Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

topic posted Fri, July 24, 2009 - 9:02 AM by  Rocky
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

"This past weekend, a fanatical Islamist group, Hizb ut Tahrir, which calls itself a "Global Islamic Political Party," convened at the Hilton Hotel in Chicago in order to rally the jihadi troups to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and to impose Islamic sharia law, with all its oppression, brutality and censorship........"

Read the full article:

www.examiner.com/examiner/...nstitution

;
posted by:
Rocky
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

    Fri, July 24, 2009 - 9:28 AM
    www.centerforinquiry.net/isis

    There are a few followers of Islam who are sane and believe in secular and Constitutional values. The above statement is issued by some of those brave souls who work with the Center for Inquiry.

    A call from any quarter to overthrow the U.S. Constitution is alarming, but this group that held that held their meeting in Chicago does not have a snow balls chance in hell of getting their way.

    There is also a group of Christian fascists in the U.S who openly talk about their goal of replacing democracy with a theocracy. The quote below is from the terrorist group called Operation Rescue.

    << "Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

    [Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993] >>

    Of course the very thing that Randall Terry hates, pluralism is what allows him to say such outrageous things. I think the way to fight hate speech coming from Islamic or Christian fascists is with more speech. Any atttempt to outlaw their Constitutional rights could eaisly backfire and be used against free thinkers and atheists. If those groups actually break any laws and become violent they should be prosecuted.
    • Re: Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

      Fri, July 24, 2009 - 9:43 AM
      If those groups actually break any laws and become violent they should be prosecuted."

      www.youtube.com/watch
      • Re: Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

        Fri, July 24, 2009 - 10:00 AM
        funny no one commented on that the meeting was held in Chicago??? insert conspiracy theory here. With all the Radical changes being made in this country towards a more social type of government why should other political group, religious groups not want to be a part of the new system at hand???
        • Re: Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

          Fri, July 24, 2009 - 10:16 AM
          I would say that citizens have the right to meet in Chicago even if what they are talking about is something we might not like. Constitutional protections still apply to Muslims every bit as much as they apply to Christians or nonbelievers.

          Not sure what you mean by "social type of government," but many of us do support things like socialized medicine, but that may be a different discussion.

          The incidents shown in the video of free speech being restricted takes place in the context of free speech being under attack by the government. In recent years cities have decided that there are things called "free speech zones" at events like major party conventions.
          According to the Constitution the whole country is suppose to be a free speech zone. So if the Republicans are holding a convention antiwar activists should be able to march anywhere in the city and not be restricted to one zone.
          • Re: Islamist Assault on the U.S. Constitution

            Sun, July 26, 2009 - 2:18 PM
            I agree with the right to free speach and expression that is what the First Amendment is about; to let free thought and speach take place even if a person does not like to hear it. This opens doors and allows discussion into what people are thinking. Chicago is a teerrific place to discuss this topic. I remember the 1968 Democratic Convention as I lived there during the convention and what lack of freedom to speak is about. That was a good lesson for all. My thought was that President Obama is from Chicago and that Obama has taken the stance that this country is not a christian nation but a nation of all religions. With the influx of Islam wanting to "take over" the world as a dominant religion and surpress all others I found that was Chicago an interesting place to hold this meeting. If the meeting was held in another city I would not have posted my thoughts on this topic.

            Just a side post about medical coverage since it was mentioned.
            President Obama has made it clear that his agenda is to change policies towards a more social style form of government. Yes this would fall under a political topic instead of religion. In a way Socialism restricts the movement of religious thought in society so that would be something respected here for a topic. Socialized medicine was not my intent to mention here. I personally don't support the interaction of the govenrment in health care for various reasons. Remember FEMA was to help in flood prone areas and to help people cover the cost of insurance not provided by private insurance companies. Now FEMA takes care of just about all the insurance coverage with little private coverage provided and look at the mess FEMA makes when ever there is a serious flood or sitaution like Katrina. Also I don't like the fact that this would cost us over $1.5 trillion dollars which is 1,500 Billion, create vast tax hikes and slow job growth down to next to nothing. I would loose the ability to question my medical files and what doctors can and can not do to treat me. That would go against my freedoms as set forth under the Constition.

            Darn lack of freedom of speach to tell my doctor that I don't need to have something done and yet he says I need to because the Government tells him to do so. This makes me wonder how the Seventh Day Advantists will feel when they refuse to be treated for a medical condition because God does not want them to have the treatment and the Doctors tell them they have to take it because the Government tells them they have to.

Recent topics in "Separation of church and state"