8
1
7
Many who have studied Islam have various feelings as to the status of Islam. Please respond as to why you do or do not accept Islam as a religion.
Does Islam rate protection under the Bill of Rights?
Does Islam rate protection under the Bill of Rights?
Religion
Constitution
Islam
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 98
3
3
0
There are two sides to Islam debate as it has been presented to me:
The people who have discussed this with me, and support Islam as a religion, and say it is due full protection under the law, even though Muslims are causing problems across Europe and now in the USA, state that under The Five Pillars of Islam they express the same tenants of the religion that other major religions state. They have virtually nothing else to add.
The majority on that web site…
Many consider Islam a cult with Satan because behind The Five Pillars of Islam is a male dominated/sexually rewarding Islam. Here are some points to consider:
Muslim men may have multiple wives. Muslim men may have a child as a wife. Muslim men may engage in gay relationships while married to a woman. Muslim men may engage in sex with a prostitute. In addition, men who die killing infidels are given an “E” ticket to heaven where they are rewarded with virgins and an eternal erection. (Yes it does say that). The question asked is, “What kind of religion awards its male member with sexual favors?” For that reason they call it a cult with Satan.
Another point brought out against Islam was that Islam calls for world domination and that the infidel must be either killed or they must pay tribute to Islam. No other religion calls for world domination or making people pay tribute.
Muslim men have been given absolute domain over women to the point that they may beat a woman and even have the right kill a female member of the family without fear of the law under certain circumstances (honor killings). They point to the recent story of the Pakistani man who killed his wife and claims the USA cannot try him because Islam gave him the right to kill his wife. (http://nypost.com/2014/05/21/man-charged-with-killing-wife-after-she-made-him-the-wrong-dinner/)
Here are a few websites: Please check them out. They are not all anti-Islamic sites.
http://islamqa.info/en/cat/218
http://www.justaskislam.com/
http://www.askthesheikh.com/
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html (Child Marriage)
http://www.muslim-marriage-guide.com/marriage-age.html (Marriage Age)
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_women_have_rights.php (Women’s Rights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ (rules for beating your wife)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58 (More rules for wife beating)
We have debated this on another site and the vast majority supports the concept of a cult over a religion. Keep in mind that we don’t get to make that decision under the law. it is only a personal opinion on the anti-Islam side.
The people who have discussed this with me, and support Islam as a religion, and say it is due full protection under the law, even though Muslims are causing problems across Europe and now in the USA, state that under The Five Pillars of Islam they express the same tenants of the religion that other major religions state. They have virtually nothing else to add.
The majority on that web site…
Many consider Islam a cult with Satan because behind The Five Pillars of Islam is a male dominated/sexually rewarding Islam. Here are some points to consider:
Muslim men may have multiple wives. Muslim men may have a child as a wife. Muslim men may engage in gay relationships while married to a woman. Muslim men may engage in sex with a prostitute. In addition, men who die killing infidels are given an “E” ticket to heaven where they are rewarded with virgins and an eternal erection. (Yes it does say that). The question asked is, “What kind of religion awards its male member with sexual favors?” For that reason they call it a cult with Satan.
Another point brought out against Islam was that Islam calls for world domination and that the infidel must be either killed or they must pay tribute to Islam. No other religion calls for world domination or making people pay tribute.
Muslim men have been given absolute domain over women to the point that they may beat a woman and even have the right kill a female member of the family without fear of the law under certain circumstances (honor killings). They point to the recent story of the Pakistani man who killed his wife and claims the USA cannot try him because Islam gave him the right to kill his wife. (http://nypost.com/2014/05/21/man-charged-with-killing-wife-after-she-made-him-the-wrong-dinner/)
Here are a few websites: Please check them out. They are not all anti-Islamic sites.
http://islamqa.info/en/cat/218
http://www.justaskislam.com/
http://www.askthesheikh.com/
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/10/02/sharia-law-has-led-to-the-legislation-of-child-marriage-in-6-countries.html (Child Marriage)
http://www.muslim-marriage-guide.com/marriage-age.html (Marriage Age)
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_women_have_rights.php (Women’s Rights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ (rules for beating your wife)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58 (More rules for wife beating)
We have debated this on another site and the vast majority supports the concept of a cult over a religion. Keep in mind that we don’t get to make that decision under the law. it is only a personal opinion on the anti-Islam side.
Man killed wife for making vegetarian dinner: prosecutors
A Pakistani immigrant beat his wife to death in their Brooklyn home after she made the mistake of cooking him lentils for dinner instead of the hearty meal of goat meat that he craved, according to...
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Chowdhury, you just proved my point. Attacks ARE conducted by Muslim perpetrators every day. I did NOT say specifically against the U.S. or similar. The simple fact is the bulk of "terrorist" activities and violence IS perpetrated by Islamic followers. I am not in any way saying that to demean other Muslims who are truly peaceful but to illustrate a very simple fact. You can deny it all you want but the truth is out there.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
CPT Shahriar Chowdhury There are not terrorists attacks by people of all faiths everyday but there are attacks by Militant Muslims that happen regularly. More regularly than any other faith in the world, hands down.
If you go to the sites http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm, http://nctc.gov/site/groups/index.html
Look at the people on these lists. (Almost exclusively Muslim) and by our own State Department and government generally.l
While they are groups even here like the KKK an example, these are so marginalized or underground, that they are no large threat. As unsavory as they may be, they have a right to exist, even though I detest their hate and wish they are gone, forever.
This bit about Muslim on Muslim terrorism is only partly correct. And thankfully women around the world and especially in the more Muslim countries are fighting back. Against Al Kaeda .
Al Jazeera did an article on YouTube decrying Jordan's rank abuse of Fillipino women. Also here is another case in Sri Lanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AJ0fiXVWrY
If you go to the sites http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm, http://nctc.gov/site/groups/index.html
Look at the people on these lists. (Almost exclusively Muslim) and by our own State Department and government generally.l
While they are groups even here like the KKK an example, these are so marginalized or underground, that they are no large threat. As unsavory as they may be, they have a right to exist, even though I detest their hate and wish they are gone, forever.
This bit about Muslim on Muslim terrorism is only partly correct. And thankfully women around the world and especially in the more Muslim countries are fighting back. Against Al Kaeda .
Al Jazeera did an article on YouTube decrying Jordan's rank abuse of Fillipino women. Also here is another case in Sri Lanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AJ0fiXVWrY
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
One thing you have to understand is a religion will reflect the culture that birthed it. Islam started as a Bedouin religion and reflects the values and ideals of the Arab peninsula at the time. Male domination was very common in Judaisim and Christianity as well until reform movements changed things.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I almost didn't respond to this post but you have me wondering. Why would it not be considered a "legitimate" religion? And secondly, why would it not be protected by the Bill of Rights? Who are we to decide what is and what isn't a "legitimate" religion? Look around you, there are groups of people who believe in a collective thought that are then classified as a region. Some good, some not so good.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Shahriar Chowdhury Certainly.
Joseph Stack was NOT a terrorist because he was one of US and not one of THEM. Luis Posada Carriles was NOT a terrorist because he was one of US and not one of THEM.
An "Enhanced Interrogation Technique" involving covering a prisoner's face with a cloth and then pouring water over the cloth so that the prisoner cannot breathe IS NOT torture because WE do it. "Waterboarding" involving covering a prisoner's face with a cloth and then pouring water over the cloth so that the prisoner cannot breathe IS torture because THEY do it.
Have I dealt with your examples.
On the other hand the US government DOES have a "legal opinion" saying that it was OK to do what it did. [Please bear in mind that that "legal opinion" was obtained from employees of the US government and that the standard "legal opinion" plus $1.75 will get you a short ride on MetroRail.]
PS - A "Detainee" IS NOT a "Prisoner" because a "Detainee" has not been charged with or convicted of doing anything whatsoever and the people in charge of running the facility wherein the "Detainee" is "housed" have absolutely no obligation to either have the "Detainee" charged/convicted of something and/or release the "Detainee" under any known actual or theoretical circumstances.
Joseph Stack was NOT a terrorist because he was one of US and not one of THEM. Luis Posada Carriles was NOT a terrorist because he was one of US and not one of THEM.
An "Enhanced Interrogation Technique" involving covering a prisoner's face with a cloth and then pouring water over the cloth so that the prisoner cannot breathe IS NOT torture because WE do it. "Waterboarding" involving covering a prisoner's face with a cloth and then pouring water over the cloth so that the prisoner cannot breathe IS torture because THEY do it.
Have I dealt with your examples.
On the other hand the US government DOES have a "legal opinion" saying that it was OK to do what it did. [Please bear in mind that that "legal opinion" was obtained from employees of the US government and that the standard "legal opinion" plus $1.75 will get you a short ride on MetroRail.]
PS - A "Detainee" IS NOT a "Prisoner" because a "Detainee" has not been charged with or convicted of doing anything whatsoever and the people in charge of running the facility wherein the "Detainee" is "housed" have absolutely no obligation to either have the "Detainee" charged/convicted of something and/or release the "Detainee" under any known actual or theoretical circumstances.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Shahriar Chowdhury Captain - You appear to missed the implication of writing "US" and "THEM" in the format I used.
Quite simply "US" means "NOT THEM" and "THEM" means "NOT US".
If you don't apply the same approbation to "X" as you do to "Y" when "X"
and "Y" have committed equivalent acts then you are "accepting" that "X" is "US" and "Y" is "THEM" - no matter what you say otherwise.
Condemning "A" as a terrorist for blowing up an aircraft and killing dozens of people while offering "B" sanctuary and immunity from prosecution arising from the fact that they blew up an aircraft and killed dozens of people means that "A" is "THEM" and "B" is "US".
The violent criminal who the members of their own socioeconomic/cultural/ethnic/racial community do not turned in for trial and potential punishment enjoys the status of "US" (especially when the mechanism of trial and potential punishment enjoys the status of "THEM").
Where I am currently living there is a large "racial/cultural/ethnic" population where it is considered dishonourable to bring dishonour on other people and turning in a violent criminal is considered to be an action which brings dishonour on the criminal's (innocent) parents and (innocent) family. Needless to say this makes it somewhat difficult for the police to actually solve any major crimes involving that "racial/cultural/ethnic" community.
Quite simply "US" means "NOT THEM" and "THEM" means "NOT US".
If you don't apply the same approbation to "X" as you do to "Y" when "X"
and "Y" have committed equivalent acts then you are "accepting" that "X" is "US" and "Y" is "THEM" - no matter what you say otherwise.
Condemning "A" as a terrorist for blowing up an aircraft and killing dozens of people while offering "B" sanctuary and immunity from prosecution arising from the fact that they blew up an aircraft and killed dozens of people means that "A" is "THEM" and "B" is "US".
The violent criminal who the members of their own socioeconomic/cultural/ethnic/racial community do not turned in for trial and potential punishment enjoys the status of "US" (especially when the mechanism of trial and potential punishment enjoys the status of "THEM").
Where I am currently living there is a large "racial/cultural/ethnic" population where it is considered dishonourable to bring dishonour on other people and turning in a violent criminal is considered to be an action which brings dishonour on the criminal's (innocent) parents and (innocent) family. Needless to say this makes it somewhat difficult for the police to actually solve any major crimes involving that "racial/cultural/ethnic" community.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Chowdhury, reading through all the comments above, at least TWICE, in order to gauge everyone's perspective, I do not see ANYTHING by COL Ted Mc justifying Joseph Stack's actions or suggesting otherwise. That is very dishonest of you to allege it. As YOU stated a couple comments above, go read through ALL the comments and find where he justifies those actions.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm unwilling to pass such a judgment on the religions of others, if only to avoid having the same done to my own creed.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I do not believe it is the right of anyone to stipulate a "legitimate" religion. Everyone has a right to believe a certain way. That belief system may not fall in line with any "established" religions. Stipulating whether a certain religion is legitimate undermines the premise of religious liberty.
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
We agree on much SSgt (Join to see), but might I suggest that if a "religion" advocates the brutal slaughter of unbelievers (which is a violation of Natural Law as well as our own Constitutional Law, which you defend, and the laws of every other civilized nation on Earth) and recognizes no authority on Earth other than its own, I don't see how you could call that a "legitimate" religion... by definition.
The reason moderate Muslims aren't quick to condemn ISIS in more than just words is that ISIS is taking what is written in the Qu'ran and is faithfully executing (no pun intended ; ) its Sharia system of justice as taught by Muhammed. As much blood as they have on their hands, it is all done in the name of their god Allah, and following the example of Muhammed who in Islam is the man every Muslim man should pattern themselves after.
The ONLY Muslims that are beginning to comdemn ISIS in more than just empty words are those whose grip on power is threatened by ISIS... namely the Saudis whose rule is being challenged by an increasingly unhappy majority of Saudis resentful of the royal families grip on power and wealth which they feel should be shared more with them and the Pakistanis whose country likewise is being threatened by radical elements within their borders.
If you have time, read the Qu'ran. It is a relatively short read as compared to the Holy Bible. The Qu'ran is approx 600 pages long and contains 114 chapters, 6,236 verses. Even at 600 pages, it is a relatively fast read due to all the white space on the pages. If you are familiar with the Bible, you'll probably want to get familiar with the different names used for Biblical characters: for ex. Dawud (David) and Talut (Goliath).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_in_both_the_Bible_and_the_Quran
By comparison, the Holy Bible is at least double that in length. The KJV Bible contains 66 books (39 OT and 27 NT), 1,189 chapters (929 OT and 260 NT) and 31,102 verses (23,145 OT and 7,957 NT) and is about 1,360 pages long.
You might find this to be enlightening as well: a list of verses that contradict other verses in the Qu'ran.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
The reason moderate Muslims aren't quick to condemn ISIS in more than just words is that ISIS is taking what is written in the Qu'ran and is faithfully executing (no pun intended ; ) its Sharia system of justice as taught by Muhammed. As much blood as they have on their hands, it is all done in the name of their god Allah, and following the example of Muhammed who in Islam is the man every Muslim man should pattern themselves after.
The ONLY Muslims that are beginning to comdemn ISIS in more than just empty words are those whose grip on power is threatened by ISIS... namely the Saudis whose rule is being challenged by an increasingly unhappy majority of Saudis resentful of the royal families grip on power and wealth which they feel should be shared more with them and the Pakistanis whose country likewise is being threatened by radical elements within their borders.
If you have time, read the Qu'ran. It is a relatively short read as compared to the Holy Bible. The Qu'ran is approx 600 pages long and contains 114 chapters, 6,236 verses. Even at 600 pages, it is a relatively fast read due to all the white space on the pages. If you are familiar with the Bible, you'll probably want to get familiar with the different names used for Biblical characters: for ex. Dawud (David) and Talut (Goliath).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_in_both_the_Bible_and_the_Quran
By comparison, the Holy Bible is at least double that in length. The KJV Bible contains 66 books (39 OT and 27 NT), 1,189 chapters (929 OT and 260 NT) and 31,102 verses (23,145 OT and 7,957 NT) and is about 1,360 pages long.
You might find this to be enlightening as well: a list of verses that contradict other verses in the Qu'ran.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
List of people in both the Bible and the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eve, Sarah, Zipporah, Elizabeth, Jochebed, Lot's wife and Noah's wife are mentioned, but unnamed in the Qur'an. Eve and Elizabeth have the names Ḥawwā’ and Al-usabat, respectively, in Islamic tradition.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Man, I was all excited to come in to what I thought was going to be some good, bloody, RallyPoint discussions action... but everyone's pretty much spot on regarding Islam, and the Bill of Rights. Like most things the actions of a few shitheads shouldn't fuck it up for others. There's even violent Buddhist extremists out there.
(2)
(0)
LCpl (Join to see)
The religious situation on the ground for the Japanese is kinda weird. It's always been a unique cultural mix of Shinto and Buddhism.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It's more of a radical cult. It may be a religion but it is an anti-christian religion. It promotes the exact opposite of societies values. Islam has no place in the post Iron Age world.
Some say Islam isn't really like that, I say pick up a news paper from almost any country, any day and repeat that.
Some say Islam isn't really like that, I say pick up a news paper from almost any country, any day and repeat that.
(2)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
Just as a side note, a friend of mine was one of those shot by an Afghan soldier who was supposed to be on our side. There were three Americans there at the time and the Afghan soldier tried to kill all of them. Fortunately, the Afghan was killed and the three Americans suffered different degrees of wounds. You will never convince him, and many like him that Islam is a religion of peace. He does not recognize it as a religion regardless of the labels Moderate and Radical or by sect such as Shiite or Sunni. To him, all Muslims have to be watched at all times. We get more and more like him as the deployments to the Middle East continue.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
GySgt William Hardy You say "We see the radical side and like you I see the radical Islamics as a cult. All rewards are sexual in nature and allow for things the Western World deems very inappropriate such as being allowed to marry little girls and even having sex with them by the age of 9 or so, depending on what Cleric is doing the talking."
And I can tell what you are trying to say. HOWEVER, you should also be aware that under the canons of "Christianity" (including the laws in effect at the formation of the United States of America) the legal age for a female to marry (with parental consent, of course) was 12 [and that could be lowered to 7 under some circumstances ]
And I can tell what you are trying to say. HOWEVER, you should also be aware that under the canons of "Christianity" (including the laws in effect at the formation of the United States of America) the legal age for a female to marry (with parental consent, of course) was 12 [and that could be lowered to 7 under some circumstances ]
(0)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
I do not disagree with your point and actually agree with it, but also realize that as religion evolved and civilization evolved, things changed. For example, the concept of a childhood use to be until the child reached an age where they could begin helping the family . . . today the concept of a childhood has been extended to 18 or later depending upon where you are. There was a time when women were considered old enough for marriage by puberty and today we would call a man a pedophile if he thought that...times change and so do our concepts. Most Christians and Jews would not advocate what we would call child marriage in today's world while in many parts of the world it would be acceptable.
Most Western practices have evolved and is in conflict with radical Islam on many levels, but perhaps the open executions in the name of Allah among the radicals is the most disturbing.
Should we accept their practice of child brides? We forbid Mormons and others from taking more than one wife. Would we jump in and say that if a Muslim took a child bride of say 13 and consummated that marriage that the man would be tried as a pedophile? Some are saying that religion is a private matter, but It is more public than most would want to believe.
Just as late as in the early 20th Century an American judge ruled that it was OK to beat your wife as long as the stick was no bigger than your thumb.
Most Western practices have evolved and is in conflict with radical Islam on many levels, but perhaps the open executions in the name of Allah among the radicals is the most disturbing.
Should we accept their practice of child brides? We forbid Mormons and others from taking more than one wife. Would we jump in and say that if a Muslim took a child bride of say 13 and consummated that marriage that the man would be tried as a pedophile? Some are saying that religion is a private matter, but It is more public than most would want to believe.
Just as late as in the early 20th Century an American judge ruled that it was OK to beat your wife as long as the stick was no bigger than your thumb.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"It's more of a radical cult. It may be a religion but it is an anti-christian religion."
Actually Islam has a lot in common with Christianity.
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian[1] origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[2] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They comprise one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian[3] and East Asian religions.[3] Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions.[4][5][6]
The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (1st millennium BC)[specify], Christianity (1st century AD) and Islam (7th century AD).[7]
The historical interaction of Islam and Judaism started in the 7th century CE with the origin and spread of Islam. There are many common aspects between Islam and Judaism, and as Islam developed, it gradually became the major religion closest to Judaism. As opposed to Christianity, which originated from interaction between ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew cultures, Judaism is very similar to Islam in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice.[4] There are many traditions within Islam originating from traditions within the Hebrew Bible or from post-biblical Jewish traditions. These practices are known collectively as the Isra'iliyat.[5]
The historical interaction between Christianity and Islam connects fundamental ideas in Christianity with similar ones in Islam. Islam accepts many aspects of Christianity as part of its faith - with some differences in interpretation - and rejects other aspects. Islam believes the Qur'an is the final revelation from God and a completion of all previous revelations, including the Bible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
Walt
Actually Islam has a lot in common with Christianity.
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian[1] origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[2] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They comprise one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian[3] and East Asian religions.[3] Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions.[4][5][6]
The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (1st millennium BC)[specify], Christianity (1st century AD) and Islam (7th century AD).[7]
The historical interaction of Islam and Judaism started in the 7th century CE with the origin and spread of Islam. There are many common aspects between Islam and Judaism, and as Islam developed, it gradually became the major religion closest to Judaism. As opposed to Christianity, which originated from interaction between ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew cultures, Judaism is very similar to Islam in its fundamental religious outlook, structure, jurisprudence and practice.[4] There are many traditions within Islam originating from traditions within the Hebrew Bible or from post-biblical Jewish traditions. These practices are known collectively as the Isra'iliyat.[5]
The historical interaction between Christianity and Islam connects fundamental ideas in Christianity with similar ones in Islam. Islam accepts many aspects of Christianity as part of its faith - with some differences in interpretation - and rejects other aspects. Islam believes the Qur'an is the final revelation from God and a completion of all previous revelations, including the Bible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
Walt
Comparative religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Comparative religion is the branch of the study of religions concerned with the systematic comparison of the doctrines and practices of the world's religions. In general the comparative study of religion yields a deeper understanding of the fundamental philosophical concerns of religion such as ethics, metaphysics, and the nature and form of salvation. Studying such material is meant to give one a richer and more sophisticated understanding of...
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There is nothing wrong with Islam as religion.... the problem like in any other faith is the redicals and stupid exstrimrst that use it in a twisted way to achive power !
(2)
(0)
Candy Alkaabi
Yes, we all have our black sheep no matter the faith, culture, or ethnicity. The thing to do is to not allow those black sheep to overtake our lives!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It is certainly a legitimate religion, definitely more so than the fictitious Pastafarianism or counter-Christian Satanism that continues to gain governmental acceptance.
Islam has been around since the 1st Century AD and is an Abrahamic religion in that Muslims claim Abraham as their patriarch as do Jews. The difference between Judaism and Islam is that Jews worship Yahweh as the one true God, and Muslims worship Allah (who is a different entity from Yahweh altogether).
Islam is most certainly protected under the First Amendment Freedom of Religion clause.
Islam has been around since the 1st Century AD and is an Abrahamic religion in that Muslims claim Abraham as their patriarch as do Jews. The difference between Judaism and Islam is that Jews worship Yahweh as the one true God, and Muslims worship Allah (who is a different entity from Yahweh altogether).
Islam is most certainly protected under the First Amendment Freedom of Religion clause.
(2)
(0)
1LT Nick Kidwell
You're either being deliberately obtuse for the sake of trolling, or are pathologically argumentative.
Either way, my part of this subthread is done.
Either way, my part of this subthread is done.
(2)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
We The People ARE the government. Those we elect come from us and are paid by our taxes. [Those in Washington DC clearly have forgotten what their job descriptions are and have done a pretty pathetic job of maintaining a budget and representing the people's interest but that's a whole other discussion...]
It IS OUR place to say what IS and IS NOT valid. WE make the rules... And the majority of Americans do NOT want to live under Sharia Law.
It IS OUR place to say what IS and IS NOT valid. WE make the rules... And the majority of Americans do NOT want to live under Sharia Law.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
1LT Nick Kidwell What is wrong with this sentence, "Islam has been around since the 1st Century AD?"
Might help to brush up on your knowledge of Islam.
Might help to brush up on your knowledge of Islam.
(0)
(0)
1LT Nick Kidwell
So I was off by about 600 years. The most plausible explanation is that a month ago I was looking at a timeline of world religions and I mixed up the timeline of Christianity and Islam. I should have caught that.
The overall point that it is a well-established world religion still stands.
The overall point that it is a well-established world religion still stands.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm with the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Yes I consider it real...religion basically is nothing more than belief in a higher being/beings. In my mind all religions are inherently the same it's just a matter of what you buy into/believe. And if something is defined as religion then yes it is protected.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Honestly...yes. I don't have to agree with anyone's beliefs any more than anyone else has to agree with mine.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google