UK: Soldier Beheaded In 'Islamist Terror Attack' Near Military Barracks

[rambone]

Some have, some haven't. Neo-nazis Indicted In Crime Spree - Chicago Tribune

I think your assertion is demonstrably untrue. When it rears it's ugly head through actions then it must, and usually is, rooted out and destroyed, just like in the '30's and '40's, just on a smaller scale.

I assume you have other ideas in mind besides arresting people who commit violent acts. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling it "rooting out" an ideology.

So, what do you want to do to root out this murderous ideology of neo-Nazism? Should it be illegal to label yourself a neo-Nazi? Should swastikas be banned in the USA? Should it be illegal for them to meet or form a political party? Should it be illegal for them to rally? Should every member be punished equally since some individuals committed violence?

I've already said.

Not to be repetitive but I have missed your solution. What does it mean? You want to root out the thoughts of billions of people?

You gave some broad analogy to WW2. World War 2 wasn't an endless ideological battle. There were specific governments being fought and defeated. Its fallacious to call WW2 the "War on Nazism" since it wasn't a war crime to be a Nazi party member. Given the broken parallels, it is unclear what solution you are alluding to.

So, setting bombs, crashing jets into office buildings, and beheading infidels is "First Amendment" protected. Perhaps you have a unique understanding of that Amendment.

No. You haven't been talking about going after guilty parties for acts of violence. You want to "root out" an ideology held by billions of people. You want to equate their faith with Nazism. You are trying to implicate a bunch of innocent people as guilty of violence.

You are basically implying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Islam. If I'm being unfair please clarify your position.

 

[Caleb]

You are basically implying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Islam. If I'm being unfair please clarify your position.

They do not acknowledge law of the land, so technically it doesn't apply to them...

 

[rambone]

They do not acknowledge law of the land, so technically it doesn't apply to them...

The First Amendment is a restriction on the government. "Congress shall make no law..." Its a cage to prevent authoritarians from creating the Thought Police.

The Bill of Rights is not a benefits package that gets to be applied selectively on some groups and not on others. Free speech is either universal or it is non-existent. So no matter how you much you demonize someone else's culture, our government still has no power to 'root out' their thoughts.

 

[BogWalker]

They do not acknowledge law of the land, so technically it doesn't apply to them...

Is "they" extremists or anyone of the Islamic faith? If the later, what other groups do you suggest we suspend the rights of without due process or reason?

 

[beachhead40]

Ill just say this, if a bystander was allow to own a firearm this might not have completely play out. Do we want to be like England? This would be more of a common sight if we let our government to do what Englands did.

 

[Trooper]

Is "they" extremists or anyone of the Islamic faith? If the later, what other groups do you suggest we suspend the rights of without due process or reason?

The al Islameen (Islamists) are a political form of Islam and often are practicing hersey (like human sacrifice). It is not their belief system but rather than they act on it.

You can believe what you like. Having multiple wives might be part of your faith. But it is a crime to practice such beliefs. Same with human sacrifice.

 

[MTC]

They do not acknowledge law of the land, so technically it doesn't apply to them...

They are under no obligation to acknowledge the law of our land, unless they willingly adopt it as their own, through their own laws.

The First Amendment is a restriction on the government. "Congress shall make no law..." Its a cage to prevent authoritarians from creating the Thought Police.

The Bill of Rights is not a benefits package that gets to be applied selectively on some groups and not on others. Free speech is either universal or it is non-existent. So no matter how you much you demonize someone else's culture, our government still has no power to 'root out' their thoughts.

There's that word again. This has already been explained before. It's the Constitution for The United States, not the constitution for the world. Those of the mind that the Constitution of our nation encompasses the entire world might find more kindred spirits at the U.N. (That's not to say that other nations couldn't adopt similar constitutions of their own.)

So, are foreign participants of huge rallies chanting "Death to America!" "Death to the Great Satan!" "Death to Israel!" "Death to the little Satan!" entitled to rights of free speech under the United States Constitution?
Irrelevant, insofar as they have the power to do so. And when some number of them take action on that belief system - which is part of their political ideology - to engage in hostile acts against the United States or it's citizens, they have at that point one "right" : the right to die.

 

[rambone]

There's that word again. This has already been explained before. It's the Constitution for The United States, not the constitution for the world. Those of the mind that the Constitution of our nation encompasses the entire world might find more kindred spirits at the U.N. (That's not to say that other nations couldn't adopt similar constitutions of their own.)

So, are foreign participants of huge rallies chanting "Death to America!" "Death to the Great Satan!" "Death to Israel!" "Death to the little Satan!" entitled to rights of free speech under the United States Constitution?

Where ever the U.S. government finds itself, there too is the U.S. Constitution. Anywhere on this planet or the universe.

Free speech is an inalienable right that doesn't come from being born inside U.S. territory. There is universality there, regardless of what the U.N. promotes. It would exist without enumeration in the Constitution.

Rather than ask who is "entitled to rights," we should be asking, "Can the U.S. Government exercise powers not authorized in the U.S. Constitution?"

 

[MTC]

Rather than ask who is "entitled to rights," we should be asking, "Can the U.S. Government exercise powers not authorized in the U.S. Constitution?"

I didn't ask that. You unilaterally extended certain rights to foreign nationals. Don't dictate to me what "we" should be asking.

 

[rambone]

I didn't ask that. You unilaterally extended certain rights to foreign nationals. Don't dictate to me what "we" should be asking.

Heh. There's the rub. I don't need to extend those certain, inalienable rights. They are already there.

 

[MTC]

Heh. There's the rub. I don't need to extend those certain, inalienable rights. They are already there.

There is no "rub" if one has a clear understanding of what is meant by terms such as nation, country, constitution, and enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[BogWalker]

The al Islameen (Islamists) are a political form of Islam and often are practicing hersey (like human sacrifice). It is not their belief system but rather than they act on it.

You can believe what you like. Having multiple wives might be part of your faith. But it is a crime to practice such beliefs. Same with human sacrifice.

Where did you hear half this ignorant crap? The Quran specifically condemns human sacrifice, and since when is polygamy grounds for having your rights revoked? Yes, it is a crime in most places, and carries the penalties as such, but you're saying it's okay to take someone's rights away because somebody else of their religion believes in it? Don't forget that certain branches of Mormonism (an offshoot of Christianity) also practice polygamy. Should we suspend the rights of all Mormons in this country then?

 

[lucky4034]

Should we suspend the rights of all Mormons in this country then?

No... we are supposed to vote them in as President

 

[Trooper]

Where did you hear half this ignorant crap? The Quran specifically condemns human sacrifice, and since when is polygamy grounds for having your rights revoked? Yes, it is a crime in most places, and carries the penalties as such, but you're saying it's okay to take someone's rights away because somebody else of their religion believes in it? Don't forget that certain branches of Mormonism (an offshoot of Christianity) also practice polygamy. Should we suspend the rights of all Mormons in this country then?

I am not clear why you are upset with me. you basically said the same things that I said. You have the right to believe what you want. but many beliefs are illegal to practice.

And it is heresy within Islam to practice human sacrifice (Islamists teach that you can atone for your sins by human sacrifice, implying that the Islamists are Takfiri).

 

[jamil]

No... we are supposed to vote them in as President

Not that being Mormon or not Mormon qualifies or disqualifies a candidate.

 

[Destro]

Don't forget that certain branches of Mormonism (an offshoot of Christianity) also practice polygamy. Should we suspend the rights of all Mormons in this country then?

while there may be polygamist's who claim to be Mormons, there are no Mormons who are polygamist's. The same as Christians who kill abortion doctors. There may be murderers who claim to be Christians, but no Christians that are murders.

 

[BogWalker]

I am not clear why you are upset with me. you basically said the same things that I said. You have the right to believe what you want. but many beliefs are illegal to practice.

And it is heresy within Islam to practice human sacrifice (Islamists teach that you can atone for your sins by human sacrifice, implying that the Islamists are Takfiri).

I see the problem here. My original reply was to Caleb who believes no Muslim deserves rights due to others in their religion (such as the aforementioned Islamists). As in the Mormon example there's no reason to persecute a whole group of people due to the illegal actions of a few. If certain sects practice illegal acts within the borders of the United States they should be prosecuted, but there's no reason to vilify the entirety of Islam for the actions of a few as many here call for.

 

[Trooper]

I see the problem here. My original reply was to Caleb who believes no Muslim deserves rights due to others in their religion (such as the aforementioned Islamists). As in the Mormon example there's no reason to persecute a whole group of people due to the illegal actions of a few. If certain sects practice illegal acts within the borders of the United States they should be prosecuted, but there's no reason to vilify the entirety of Islam for the actions of a few as many here call for.

I would point out that Mormons do believe in polygamy but do not practice it. Thus my example that one can believe in many things that would be illegal to practice. You may believe as you will. Even teach it to others. But it is still illegal to put into practice.

 

[BogWalker]

I would point out that Mormons do believe in polygamy but do not practice it. Thus my example that one can believe in many things that would be illegal to practice. You may believe as you will. Even teach it to others. But it is still illegal to put into practice.

The main branch of the Church of Latter Day Saints has actually denounced the practice of polygamy. The Mormons who do currently practice it are off shoot branches of the main church of Mormon. I think we're in agreement here though on the line between freedom of religion and rule of law. Hmm, an internet discussion that didn't turn into an endless flame war. Good chat, civil discourse is the greatest of our lost arts.

 

[lucky4034]

while there may be polygamist's who claim to be Mormons, there are no Mormons who are polygamist's. The same as Christians who kill abortion doctors. There may be murderers who claim to be Christians, but no Christians that are murders.

Is murder an unforgivable sin? (honest question... I have no idea)