what are you missing? it's like will said, it's generally accepted by most people that no right is absolute, but someone tell me what the very first case that was decided that says 'no right is absolute'. Most people refer to Wendell Holmes opinion where he says 'can't yell fire in a crowded theater'. 1919 was the year. This is the forest you're missing. Most people stand by the axiom that the courts are the only ones to interpret the constitution, which of course is completely false, but since it's been 'accepted' by most people, that's just the way it is now. The founders would never have stood for that, which is probably why the government waited so long to start implementing that ideology.

The truth is that we the people wrote the constitution, not the government, therefore we the people are the ones that interpret the constitution. Much like the tyrants that decided Dred v. Scott (wrongly I might add), we the people took corrective action in writing and ratifying the 14th Amendment. It apparently wasn't enough because the courts have implemented their own brand of social engineering through that very amendment.

In the beginning of this nation, it was believed that rights were indeed absolute, whether you choose to believe that is irrelevant because that's just the way it is. nearly every framers writings and all the commentaries of the day point out that fact that congress cannot do certain things, no matter how much they may want to.

Now, in this day and age, i'm sure most people are comfortable with having a group of people that are not answerable to we the people judge what we can and cannot do and call it constitutional. A classic evasion of responsibility, that way if a case comes down that people don't like, like citizens united, then we can simply say that they were wrong, but do nothing about it. it's just plain giving up on our lives and liberties.

most of you all here will not agree with my views, which is sad, but matters very much in the way of things. The government will continue to enforce THEIR wants and desires unless a huge amount of the populace disagrees. It's that way with freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and private property rights.

It all comes down to people not agreeing with certain rights, while others don't like the rights of another group. plain political hackery and ideology, as flawed and functional like a square peg in a round hole. Until people come to the conclusion that only they, and they alone, can enforce their rights against any government, we the people will continue to see the eventual removal of our rights as they get replaced with government authorized actions. It's terribly pathetic that most people in this nation desire this.

You're muddying the waters. Are we talking about the courts (law) or Congress (lawmakers)?

I think we'd be on the same page and agree the unjust laws are undesirable, especially if they infringe, unjustly, on rights. However, to say that rights are absolute is plain false. Would the founders be okay with allowing prisoners the right to bear arms? No. Did they have capital punishment back then? What about the right to life and liberty? Were the framers against prisons too? The framers weren't idiots. They didn't want to assume it would be okay to afford lawbreakers the exact same (supposedly inalienable) rights. We strip people of rights. Is that unconstitutional? No. Because it's right in there in the Fifth Amendment. So long as the due process of the law is carried out, rights can be limited and indeed are.

I don't want to make it appear we're disagreeing if we're talking about two separate things. If you're concerned about the courts misinterpreting the Constitution or about Congress making unjust laws, then so be it. Talk about that. But you can't just drop in and say something to effect of "Oh, hey, rights are absolute and no one can put limits on them—tell me where it says the government can limit rights" when it's right there in the Constitution: rights are limited by law.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but point out to me where it says rights cannot be taken away under any circumstances. Because that's what absolute means. It means that rights cannot be limited or taken away. What was the purpose of the Fifth Amendment but to state how this should be done?

criminy. here we are again back at the circular origin of natural-law style claims.

the natural law position seems to involve mysticism now, as it is possible to claim what the magickal Founders would and would not have tolerated quite apart from any documentary evidence. it's a kind of channeling. i'm always impressed to see people who channel. the problem is that this stuff is best at a seance. it's meaningless political argument, even in paranoia.

natural law is a style of claim made to justify breaking with the previous legal framework. it relies on an imaginary state prior to that arrangement the precepts or rights of which that previous system violated.

in sociological terms, it's a version of the style of arguments "heretics" used against the existing christian system. all the features are in place.

that's the level at which natural law exists. there is no other.

strawman, again.

fallacious argument. either you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, or you refuse to see the forest. rights ARE absolute, up until a person has had DUE PROCESS OF LAW. due process of law doesn't mean that congress can outlaw an otherwise inalienable right, president can sign off on it, and the courts can say 'we agree'. due process of law is a person committing a crime, being tried, then maybe convicted, and if convicted, has his rights supsended to serve whatever sentence he/she is given. once released, rights are restored. that is what i mean by absolute.



QUOTE=Baraka_Guru;2894422]I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but point out to me where it says rights cannot be taken away under any circumstances. Because that's what absolute means. It means that rights cannot be limited or taken away. What was the purpose of the Fifth Amendment but to state how this should be done?[/QUOTE]

I've pointed it out, the 5th Amendment allows a persons rights to be suspended while under sentence of the courts, then once released has their rights restored, fully.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

derp derp derp. natural law derp, heretics only derp.

your argument relies on an ideology that are rights are granted by the state and can be modified by the state, that we live and die at the states whims or not. it's all a pile of crap.

now, i'm not saying we're given our rights by God or any other supernatural being. I'm saying that we have rights simply because we're human beings, in other words 'natural law'. I can see you don't think natural law exists, that we must be governed (read that as controlled) by people we choose to be our betters in life, probably because your opinion of humanity is that we suck ass and can't be counted on to know right from wrong, therefore we must have elected babysitters. I discount and discredit that theory out of hand.

dk--->i find it amusing that you and only you are free of the constraints that bind the rest of us simply because you can't figure out what natural law actually is.
but whatever--this isn't a discussion i feel like having.

suffice it to say that there's one place in which we might actually agree--that the passive spectatorship of an american polity is largely fucked.

where we disagree is on everything else.

even if it is true that there is some Natural Law that dangles like predicates from the Magickal Entity called the soul or whatever other metaphysical construct you prefer to add in its place, and if its the same everywhere for everyone, then it's functionally meaningless.

what matters is how people mobilize politically and what they mobilize around.

you want---as always---a return to a fantasy 18th century. i think that's insane. you like to fantasize about isolated individuals in bunkers full of guns. if that's freedom for you, then you can have it. i don't like basements. i am not enamored of guns. i'd rather do almost anything else than be in an basement full of guns.

i prefer to dream about a revolution that goes forward in time, when i still dream about revolution.

people aren't free because of what or who they *are*---they're free because of what they *do* and more importantly what they do collectively.

couldn't really be further apart than that.

Do you want libel and slander legalized? Do you want me to be able to call your boss and accuse you of pedophilia in order to get you fired, as an example, without any legal recourse? Do you want parents not giving the children they're legally responsible for necessary medical care, putting them in mortal danger because of their religious beliefs?

Even if we leave aside the fact that the framers and the Judiciary have made it perfectly clear from day one that rights aren't 100% absolute, are you prepared to live with the consequences of an absolutist, slippery slope fallacy understanding of rights?

another strawman.

if you call up my boss and tell them i'm molesting 13 years olds that gets me fired and I sue, do I sue you because you violated the boundaries of the first amendment or do I sue you for the damages you caused me because you used your first amendment?

this is the flaw in most peoples thinking, is that you let yourselves be led by black robed tyrants in to thinking there are limits to your rights, when in actuality what is happening is you are being punished for damages you did to another person because you badly exercised your rights.

this is what i mean by absolute rights. you say I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but am I gagged when i walk in that theater? is there some magical bracelet or necklace I'm forced to wear that prevents me from uttering the word fire? I say I can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. If I yell fire and there is none, am I charged with yelling fire in a crowded theater? no, i'm charged with anything from disorderly conduct up to negligent homicide.

so no, there are no limits on rights, only damages for misuse of your rights.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

that's a shame you don't feel like having the discussion, because it could indeed provide interesting insight in to things. that being said, I find it amusing that you let yourself be shackled, like most others, because you can't figure out what natural law actually is.

DK, I refuse to respond to you until you understand the meaning of the word absolute.

It isn't difficult.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to help you understand what absolute means. These aren't strawmen so much as demonstrations outlining your lack of logic.

Either something is absolute or it isn't. I've posted this to you before, and yet you don't seem to understand.

We can go beyond the words, but you still don't understand.

You are an adamant defender of alienable inalienable rights. Don't you see how confusing this is to me?

You're not even splitting hairs at this point; there's one hair and you're flatly saying there are two. Absolute free speech would mean I could say what I want where I want in what way I want without any limitation whatsoever. Libel and slander prevent that, therefore they limit absolute free speech. That's not a strawman, it's fundamental legal theory.

Misusing your rights would have no penalties if the rights were absolute. That's the point we're all making.

It's really that simple. Rights extend as far as the law. If you break the law, your rights come into question. Otherwise, how could we take away one's right to life, liberty, or property? If rights were absolute, it would be illegal to take away one's life (capital punishment), liberty (incarceration), or property (fines and other penalties to income and assets).

Absolute and inalienable rights cannot be taken away. I believe that most human rights are afforded this status. For example, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is inalienable. There is no moral justification for issuing such a punishment. Any government---any party whatsoever----who issues cruel and unusual punishment is violating a right. Under no circumstances should anyone be subject to such treatment. That is an inalienable right.

Other rights don't have such characteristics. As much as we can say that we all have the right to life, liberty, and property, the fact remains that there are laws that indicate these rights can be revoked.

Personally, I think capital punishment is morally objectionable. I believe that there are no circumstances where it is just or moral to take another's life; yet, there are some justice systems that permit such actions. Anyone who considers themselves staunch defenders of the right to live should oppose the idea of capital punishment within any form of government.

However, I do understand the dire nature of criminal activity and so do support the idea of suspending the right to liberty of those who break laws that suggest a removal from society would be in order. At the same time, there are crimes that would suggest financial penalties are in order. In these cases, the suspension of the right to one's liberty or one's property is necessary as a penalty for breaking laws that are deemed just by the society. Without these penalties there lacks any consequences for breaking such laws that are in place to maintain a certain level of social harmony.

This is why rights aren't absolute. As much as you have rights to liberty and property, if you are in breach of society's laws, you must face reasonable consequences. In breaking certain laws, you are responsible to own up to your actions. This may include giving up your right to liberty for a set time frame. This may also include giving up your right to certain assets of yours. Either way, this indicates that rights aren't absolute. You are entitled to your rights as far as you are able to carry them within the confines of law abidance.

Negative. The 5th Amendment is not the Constitution, it was ratified afterwards. That's what makes it an Amendment. :)

A better question would be, would the founders be OK with a full restoration of rights upon walking out the doors of a prison?

They actually wrote a few documents saying what they would and would not tolerate. Then they acted on them.

A very good point.

What's interesting to this discussion is the death of George Washington, who had some strong views on these rights. Bloodletting was a common practice, and widely accepted at the time. Nowadays we know a lot more about the body, and get a good laugh at the intelligence of doctors back then. If you were a parent in the 1800's with a medical understanding based in 2011, would you allow a doctor to drain your child's blood to reduce a fever? Obvious violence against a child is clearly abuse, but where do we draw the line between medical "fact" and religious/personal medical "belief"? If your child had an infection and you wished to provide them with mold to fight it, how sane would you appear to the learned medical community of that day? They would have thought you were out of your mind. Ever read about Ignaz Semmelweis?

What drives the assumption that the parent is crazier than the dirty handed, penicillin ignorant drainer of blood?

Not even self defense? Or are you referring to the government & death penalty here?

Umm, aren't amendments, by law, part of the USC?

they wouldn't be pure. the bill of rights is a problem, presumably.

citadel: i'm entirely aware of these writings. and to don my historian hat for a moment, there's no way methodologically that the federalist papers or the fragmentary minutes of the constitutional convention or the correspondence of the participants even can be used in the way that strict constructionists would do. it's incoherent as history. but it does allow for disengenuous mysticism. by that i mean simple statements about preferences originating with ultra-right wing marginals/neofascists are put into the mouths of the "framers" or "founders" as if they are basically finger puppets.

bad history, bad interpretation, reactionary politics.
defend it if you want.

I don't want to remain off the path for too long. The core question, I believe, is whether rights are absolute given that there are limitations in exercising them. Sure, you can say you have the right of free speech and can say anything you goddamn well want, but the fact remains that there are laws in place that prevent you from communicating certain information. Tell me, if Manning has such an inalienable right to free speech, why isn't he being released without charges? Or would you say he does have the right but still has to pay the consequences? Either way, his right doesn't seem very absolute to me. Can someone please explain to me why that is?

Not even in self-defense. However, I was referring to the death penalty, but in my view it applies to all circumstances.

I think taking one's life even in the most extreme of self-defense circumstances still has attached to it moral repercussions, if not a legal ones. But I don't want to stray from the topic.

I believe that no government has the moral authority to take the life of a citizen under the purview of justice.

I'm still baffled by the notion that the founding fathers' input is at all relevant to anything. If an idea can't be supported without relying heavily on selective interpretation of the words of someone who has been dead for centuries, then perhaps the idea isn't all that compelling.

cruel and unusual punishment happens EVERY SINGLE DAY! This is why your argument fails.

inalienable rights are absolute. that doesn't mean that the government won't infringe on them or revoke them unconstitutionally and still be either exonerated or rewarded for it.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

this is an absolutely insane ideology. the founding of this nation rests on those words of people who died centuries ago. without them, there would be no USA. what would you have now?

Without King George, there'd be no USA either. So, you know, whatever.

I'm not discounting the historical significance of the founders. I'm pointing out that their opinions are irrelevant because they've been dead for a long time and no one can seem to speak on their behalf without at the same time grinding an ideological axe.

We should do things that make sense now, and we should base our decisions about how to run our country based on things that make sense now. Ideas that were good back then are likely still good. You don't need to quote someone who's been dead for over a hundred years to support the idea that government tyranny is bad. There is no shortage of modern examples of the downsides of government tyranny. Jefferson's opinion on church and state is irrelevant. We know from looking at Iran the problems that can be found by a too-cozy relationship between religion and the state.

I would be uncomfortable living under the tyranny of the dead. It would be odd for Canadians to suggest thinking about what the Fathers of Confederation intended for the country, or even Pierre Trudeau with regard to the Constitution of Canada. We should probably leave that to Canadian constitutional law instead of speculation.

I'm pretty sure they wrote these documents so that we wouldn't have to speculate that way.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Where is it written as law that cruel and unusual punishment is just? Does America have such laws (besides the death penalty)?

Why are the Founding Fathers on such a high pedestal for some? They stole/borrowed their ideas from the European philosphers of the generation before. It's not like they're the font of original thought, although I guess they're the font of implimented thought. And it's not like they weren't wrong about stuff {*cough*threefifthsofaperson*cough}.

I think Thomas Paine is an exception. He had some pretty damn good counterarguments to the British philosophical heavyweight Edmund Burke.

whats pfc manning going through right now?

Is it something legal? Is it just?

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

Again, I'm confused. Are you saying that federal laws mandating the death penalty, incarceration, and fines of any kind are unconstitutional?

Or are you saying rights are inalienable and absolute unless they're suspended?

Or are you saying rights re inalienable and absolute even when they're suspended?

what the founders did was frame a legal process and put it into motion.

what strict construction people want is to freeze the process part and turn the common law tradition into a version of the civil law tradition. i've mentioned this before...what the strict constructionists are after is a revolution in the common law tradition itself that they are dishonest about, that they hide beneath some absurd return to sources. which they aren't real smart about interpreting.

somehow this reminds me of a famous line from stephen dedalus:

history is a nightmare from which i am trying to awaken.

One of the aspects I seem to remember most about the writings of Thomas Paine is his criticism of heredity in government. This was a prime criticism of monarchies or aristocracies. It is irrational to pass on power on the mere basis of family.

The obsession over the intent of the founders is a kind of political aristocracy. It assumes that they are best interpreters of the Constitution, and that there are no heirs.

Well, they did write the bloody thing. Who's more qualified to interpret a work: the author, or some ivory-tower prat trying to pigonhole that work 200+ years later?

have you ever written anything for publication, dunedan?

and that would matter, how?

Your framing of this topic strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

This isn't a question of the development of medical science, it's about rejecting reality at the expense of a child's safety. You're welcome to believe whatever you want as a part of your religious freedom, but endangering the life of someone you're responsible for crosses the line.

Source

The treatment for blood infection, pneumonia, and a cyst on the neck is not prayer and oils, as you well know. It's antibiotics and surgery. We know these treatments work. It's not blood-letting, but rather tested and confirmed science.

Would you allow your own child to die because all you could muster to save his or her life was a prayer? Are you that kind of person?

Not that it's relevant or any of your business, but yes. Only one was a non-academic publication, though- an article for Escape Artist magazine. I've also defended or presented numerous papers at the undergraduate level, the best of which was "Pyotr Illich Tchaikovski And The Silver Age Of Russia," which I presented at the Phi Alpha Theta 2005 Symposium at my alma mater. My short fiction isn't yet up to a standard that I would regard as publication-worthy, however, and remains a hobby.

would you allow your child or spouse to die because you couldn't muster the money to save them?

Except that they're no longer around to interpret their work directly, so in order to use their interpretations we have to rely on interpretations of their interpretations. Which just means that their writings get interpreted according to the ideological bent of the person doing the interpretation. Pigeonholing is pigeonholing, regardless of whether its being done by some ivory-tower prat or some overweight dude in camo with a hunting rifle in one hand and a can of bud light in the other (as long as we're using stereotypes).

What does that have to do with the question it absolute vs. limited rights? I'm talking about a necessary limitation on the freedom of religion. If we had an absolute freedom of religion, parents could treat their children with candles, prayers and oils. I don't want to live in a country where children are forced to suffer and die because of their parent's religious beliefs. Do you?

So you'd rather a group of dead men be the prime interpreters of a document that said dead men wrote to prevent such forces as aristocracy and tyranny from exerting power over the people?

Please tell me I don't need to remind you that the foundational idea behind a constitutional republic is that the people retain supreme power over the government via a constitution.

The American government is beholden to the Constitution, not its authors. The founders aren't a kind of American pantheon.

What next, obsessing over what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John intended?

How about instead of interpreting their words, we just...I dunno...read the things? Take them at their words instead of trying to interpret all sorts of convenient, allegedly hidden meanings into them?

And BTW, ivory-tower prats and overweight bubbas both come in both left- and right-wing flavours. Only one of these two types, however, gets to influence public policy; the other is simply influenced -by- it.

This.

Constitutional law exists as a means to refer to the Constitution in matters of the nation. This practice is done among the people; you know, the living kind.

Law making, enacting, and enforcing is meant to be done under the authority of the Constitution. It is up to the people to determine whether this is being done accordingly. It's not up to ghosts.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

The problem with interpretations of the Constitution is that it's not always that well written. I've talked about this with some of the Amendments. I haven't read the whole Constitution, but it's my understanding that a number of problems arise with some of the diction and sentence structures. I suppose this is why it's so compelling to want to keep returning to the founders' intentions.

Correct. However, when making those determinations, the words of the authors of the Constitution, taken at face value, should be given the greatest possible weight. Not fads, the laws of other nations, religious opinion or social-engineering schema.

Reading is interpreting. You can't read something with committing an act of interpretation.

Even if their writings were pure mathematics, with only one possible interpretation, that wouldn't necessarily make them relevant.

I'm pretty sure that the tea party disagrees with your notions of bubba-disenfranchisement. What the recent elections and resulting policy actions have shown is that the bubbas are just as bad, if not worse, than the ivory-tower folk at policy.

dunedan---i asked not because i wanted to be intrusive (though i have no problem with that on occasion) but because, in my experience anyway, it's pretty routine that people have quite different interpretations than i do of what i write and often those interpretations are more interesting than what i thought i was doing when i arranged the words in a particular order. granted i'm working in a form that allow me to try to maximize that play, but still...

the point is that it's not at all clear that the people who wrote words are best at interpreting their meaning, nor is it obvious that intent in the use of a word exhausts meaning---and this last point regardless of genre. so it is not at all obvious that the intent of the framers is definitive in establishing the meaning of what the framers wrote. nor is it obvious.

in terms of historical methodology, it's pretty basic that statements about intent constitute only **one** device to shape interpretations of statements.

this is particularly the case for law within the american common law tradition, which was set up to be adaptable to changing circumstances.

but the point is more general--it's at best naive---at worst an exercise in dilletante wanking---so argue that intent exhausts meaning in almost ANY textual format.

think about the problems that arise here on the board because statement after statement that's intended as ironic or sarcastic is read straight or the opposite.

if you take plain text at it's meaning, it's not necessary to interpret. that is, unless the purpose is to thwart the plain text you're reading.

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

and in case you haven't noticed, we're a long way from the constitution as it was written.
however, those laws and enforcement shouldn't go beyond the prescribed powers in the constitution, yet that's exactly what we have today. Are those constitutional in reality? or are the people powerless to stop it now?

how are they not well written? there's really only one amendment that has any vagueness to it and that's the fourth.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

then i'd say you're free to move to another country. that or you can propose a new amendment to the constitution to limit freedom of religion or a new constitutional convention.

i suspected that at the core of strict construction was some version of luther's notion of reading through grace that by-passes interpretation.
it's a very protestant way of thinking.
seriously.
catholics dont think this way about scripture, which is the paradigm that's at play here.

but there's a way in which i like communing with the framers. i like the idea of a thomas jefferson finger puppet: you can stuff your index finger up its ass and then say: what do you think of THAT one, thomas? and the thomas jefferson finger puppet will say: what are you asking me for? the words are plain.

it'd be fun theater.

but as an approach to law, it's insanity.

The act of interpreting isn't a choice. It is a necessary step in converting the image of the words into ideas in your head. You are interpreting this sentence as you read it, combining the words I've written with the things you already know. The resulting mixture of ideas resulting from your reading of what I'm writing are likely different from the mixture of ideas someone else might get from reading the exact same thing.

in other words, more derp?

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

which makes life so much more complicated. I mean, how does one wake up in the morning. it takes so much interaction between brain and muscles just to open up your eyes, so yeah, i can see how most people are far short of the capability of reading plain text because one must interpret everything. stop signs should be made bigger since interpretation is required, making stopping distances longer.

It's the other way around. Laws have been passed and are being enforced preventing religious fundamentalist parents from endangering their kids. The country we both live in limits constitutional freedoms. That's the United States of America. You're welcome to go and found the Absolutist States of America should you choose.

Right, well, this doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Though I suspect if I tried to interpret your words, I'd know what the hell they had to do with that I wrote. However, I'm going to go the dksuddeth route and "not interpret" and so you should just pretend I'm looking at you incredulously, slack jawed, wondering what waking up in the morning and stopping at stop signs has to do with interpreting the constitution.

I'm going to put this in plain text so that you can interpret its meaning: "taking plain text at its meaning" is interpreting it.

I know, right? It's been well over 200 years now!

I don't know. Not without going into specific examples. But, no, laws and their enforcement shouldn't in principle go beyond the powers in the Constitution.

I've mentioned this before. If we were to take the Constitution in its current form and present it as though it were new and for consideration to be enacted today, I strongly believe it would be ridiculed for its vagueness and awkward constructions. If this weren't the case, people would never bother to consider the framers' intent or the Federalist Papers. They'd just say, "Hey, it's all right in there in the Constitution. It's clear, cogent, and prescriptive. I don't know what your problem is. I don't even know why we bother with the Supreme Court and Constitutional scholars."

have you agreed wholeheartedly with every single court decision and federal law EVER!!!!!!!!! made, according to their view of the constitution?

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:41 PM ----------

it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out, that is unless you don't choose to.

you say that the constitution MUST be interpreted because the plain text of words has lost their meaning. this would indicate that there is nothing of any other kind of written text by the framers to explain what they meant by their words in the constitution.

so, that in mind, how is the word 'stop' accepted to be just what it says, stop? it's because you were taught what the word meant, and that it would mean that for your entire lifetime. well that's what happened with the constitution. before it was ratified, commentators went to all 13 colonies and told the people exactly what it all meant, before they voted on it. there were no hidden surprises.

so, does the constitution mean what it meant when it was written, or do you want to change it to suit your own ideals?

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------

read the above.

Derp?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...ssure-sign.jpg

It makes a lot of sense when you consider what the authors were willing to shoot soldiers over in their backyards before they sat down to write the documents.

dksuddeth is talking about rights, and you're talking about legal permission. The question is if the two are in line?

Well this strict constructionist is about getting out of massive debt and maintaining individual freedoms.

In that particular case, I agree with you about the remedy. But what is science other than guesswork? Tested and confirmed? It has taken a series of tragedies to get where we are today with medical knowledge, and I guarantee you that things we are doing right now will be laughed at in a hundred years or so. As you said, the parents are responsible for the well being of their child, not the government. Whatever form of voodoo they wish to practice to avoid whichever afterlife they believe in is their business.

Would you allow your child to die because some doctor recommended a treatment you believed was wrong or riddled with failure? What makes Colleen Hauser's or Suzanne Somers' beliefs about cancer treatment so deadly and dangerous? If the government isn't allowed to adjudicate death, they shouldn't be allowed to adjudicate life either.

I don't want to live in a country where people are not allowed to have an honest say in the treatment for their dying child.

That's the issue with some areas, and why other texts from the time should be looked at if there's a question about the plain meaning of the words and phrases used.

That's what it comes down to. We have a hugely bloated government and people who are taxed, licensed, charged fees and subject to millions of laws and regulations. Some how I don't think that was part of the grand vision.

Like the way the commerce clause has been stretched and twisted?

You do realize that you interpret the constitution when you read it, don't you? Because reading is fundamentally and unavoidably an act of interpretation?

I think when you read "interpretation" you interpret its meaning as "motherfuckers are diluting the holy written word of the founders". Which is pretty funny when interpreted in the context of your argument- which is apparently that interpretation is wrong.

Do you understand that you've interpreted the meaning of the plain text word "interpret" to mean something completely different than (but not unrelated to) its actual usage in the context of this discussion? If you're having trouble interpreting plain text written in the language of your time, how on earth can you think that it's easy as pie to "correctly" interpret a document that was written in the legalese of the 18th century?

Science isn't guesswork, it's the most successful system in determining objective reality. It's infinitely more successful than religion in treating people with injuries and illnesses. Science is the absolute best tool we have available for treating ill children, regardless of your religious beliefs.
It's taken a series not of tragedies, but breakthroughs to get where we are today with medical knowledge. Where we are is fairly daunting. Did you know, for example, that my descending aorta is made of plastic? I was born with a cardiovascular defect that required surgery—not prayer—to correct. Every generation sees medical knowledge and practice grow more and more complex and precise, and more capable. The same was true 100 years ago, which was similarly more advanced than 200 years ago. All of this is irrelevant to the topic, though. Current medical knowledge and ability would have saved this child's life. We have plenty of experience treating blood infections and pneumonia. I myself had endocarditis at age 7 and was cured by what was modern medicine 20 years ago.
Let's say that I have a son. I take him out behind the house and shoot him in the head. I shouldn't be charged with murder because I'm responsible for the well being of my son, not the government? Are you sure that logic holds up?
Recently, Jenny McCarthy started a campaign to stop parents from immunizing their children, warning that immunizations carried with them dangerous side effects such as autism. In case you're wondering, no, Jenny McCarthy does not have her MD. She's what you might call a layman in the area of medicine. As you might guess, she didn't have her children vaccinated, and many other people didn't get their children vaccinated, assuming that this celebrity was dissenting to a failure of medical professionals and perhaps even science itself.

It turns out vaccines aren't dangerous and don't cause autism, but they do protect us with something called 'herd immunity'. If enough people in a population are vaccinated against a disease, the community collectively has a herd immunity to that disease, meaning that too many people are immune fro the disease to successfully spread through a population. Do you know what the cost of Jenny McCarthy's unabashed hubris and ignorance was? There was a measles outbreak in 2008. Measles, which is all but wiped out in the United States, saw a sudden spike in cases corresponding directly the the behaviors of Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination movement. She and her army of morons set us back set us back decades because they were too stupid to realize that they don't in fact know more about medicine than experts. You can read more about this here

If my son or daughter were in serious medical danger, I'd have the humility to trust people who know far more than I do about medicine.

non sequitor.

methodologically there's no transparency at all with a strict construction viewpoint. because the interpretations are arbitrary--and necessarily so--because they're predicated on some fiction of "original intent".

to get that fiction to operate, strict constructionists violate some very basic rules of the game they claim to want to preserve--they elevate the federalist papers etc to the status of the constitution itself. and they erase the space for precedent as an interpretive guide.

original intent means what conservative activist judges say it means. this in the name of preventing judicial activism, which is basically conservo-code for "decisions we don't like."

even if ultra-rightwing militia types dont like the current precedent-based legal system that the constitution they claim to defend put into motion, the fact remains that you can read law and read court decisions and find in them interpretive arguments concerning previous statute and constitutionality. and you--or a proxy--can appeal those interpretations. the mobility of case law presupposes interpretations. if you seriously believe in this fiction of "original intent" all that disappears.

what's funny is that an immediate consequence of strict construction becoming the legal philosophy of the land would be a constitutional crisis because the constitution is not written as the sort of document that the strict constructionists want it to be. look at the difference in the way the german constitution is written---civil law is made with an assumption that law can be fashioned to more or less eliminate the space for interpretation on the part of judges. it's a **fundamentally** different approach.

that's why these far right legal "experts" and pseudo-historians are funny---so long as they stay on the margins, far from power.

well this is just a ton of malarkey. I'm original intent and strict constructionist, yet i'm far from a conservative activist judge. What you're trying to do is take Scalias so called position of strict constructionism and original intent and turn it in to a wrong headed attempt at something, but the problem is that Scalia is nothing more than an activist judge changing the constituiton as it was written in to something that he wants to see done. His bullshit opinion in Gonzalez v. raich is more than proof of that.

right, because one would THINK that private property rights would be sacred, until tyrannical judges decide that a larger tax base is preferable to a individual being able to hold on to his own property, so black robed tyrants decide that 'public use' definitions should be broadened to include 'public benefit', i.e. Kelo. Or that we'll go ahead and forge out exceptions to the bill of rights, specifically the 4th Amendment, by stating that YES, DUI checkpoints are indeed violations of the 4th Amendment, but I, as a supreme court justice, feel that drunk driving is such a HUGE problem, that we'll overlook unreasonable search and seizure requirements for this problem.....until the next one comes along. This attitude of 'stare decisis', combined with the liberal position of a living document theory, places YOUR inalienable rights in the hands of 9 people and allows them to determine whether or not your rights can be violated for their own ideology.

Again, this is not strict constructionism. It's strict Scalia-ism and not worth the effort to explain. it's just wrong, and doubly wrong to continue to accept scalias definition of himself as a strict constructionist when he isn't.

How did we figure out that cranial trepanation isn't the best way to treat mental illness? Why do opiates like laudanum now require prescriptions? Here's some fun reading for you:

MedWatch Safety Alerts for Human Medical Products

A huge number of people are regularly affected by bad medicine. Whether it's instinct, religion, or a wild assed guess, it's a parent's right to veto.

Interestingly medical malpractice revolves around "accepted standards," not actual harm or damage. Collective behavior dissolves individual responsibility. Many of those breakthroughs were someone pointing out how bad everyone else was messing up.

:orly: Way to take a statement out of context. Ventilating your kid's melon isn't going to prevent autism. There are many people who have experienced success with nontraditional remedies, and parents should have the legal ability to seek whichever treatment they choose. They're not just babysitting the government's kids who can whisk them away at the first sign of non-mainstream behavior.

For your info I think medicine has things right most of the time. The problem
is that doctors have been wrong, and will continue to be wrong. There are individual cutting off the wrong leg screwups, and widespread going along with the crowd whoopsie daisy's. Medical convention shifts, twists and completely changes direction from time to time. More importantly, a doctor is a service provider, the patient is the customer.

And which judge is qualified enough to decide which treatment is best for the human body? The legal system is based on law, it knows little of medicine.

Legally forcing a man of faith to recieve treatment from a secular doctor is no different than legally forcing a man of science to recieve faith based medical treatment.

A minimalist government similar to the one we had in our nation's childhood wouldn't require record-setting national debt to sustain.

You're making some pretty broad generalizations.

What kind of ultra rightwing are we talking about here? The far left has a different view on "ultra right" than the far right.

I wouldn't go that far.

It's also obvious in recent rulings that different weights are assigned to different amendments based on nothing more than emotion. The 1st, 3rd and 5th are read much more literally than the 2nd (GCA '68) and 4th (DUI checkpoints, TSA, expansion of Terry stops), the 9th is all but ignored (driver's licenses and "driving a car is not a right" etc.), and the 10th is patted on the head and sent out to play with the other children by countless federal laws and agencies.

It's not well publicized, but the state's rights movement is gaining certain momentum. Several have passed or almost passed laws that fly in the face of the current federal government norms. Several have drawn clear lines in the sand that haven't been crossed yet, Montana even threatened to secede. The health insurance lawsuits are worth following as well.

State governments baiting the federal government into another civil war have me much more concerned than the spectrum of loonies who're pissed about their personal hot topics.

It seems to me that interpretation is needed in any text. The idea that anything comes with a ready made interpretation is a bit strange. I hadn't thought about it in these terms, but Roachboy makes a good point in that the strict constructionist view is a bit like evangelical views of the bible as revealed word. As with the bible, the contradictions alone would make it necessary to impose some sort of interpretation on the constitution.


But that is an old argument that need not be rehashed. The more interesting question with regards to what the founders "meant" is "so what?" Unless they were somehow some form of holy men delivering universal truths from some sort of omniscient god, it seems to me that there is no reason why their word should be treated as sacred.

the founding fathers' text is treated as a holy cow because people are fucking lazy.

educating and reforming is hard!

so you advocate disregarding the laws that founded a free nation in hopes of supplanting it with something else?

Why are you interpreting what he said? Why can't you just take his words at face value?

The First Amendment is clear you have the right to question authority and the 2nd Amendment is their to guard the first. And Congressmen and Senators who try to oppose the 1st Amendment cause it might "offend" someone need to be fired and tried for treason against the Constitution.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6...ndon1ap.th.jpg

Wow, I see examples of protected speech in your picture there.

Other than that, all I see is a massive failure to understand the Constitution. Especially the part where Congressmen and Senators get to practice free speech too.

apparently, first amendment rights don't apply to people burning qurans in michigan.

Congressmen and Senators have no rights accept to be the servants of the American Voter
the Constitution is a document that states what the government can and can not do.
my picture demonstrates how tolerant/peaceful Islam is

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

dksuddeth terry jones never burned any qurans in Michigan. He had no intention do so either. the police claimed they got a tip from somebody that he was How Convenient. the democrat leadership did prove terry jones correct when they violated his civil liberties even the ALCU Grudgingly said that

The irony of the last few posts is delicious.

i'm sure you think it is. especially when it exemplifies your point of view that rights are not absolute. my post merely shows that the minority only have permissions that the majority allows. hooray for freedom. :thumbsup:

Yes, and you outlined it cogently. I totally understand it now. :rolleyes:

dksuddeth do not worry about this bakafuru he lives in Canada where they do not have the same freedom as Americans. In Canada they have committees who get to decide what is counted as acceptable speech and where the tax payers pay for the multibillion boon dongle gun registration program

obfuscation, the prerogative of the statist.

Dude, don't even go there. You don't want to go there. It's true. We don't have the same freedom as America, which is why some of my gay friends are married and my military brother-in-law knows his co-worker is a lesbian: because she's out and talks about her family like normal human beings do.

And our limits on free speech are based on legislation against hate crimes, because, you know, we want people to live free from hatred.

The gun thing is another issue. Talk to the cops who won't go into a residence without consulting the registry first. You know, freedom to know things.

Canada: we're freer than you think. :mapleleaf:

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

Wow, the irony continues. Keep it rolling; I'm loving this. And here I thought irony was dead....

who cares if your friend is gay Nobody does
Police in canada say that you leftest gun grabbers have People counting them like thugs. Hate Crime Laws?? don't you mean thought crime laws

We Americans do not need a committee of elitist gutless cowards to approve of what we say or think. We Americans really do not give a flip about Political Correctness or thought crime laws Like Iran and other Muslim Countries have which Censor the Internet. I am sure you wish i could be sent off to some mental ward because i do not bow to political correctness.

Nah, your picture demonstrates the opposite of your point. That's free speech there, brother!

As far as your statement about Congressmen and Senators - I'm pretty sure you're approaching the point where even DK is going to stop taking you seriously. Congressmen and Senators have all the rights you and I do.

But you did manage to get one thing right, finally. The Constutition is a document that does actually state what the government can and cannot do. Unfortunately, the First Amendment is not, strictly speaking, part of the Constitution. It's part of the Bill of Rights.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

I don't. I just wish I could send you back to 10th Grade English so that you'd learn how to construct a sentence and spell. Because it's really hard to take you seriously when it's really hard to understand what you're saying.

Oh Jazz you fat cat elitist bastard! Next thing you know you're going to want everyone in the US to finish high school.

Um, that's not the point. The point is my friend could have joined the military even if he told the recruiter he was gay. He could have gotten married to another man on base within the powers invested in a gay military chaplain. Try to pull that off in many (most? any?) areas of the U.S. How is that for freedom?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thought crime laws? A hate crime isn't a thought crime (did you even read Orwell?), it's an act of hatred against a specific group. We're not the only country where it's a crime to suggest to people that we should kill Jews. You can think about killing them all you want. It's a free country.

And isn't your government tapping your phone lines?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

no that is a picture that democrats the hate Muslims have for Western Civilization and by the way the picture is from a demonstration in Dhimmi England where only they could get away with such evil. Americans rights do not come the government they are endowed by our creator. the Rino Graham has killed any chance he might would have being in politics by Siding with Fascist Islam

"We Americans do not need a committee of elitist gutless cowards to approve of what we say or think. We Americans really do not give a flip about Political Correctness or thought crime laws Like Iran and other Muslim Countries have which Censor the Internet. I am sure you wish i could be sent off to some mental ward because i do not bow to political correctness."

—longliveusa, April 24, 2011

Your creator? Who was that, George Washington?

Nobody wants to know about your friends sick unnatural lifestyle. GW never wanted to tap my phones but i am sure obama is cause obama is a enemy to America and My freedom.
No i mean thought crime laws. Hate is a emotion which is protected by the first Amendment. But the liberals call any dissent of them or Islam hate crime laws to silence dissent. Just like the backers of obama call Harman Cain/Allen West and Rubio Race traitors cause they refuse to play the victim and live on the democrat plantation. Democrats do not think minorities can achieve anything without a artificial leg up which in its self is racism.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

My Creator is Jesus Christ

And your boyfriend's name is Stan? Or is it Robert?

As for your creator, my guess is Allah.

I think you mean "you"; and it's not just a lifestyle; God made them that way.

Obama is your President. He is a patriot and adamant defender of America and her values.

Hate just isn't an emotion, it's also a cause. When it is a cause for incitement against groups of people, it becomes a crime. You can think all you want about hating Jews; that's legal. I've already said that. There is no such thing as a though crime in Canada, which is partly why we have some of the greatest free and liberal thinkers in the world.

I don't know this case. You'd have to expand on your position.

Is it the Democrats who think this? Really?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

If Jesus were alive today, I think he'd disagree with your position on gays. What happened to love thy neighbour?

longliveusa, are you preparing for armed revolution?

I always thought Jesus was God's son and God was the creator. Always learning new stuff here.

My Creator is Jesus Christ who died for my sins unlike Allah who wants people to die for him. And No Jesus did not create homosexuals. Liberal thinker LOL that's a oxymoron.
Muslim Riot Against Hindus in Indian Village...
30 injured in communal clash in Meerut
Nigeria Death Toll Tops 500 as Islamists Vow More Jihad...
Deadly bomb blasts rock Nigerian city in latest unrest | Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Egypt: Pro-Israel blogger gets three years in prison
Egypt: Pro-Israel blogger gets three years in prison - Jihad Watch Ah but but liberals said that freedom was coming Egypt what gives???????
Terry Jones to sue over enforcement of Sharia in Dearborn, Michigan Hell yes

Allah is God.

Jesus isn't the issue. Homosexuality is natural. It happens across the animal kingdom.

Ahem... the Founding Fathers were liberal thinkers.

Just out of curiosity, do you know who the Aga Khan is?

the Founding Fathers were Christian Capitalist Conservatives
God is Jewish Jesus is Gods son those who attack Jesus attack god
God did not create homosexuality
Iran a Muslim Country Hangs homosexuals from cranes but think Death for homosexuals to be to quick muslims think that's its ok to bash homosexuals over the head with rocks and stones

I see you will not comment about the articles i posted i wonder why!!!

You have a terrible understanding of history and world religions. Your sentence structure is basically incomprehensible. Maybe people do not comment on your sources because they don't take you or your posts serious?

That's a lot of capitals, at least two of which are arbitrary. As far as I know, most if not all of the FFs were deists, not Christians. Also, did you know that liberal thinkers are capitalists? Actually there are several who are responsible for the development and dissemination of capitalist ideals. And if the FFs were conservatives, America might have become a constitutional monarchy and your head of state would be Queen Elizabeth II.

I'm not going to debate your god with you. Maybe in another thread.

Homosexuality is natural; otherwise, how would it occur in species such as penguins? Try to respond to that without talking about God or Jesus.

Just as I am sure that Christian fundamentalists have beaten gays to death as well. This doesn't mean that all Christians hate the teachings of Jesus.

It's because I asked you a question that will provide some pretext to your articles. Do you know who the Aga Khan is?

No i have perfect understanding of History. Though i do have this bad habit of speaking truth to power and not bowing to oppression. But if that is what it takes to be taken serious then well its not worth it.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say:" This is my country."
Benjamin Franklin


There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
John Adams (1735-1826)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Patrick Henry (1736-1739)

"A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges."
—Benjamin Franklin

Homosexuality is not Natural God did create Homosexuals. Animals are not homosexual not matter how you spin it.
the founders fought the the fascist king of england because they were conservative.
Christians who beat homosexuals to death are not christian will be judged for their actions and Iran Government which is run by Sharia Law as all Muslim countries are hung homosexuals from cranes. the "church" who protest at the funerals of soldiers is not a christian church any way shape or form. And the reason you will not comment on my articles is cause you have been busted these articles clearly show that Islam is about domination. Islam its self means submission.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

America is not a Empire. Obama is not my president obama hates my Rights obama is backing Islam kill American troops. Obama's Pastor Rev Wright said God D*** America. Obama's Hero is someone who is pictured stomping on the American Flag.
Obama and Hillary are backing the UN gun control Policy aka the so called Small Arms Treaty which is backed by IANSA run by Rebecca Peters who was the person involved with stripping Australians of their right to bearms and is on Geroge Soros pay role and who funded obamas campaing.

Let's set this aside. It's distracting, considering you won't even admit that male animals fuck each other and form bonds. Don't you have access to YouTube? We even married a gay penguin couple here in Canada because they became adoptive parents of an orphaned penguin. It was quite endearing. I think there's a video of that on YouTube as well.

Conservatives are hardly radicals; they'd sooner by loyalists. Try again.

How convenient. Christians who do bad things aren't Christians, but Muslims who do bad things are paragons of their faith.

You clearly don't know who the Aga Khan is, because if you did, you would have tried to make up something about how he's not a Muslim because he doesn't issue fatwas or otherwise call for blood. But the fact is, he is a Muslim. One of our moderators here is a Muslim too. Both Aga Khan and this moderator believe in the same god you do; you merely have different means of reaching him. Islam itself means submitting to God. Do Christians not submit to God? "Christian" means "follower of Christ"; that is a kind of submission too. It's all very foreign to me, all this submission stuff, because I'm an atheist born and raised non-religiously (talk about freedom).

Have you looked out the window lately?

Let's set the rest of that aside a moment. If Obama isn't your president, then who is? Aren't you a supporter of the democratic process? Or are you a radical?

America is Constitutional Republic the electoral college picks the president
Atheism is a religion
God is Jewish
America is not a Empire its simply the best country on gods green earth well besides Israel,Japan and Switzerland.
The quran commands muslims to kill Christians/Jews and Atheist. the reward for killing Christians/Jews and atheist is 72 virgins.
you will not touch my articles cause you are a coward
the overthrow of the Government is Approved by the Constitution if the government seeks to destroy Americans Freedom
If Obama loves America why does he back Racist Sexist gun control and the Fairness Doctrine aka the Fascist Doctrine???
Why has Comedy Central caved to Threats of violence by Muslims???

Fucking comedy central. I knew this was all really about comedy central.

No its about freedom of speech

wow. i'm thinking sock puppet.
but one of the funniest i've seen.
there are just so many preposterous claims, one after the other.

it makes my face hurt.

I'm pretty sure you guys get to vote though. You totally have democratic power somewhere, right? I need to know this because I'm trying to understand the political situation in the U.S. Is Obama an autocrat?

I don't believe in nor worship a superhuman with authority over a set of principles that are considered incontrovertibly true. I choose the principles I wish to believe based on my own reasoning, observation, and morals. I am my own moral authority. If that's a religion, it is a religion of one.

If there is a God, then I hope he's Jewish, because I don't want to go to hell. I think the idea of the Christian hell is immoral and irrational.

Okay, I will give you some leeway on that. America is an imperial power in that it exerts untoward political, economic, and military power amongst ostensibly sovereign states. The ideas of America as world policeman and American exceptionalism are more or less "empire" in a postmodern/neocolonial world.

Where in the Quran does it say that?

What about the Canaanites? God loves genocide. What about God threatening to kill Moses because he hadn't yet performed genital mutilation on his son? God loves to cut the genitals of babies. What about Christians wanting to convert all the Jews or they'll go to hell? God is...um...wait, aren't the Jews the chosen people of God?

I will address your articles if you answer a simple question. I promise. In a way, I already have touched them. Didn't you see that? You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you'll get what you need.

Interesting. You need a piece of paper to give you permission to do that? What does the Bible say about this?

Citation please. I thought the Fascist Doctrine was the other name of the Bush Doctrine.

Which group(s) threatened them? I don't know this story.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

Like this?

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6...ndon1ap.th.jpg

Or do you only support the freedom of speech of select groups?

I heard that comedy central only censored itself because Nancy Pelosi was threatening to vaporize New York with her secret laser eyes if they didn't.

I heard Comedy Central is owned by the Muslims.

GW is a American/Jewish Hero
Christians and Jews are the same
the picture i posted is showing the true face of Islam and that picture of muslim protestors in dhimmi england
Comedy Central was threatened by Muslim fascist for showing a picture of Mutthammad on the show south park which in the past mocked Jews and Christians
you will not touch the articles cause like Canada's leader you are a slave to islam

Christians and Jews aren't the same. The Jews are still waiting for the true messiah.

The picture you posted shows one aspect of Islamic culture, which is multidimensional. If I showed you a picture of white nationalists and called it the true face of Christianity, would you object?

So how did Comedy Central respond?

I "won't touch the articles" because you either a) have reading comprehension problems or b) are afraid that I will reveal how ridiculous your "proof" is. My question is simple and I asked it twice.

And, btw, I'm not a slave of Islam, and this is probably because I know enough about it to understand that Islamofascism isn't representative of Islam. I'm surrounded by Muslims in my city. I love Muslims because I love humanity. It is a part of my moral code, which is not unlike much of what Christ taught.

Islam is Fascist Islam mission to kill every Jew and Non Muslim alive
Muslims worship Hitler as a prophet and Iran a Muslim Hellhole runs Holocaust Denial Conferences Attended by Main Stream Liberal Leaders.
the muslims where you live understand they have you brainwashed
How about those gay pride marches in Iran/Egypt/West Bank??????
Christians and Jews worship the same god.
the picture i posted showed the true face of Islam and Devil worship!!!
the KKK and Muslim Nazies will both burn in hell
the KKK was started by Liberal Democrats Robert Byrd the KKK grand dragon was a Big time Liberal Leader who backed gun control
Why is it you liberals who back the kooky 9/11 truth movement

Muslims, Christians and Jews worship the same god.

Fixed that for you.

Jews and Christians worship Jesus, muslims on the other hand worship a sexist racist pedophile who loves little boys

Rebecca Peters recieved the highest human rights award an australian can recieve for her work on gun control. maybe you need to do some more research on the good work she has produced rather than bemoaning about her policies simply because they go against what you believe in.

Rebecca Peters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia