How's that religion of Peace working??

[roberth]

No one says it, but I think it must be said- Islam should be illegal in America. It goes against the 1st Amendment- Freedom of religion, or in the modern case for many: Freedom FROM religion. Islam does not permit letting bygones be bygones. It requires that you follow it's laws and standards, and those who do not are to punished, even if they don't follow the "religion" (we've already established it is far beyond simply a religious ideology)- to that point they are breaking the laws put forth by Islamic law. They won't stop until we have sharia law in the U.S.- at which point I would greatly lay down my life to ensure never happens on my watch!

No, absolutely not. People must be allowed to make their choice and enjoy/suffer the consequences of their decision.

I strongly disagree with Islam but to make it illegal will violate the 1st Amendment and I won't stand for that. The way to stop Islam is to present something better to people who are looking for something better. Present something that doesn't hold the promise of death if you change your mind or make a mistake. Present something that treats men and women as equals under the law.

If Islam is outlawed then which of your religions is next, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, which one?

[roberth]

I don't care what religion a congresscritter believes in as long as the congresscritter understands that The Constitution overrides anything his religion says.

[Great-Kazoo]

I don't care what religion a congresscritter believes in as long as the congresscritter understands that The Constitution overrides anything his religion says.

Which then ask the next question.

How many people elected in to office believe in the Constitution, all of it not pick & choose?
We know one side feels the 2nd is an out dated amendment and needs to be revisited. I doubt there is one elected official who supports the constitution across the board.

[roberth]

Which then ask the next question.

How many people elected in to office believe in the Constitution, all of it not pick & choose?
We know one side feels the 2nd is an out dated amendment and needs to be revisited. I doubt there is one elected official who supports the constitution across the board.

That is an excellent question Jim. I am inclined to agree with you that most if not all elected officials think the constitution should be modified in some way that directly benefits them, their idea, or some contributor.

[cstone]

That is an excellent question Jim. I am inclined to agree with you that most if not all elected officials think the constitution should be modified in some way that directly benefits them, their idea, or some contributor.

The Constitution itself spells out how it can be modified or amended. There is nothing wrong with changing the Constitution, as long as the Constitutional process for changing the Constitution is followed.

The top two definitions for Religion:

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Using the second definition, I believe that many of today's modern technological wonders are worshiped and this belief informs my opinion that science is the predominant religion of western culture.

YMMV

[james_bond_007]

...I believe that many of today's modern technological wonders are worshiped and this belief informs my opinion that science is the predominant religion of western culture...

Some say it is the Almighty Dollar that is most worshiped; perhaps a derivative of your "belief".

[roberth]

The Constitution itself spells out how it can be modified or amended. There is nothing wrong with changing the Constitution, as long as the Constitutional process for changing the Constitution is followed.

/snip

They ain't gonna follow the constitution's rules when they change it.

[Ronin13]

No, absolutely not. People must be allowed to make their choice and enjoy/suffer the consequences of their decision.

I strongly disagree with Islam but to make it illegal will violate the 1st Amendment and I won't stand for that. The way to stop Islam is to present something better to people who are looking for something better. Present something that doesn't hold the promise of death if you change your mind or make a mistake. Present something that treats men and women as equals under the law.

If Islam is outlawed then which of your religions is next, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, which one?

Let me rephrase- the Practice of Islamic principals that interferes with others' lives needs to be illegal. Again, not to beat the horse some more, but Islam is not a religion, it's a social, ideological, economic, and spiritual lifestyle. It governs not only how you worship, but how you live, cohabitation with others, business dealings, social dealings, and marriage. So no, outlawing it wouldn't spiral to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jedi, Satanism, etc. Last time I checked followers of Christianity can peacefully exist with those who believe different. Religious morals are *supposed* to be separate from government- granted we haven't done too well at keeping some of that out in terms of Christianity, but the imposing of Sharia/Islamic law would completely destroy our freedom as we know it.

[roberth]

Let me rephrase- the Practice of Islamic principals that interferes with others' lives needs to be illegal. Again, not to beat the horse some more, but Islam is not a religion, it's a social, ideological, economic, and spiritual lifestyle. It governs not only how you worship, but how you live, cohabitation with others, business dealings, social dealings, and marriage. So no, outlawing it wouldn't spiral to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jedi, Satanism, etc. Last time I checked followers of Christianity can peacefully exist with those who believe different. Religious morals are *supposed* to be separate from government- granted we haven't done too well at keeping some of that out in terms of Christianity, but the imposing of Sharia/Islamic law would completely destroy our freedom as we know it.

OK I'm on board with that. For example, honor killings which are murder should be illegal. Do we need to specifically address this in the code of justice? Do we need a line item in there that states specifically that anyone who murders someone via "honor killing" shall be subject to all the penalties of murder?

You and I know what Islam is. Most people do not understand the full extent of Islam, they'll deny it is anything but a religion.

[james_bond_007]

... Last time I checked followers of Christianity can peacefully exist with those who believe different. ...

Things have gotten better on this, but...

One of the main reasons Christian settlers (aka Pilgrims) came to America was for religious freedom from other Christians and religions. (aka could NOT get along peacefully with those who believe differently)

Some people today can "get along" with each others "differences", but many of them still don't like doing so. (aka can NOT get along peacefully with those who believe differently)
EX: Northern Ireland - Christians (Catholics) are still fighting with other Christians (Protestants).

There are still quite a few people that are not happy when their kids marry outside of their ethnic and/or religious circles.
There are still a lot of businesses that hire only "their own kind", just barely skirting discrimination laws.

People generally don't like differences...at least at first.

Time seems to help with this. It takes a relatively long time to accept new and different things.
EX: Depression era Irish immigrants were thought of as a "lower form of life". After about 100 years now, there is not a lot of this sentiment left...

A lot of times when a new and bigger "difference" appears and threatens the status quo, the old opponents unite against the new "threat".
EX: Knute Rockne was able to unite his squabbling players to hate HIM instead of each other. The former opponents (the players) rose up and united against a bigger "threat" (Coach Rockne).
EX: British and US unite to defend against a bigger enemy in WWI/II after the US succeeded from Britain, fought them in the War of 1812, etc.

It is possible that this Islamic growth might have that effect and strengthen and help unify the various independent Christian factions (aka various Christian religions) to to unite against a much more opposing "enemy", such as Islam?

...or are they all too stubborn and set in their ways (aka traditions, beliefs, dogma, etc) at this point ?