitarian assistance because we'll still blame ourselves for all of their problems going all the way back to the beginning of time.

However, point of order on your post:

Before 9-11 we were not in Iraq. Nor were we in Afghanistan or Iran.

We were in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We were in those countries because we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis, and we maintained a presence there as well as in Saudi Arabia (at those countries' insistence) in order to be a deterrent to further aggression from Saddam, and to enforce the various no-fly zone operations.

I guess it could be argued that our money was in Afghanistan in the form of aid to the Mujaheddin.

We also supported Saddam in his war against Iran, but we were never actually there, and have not been since they released the hostages after their blatant violation of international diplomatic conventions (Seems like Muslim theocracies have a problem with those). I'm happy knowing that US aid to Saddam in those days helped kill Revolutionary Guard soldiers.

Today, we look at these presences and affiliations as if we were somehow dumb to have been over there, but if we could re-live those days we would do exactly the same things, because US interests were and still are at stake. Yes, mostly that means oil. If not for the oil, then those countries would be Uganda and Kyrgystan to us.

Before we disengage from the Middle East, we need to figure out where we are going to get our oil when Iran cuts it all off. Solar and wind are pipe dreams. The greens are afraid of nuclear. The current administration is daily throwing up roadblocks to developing our own fossil fuel resources. With all of this in mind, I am ready for us to leave the Middle East, but I am not ready to pay $10 per gallon at the pump. It is easy to say that we should just pull out of the Middle East, but you must also be prepared to say that we need to start with unrestricted development in Alaska, offshore, everywhere we can find it in our own borders. You also will need to say that we need to start cranking out nuclear plants. You'll also need to be prepared to pay five times as much for anything you own that contains plastic. You also need to be prepared for near immediate Chinese world hegemony, because they will be more than happy to soak up the resources in the Middle East that were once earmarked for us.

You choose your poison.

Good post CID, and I would add that we backed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, removed a democratically elected leader of Iran because he was threatening to nationalize their oil, backed two other dictators in Lybia and Egypt who were starving their people and could give a flying fuck about the struggle in Darfur. Your point about China is well taken and I think we were facing the same thing with the USSR prior.

Does this mean we deserved 9/11? Hell no. Does this change anything about Muslim whack jobs being a threat? Hell no. Is Herman Cain a dumbass? Hell yes.

[native]

He is not banning a religion, he is banning a building..................it happens all the time.


Oh and you can have your opinion (1st amendment) about him being an idiot, I find him refreshing and honest and I like him more and more all the time.

[native]

By disengage, I meant militarily. Even before 9/11 we were over there in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iran et al fighting wars and side projects which amassed collateral damage. We've built military bases on holy lands, deposed and inserted national leaders etc. None of those generate good will and peace.

I say we maintain trade and cultural exchange, but militarily disengage.

I'm all for leaving the entire Middle East to its own devices. They will all be at war with each other within 10 years when Iran decides to own them, and then we will be right back there, providing humanitarian assistance because we'll still blame ourselves for all of their problems going all the way back to the beginning of time.

However, point of order on your post:

Before 9-11 we were not in Iraq. Nor were we in Afghanistan or Iran.

We were in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We were in those countries because we liberated Kuwait from the Iraqis, and we maintained a presence there as well as in Saudi Arabia (at those countries' insistence) in order to be a deterrent to further aggression from Saddam, and to enforce the various no-fly zone operations.

I guess it could be argued that our money was in Afghanistan in the form of aid to the Mujaheddin.

We also supported Saddam in his war against Iran, but we were never actually there, and have not been since they released the hostages after their blatant violation of international diplomatic conventions (Seems like Muslim theocracies have a problem with those). I'm happy knowing that US aid to Saddam in those days helped kill Revolutionary Guard soldiers.

Today, we look at these presences and affiliations as if we were somehow dumb to have been over there, but if we could re-live those days we would do exactly the same things, because US interests were and still are at stake. Yes, mostly that means oil. If not for the oil, then those countries would be Uganda and Kyrgystan to us.

Before we disengage from the Middle East, we need to figure out where we are going to get our oil when Iran cuts it all off. Solar and wind are pipe dreams. The greens are afraid of nuclear. The current administration is daily throwing up roadblocks to developing our own fossil fuel resources. With all of this in mind, I am ready for us to leave the Middle East, but I am not ready to pay $10 per gallon at the pump. It is easy to say that we should just pull out of the Middle East, but you must also be prepared to say that we need to start with unrestricted development in Alaska, offshore, everywhere we can find it in our own borders. You also will need to say that we need to start cranking out nuclear plants. You'll also need to be prepared to pay five times as much for anything you own that contains plastic. You also need to be prepared for near immediate Chinese world hegemony, because they will be more than happy to soak up the resources in the Middle East that were once earmarked for us.

You choose your poison.

DAMM you're good!

[JohnStOnge]

I am not a big fan of Cain. However, if you actually read the first Amendment you will note that it does not ban local communities from doing whatever they want with respect to this sort of thing. It is a prohibition of the Congress of the United States passing a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof.

Yes, I know that the Courts have expanded that enormously including "interpreting" the 14th Amendment due process clause as meaning the limitations the Bill of Rights places on the Federal government apply to governments at all levels. But, linguistically, the Constitution does not prohibit a local community from prohibiting the construction of a Mosque, a Church, or anything else. It really doesn't.

[∞∞∞]

I am not a big fan of Cain. However, if you actually read the first Amendment you will note that it does not ban local communities from doing whatever they want with respect to this sort of thing. It is a prohibition of the Congress of the United States passing a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof.

Yes, I know that the Courts have expanded that enormously including "interpreting" the 14th Amendment due process clause as meaning the limitations the Bill of Rights places on the Federal government apply to governments at all levels. But, linguistically, the Constitution does not prohibit a local community from prohibiting the construction of a Mosque, a Church, or anything else. It really doesn't.

Except local and state laws cannot contradict the Constitution, so the laws have to provide equal protection for everyone. In this case the local courts did their job correctly and the injunction to stop the construction of the Mosque was halted. It's simply upsetting to see others who don't understand that we're the ones who make the Constitution relevant, and not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't really protect us. The citizens have to protect it. If we don't follow the Amendments as we've established them, then it's just another piece of paper.

[JohnStOnge]

Except local and state laws cannot contradict the Constitution,

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Seriously. Let's see a quote from the Constitution supporting that statement.

I'm not going to argue that the Courts have held that to be the case. But as we all know what the Constitution actually says and what it was intended to say as compared to what the Courts say it says are two different things.

Where does it actually say that?

[∞∞∞]

Where does it actually say that?

Actually it does. 46 words into it, it says "Constitution."

Now go to a dictionary and look that word up. I mean really, are you being serious? Does the Constitution actually have to define what the word "constitution" is for you to understand that the reason it's called a constitution is because it's intended to be the supreme law of the land.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes I am being serious. Also, at least according to the set of definitions at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, there is nothing in the definition or definitions itself/themselves that contradicts what I said.

It is clear that State and local governments were not bound by the first Amendment with respect to religion at the time. That is what the famous exchange between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists including the "...wall of separation" metaphor was all about. As you can see by reading the Danbury Baptists letter at http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, they did not see the Federal government as having the power to force their State to grant them an unalienable right to religous privleges. Here is a quote:

"Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states..."

Underline added for emphasis.

And Jefferson did not attempt to force their State, Connecticut, to grant their wishes. He simply lent them moral support.

Now, later, the Constitution was Amended to include the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment includes the language, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

I think the Courts have "interpreted" that to extend the restrictions the Bill of Rights placed on the Federal Government to the States and also one could argue that the "equal protection" part would be violated if a locality would allow one kind of house of worship in an area but not another. I don't think that's how the language was intended by those who crafted it nor do I think that's how it was generally understood when it was ratified but that's where the argument would be.

Anyway, the 1st Amendment references to religion CLEARLY applied only to the Congress of the United States at the beginning and going on at least until the 14th Amendment was ratified. Linguistically, I mean. I mean, it says what it says. It says "Congress shall make no law..." Congress. No other Institution is included in the prohibition.