Conservative group proposes making Islam illegal, punishable by 20 years in prison

[LiberalNation]

Even if this some how passed it would never pass constitutional muster. A waste of time and just plain stupid thing to push for.

http://www.saneworks.us/SANE-Immigration-Proposal-article-379-1.htm

A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)


Whereas, Islam is a political ideology combined with certain religious beliefs; further, this political ideology and religious belief system is based historically and traditionally on Shari’a or the Islamic Way, the full corpus of Islamic law dealing with all aspects of a Muslim’s personal and social life and political society.


Whereas, Islam as a political ideology is maintained, supported, and promulgated by Shari’a, which in turn requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as a replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam and Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as Jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a.


Whereas, Jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding Jihad, and Jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.


Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of Jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.


Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power.


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is adherence to Shari’a and to Jihad;


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People.


THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:


[1] A “Muslim” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Islam or acts in support of the adherence to Islam or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Islam. The “Muslim Nation” or “Umma” shall be defined as all Muslims.


[2] “Adherence to Islam” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.


[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as any set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support in any way the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, or the Ja’afariya school or fiqh) are prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.


[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.


[5] The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.


[6] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.


[7] No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.


[8] Congress shall appropriate sufficient funds to seal all of the borders of the United States of America. The Executive shall be empowered to apply those funds to accomplish the task within a time certain or face criminal penalties.


[9] Special criminal camps shall be constructed for convicted illegal immigrants. Any illegal immigrant convicted of knowingly entering the US illegally will be imprisoned for 3 years and then deported. Any alien convicted of knowingly overstaying a visa will be imprisoned one year and then deported. Any US person or entity which knowingly employs illegal aliens shall be guilty of a felony and fined no less than $50,000 and subject to one year imprisonment for each offense. Catch-and-release programs will end immediately.


[10] Illegal aliens in the country now will be given 60 days to exit the country without prosecution. Any illegal alien caught after the 60 day grace period shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. After the passage and enactment of this Act in its entirety, Congress and the Executive shall be free to devise a special worker entry program for temporary workers if the program has a fully computerized and digitalized bio-metric program for monitoring the work forces' entry and exit.

[avatar4321]

Are you sure these are conservatives? not disputing, they probably are i just dont see any express indication.

Also, are they a big group. cause if not who cares?

[Pale Rider]

I like it.

[gabosaurus]

So we are going to have state religion now? What would happen to our freedom to worship?
People like this are total idiots who need to be fed to sharks.

[LiberalNation]

Are you sure these are conservatives? not disputing, they probably are i just dont see any express indication.

Also, are they a big group. cause if not who cares?
Don't know how big they are but conservatives. Well would ya call Pale a conservative, they're far right with a lot of nutcases.

[nevadamedic]

Even if this some how passed it would never pass constitutional muster. A waste of time and just plain stupid thing to push for.

http://www.saneworks.us/SANE-Immigration-Proposal-article-379-1.htm

A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)


Whereas, Islam is a political ideology combined with certain religious beliefs; further, this political ideology and religious belief system is based historically and traditionally on Shari’a or the Islamic Way, the full corpus of Islamic law dealing with all aspects of a Muslim’s personal and social life and political society.


Whereas, Islam as a political ideology is maintained, supported, and promulgated by Shari’a, which in turn requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as a replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam and Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as Jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a.


Whereas, Jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding Jihad, and Jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.


Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of Jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.


Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power.


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is adherence to Shari’a and to Jihad;


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People.


THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:


[1] A “Muslim” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Islam or acts in support of the adherence to Islam or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Islam. The “Muslim Nation” or “Umma” shall be defined as all Muslims.


[2] “Adherence to Islam” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.


[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as any set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support in any way the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, or the Ja’afariya school or fiqh) are prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.


[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.


[5] The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.


[6] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.


[7] No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.


[8] Congress shall appropriate sufficient funds to seal all of the borders of the United States of America. The Executive shall be empowered to apply those funds to accomplish the task within a time certain or face criminal penalties.


[9] Special criminal camps shall be constructed for convicted illegal immigrants. Any illegal immigrant convicted of knowingly entering the US illegally will be imprisoned for 3 years and then deported. Any alien convicted of knowingly overstaying a visa will be imprisoned one year and then deported. Any US person or entity which knowingly employs illegal aliens shall be guilty of a felony and fined no less than $50,000 and subject to one year imprisonment for each offense. Catch-and-release programs will end immediately.


[10] Illegal aliens in the country now will be given 60 days to exit the country without prosecution. Any illegal alien caught after the 60 day grace period shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. After the passage and enactment of this Act in its entirety, Congress and the Executive shall be free to devise a special worker entry program for temporary workers if the program has a fully computerized and digitalized bio-metric program for monitoring the work forces' entry and exit.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[dan]

Sounds like a travesty of the basis of America to me.

[glockmail]

Even if this some how passed it would never pass constitutional muster. A waste of time and just plain stupid thing to push for.....


So we are going to have state religion now? What would happen to our freedom to worship?
People like this are total idiots who need to be fed to sharks.


[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.

The proposal would not prevent anyone from practicing the "religion", only its "futherance". The proposal has merit and should be considered.

[avatar4321]

The proposal would not prevent anyone from practicing the "religion", only its "futherance". The proposal has merit and should be considered.

That's just semantics to me.

If people are conspiring to destroy and subjegate this nation, go ahead and outlaw/deport/kill them. but just painting such a broad brush is asking for nothing but trouble.

[Little-Acorn]

They are trying to make laws "preventing the free exercise thereof". Flatly unconstitutional.

This is hardly a "conservative" move. These people are modern liberals to the core, using government to intrude upon private religious matters.

Conservatives wouuld simply hike the penalties for murder, assault, bombing, threats, intimidation, etc., regardless of the religion of whoever's doing it. And they'd appoint judges who stuck to the letter and spirit of the law, and put the malefactors away for a LONG time breaking rocks in the hot sun. If a lot of Muslims got caught in the net, that's too damned bad - they can join their soul brothers Tim McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Unabomber, the Earth Liberation Front, and the rest.

[Hagbard Celine]

That pesky first amendment :dunno:

[darin]

They are trying to make laws "preventing the free exercise thereof". Flatly unconstitutional.

This is hardly a "conservative" move. These people are modern liberals to the core, using government to intrude upon private religious matters.

Conservatives wouuld simply hike the penalties for murder, assault, bombing, threats, intimidation, etc., regardless of the religion of whoever's doing it. And they'd appoint judges who stuck to the letter and spirit of the law, and put the malefactors away for a LONG time breaking rocks in the hot sun. If a lot of Muslims got caught in the net, that's too damned bad - they can join their soul brothers Tim McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Unabomber, the Earth Liberation Front, and the rest.

Very VERY well-said.

[glockmail]

They are trying to make laws "preventing the free exercise thereof". Flatly unconstitutional.

This is hardly a "conservative" move. These people are modern liberals to the core, using government to intrude upon private religious matters.

Conservatives wouuld simply hike the penalties for murder, assault, bombing, threats, intimidation, etc., regardless of the religion of whoever's doing it. And they'd appoint judges who stuck to the letter and spirit of the law, and put the malefactors away for a LONG time breaking rocks in the hot sun. If a lot of Muslims got caught in the net, that's too damned bad - they can join their soul brothers Tim McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Unabomber, the Earth Liberation Front, and the rest.


Both valid points, and I admit that I am taking an extreme position here, more to discover my own position than to debate it. Consider this:

1. Islam was specifically created to subvert other religions. Therefore does it meet the definition of religion as the Founders envisioned?
2. We have cults that crop up occasionally based loosely on Christianity. We deal with the followers summarily. Is Islam a cult? Are certain factions of Isalm cults?

[Hagbard Celine]

They are trying to make laws "preventing the free exercise thereof". Flatly unconstitutional.

This is hardly a "conservative" move. These people are modern liberals to the core, using government to intrude upon private religious matters.

Conservatives wouuld simply hike the penalties for murder, assault, bombing, threats, intimidation, etc., regardless of the religion of whoever's doing it. And they'd appoint judges who stuck to the letter and spirit of the law, and put the malefactors away for a LONG time breaking rocks in the hot sun. If a lot of Muslims got caught in the net, that's too damned bad - they can join their soul brothers Tim McVeigh, Andrea Yates, Unabomber, the Earth Liberation Front, and the rest.

You're retarded. Basically I've gathered that you pretty much label whatever is wrong or illegal or evil as "liberal." Get a life.

[Pale Rider]

Both valid points, and I admit that I am taking an extreme position here, more to discover my own position than to debate it. Consider this:

1. Islam was specifically created to subvert other religions. Therefore does it meet the definition of religion as the Founders envisioned?
2. We have cults that crop up occasionally based loosely on Christianity. We deal with the followers summarily. Is Islam a cult? Are certain factions of Isalm cults?

That's pretty much how I see it glock. I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today. I think outlawing it is a brilliant idea.

[Hagbard Celine]

That's pretty much how I see it glock. I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today. I think outlawing it is a brilliant idea.

All religions are "cults." Look up the definition of "cult" and in general it's probably a good idea to learn the definitions of all the words you use from now on.

[Little-Acorn]

I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today.
That's communism, not Islam. Plus its variants such as socialism, Naziism, modern American liberalism, "progressivism", and whatever they call it in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

It's what has been responsible for 90% of the violent death in the last few centuries. Islam gets credit for the other 10%. Though they are trying hard to catch up.

[Pale Rider]

All religions are "cults." Look up the definition of "cult" and in general it's probably a good idea to learn the definitions of all the words you use from now on.

Don't get smart with me hag, I'm not giving you any shit, don't give me any.

I strongly disagree ALL religons are CULTS, period. We can leave it at that.

[Pale Rider]

That's communism, not Islam. Plus its variants such as socialism, Naziism, modern American liberalism, "progressivism", and whatever they call it in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

It's what has been responsible for 90% of the violent death in the last few centuries. Islam gets credit for the other 10%. Though they are trying hard to catch up.

I'm talking about right now. Not 200 years ago. Islam "presently" is the cause of 90% of all the worlds violence, blood and death.

[Gaffer]

islam incorporates politics into its belief system. The entire religion is designed to subjigate everyone it comes in contact with. I'm all for outlawing islam. They have to declare it an ideology that desires the overthrowing the constitution and government to get anywhere with it. But that is the ultimate goal of islam.

American muslims can either renounce islam or pick a country to move too.

[glockmail]

You're retarded. Basically I've gathered that you pretty much label whatever is wrong or illegal or evil as "liberal." Get a life. He is usually right, agree with him or no.

[5stringJeff]

1. I hardly agree that these people are "conservatives," or even representative of conservative beliefs. Conservatives, contrary to popular opinion, actually do support the First Amendment, including the freedom to worship as one desires.

2. To anyone who supports this proposal, feel free to substitute "Christian/Christianity" (or your religion of chioce) for "Muslims/Islam" and see how good it sounds.

3. This proposal is a travesty and flies in the face of the freedom of religion we enjoy in America.

[LiberalNation]

So Pale, Glock, and others aren't conservatives. They are the face of the right.

[Guernicaa]

That's pretty much how I see it glock. I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today. I think outlawing it is a brilliant idea.
Please stop making things up.
Would you care to provide a link where they determined that the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today is the result of Islam?

[gabosaurus]

All religions can be basically defined as cults. And the "90 percent" figure is merely Pale talking out of his fudge packed anal cavity. Again.
If stupidity and moronic behavior were illegal, Pale and his ilk would all be jailed at the present.

[5stringJeff]

And the "90 percent" figure is merely Pale talking out of his fudge packed anal cavity. Again.
If stupidity and moronic behavior were illegal, Pale and his ilk would all be jailed at the present.

Kindly cut the ad hominem.

[gabosaurus]

Dang. I was considering ad-ing more.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Hmmm...

There are many other measures I'd prefer, but this might be fun. Anyone who says that welcoming America-hating Muslims to our shores is the "basis of America" is an idiot.

The crowd saying "diversity" was a goal of the founding fathers is lying its collective pants off. The founding fathers were white, English-speaking males from all of four and a half denominations of Christianity, with maybe two deists and an atheist lying low thrown in. When they said all men are created equal, they meant all men inside that subset. Read the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers were as enthusiastic about multiculturalism as Adolf Hitler.

[diuretic]

The Federalist Papers are historical. How does reading them help understand a technologically advanced, multicultural society like the US is today?

Now just in case a simple question is construed as being a jab, a stab or just a plain old whinge let me say that sometimes a question is just a question :D

[Kathianne]

The Federalist Papers are historical. How does reading them help understand a technologically advanced, multicultural society like the US is today?

Now just in case a simple question is construed as being a jab, a stab or just a plain old whinge let me say that sometimes a question is just a question :D

Why we teach 'founding documents':

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED470040&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED470040

[nevadamedic]

Both valid points, and I admit that I am taking an extreme position here, more to discover my own position than to debate it. Consider this:

1. Islam was specifically created to subvert other religions. Therefore does it meet the definition of religion as the Founders envisioned?
2. We have cults that crop up occasionally based loosely on Christianity. We deal with the followers summarily. Is Islam a cult? Are certain factions of Isalm cults?

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Kathianne]

The previous was sort of curt, though I like the site. Why are the Federalist and Anti-federalist, and diaries/journals/letters important? Because they provide insight and argument to the 'big issues' that framed both the Constitution and the inclusions/exclusions/compromises that it originally encompassed. We can see why slavery was put on hold, but came back to bite even more seriously less than a century later, (though an argument can be made that if they tried to deal with slavery, there would have been no Constitution and even more bloodshed may have occurred due to war.)

Here's a good site on the Federalist Papers and the issues addressed, many of the same issues divide us today:

http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3130

[Hugh Lincoln]

Here's a good site on the Federalist Papers and the issues addressed, many of the same issues divide us today:

http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3130

Good find.

Here is a selection from Federalist No. 2 by John Jay that boosts my points:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Not a ringing endorsement of multiculturalism, eh?

[Dilloduck]

Good find.

Here is a selection from Federalist No. 2 by John Jay that boosts my points:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Not a ringing endorsement of multiculturalism, eh?

nope--but damn good definintion of an American at the time.

[Rahul]

Even if this some how passed it would never pass constitutional muster. A waste of time and just plain stupid thing to push for.

http://www.saneworks.us/SANE-Immigration-Proposal-article-379-1.htm

A SANE Act to Deal with the Islamic Threat to America’s National Existence (SADITANE)


Whereas, Islam is a political ideology combined with certain religious beliefs; further, this political ideology and religious belief system is based historically and traditionally on Shari’a or the Islamic Way, the full corpus of Islamic law dealing with all aspects of a Muslim’s personal and social life and political society.


Whereas, Islam as a political ideology is maintained, supported, and promulgated by Shari’a, which in turn requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the establishment of a political society based upon Shari’a as a replacement of any political entity not governed and governing by Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.


Whereas, Islam and Shari’a in particular includes a war doctrine known as Jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of Shari’a.


Whereas, Jihad and Shari’a are inextricably linked, with Shari’a formulating and commanding Jihad, and Jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting Shari’a.


Whereas, the unchanging and ultimate aim of Jihad is the imposition of Shari’a on all states and nations, including the United States; further, pursuant to its own dictates, Shari’a requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America.


Whereas, the imposition of Shari’a on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power.


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is adherence to Shari’a and to Jihad;


Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US. Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People.


THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:


[1] A “Muslim” shall be defined as any person who adheres to Islam or acts in support of the adherence to Islam or who makes any written or oral declaration in support of the adherence to Islam. The “Muslim Nation” or “Umma” shall be defined as all Muslims.


[2] “Adherence to Islam” shall be defined as any act, including any written or oral declaration, in support of Shari’a or in furtherance of the imposition of Shari’a within any territory of the United States of America. “Territory of the United States of America” shall be defined as any territory under the civilian or military control or governance of personnel acting for and on behalf of the US Government.


[3] “Shari’a” shall be defined as any set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support in any way the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution or the destruction of the national existence of the United States of America. Any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising from the extant rulings of any of the five authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence (the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi'i, the Hanbali, or the Ja’afariya school or fiqh) are prima facie Shari’a without any further evidentiary showing.


[4] It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Islam.


[5] The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation or Umma.


[6] The President of the United States of America shall immediately declare that all non-US citizen Muslims are Alien Enemies under Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the US Code and shall be subject to immediate deportation.


[7] No Muslim shall be granted an entry visa into the United States of America.


[8] Congress shall appropriate sufficient funds to seal all of the borders of the United States of America. The Executive shall be empowered to apply those funds to accomplish the task within a time certain or face criminal penalties.


[9] Special criminal camps shall be constructed for convicted illegal immigrants. Any illegal immigrant convicted of knowingly entering the US illegally will be imprisoned for 3 years and then deported. Any alien convicted of knowingly overstaying a visa will be imprisoned one year and then deported. Any US person or entity which knowingly employs illegal aliens shall be guilty of a felony and fined no less than $50,000 and subject to one year imprisonment for each offense. Catch-and-release programs will end immediately.


[10] Illegal aliens in the country now will be given 60 days to exit the country without prosecution. Any illegal alien caught after the 60 day grace period shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. After the passage and enactment of this Act in its entirety, Congress and the Executive shall be free to devise a special worker entry program for temporary workers if the program has a fully computerized and digitalized bio-metric program for monitoring the work forces' entry and exit.

The part pertaining to Muslims and religion is the biggest bunch of hooey I've read in a while. :lol:

But, I don't know that I disagree totally with the part about illegal aliens . . . illegal aliens are a problem in the US, and I feel one does have to take tough measures against those coming to the US illegally . . . otherwise, the problem will persist and lawful residents (both citizens and immigrants) are affected.

Now, that doesn't mean I think fining them $50,000 is a good idea and neither do I think Bush's new immigration plan which involves them going back and paying a large sum of money to re-enter the country is brilliant either - the illegals simply cannot afford such huge sums of money.

But, some strict measures do need to be implemented.

[Pale Rider]

The part pertaining to Muslims and religion is the biggest bunch of hooey I've read in a while. :lol:

But, I don't know that I disagree totally with the part about illegal aliens . . . illegal aliens are a problem in the US, and I feel one does have to take tough measures against those coming to the US illegally . . . otherwise, the problem will persist and lawful residents (both citizens and immigrants) are affected.

Now, that doesn't mean I think fining them $50,000 is a good idea and neither do I think Bush's new immigration plan which involves them going back and paying a large sum of money to re-enter the country is brilliant either - the illegals simply cannot afford such huge sums of money.

But, some strict measures do need to be implemented.



The part pertaining to muslims is spot on.

As for your assessment of America and the invasion from mexico, I wonder, just where do you get your information from in india?

[Rahul]

The part pertaining to muslims is spot on.

Nonsense. All Muslims are not a threat to America's national existence.



As for your assessment of America and the invasion from mexico, I wonder, just where do you get your information from in india?

Where do you get yours from?

[Nuc]

That's pretty much how I see it glock. I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today. I think outlawing it is a brilliant idea.

Good thinking Pale. But you're off a bit. 90% of the death and violence in the world is caused by monotheists. So why don't we just take it a step further and ban monotheism?

Except maybe Zoroastrianism. They don't seem to be troublemakers.

Maybe just ban the monotheism that originated in that particular part of the world which has been a festering sore for millenia.

[diuretic]

Why we teach 'founding documents':

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED470040&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED470040

Thanks Kathianne. I agree that founding documents should be taught in school. By the way I thought ERIC had been canned a few years ago, good to see it still going I relied on it a lot a few years ago.

[diuretic]

The previous was sort of curt, though I like the site. Why are the Federalist and Anti-federalist, and diaries/journals/letters important? Because they provide insight and argument to the 'big issues' that framed both the Constitution and the inclusions/exclusions/compromises that it originally encompassed. We can see why slavery was put on hold, but came back to bite even more seriously less than a century later, (though an argument can be made that if they tried to deal with slavery, there would have been no Constitution and even more bloodshed may have occurred due to war.)

Here's a good site on the Federalist Papers and the issues addressed, many of the same issues divide us today:

http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3130


I didn't take it as curt, it was a good reference.

I'm reading Garry Wills "Explaining America: The Federalist" which for a non-American like me is a really good (if complex) read. It's informative. Trouble is it's challenging some of my own views about my country's political system as well. With a bit of luck I'll educate myself :D

[diuretic]

Good find.

Here is a selection from Federalist No. 2 by John Jay that boosts my points:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Not a ringing endorsement of multiculturalism, eh?

I'll get there. Willis says, read "Representation" (No. 10) first. So I am.
One point. Given the archaic language I'm thinking I need to be wary of changes in word meaning from the 18th Century to now. You know, it's a bit like kids saying that something that's "sick" is good. I'm just tucking that in the back of my mind.

[5stringJeff]

So Pale, Glock, and others aren't conservatives. They are the face of the right.

That's a non-sequitor. In other words, your logic doesn't follow.

Your argument is:
P1: Pale Rider, Glockmail (and others) are conservatives.
P2: Pale Rider, Glockmail (and others) believe Islam should be outlawed.
C: Therefore, all who believe Islam should be outlawed are conservatives.

Your argument follows the same structure as this obvious fallacy:

P1: Hitler was evil.
P2: Hitler ate breakfast.
C: Therefore, all who eat breakfast are evil.

Neither argument follows. Based on the above, you could make the case that some conservatives think Islam should be outlawed, but certainly not all or most. After all, Musicman, dmp, Little Acorn, and I oppose outlawing Islam, so you couldn't even argue that most conservatives favor it.

[LiberalNation]

No it follows, that most people labeled conservative like Pale also believe Islam should be outlawed. If you looked at this groups other beliefs they come off as the same type of conservative.SO you can't declare the group not-conservative without also declaring your buddies non conservative loonies as well.

[diuretic]

That's a non-sequitor. In other words, your logic doesn't follow.

Your argument is:
P1: Pale Rider, Glockmail (and others) are conservatives.
P2: Pale Rider, Glockmail (and others) believe Islam should be outlawed.
C: Therefore, all who believe Islam should be outlawed are conservatives.

Your argument follows the same structure as this obvious fallacy:

P1: Hitler was evil.
P2: Hitler ate breakfast.
C: Therefore, all who eat breakfast are evil.

Neither argument follows. Based on the above, you could make the case that some conservatives think Islam should be outlawed, but certainly not all or most. After all, Musicman, dmp, Little Acorn, and I oppose outlawing Islam, so you couldn't even argue that most conservatives favor it.

I think you've missed the point a bit Jeff. Your syllogism is about validity in argument, not truth value or even opinion. I think the point being made is that a conservative wouldn't condemn in these circumstances but a reactionary would. That's opinion..

[Rahul]

C: Therefore, all who believe Islam should be outlawed are conservatives.

Maybe not all, but most certainly are . . .

[diuretic]

Maybe not all, but most certainly are . . .

Making a religion illegal is dumb. Worked well for the Romans didn't it? :laugh2:

No point in people demonising Islam. Heck I'm an atheist and I would hate to see anyone or group hammered for practising their religion. I do want to see extremists hammered though, I'm good with that. So let's focus on the extremists and their behaviour and not regular people who just want to worship the way they feel they must.

[GW in Ohio]

That's pretty much how I see it glock. I think islam is a cult. A bloody cult, that is the root cause of 90% of the death and violence in the world today. I think outlawing it is a brilliant idea.

This is an example of why conservatism has become a lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, and why conservatives like my good friend Pale Rider will ensure that the GOP is a minority party for years to come.

You guys better watch out that somebody doesn't pass a resolution outlawing conservatism on the grounds that it is killing the Republican party.

[Rahul]

Making a religion illegal is dumb. Worked well for the Romans didn't it? :laugh2:

No point in people demonising Islam. Heck I'm an atheist and I would hate to see anyone or group hammered for practising their religion. I do want to see extremists hammered though, I'm good with that. So let's focus on the extremists and their behaviour and not regular people who just want to worship the way they feel they must.

I fully agree with you. I'm an atheist myself, BTW. And yep, we need to focus on extremists of all religions.

In addition to what you already said, I also dont understand where ONE religious group gets off telling another that their religion is dangerous (or worse), but not their own. ;)

[Kathianne]

I fully agree with you. I'm an atheist myself, BTW. And yep, we need to focus on extremists of all religions.

In addition to what you already said, I also dont understand where ONE religious group gets off telling another that their religion is dangerous (or worse), but not their own. ;)

Well let's see, at least in the past 10 years or so, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and many other religions have put violence on the back burner.

One religion hasn't. That would be Islam extremism. They seem to think violence is the way to go.

[Rahul]

Well let's see, at least in the past 10 years or so, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and many other religions have put violence on the back burner.

One religion hasn't. That would be Islam extremism. They seem to think violence is the way to go.

I take issue with your first sentence, but thats a different topic altogether.

What is germane to the discussion though is that you are wrong in believing "Islam extremism" to be a religion . . .

Islam is a religion.

Extremist Islam is NOT a religion . . .

[Kathianne]

I take issue with your first sentence, but thats a different topic altogether.

What is germane to the discussion though is that you are wrong in believing "Islam extremism" to be a religion . . .

Islam is a religion.

Extremist Islam is NOT a religion . . .

Knock knock, extremist religion here, Islam. Whoops, there is extremism in Islam.

[Rahul]

Whoops, there is extremism in Islam.

There are extremists practising all faiths and religions. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, the list goes on. Whoops! Your point is?

[5stringJeff]

I think you've missed the point a bit Jeff. Your syllogism is about validity in argument, not truth value or even opinion. I think the point being made is that a conservative wouldn't condemn in these circumstances but a reactionary would. That's opinion..

The point I'm making is that most conservatives would condemn outlawing Islam, so the support of outlawing Islam is not a conservative belief, even if some conservatives may hold to it.

[nevadamedic]

The point I'm making is that most conservatives would condemn outlawing Islam, so the support of outlawing Islam is not a conservative belief, even if some conservatives may hold to it.

I think a lot of Conservatives believe this is a good idea, even if they dont admit it publically.

[diuretic]

The point I'm making is that most conservatives would condemn outlawing Islam, so the support of outlawing Islam is not a conservative belief, even if some conservatives may hold to it.

And I think that's essentialy what was being argued. I agree, for what it's worthy, a conservative in the Burkean mould would be aghast at such a suggestion. Ergo those who are claiming to be "conservatives" and who are arguing for this are not conservative at all - they're reactionary authoritarians.