Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Furball Forum' started by security79, Mar 1, 2011.
Vote getting gimmick! if this is the most important item on their agenda.....
Any part of that that restricts any religious followings that does NOT conflict with the federal, state, or local laws will be thrown out. Odds are the rest of it will too, just for good measure.
I don't see how that can pass/hold up as it is a violation of the Constitution. As much as I dislike fanatical Muslims, they're entitled to believe whatever they want. If those beliefs result in braking other laws; ie: perpetuating violence towards others or attempting to overthrow the government, well that's why those laws are there.
What I find dangerous about this bill is it implies credence to perceived legitimacy of Sharia as an alternative to American law. A crime is a crime, no matter what religious flag you wave in front of your justifications. I would never legitimize Sharia by banning it because it already has no merit for proving for guilt or innocence when considering criminal complaints. Sharia is nothing but a shield for common criminals to hide behind and in my opinion has no basis in our court system for any purpose. If we ban it, it will be defended and if the ban is overturned (as our present administration would likely do), what is the end result? A stronger Sharia foothold in our court system than we started with? No thanks.
Put the scumbag in jail because he beat his wife, not because he did it out of his religious "principals".
Very well said.
I oppose all feel-good laws, on principle.
Even though, this one makes me feel good.
Stoning someone to death isn't already a crime?
I agree that singling it out gives it veracity. I'd rather see a bill that forbids consideration of any religious tenets in legals decisions. Any religion, culture or philosophy that is recognized as a valid influence for the outcome of legal dispositions is not a good thing in my opinion.
Don't suppose anyone actaully took the time to even read the bill summary...
Yah, let's pass judgement based on what some reporter says...
Pretty much. The First Amendment freedom of religion, at least for the moment, still exists. You can't legislate someone not to keep their faith just because you don't like it.
I disagree with a a lot of religions. That doesn't mean I am pompous enough to decide that I must "force" others to believe as I do under the color of law.
The whole thing is idiotic.
This is the first time I've read that Tennessee was a Mecca for Islamic fundamentalists and its citizens all needed this protection. This is BS.
Next on the legislative agenda: Do something about the religious rattlesnakes of Tennessee.
We should round up all muslims in the US just like we did the Japanese.
But the difference should be that all muslims be sent to Chelyabinsk and fed only pork.
The Japanese were loyal and wanted to fight for America.Then after the war they didn't go crying to anybody wanting reparations for being in camps.Look at those crybaby ****ing muslims crying about a little abuse they deserved in prison,that's if it really happened...which I doubt.
But of course it will never happen,the US and the bleeding heart liberals will continue to say that islam is a peaceful religion and they will one day rule this land too.
Wow, this is a really dumb statement. Once you decide you are going to violate the civil rights of a group because of their religious belief system, you open the door to have it done to you, and anyone else who may not be "popular" at the time. The Bill of Rights exists for a reason, apparenlty in this case, to protect others from people like you.
Open the door?Its already happening to Christians...Wake up!
muslims don't deserve any rights.Study their so called religion (which its not) and you may have your eyes opened...then again maybe you won't.
Watch this documentary...then tell me if you still believe they are a religion of peace.
Jewish law isn't much different, people were stoned to death for a number of things.
Up until the 1700's Christians would burn, stone or "press" to death people that went against their believes.
Can't see where Muslim law is much different. Just think they need time to evolve and move out of their killing ways same as the Jews and Christians did.
So the muslims are only a few hundred years behind...that's a good thing?
Also where did the Christians burn,stone and press non believers in the 1700's?Not saying it didn't happen,just would like a little history lesson.And if they did they went against everything Jesus preached and taught.The Bible does not condone these acts.
On the other hand the koran does condone killing non believers...all of them.
Can you gives us a specific citation in the Koran where those ugly things are Oked?
We should also round up the fundamentalist Christians with there so called religion (which it is not). Seriously look at what those people believe. And they form hate groups like the WBC, and some of them even use religion as a justification for terrorism.
Once set a precedent can really suck. Also religion and peace is that not an oxymoron?