• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Islam protected by the Constitution?

CLAX1911 said:
No it isn't I've heard you repeat the same crap over and over again it's wrong every time you repeat it so I think the conversation is over
Click to expand...
Facts:

Preventing congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, protects religion.

Islam is a religion.

Islam is protected.
 
Excon said:
It could be as simple as excluding any belief system that calls for laying in ambush of non-believers, or any belief system that has an open call for the making war upon those who do not believe, etc... They are more than a few ways they could define religion to exclude Islam.
But as I said, it likely would be challenged. Not that the challenge would be successful.
Click to expand...
Right, theoretically they could come up with a definition of a "right to bare arms" that doesn't allow people to own guns. That's totally obvious.

The problem though is that you don't seem to understand how "free exercise of religion" is defined by the courts. If for example, "observing Ramadan" was legally recognized as protected expression of religion, any other idle opinions about religion or "Islam" in general wouldn't matter.

Observing Ramadan would be legally protected, while killing infidels would not, and neither would mutually exclude each other. It's pretty simple.
 
Boss said:
Right, theoretically they could come up with a definition of a "right to bare arms" that doesn't allow people to own guns. That's totally obvious.

The problem though is that you don't seem to understand how "free exercise of religion" is defined by the courts. If for example, "observing Ramadan" was legally recognized as protected expression of religion, any other idle opinions about religion or "Islam" in general wouldn't matter.

Observing Ramadan would be legally protected, while killing infidels would not, and neither would mutually exclude each other. It's pretty simple.
Click to expand...
You are sorely confused.
If religion is defined to excluded Islam, those rulings would then no longer apply to the practice of Islam as it would no longer be considered a religion.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't think you understand the concept of negative and positive rights
Click to expand...
I don't care about childish false dichotomies to begin with.

I didn't learn about it until I got into an argument with somebody about it so maybe you should take this time to expand your knowledge.

I genuinely wish you the best.

But the conversation is pretty much over is just repeating the same things and I'm just not accepting them so at this point the only logical thing to do is agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I think you learned from the wrong person. There are a lot of cranks out there making terrible arguments.

All of the enumerated rights in the Constitution require "positive" enforcement. Which is what a court system, law enforcement, and military protection of such rights are to begin with.

For example, if a state illegally banned guns or criminalized same-sex marriage, its citizens would be entitled to have the federal court system which they presumably pay into overturn such laws on the basis of them being unconstitutional.

Arguing otherwise would be absurdity and means the rights don't exist except on paper. For example:

"HI we'd like to sell you some fire insurance for your home. Oh, but if your house burns down, we don't have to pay you any money. Deal?"

As far as learning about negative and positive rights I hope that our conversation does encourage you to read and learn about it. If you Google those phrases it will connect you with some philosophers that you don't have to agree with but reading other people's philosophy does help you formulate your own.

So agreed to disagree and I encourage you to pursue knowledge always a noble pursuit, and thanks for the conversation
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Boss said:
I don't care about childish false dichotomies to begin with.


I think you learned from the wrong person. There are a lot of cranks out there making terrible arguments.

All of the enumerated rights in the Constitution require "positive" enforcement.

For example, if a state illegally banned guns or criminalized same-sex marriage, its citizens would be entitled to have the federal court system which they presumably pay into overturn such laws on the basis of them being unconstitutional.

Arguing otherwise would be absurdity such as this:

"HI we'd like to sell you some fire insurance for your home. Oh, but if your house burns down, we don't have to pay you any money. Deal?"


Fair enough.
Click to expand...
At this point I no longer argue I've made my point you've made yours I don't agree with you so we just move on.
 
Peter King said:
Democratic parties of muslims prove differently.
Click to expand...

Errmmmm, no. A verses from the Qur'an (as requested) would prove differently.

Peter King said:
And just like christian fundamentalists they too have the right to be fundamentalists as long as they do not violate laws. And even if they are not progressive, there are also plenty of non-muslim politicians who are far from progressive. There are muslim political parties who just want to give muslims a voice in parliament.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Excon said:
You are sorely confused.
If religion is defined to excluded Islam, those rulings would then no longer apply to the practice of Islam as it would no longer be considered a religion.
Click to expand...
You realize that any definition of religion that congress came up with that excluded one of the world's major religions would be a clear violation of the 1st ammendment right?

As Boss suggested, how about we redefine arms so that it includes only single shot 22s. Then only single shot 22s would be protected by the 2nd.

Does that make sense to you?
 
stevecanuck said:
Errmmmm, no. A verses from the Qur'an (as requested) would prove differently.
Click to expand...
Fail B)

Just idly pointing out verses often devoid of interpretation means nothing in the real world or what the law recognizes as protected expressions of religion.

As far as the Bible goes, Jesus called on a minority of followers to leave their families and material possessions and follow him. So while one "could" use that to argue on personal opinion that only a minority of disciplined ascetics who shun all worldly life are "true Christians", it wouldn't have any bearing in the real world or in regards to what are considered protected expressions of Christianity under the law.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It's not a question of if it were true, it is.
Click to expand...

Oopsy, you forgot to answer this part - "How does it mitigate the fact that Islamic armies conducted invasions as demanded of them by Allah?"

Jredbaron96 said:
If you think Islam has not changed over the past millennia I really don't know what to tell you, other than you should read something other than a blog or religionofpeace.com.
Click to expand...

Try to follow the logic:

The Qur'an was created for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam.
The Qur'an has not changed.
Therefore Islam has not changed.
Some things are as straight forward as they appear. This is one of them.

Mohamed and his Merry Men raided, killed, raped, and looted.
ISIS followed their lead and raided, killed, raped, and looted.

Not seeing much of change there. Are you?

Jredbaron96 said:
Your desperation to single out the history of Islam as excessively violent is not supported by the historical evidence. I realize this blows a hole in your claims, but oh well.
Click to expand...

Gratuitous denial and ad hom. The last refuge of those who simply don't have an argument.

In the last 1400 years Muslim armies, acting on orders from Allah as delineated in the Qur'an, has killed and/or subjugated many, many millions. Crack a book.
 
stevecanuck said:
Oopsy, you forgot to answer this part - "How does it mitigate the fact that Islamic armies conducted invasions as demanded of them by Allah?"
Click to expand...

Who led the Arabs into battle, Allah or their generals?

Try to follow the logic:

The Qur'an was created for the sole purpose of creating and defining Islam.
The Qur'an has not changed.
Click to expand...

The Koran is written word. Those words carry within themselves different meanings for different people. If they did not, Islam would not consist of different sects.

In the last 1400 years Muslim armies, acting on orders from Allah as delineated in the Qur'an, has killed and/or subjugated many, many millions. Crack a book.
Click to expand...

I have several books on world history, including some specifically on Islam. That's why I can say with confidence that the Muslim Arams, or indeed the Muslim Caliphates in general, were not exceptional in this capacity. Where are your tears and whine for those enslaved or subjugated by the Romans, the Mongols, or the British?

You have none, of course, because such incidents only concern you if they were perpetrated by Muslims. For some reason the crimes and deeds of countless others might as well have not happened.
 
NolanVoyd said:
You realize that any definition of religion that congress came up with that excluded one of the world's major religions would be a clear violation of the 1st ammendment right?
Click to expand...
iLOL
Prove it.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
Prove it.
Click to expand...
How about we redefine arms so that it includes only single shot 22s. Then only single shot 22s would be protected by the 2nd.

Does that make sense to you?
 
NolanVoyd said:
How about we redefine arms so that it includes only single shot 22s. Then only single shot 22s would be protected by the 2nd.

Does that make sense to you?
Click to expand...
Not the topic of the thread. Islam is.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Right.

It's an analogy.

Your answer will prove my point about the constitution andIslam.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant what you think it is.
The thread is about Islam, not guns.
Stop trying to deflect.
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant what you think it is.
The thread is about Islam, not guns.
Stop trying to deflect.
Click to expand...

The analogy will prove my point about Islam and the constitution.

You know that. Which is why you won't answer. You would prove yourself wrong and you know it.

Case closed.
 
NolanVoyd said:
The analogy will prove my point about Islam and the constitution.

You know that. Which is why you won't answer. You would prove yourself wrong and you know it.

Case closed.
Click to expand...
It literally can't prove your invalid point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom