While trolling freeperland...

[muryan]

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST ISLAM

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion. The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=96f_1208630224
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2004396/posts?q=1&;page=51

I troll the world of freepers looking specifically for stuff like this. I've been posting here for about 4 years and in that time span I've trolled there to see what the other side says. This is the most blatantly unconstitutional and downright creepy thing I've seen posted there.

Obviously this is something that will probably never see the light of day, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it have a very small but loud group of backers.

I thought this was relevant based on how much heat huffpo/dailykos/DU take from the MSM for "smearing" these so-called respectable politicians, yet no one ever points out the kind of stuff that shows up in the trash heap that is freeperland.

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. I looked at the freeper thread and most thought the idea was ridiculous.

Besides it would never pass constitutional muster.

[tbyg52]

6. Well, I guess there's hope yet.... nt

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Substitute "Judaism" for "Islam", "Jew" for "Muslim", and "Germany" for "United States", and

you have the Third Reich essentially.

[Ellen Forradalom]

3. Talk about a non-starter

Thank goodness. Even other Freepers know better than that.

[hfojvt]

4. except it is never unconstitutional to propose an amendment

even an amendment that changes the constitution or one of the other amendments, even one of the first ten amendments known as the bill of rights. That's what amendments do, and an amendment, once passed, is, by definition, never unconstitutional.

From college classes, I remember from philosophy 101, the difficulty in precisely defining anything, even something simple like a chair. Naturally we had the same problems when I took the class "The Sociology of Religion" in graduate school.

I had a funny thought though. Many fundamentalists claim that Christianity is not a religion. Religion, they say, is humanity trying to find god, whereas in Christianity, God came to humanity with the incarnation. Taking them at their word then, clearly Christianity is not protected under the 1st Amendment. :evilgrin:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. this kind of hatred, ignorance, and intolerance makes me ill

I feel that if the freepers had their way, only WASPs, and then only those who belong to the "right" church, would be allowed to live--and in a very restricted society.

I am a direct descendant of one of the women who was condemned as a witch in Salem Mass in the 1690s. She died in jail before she could be executed. Because of genealogical interest, I have studied the society of Salem and North Andover MA of the time. It is horrible to contemplate that some would wish to go back to that society now.

[Liberal Gramma]

10. Have you read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood

An eerie portrait of what life would be like under a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. No I haven't

I tend to not read fiction other than light murder mysteries. I have done enough historical research on the Puritans in Massachusetts to know how things were done there to give pause. Does this book deal with the eternal squabbles dealing with church business that was part and parcel of Puritan life in the 1600s? That I could see easily happening if the various fundamentalist sects here actually took over even a small portion of the nation.

[Liberal Gramma]

13. No, it's about a rigidly controlled society

Men run the society, and women are subservient, but even worse, few women can conceive, so surrogate mothers are drafted from the slave ranks to bear children for the masters. Dissidents are executed publicly, just like in a real fundamentalist society we all know. It's pretty scary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Thanks for the synopsis

let us hope that the scenerio you described remains in the realm of fiction.

BTW, not many know this, but the so-called "witches" of Salem were tortured in order to gain confessions. Their families had to provide them food while they were in prison, and the poor women were held in appalling conditions. My 9-great grandmother died in December 1692, an aged widow worn down by torture and stress and exposure to the cold and damp.

[Liberal Gramma]

17. That was a shameful chapter in history

and another example of bitter people misdirecting their frustrations. It seems to me that the charges of witchcraft were worse when economic hardship prevailed, but one of the contributing factors was also the complicity of the church. Theocracy is a bad idea, it was then, and it is now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. I find it ironic

that, while an ancestor on one line of my family was condemned as a witch, a 9-great grandfather on another branch was foreman of the jury for one of the trials--that of Rebecca Nurse, to be precise. (No, Rebecca was not my ancestor). What is interesting was that, several years later, this ancestor retracted his guilty verdict in a statement that makes it plain that the jury was swayed totally by the ministers in charge of the trial. They were ready to acquit Mrs. Nurse until the minister told them that her not answering a question showed she was evil, when, in truth, it showed she was hard of hearing. The men on the jury were educated, in that they could read and write, and, for the most part, were men of means at the time--and yet they took the word of their minister above their own common sense.

This is why ministers should NEVER again be allowed to be in positions of power. Many tend to abuse it.

[muryan]

7. Because there is no reason to ban Christianity, plus it's constitutionaly protected while Islam is

I wonder where these people learn to read, because its hard to fathom such butchered logic.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Plus anyone who has read the Qur'an knows

that the Torah and the Bible are considered part of the Book, and Jews and Christians people of the Book. There are many references to Biblical heroes in the Qur'an, and a whole sura named for Mary, Mother of Jesus. I know many people who were born Muslim who know far more about Christianity than most Christians know about Islam.

[Lex]

8. I guess they have never heard of the "slippery slope" so if they want

to "ban" one religion, maybe theirs will be up next for banning.

They can't think past 5 minutes from now.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Funny

What's really funny is that you're shocked. Did you think those people actually have any sort of intelligence?

I think they're the people Obama was talking about in his "bitter" comments, and it's all driven by their fear and anger. That's the tragedy.

But, damn, they are entertaining.

[datasuspect]

14. massive fail

"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."

you'd have to repeal the first amendment to move forward on this silliness.

the first part is relevant. especially the parts about "respecting" and "prohibiting."

[Fumesucker]

16. Of course, these are the same people..

Who will tell you that *not* believing in any god is a religion.