Muslim-Free Zone?

[Cerebrum123]

I've known, and been good friends with, a number of Muslims over the years. (when I was a student atleast a quarter of my class was Muslim), Even some of the very devout ones I was good friends with. And the first company I worked at (I was there for 5 years) had a number of Muslim staff, again many who I was good friends with.

The bunch I was a student with (this from 1999 to 2001) I would have said were on the whole moderate Muslims, even the fairly devout ones. But you know what? On 11/09/2001 a fair number of them had the attitude of "America got what it deserved for putting it's nose in other people's business".

That's pretty sad, although not entirely unexpected. I wasn't at my neurologist on 9/11, but we were in contact with them at the time(I was having problems with my eyes), and there was never an impression that he, or his partner felt that way.

[Psychic Missile]

Actually, he's right. The legal reasoning that upheld the CRA in the first place was shaky at best and really not intended to be a 'forever' thing. It's already beginning to come unraveled and that will probably continue until it is overturned. Not gonna happen soon, I don't think, but it will eventually happen.

If you are using that line of reasoning, my argument is still valid. Freedom of association is not an enumerated right. It's granted through freedom of speech, which has limitations placed upon it based on practicality.

[Psychic Missile]

I think one of the biggest differences in Christianity and Islam is what is considered the norm and what is an aberration.

In Christianity, the norm is to be loving, helpful, and not force anyone into converting with violence. The aberration would be hate groups like the KKK and Christian Identity that espouse violence, hatred and merely claim to be Christian.

In Islam, the norm, at least according to the Koran and history of it's beginnings, is that Islam is the only way and that any means necessary can be used to enforce Islam and make people convert. The aberration is the "moderate" muslims that espouse peace and getting along with other groups and religions and would never force anyone to convert.

How are you discerning these norms? You would be wrong about Christians for most their history. For example, the USA was settled by Europeans with, as a norm, a philosophy in total opposition to the virtues you ascribe the Christian norm. It is useless to compare the behavior of adherents and judge the religion because tenets are incidental and environmental conditions are key.

[Cow Poke]

But you know what? On 11/09/2001 a fair number of them had the attitude of "America got what it deserved for putting it's nose in other people's business".

I have to remind myself that the whole rest of the world does MM/DD/YYYY all wrong.

[JimL]

You would have to ask her.

The point is that there is no way that she could know if someone coming in off the street was a muslim any more than she could know if they were a christian. So I guess her actual policy would be that she will not allow any one in who looks like they might be a muslim, or in other words a "whites only" policy.

[Cow Poke]

The point is that there is no way that she could know if someone coming in off the street was a muslim any more than she could know if they were a christian. So I guess her actual policy would be that she will not allow any one in who looks like they might be a muslim, or in other words a "whites only" policy.

[Sparko]

How are you discerning these norms? You would be wrong about Christians for most their history. For example, the USA was settled by Europeans with, as a norm, a philosophy in total opposition to the virtues you ascribe the Christian norm. It is useless to compare the behavior of adherents and judge the religion because tenets are incidental and environmental conditions are key.

Because Christianity and the bible teaches to love your neighbor and never says to convert by force but to use persuasive arguments and scripture to make converts. Just because people did use force does not make them followers of Christ, now or then. But the koran teaches that you are to slay the infidels and to convert by the sword. So those who do are actually following the tenets of Islam and those who don't are the ones who are heretical.

[Sparko]

The point is that there is no way that she could know if someone coming in off the street was a muslim any more than she could know if they were a christian. So I guess her actual policy would be that she will not allow any one in who looks like they might be a muslim, or in other words a "whites only" policy.

well there is one way. She could print up targets with Mohammed on them and see who is offended.

[KingsGambit]

I've known, and been good friends with, a number of Muslims over the years. (when I was a student atleast a quarter of my class was Muslim), Even some of the very devout ones I was good friends with. And the first company I worked at (I was there for 5 years) had a number of Muslim staff, again many who I was good friends with.

The bunch I was a student with (this from 1999 to 2001) I would have said were on the whole moderate Muslims, even the fairly devout ones. But you know what? On 11/09/2001 a fair number of them had the attitude of "America got what it deserved for putting it's nose in other people's business".

This attitude is hardly unique to Muslims. My dad has a high school friend who ended up moving to Finland to be an English professor. He told me that on 9/11, out of curiosity he asked his class who thought America got what they deserved and hands shot up.

[Teallaura]

How will the owner know if the would be patron is a muslim or not?

They're the ones wearing bombs.


























































No, not seriously - but come on, no fair leaving straight lines like that laying around!

[Psychic Missile]

Because Christianity and the bible teaches to love your neighbor and never says to convert by force but to use persuasive arguments and scripture to make converts. Just because people did use force does not make them followers of Christ, now or then. But the koran teaches that you are to slay the infidels and to convert by the sword. So those who do are actually following the tenets of Islam and those who don't are the ones who are heretical.

If your argument is based on the content of Holy Books, fine. My issue was with your characterization of behavioral norms. If someone wishes to be non-violent, they will interpret their Holy Book in such a way. Likewise, if someone wishes to be violent, they will interpret favor from their god.

[Teallaura]

If you are using that line of reasoning, my argument is still valid. Freedom of association is not an enumerated right. It's granted through freedom of speech, which has limitations placed upon it based on practicality.

Freedom of Association derives from Speech, Assembly and Petition, not merely speech. It is a recent construct, that's true, but it's very firmly rooted in constitutional law. Not being enumerated doesn't make it any less of a right. Speech is NEVER limited based on practicality - it's limited based on instances of public good (not yelling fire in a theater means people don't get trampled) and those limitations are few and far between.

The Court has never to my knowledge held that a First Amendment right, or its derivative, could be limited merely because it seemed 'practical'. Limits are usually reserved for when Right A impinges on Right B and the Court is trying to rectify them (and then you get into jurisdiction and power and a bunch of other stuff I'm too tired to discuss right now).

In short, no, you don't get to limit a right merely because you think its practical to do so.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen...otation12.html

[Teallaura]

If your argument is based on the content of Holy Books, fine. My issue was with your characterization of behavioral norms. If someone wishes to be non-violent, they will interpret their Holy Book in such a way. Likewise, if someone wishes to be violent, they will interpret favor from their god.

PM is pro-life, Republican and a conservative! See? He said so just then!

Whatta ya mean, he didn't? Of course he did - that's how I interpreted it, anyway.

My interpretation is just as valid as yours! Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder!





There's a slight problem with your theory, PM....

[Psychic Missile]

Freedom of Association derives from Speech, Assembly and Petition, not merely speech. It is a recent construct, that's true, but it's very firmly rooted in constitutional law. Not being enumerated doesn't make it any less of a right. Speech is NEVER limited based on practicality - it's limited based on instances of public good (not yelling fire in a theater means people don't get trampled) and those limitations are few and far between.

The Court has never to my knowledge held that a First Amendment right, or its derivative, could be limited merely because it seemed 'practical'. Limits are usually reserved for when Right A impinges on Right B and the Court is trying to rectify them (and then you get into jurisdiction and power and a bunch of other stuff I'm too tired to discuss right now).

In short, no, you don't get to limit a right merely because you think its practical to do so.


http://constitution.findlaw.com/amen...otation12.html

I had the theater example in mind as a legal exercise in practical limits, but I agree the term isn't sufficient. My point is that if a business's discriminatory practices falls under free speech, then limitations can be placed on it in the same way limitations are placed on other aspects of free speech.

PM is pro-life, Republican and a conservative! See? He said so just then!

Whatta ya mean, he didn't? Of course he did - that's how I interpreted it, anyway.

My interpretation is just as valid as yours! Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder!





There's a slight problem with your theory, PM....

I never said those interpretations were valid, just that they exist. A valid interpretation for a holy text when it comes to a certain issue can be nonexistent depending upon the subject matter.

Edit: I was simply saying that there can be and/or is a difference between what a text says and the behavior of its adherents.

[Epoetker]

I had the theater example in mind as a legal exercise in practical limits, but I agree the term isn't sufficient. My point is that if a business's discriminatory practices falls under free speech, then limitations can be placed on it in the same way limitations are placed on other aspects of free speech.

A business is a little dictatorship, benevolent or no, within the larger democracy, that does the things, makes the money, and teaches the work ethic that supports the democracy. It is thus always going to have specialized demands depending on the job. When the business and the government become mixed and indistinguishable, with people leaving one and going to another with no clear change between, as they are today, you get the benefits and privileges of neither.

I never said those interpretations were valid, just that they exist. A valid interpretation for a holy text when it comes to a certain issue can be nonexistent depending upon the subject matter.

Edit: I was simply saying that there can be and/or is a difference between what a text says and the behavior of its adherents.

PM is playing around too much with this 'rigorous logic' and 'fair hearing' hobby to be safe among liberals for long.