Defining Rights vs. Intent defined by history

[Woodsman]

After reading a recent interview (link provided below) and thinking about current events backed by supporting historical context it seems we keep repeating the same mistakes others have made before us.

Smith: ... it seems we are giving Muslims a pass on everything in this country. For example, the proposed mosque near ‘ground zero’ in New York.

Boykin: I am so disappointed. I’m also angry that there are those who are so uninformed and intimidated by these people that they are willing to allow this. We need to remember that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. That’s our fundamental mistake. The second thing is, people have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets.

Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law.

When they defeated the nomadic tribes in Mecca, they built a mosque at the most holy site. The message was one of triumph, that Islam has now defeated you and Islam reigns supreme. They did the same thing at Córdoba [Spain]. They did it in Jerusalem. Same in Constantinople. The message was always one of conquest and victory.

Now, ‘ground zero’ is not holy, but it is sacred because of the lives lost. They want to build a mosque there to proclaim that Islam reigns supreme. Do you know what that is going to mean to Muslims all over the world?

The recruiting to the Jihadist cause will be exponentially increased as a result of the very symbol -- the very message -- associated with that mosque there. It is incomprehensible to me. It was supported by Christian pastors and Jewish rabbis in this thing they call an interfaith dialogue. It shows such an extraordinary lack of understanding for what Islam is doing.

excerpt from: Islam's Primary Objective is Conquest - HUMAN EVENTS

History has shown the above to be true. While differing opinions are offered on what all this might have been based on, the fundamental fact is, this has proven to be true by viewing current events. Judges in the UK have been quoted as condoning Sharia law at the expense of their historical viewpoints. The legal maneuvering and interpretation of existing laws, rights, and long held beliefs is being subjugated under the guise of political correctness in order to offer the same rights to all. As noble as that may seem, it is also misguided.

In extending our rights to others, the general belief is those receiving the benefits of those rights should be treated as we believe we should be treated. However, based on those extensions of fundamental rights as established in the Constitution to others who have historical basis as being opposed to those beliefs we are providing the fertilizer for our own problems.

It has almost become a spectator sport to see who can justify the behavior of others by re-defining our belief system and those principles our Nation is founded upon. From a historical perspective we know the following occur on a regular basis:

• Parents murdering their own children to protect their honor.
• In-laws mutilating facial features for perceived transgressions (real or imagined).
• Beheadings because you have a different belief system.
• Rape as punishment.
• Child brides.
• Mass immigration and explosive population growth fostered by continual financial support by the adoptive country.

At what point do people begin to come to the conclusion; what we keep seeing is exactly what what we will get? Or, will someone later remember a time when things were different?

The gradual erosion of a culture once held consistent in the majority view is not that much different than that occurring within our political system today.

While the content of the linked interview is based on a single subject it also appears to point to an issue which requires in-depth examination. When Rights are extended to someone are those Rights defined by the written word or interpreted to fit the actions of others?

In either case, if extending those Rights causes harm to the very thing from which they are granted does that make any sense?

 

[rambone]

Here we go again. If you think their whole belief system is criminal then bring out the Thought Police and the Political Prisons. And why stop there? I've got a laundry list of groups who have unAmerican ideas. Let's fill up some Fema Camps.

That was much more on par with the intent of the Founders.

 

[SavageEagle]

Here we go again. If you think their whole belief system is criminal then bring out the Thought Police and the Political Prisons. And why stop there? I've got a laundry list of groups who have unAmerican ideas. Let's fill up some Fema Camps.

That was much more on par with the intent of the Founders.

Why not just start tearing up the Constitution now and hand over the keys to Washington then? I mean, we all know that almost every Sunni out there wishes to see us all killed or enslaved yet we allow them to get their way time and time again. Let them build a mosque close to Ground Zero. Let them have their TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS inside the US. Let them preach death and destruction against the entire Country (which is NOT protected speech).

 

[Woodsman]

Oh well, I thought the interview had some interesting similarities between the so-called rights conferred on someone vs the rights we as citizens are supposed to have. If we can't accurately define how those rights work for us, it's anybody's guess on how those rights are used for other purposes. I don't know why I expected something besides hysterics.

 

[Andyland]

Too bad the druids aren't still around.
Not the current druids that were created in 1922 by a dirty old man that wanted to see women naked.
Think of it! Holidays based on nudity and fornication!
And PAN! Can't forget PAN!
Half man, half goat, chasing women!
I am in! Sign Me up!
If they had guns back then, they would have had holidays for that too!
..Just wish my wife would let me date...Bwahahahaha
At least she lets me have guns...:-)

 

[pistol pete]

Well written article and quote . It is just too bad we are to comfortable with status quo to get everyones attention . Sharia law is were they want to go . In Islam you can lie to a non beliver as long as it furthers the growth of their faith . I wonder who the liberals will run to when it happens ?

 

[Woodsman]

... In Islam you can lie to a non beliver as long as it furthers the growth of their faith. ...

And that's not that much different than Alinksy's rules. Anything to get what you want. Almost sounds like any politician. Especially one sitting on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[rambone]

Some people think Liberty is living complicitly within the comfortable confines of Government regulations and submitting to the standards by which our superiors wish us to act.

I call that the heart of tyranny.

It is interesting to watch people swap hats from topic to topic. Talk 2A and Government shall not infringe. Talk 1A and suddenly rights are dependent on location, appropriateness, and popular opinion.

 

[dross]

Some people think Liberty is living complicitly within the comfortable confines of Government regulations and submitting to the standards by which our superiors wish us to act.

I call that the heart of tyranny.

It is interesting to watch people swap hats from topic to topic. Talk 2A and Government shall not infringe. Talk 1A and suddenly rights are dependent on location, appropriateness, and popular opinion.

This has always been one of the problems the right hangs on itself. The inconsistency of dedication to liberty.

As a disclaimer, I disagree with much of your view on Islam, Rambone. Not that I want freedom restricted, I just don't see it as a harmless mythology, but rather as a totalitiarian movement steeped in mysticism, which in my mind makes it even more dangerous in the long run than secular collectivism.

 

[Woodsman]

...

It is interesting to watch people swap hats from topic to topic. Talk 2A and Government shall not infringe. Talk 1A and suddenly rights are dependent on location, appropriateness, and popular opinion.

I think the basic crux of the matter is by what method do you define those rights? A basic tenant should be the Rights as stipulated mean exactly what they say based on prevailing logic at the time they were accepted.

One of the biggest areas of concern now is how people of both sides define what the words or basic intent means. This all too often falls into a methodology of trying to fit the definition to what someone wants, so they can call it constitutional. Then using prior legal precedence as proof they are correct. That's one of the dangers of activists judges.

 

[rambone]

As a disclaimer, I disagree with much of your view on Islam, Rambone. Not that I want freedom restricted, I just don't see it as a harmless mythology, but rather as a totalitiarian movement steeped in mysticism, which in my mind makes it even more dangerous in the long run than secular collectivism.

As active as I have been in these threads, I don't think I've really ever tried to refute anyone's ideas about Islam. My opinion of their following has been irrelevant to my anti-government stance. Its going to take more than a misplaced mosque to cause me to cry for unconstitutional Government solutions. Because frankly, if one can label the entirety of Islam as a totalitarian ideology, they simply join the ranks of the communists, socialists, progressives, neo-nazis, enviro-nazis, grammar-nazis, and the United Nations.... All are allowed to spread their message.

I am trying to be realistic about the results of these pro-government approaches to solving this perceived issue. You guys really think that the Government blocking the mosque is going to make you safer from this Sharia Law that supposedly is looming over our heads? Really?? Talk about a "feel-good" solution!

Why isn't the focus on rallying against legal immigration from muslim countries if we are so serious with the War on Islam? At least that isn't protected by the first line in the first amendment to the constitution.

As dangerous and as tyrannical as Sharia Law is, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how a muslim mosque violates the rights of anyone else.

I think the basic crux of the matter is by what method do you define those rights? A basic tenant should be the Rights as stipulated mean exactly what they say based on prevailing logic at the time they were accepted.

"Rights" are things that Government may not interfere with a person from practicing or obtaining.

Freedom of Religion means that if a Satanist wanted to build a black tower dedicated to undermining everything Christian in America, the Government may not ask him to stop building his temple. This is the same thing that the founders considered.

The only time Government was intended to intervene was when someone else's rights were being violated. Government [courts] determine financial damages or criminal punishment that is backed up by law.

I'm saying if people commit crimes, then the Government can/should do something.

If somebody cuts a head off with a sword, put them on trial under current laws.
If somebody stones a person to death, put them on trial under current laws.
If somebody enslaves their neighbor, put them on trial under current laws.
If somebody cuts off their daughter's nose, put them on trial under current laws.
If somebody plots murder, put them on trial under current laws.
Et cetera.
And if your life is in danger, protect it.




You cannot protect liberty by destroying someone else's.
You cannot protect property rights by destroying someone else's.
You cannot protect free speech by destroying someone else's right to the same.