US Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional - Page 4

06-30-2002, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
I wish I could agree with you on this one Dave, as that is how it should be. But as a whole, there has always been some suspicion towards Muslims in the States for ages, and that suspicion has probably increased since September 11th. Although, I would say it has probably been "easier" for Muslims in cities where they are in higher numbers (DC, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, Detroit).

Sycamore:

Are they getting thrown in jail? Is there state-sponsored persecution such as the Jews during the holocaust?

That's right. They aren't, and there isn't. That's because it is not a mother fucking war on Islam. Period. End of story.

elSicomoro · 06-30-2002, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Are they getting thrown in jail?

Some have been. The doctor from Texas comes to mind. To my knowledge, there is no state-sponsored persecution of Muslims, though the call for increased surveillance in Muslim communities (mosques and the like) could be considered persecution by some.

Quote:

That's because it is not a mother fucking war on Islam. Period. End of story.

I understood your point on that, and agree with you. I disagreed with you on this statement:

"Furthermore, most places in the US, you'll be fine. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they're having a fine time."

I don't agree with you. I think the suspicion and contempt towards Muslims have grown in the past 9 1/2 months, which could cause psychological stress to them...therefore, I would argue that they are not fine. I think Muslims are doing better in cities like DC and Philadelphia, but are probably under greater stress in smaller communities.

06-30-2002, 10:29 PM

The point is that they are not being jailed just because they are followers of Islam.

Taken as two separate sentences (which is what I meant them as), both statements are true. In most places in the US, you will not be persecuted because you are Muslim. I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing). The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen radically since 9/11. Even if they hadn't, they are certainly not being persecuted by the government.

elSicomoro · 06-30-2002, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
The point is that they are not being jailed just because they are followers of Islam.

Most are not. However, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some are being jailed because they are followers of Islam.

Quote:

In most places in the US, you will not be persecuted because you are Muslim.

If we base this statement on media reports from various sources around the country, yes, this could be a true statement.

However, I don't think we can be truly certain of this. First, we have to look at the definition of persecute (from Merriam-Webster):

"to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief"

Based on this definition, this leaves a lot of things out there that could be considered persecution. Ignorant looks, "Die you fucking Muslims!", etc. Given that there are thousands of communities in this country, it's hard to really know how much persecution is out there. As of now, I'd say it ranges from slight (big cities) to moderate (small town America).

Anyone wish to fund me for a study of this?

Quote:

I see people in traditional muslim clothing every day and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing).

I don't doubt you. But you're only one person in the Washington metro area. I too see people in Muslim clothing every day...I also work with one. I have never asked her how she personally is faring after 9/11, although she seems to be doing alright. I see Muslims on the streets of Philadelphia, and many seem to be doing alright, but I also see the strange looks and angry stares that some of them receive. I also wonder how Muslims in places like Atlanta, or San Diego, or Show Low, AZ are faring.

Quote:

The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen radically since 9/11. Even if they hadn't, they are certainly not being persecuted by the government.

I agree with the first sentence. However, as I mentioned in the first part of this post, some are under the gun because of a relation to a group or person that is considered suspect by the government. Therefore, one could argue that some (not many, but some) are being persecuted by the government because they are followers of Islam.

spinningfetus · 07-01-2002, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic

Sycamore:

Are they getting thrown in jail? Is there state-sponsored persecution such as the Jews during the holocaust?

Then what do you call the people that have been held in commudicado since shortly after Sept. 11? And the holocaust is an extreme example, as well as being irrelevant. What that says is as long as we aren't throwing people in ovens we can't be that bad.

Quote:

That's right. They aren't, and there isn't. That's because it is not a mother fucking war on Islam. Period. End of story.

Then why aren't we stopping the Vietiemse and Laotian terrorists working out of CA. Or why do we continue to train people at FT. Benning to use terrorist techniques thoughout South America? And don't that it's somehow different, it isn't.

jaguar · 07-01-2002, 12:57 AM

The US has supproted some of the wrost regimes ever to come into existance, partiuclar in south america, but that is irrelavent.

syc

Quote:

...at least right now.

You really think they will? Really? With a straight face you seriously think they will do that?

Quote:

Hey smartguy, look at the last sentence in my post.

Quote:

I'm not sure exactly what you hoped to prove by your point, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a war on Islam.The main targets may be Muslims, but that does not mean that all Muslims are the main target.

My origional point was that the 'war on terror' is an inaccurate, title becase its not a war on terror. Its a war on Al-queda, its a war on Islamic fundamentalism (ironic as hell) or fundamentalist terrorism but NOT ALL TERRORISM. That is all. Even saying Islamic terroism is not accurate, i don't see those pakastani-backed terrorists being rounded up by US forces, despite them being in the same country. Its an iccurate title, its a misleading title, its a title that can be manipulated ot include anyone the administration does not like and thereby almost garantee public support for the latest jihad against whoever became a terrorist today, crackers, crumbling soviet states etc. I don't like that.

07-01-2002, 01:56 AM

jag -

My very point is that it is not a "War on Islam". It may be a "War on al-Qaeda" (which I have argued before), and it just so happens that those al-Qaeda folks call themselves followers of Islam. This does not, in any way, mean that it is a "war on islam" as you called it.

07-01-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Then what do you call the people that have been held in commudicado since shortly after Sept. 11? And the holocaust is an extreme example, as well as being irrelevant. What that says is as long as we aren't throwing people in ovens we can't be that bad.

"Unfortunate." Actually, those people are being held on immigration violations. Are they being held because they are suspected to have terrorist links? Yes. But they are not being held because they are Muslims. You're confusing the two.

The Holocaust is an extreme example, but it is a good example of state-sponsored persecution. It's not irrelevant because it was a war against a religion which was effected by a government. This "war on terror" was previously referred to as a "war on islam" which I feel is grossly inaccurate. Basically, what I was saying is "no, a war against a religion would be like the holocaust". For the record, I find the Japanese-American "camps" back in World War II to be one of the most despicable things the US Government has done. So we can be almost "that bad" without throwing people in ovens. Fortunately, neither of those is going on today - the US Government is neither rounding up Muslim Americans nor throwing them in ovens. Happy happy joy joy.

Quote:

Then why aren't we stopping the Vietiemse and Laotian terrorists working out of CA. Or why do we continue to train people at FT. Benning to use terrorist techniques thoughout South America? And don't that it's somehow different, it isn't.

Okay. Speaking of irrelevant... I said, basically, "this is not a war on Islam" and you said what I just quoted. Huh?

Look, we've discussed previously that this is a war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You and I have personally gone over that. I've never said that it was a "War On All Forms Of Terror That Are Currently Happening In The World." I said it was not a war on Islam.

Now, is it a shame that we're not taking out terrorists everywhere they are? Yes. But you and I both know that the US Government can't do that lest it spread itself too thin and not be able to conquer all of the violent extremists in the world. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.

Nothing But Net · 07-01-2002, 02:21 AM

People are being held for secret trial without benefit of counsel.

'Tards an being excuted in droves.

And our entire political system comes to grinding halt over two fucking words!

That's the saddest thing about this whole quagmire, unless it's the no-balls judge who reversed himself when he stepped too deep in the shit...

Nic Name · 07-01-2002, 02:55 AM

Actually, the Appeals Court Justice didn't reverse himself as much as he stayed the decision of the panel of three, pending an appeal to the full bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's an appropriate ruling once it was clear that the decision would be appealed. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to be off-again on-again about the effectiveness of laws, which may be unconstitutional.

The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendement to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion.

That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court.

It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America.

Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard.

God Bless America

God Save the King ... er, President.

jaguar · 07-01-2002, 05:19 AM

its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror.

Undertoad · 07-01-2002, 07:53 AM

It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership.

The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.

07-01-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror.

Any supporting evidence? Or are you just going to spout off without providing justification for your assertions?

It's not a war on Islam. Nanny nanny boo boo. I'm right and you're wrong. Can we at least provide some evidence to support our claims? Or are you content to discuss this as a child?

07-01-2002, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership.

The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.

No offense, but I definitely feel you're incorrect on this. While many in the United States feel that Wahhabi Islam is a perverted strand of Islam (with its restrictions on women and the like), we are hardly waging war against it. So I ask you, what would a "war on Wahhabi Islam" entail?

To me, it would be the round-up of Wahhabi Islamists and the jailing/punishment of them. It would be invasions of nations (such as Saudi Arabia) that widely practice, with government permission, Wahhabi Islam. It would be the interrogation of Wahhabi Islamists to find out where others of their religion are located. It would be a war against a religion.

As I see it, we are currently waging war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. I have explained these views in other threads which I'm sure you've read. So you're aware of my justification for holding these thoughts. That is a war.

It's my contention that the government is not supporting such an operation against Wahhabi Islamists. While there are undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the US is working to capture, I think the reason we are going after them is because they are militants. Their religion isn't the reason for their pursuit.

I'm interested in hearing your explanation because, honestly, I'm not sure how you could have come to that conclusion. We are simply not doing those things. So I'm curious as to what exactly represents a "war on Wahhabi Islam".

Undertoad · 07-01-2002, 10:03 AM

Well, yes, you're right, it's not a war. (It might be a "war", but it's not a war.)

They've kinda sorta declared war on us, but unless they have control of a country we don't really notice.

They appear to fire shoulder-mounted missiles at our planes taking off in Saudi Arabia, but they MISS, so hey what's a few untrained assholes with major weaponry between trading partners?

They appear to lob missiles into Israel from Lebanon and Syria, but there's bigger news in that section of the world, so nobody has a chance to get worked up about it.

Some of them were in Afghanistan, but they weren't FROM there. They were from Arabia, predominantly, but also from Marin County and Britain and all over the world. It was convenient that they went there, and then attacked the US directly, because then the US had a specific target. But if they hadn't gone there, they would be -- SHOULD be as much an enemy to target.

But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world?

View Poll Results: Take "under God" out of the pledge?
Yes	17	60.71%
No	9	32.14%
No opinion	2	7.14%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

06-30-2002, 10:29 PM	#48
dave Guest Posts: n/a	The point is that they are <b>not</b> being jailed just because they are followers of Islam. Taken as two separate sentences (which is what I meant them as), both statements are true. In most places in the US, you will <b>not</b> be persecuted because you are Muslim. I see people in traditional muslim clothing <b>every day</b> and they are having a fine time (as in, not being persecuted because of their clothing). The incidences of attacks on mosques/muslims have fallen <b>radically</b> since 9/11. Even if they <b>hadn't</b>, they are certainly <b>not</b> being persecuted by the government.

07-01-2002, 01:56 AM	#52
dave Guest Posts: n/a	jag - My very point is that it is <b>not</b> a "War on Islam". It may be a "War on al-Qaeda" (which I have argued before), and it just so happens that those al-Qaeda folks call themselves followers of Islam. This does not, in any way, mean that it is a "war on islam" as you called it.

07-01-2002, 05:19 AM	#56
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	its closer to a war on islam than a war on terror. The effect is more like a war on islam than a war on terror. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

07-01-2002, 02:21 AM	#54
Nothing But Net Professor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Spring, Texas Posts: 1,481	People are being held for secret trial without benefit of counsel. 'Tards an being excuted in droves. And our entire political system comes to grinding halt over two fucking words! That's the saddest thing about this whole quagmire, unless it's the no-balls judge who reversed himself when he stepped too deep in the shit...

07-01-2002, 02:55 AM	#55
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Actually, the Appeals Court Justice didn't reverse himself as much as he stayed the decision of the panel of three, pending an appeal to the full bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That's an appropriate ruling once it was clear that the decision would be appealed. It doesn't serve anyone's purpose to be off-again on-again about the effectiveness of laws, which may be unconstitutional. The point that interests me is that there seems to be such an overwhelming political will and unanimity in Congress and the Senate and the Executive branch ... that it could be a settled by a clear and unequivocal Constitutional amendement to embody the Pledge of Allegiance in the Constitution (under God, if that's the will of the people). Like the Bill of Rights. As a proper amendment of the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance would not offend the First Amendment because it would be a further amendment of the First Amendment to acknowledge that the Pledge of Allegiance is within the amended Constitution NOT respecting an establishment of religion. That's an appropriate power of the legislature, to make new law ... to change the law ... even change the Constitution in accordance with the overwhelming will of the people as reflected in the necessary votes in both houses. That's the basis for American democracy ... free to amend the Constituition to make God whatever part of the government the people will support. But the lawmakers should have to face the people on this one, and not hide behind judicial robes and a politically stacked Supreme Court. It's been over 200 years since the founding fathers expressly separated God from the United States, and the Republic from the Kingdom of England ... and the world has changed since 9/11 when you know who attacked America. Maybe it's time for a Constitutional changing of the guard. God Bless America God Save the King ... er, President.

07-01-2002, 07:53 AM	#57
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's most definitely a war on Wahhabi Islam and kinda-sorta a war on any other Islamic country with crappy leadership. The US's Islamic buddies in Qatar and Turkey are quite safe. And probably even happy about how things have turned.

07-01-2002, 10:03 AM	#60
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Well, yes, you're right, it's not a war. (It might be a "war", but it's not a war.) They've kinda sorta declared war on us, but unless they have control of a country we don't really notice. They appear to fire shoulder-mounted missiles at our planes taking off in Saudi Arabia, but they MISS, so hey what's a few untrained assholes with major weaponry between trading partners? They appear to lob missiles into Israel from Lebanon and Syria, but there's bigger news in that section of the world, so nobody has a chance to get worked up about it. Some of them were in Afghanistan, but they weren't FROM there. They were from Arabia, predominantly, but also from Marin County and Britain and all over the world. It was convenient that they went there, and then attacked the US directly, because then the US had a specific target. But if they hadn't gone there, they would be -- SHOULD be as much an enemy to target. But we can't declare war on them because we aren't really sure who they are. The "they" in all these sentences is what? Is there a smart missile smart enough to target it, all over the world?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)