Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By posylady

Thread: HOUSE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

    The Democrats appear to be guilty of violating the First Amendment by promoting Islam over other religions, a violation of their oaths of office. By not allowing anyone to "offend" Muslims, it forces them to accept Sharia tenants and forces Islam on the population. JMO.

    HOUSE DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

    Lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech.

    December 29, 2015
    Robert Spencer



    December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence -- attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

    That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”

    Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.

    And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right?

    Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well.

    Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!

    Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2612...robert-spencer

    Establishment Clause

    The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

    Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, government funding of bussing and textbooks for private religious schools, and efforts by school districts to arrange schedules to accommodate students’ extra-curricular religious education programs. The Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

    One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue inVan Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), a case considering the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

    Last edited by Newmexican; 01-10-2016 at 04:24 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member posylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,553
    They are so busy they can't pass any laws to actually help Americans. The only bills that seem to be passing are to take away more of our rights and new ways to throw people in prison. I am not saying people don't get carried away with this stuff but enough. Everyday American citizens are called bigots, racist, we are prejudice; from our representatives and around the world if we don't agree with their views. Yet they can pass laws to favor one race or one religion above others. Everyday someone is talking about Christian beliefs and it isn't always good and the nut jobs as they are called new agers but this is excepted. We don't go around killing people who don't agree with us. We need to deal with this on a personal level; not new laws to make criminals out of people for stating their opinion on any religion not just Islam. This has been accepted way and we all have our own beliefs and everyone doesn't agree with us so we move on. All of a sudden Islam is more important than free speech?
    Last edited by posylady; 01-10-2016 at 12:48 PM.
    Newmexican likes this.

  3. #3
    Administrator ALIPAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Gheen, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    66,571
    ALIPAC Endorses Dr. Johnny Teague (TX-9) against Amnesty backer Rep. Al Green

    For National Release | June 10, 2020

    Share & Discuss this release on (FACEBOOK HERE) .. (TWITTER HERE) .. (GAB HERE) .. (ALIPAC HERE)


    https://www.alipac.us/f8/alipac-endo...-green-378520/
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Similar Threads

  1. Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam officially begins
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 09:57 AM
  2. U.S. Will Work Islamic Conference to Stop Criticism of Islam
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2010, 08:51 PM
  3. UN body passes resolution to curb criticism of Islam
    By florgal in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 10:39 PM
  4. Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'
    By Texas2step in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 11:19 AM
  5. Exclusive: Incredulous UN Bans Criticism of Islam
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •