• 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!

Tony Perkins: US Constitution Doesn't Protect Muslims

You only speak of fear.

Because it's what drives your irrational bigotry.

You don't know who I would target, so YOU can keep your trap shut as well.

You've made it perfectly clear who you would target.

What do you not get about those who give aid and comfort, those who harbor our enemies? Its in plain English. I would not be any easier on Radical Islamists than we were and have been on the Communists or the KKK.

You, like your tribe of fellow libs from la la land just love to make stuff up, to slant the other persons words to fit your imbecilic comic book caricatures that you associate with this side. Again, who said anything about targeting a minority group? Besides which, with over a billion adherents worldwide, Islam is hardly in the minority category. And citizens are just that, citizens of THIS country. We have no further obligation to citizens of other countries than their rights always coming in second behind the rights of the citizens of our own country.

Your ideals are those of a big bloated thin skinned gasbag. One prick, and your side is loaded with them, and the whole thing flibber flabbers all over the place until all the hot air has escaped.

NOT A SINGLE SOLUTION PROFFERED. Just attack anybody attempting a solution. Anyone else notice that?

You can continue to justify your bigotry and your clear desire to target and attack a minority you perceive of being dangerous with your mountain of words with no meaning.

But you will be opposed.

Not just by me, by politicians in your own country, by lawyers, by judges, by everyday citizens and by the constitution itself.

The world has never been made better or safer by the destruction or removal of a minority group.

The only one filled with hot air here is you.
 
The internment camps were a bad idea at best.

The Supreme Court sure as **** wasn't going to argue with FDR in wake of Pearl Harbor. Nobody was willing to.

Pretty sure we aren't going to "lose to Islamic terrorists" if we don't sink to their level.
Monday morning quarterbacking is far too easy to do from this distance, with all settled and done. NOBODY KNEW THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR, ESPECIALLY EARLY ON...nor did anybody know who exactly the enemy was. Like now.

Our government considered the camps for the Italians and Germans as well, but just too many, tens of millions and spread out all over the US. Our Asian, specifically Japanese and Japanese American populations were concentrated in a somewhat manageable grouping, about 125 thousand, on our West Coasts.

It was not the correct solution, certainly in hindsight, but survival of the nation is your first instinct... and its not an entirely improper one, while again, being instinctual.

The camps, while enforced confinement, were pretty open and lively... they might look rather bleak from modern view and standards, but if you looked at the spartan camps millions of our boys lived in during the Depression just prior, in those of Civilian Conservation Corps days, they didn't compare unfavorably, in fact are pretty much indistinguishable accommodations and working conditions.

The Supreme Court decision was after the court packing incident when FDR got a dose of reality from the American people. But yeah, still the court had changed with that FDR threat and yet, the court also understood existential war time threats as well.

We are not even close to sinking to Islamic terrorist level, please.
 
You clearly have an anger management issue. Getting personal, insulting people that you'll never meet on the Internet is a sign of a character flaw.
No, when you try to go where you were trying to go, and think you can get away with a comment like that... not on your life, bub.

You want to be all nice nice? Well then THINK before you type such stupidity on the page, yano? You have no right, and certainly not my permission, to be putting words nor implications about myself anywhere. You just don't have the knowledge to get there from here.
 
Bad analogy; there is nowhere to drop a bomb this time. Any attempt to single out one religious group will be fiercely opposed by all who value religious freedom in this country. The threat you perceive is an illusion. We will never be able to "quarantine" all those that you mistakenly deem a potential threat. You have no viable plan that realistically could be put in place politically or logistically. It is a non-starter.
What is it about you folks... cannot think deeply enough to even try to see the difference between radical Islamists and an ENTIRE RELIGION? But those two are exactly the same to you, are they? I can only imagine the frustration of a rock climber trying to drive a piton into something as hard as some of y'alls heads when it comes to this lazy interpretation.

You also do not have a clue as to what plan could be put in place as you have no idea, reference above, EVEN what is actually being said. So, until you can work that out, please do us both a favor and refrain from responding. So far your post is just a waste of both of our time.
 
Because it's what drives your irrational bigotry.



You've made it perfectly clear who you would target.



You can continue to justify your bigotry and your clear desire to target and attack a minority you perceive of being dangerous with your mountain of words with no meaning.

But you will be opposed.

Not just by me, by politicians in your own country, by lawyers, by judges, by everyday citizens and by the constitution itself.

The world has never been made better or safer by the destruction or removal of a minority group.

The only one filled with hot air here is you.
Give me your solutions or please just please shut up. Your false whimpering and calls of bigotry solely to avoid saying much of anything productive are just too too annoying.
 
What is it about you folks... cannot think deeply enough to even try to see the difference between radical Islamists and an ENTIRE RELIGION? But those two are exactly the same to you, are they? I can only imagine the frustration of a rock climber trying to drive a piton into something as hard as some of y'alls heads when it comes to this lazy interpretation.

You also do not have a clue as to what plan could be put in place as you have no idea, reference above, EVEN what is actually being said. So, until you can work that out, please do us both a favor and refrain from responding. So far your post is just a waste of both of our time.

So your entire argument appears to be that if one don't have a solution to radical Islam, they are not allowed to disagree with Perkins' moronic premise. Understood.
 
Sorry, my version wasn't quite as long-winded and up its own ass as yours was.
Mine was about something, yours was just an asinine attempt. At what, who knows? It sadens but more frustrates that humanity has yet to invent the words that aptly describe the combination of your purposelessness at, and inability to, actually debate. Simply non-discursive.
 
In a way, he's correct, in that the US Constitution protects ALL people and ALL religions equally - I don't think that's what he meant though.

He probably didn't mean it in the way he's being portrayed. Leftists generally hate Christians anyway, so you really can't trust any of them.
 
Tony Perkins: US Constitution Doesn't Protect Muslims | Right Wing Watch

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, who now styles himself as an Islamic scholar, said on his “Washington Watch” radio show yesterday that members of militant groups like ISIS are the real Muslims who are truly “practicing their faith.”

Islam is such a danger, Perkins explained, that Muslim-Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens

Tony Perkins is an idiot. The Constitution protects pedophiles, drug addicted thieves, President Obama and others who hate America and it certainly gives exactly the same protections to Muslims.
 
Tony Perkins is an idiot. The Constitution protects pedophiles, drug addicted thieves, President Obama and others who hate America and it certainly gives exactly the same protections to Muslims.

This is true and its a good thing in many ways, I love the constitution, but if I could change one thing I would remove the word religion from the 1st amendment.
 
What is it about you folks... cannot think deeply enough to even try to see the difference between radical Islamists and an ENTIRE RELIGION? But those two are exactly the same to you, are they? I can only imagine the frustration of a rock climber trying to drive a piton into something as hard as some of y'alls heads when it comes to this lazy interpretation.

You also do not have a clue as to what plan could be put in place as you have no idea, reference above, EVEN what is actually being said. So, until you can work that out, please do us both a favor and refrain from responding. So far your post is just a waste of both of our time.

You have no plan either. If it was easy as you think, it would be in place already. The real problem is that it isn't so easy to identify all radical muslims or radicals of any kind. There is enough spying on Americans going on as it is, which is an erosion of basic freedom. We do not face an existential threat from radical muslims or any other radicals. We do face a threat of sporadic, random violence by terrorists, but unless we are willing to become a police state, there is no easy solution to identify every threat and anticipate it. There is a much greater risk that we sacrifice freedom for secuity, thus getting neither.
 
You have no plan either. If it was easy as you think, it would be in place already. The real problem is that it isn't so easy to identify all radical muslims or radicals of any kind. There is enough spying on Americans going on as it is, which is an erosion of basic freedom. We do not face an existential threat from radical muslims or any other radicals. We do face a threat of sporadic, random violence by terrorists, but unless we are willing to become a police state, there is no easy solution to identify every threat and anticipate it. There is a much greater risk that we sacrifice freedom for secuity, thus getting neither.
Lets break that down . Your statement, “You have no plan eitheris an admission: you have NO plan.

“My plan” would include an exclusion of immigration from potentially infected areas and peoples. We have no obligation to accept ANYBODY under constitutional responsibility. If we felt we wanted to be equal to all, lets have a moratorium on all immigration until we can get a handle on the problem. At least to areas where a proper background investigation, at applicant's expense, could be obtained. Congress can exclude anybody not a citizen that it feels appropriate to American security. Show me in the constitution where it prohibits that for starters.

Where there may assemble individuals into groups to do the American citizen harm, we should be monitoring those with proper zeal, just as we did with the, even more difficult to identify, threats of communism and, to a lesser extent, the KKK.

You, by your statements here, are saying we should have just ignored both. The KKK just presented sporadic violence against an identifiably small group of Americans, so just ignore it, eh? The KKK presented no existential threat whatsoever. And communism, what violence had they displayed against the American people?

Nobody says there is an easy answer to these questions of defending the American people. But there is ONE HELL OF A LOT OF DIFFERENCE between doing things that would certainly assure more security... at no expense to American citizen liberties... and doing nothing, as you seem to suggest.

And you didn't say, do you now understand the difference between an entire religion and a radical group pledging to do harm to the nonbelievers in general, to the US and its citizens in specific?

We will only have to become a police state if we continue to allow those who would do us harm to come in numbers, unfiltered, into the United States. Do you use a filter for your water? Why, because you are prejudiced against all the water not presently in your home... or are you trying to prevent potential health problems?
 
Back
Top Bottom