Muslim says that it is ok to discriminate

[Lagardo]

Preach, sound the clarion call, warn against the evil, but we can't deny people their rights under the present constitution.

Exactly. We need to remember that the Constitution does not give anyone rights. Its authors were acknowledging our God-given rights. IF we belive in the constitution then we believe that humans have these rights regardless of law.

 

[carpro]

How do I know that you didn't make this story up in your head?

He didn't.

 

[carpro]

Taxis are licensed to do business by local governments. They make the rules. The simple procedure is for the city is to pull the license of any taxi driver who refuses to accept passengers on religious grounds.

It is illegal for even restaurants and stores and hospitals to refuse admittance for guide dogs. Taxi drivers do not get a pass.

 

[Lagardo]

It is also illegal to refuse to hire someone based on religious grounds, yet churches can. Why? Because our laws do allow for people's religious beliefs.

 

[Lagardo]

He didn't.

We have no way of knowing that. The point is, that he should cite his source. It was clear in the OP that he was not providing all the details. A link would have resolved that.

For some odd reason, he kept refusing to provide a link.

 

[carpro]

It is also illegal to refuse to hire someone based on religious grounds, yet churches can.

A specious argument.

 

[carpro]

We have no way of knowing that. The point is, that he should cite his source. It was clear in the OP that he was not providing all the details. A link would have resolved that.

Yes, a link would have helped, but...

It was also wrong for a member to suggest he was lying about the whole thing.

 

[Lagardo]

Yes, a link would have helped, but...

It was also wrong for a member to suggest he was lying about the whole thing.

No one said he was lying. Someone asked a question that showed the need to provide a source.

EG's constant refusal to provide a link or a source was somewhat suspicious.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Posting links to news stories is accepted practice.

No source indicates to the casual reader that there is no validity.

 

[carpro]

No one said he was lying. Someone asked a question that showed the need to provide a source.

EG's constant refusal to provide a link or a source was somewhat suspicious.

Correct. No one said he was lying and I didn't say they did.

A member "suggested" he may have been lying.

Not suspicious at all if you know EG's posting habits.

 

[carpro]

Posting links to news stories is accepted practice.

No source indicates to the casual reader that there is no validity.

I understand why you feel that way. He did source the topic but did not link it.

If I'm interested in the topic , I'll sometimes ask for a link.
Usually I just look it up myself.

Some posters here even request links for common knowledge subjects that have been discussed at great length. Some of them want links for opinions. That's a sign of laziness bordering on harrassment.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Exactly. We need to remember that the Constitution does not give anyone rights. Its authors were acknowledging our God-given rights. IF we belive in the constitution then we believe that humans have these rights regardless of law.

What are God-given rights, and where are the Scriptures that say God gave us these rights ?

 

[Lagardo]

What are God-given rights, and where are the Scriptures that say God gave us these rights ?

According to the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The constitution was written, not to grant, but to protect these rights. It assumes these rights exist.

Perhaps a slip of the shift key lead you to think I was making a statement about God, when I was making a statment about our Constitution.

The constitution and the declaration of independence are no more scripture than our nation is Christian, but nonethelss, the law of the land assumes these rights exist.

 

[Daisy]

I understand why you feel that way. He did source the topic but did not link it.

If I'm interested in the topic , I'll sometimes ask for a link.
Usually I just look it up myself.

But how do you know you are referencing the same story as the OP?

Some posters here even request links for common knowledge subjects that have been discussed at great length. Some of them want links for opinions. That's a sign of laziness bordering on harrassment.

Some people do do it for harrassment, but that is their problem. Most people would like to know.

It is a good practice to provide the link if you possibly can. I've found out the hard (and embarrassing) way that an article may not have said what I remembered it as saying.

At any rate, it is not laziness to ask the referrer to provide a link - it is lazy to refuse to provide one and harrassment to accuse the asker of laziness.

 

[pinoybaptist]

According to the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The constitution was written, not to grant, but to protect these rights. It assumes these rights exist.

Perhaps a slip of the shift key lead you to think I was making a statement about God, when I was making a statment about our Constitution.

The constitution and the declaration of independence are no more scripture than our nation is Christian, but nonethelss, the law of the land assumes these rights exist.

Now I'm not trying to be mean with that question, Lagardo, but,no, it was not a slip of the shift key. You clearly said God-given rights. And you're not the only one I heard that phrase from. Matter of fact, years ago, when I was part of the struggle against the dictatorship in my country, I used to use that phrase myself in sit-ins and the various stuff we "revolutionaries" did to get the workers and peasants all riled up.

Years later, as a Christian I got to thinking about that. The Bible speaks of no rights that God gave to anyone. Not the right to pursuit of happiness, not the right to be free from hunger, or from fear, not the right to liberty, or the right to life. God spoke out against what we call crimes today, such as murder, adultery, rape, incest, theft, unequal treatment, but He never said these are rights inherent to anyone.

I mean they are good stuff, but I feel if we say they were God-given we are taking the Name of the Lord in vain. They are human ideals. Period.

 

[Lagardo]

By a slip of the shift key, I mean that I put God-given as opposed to god-given. My point was the intention of our constitution, not that these rights has been given by God.

Now, that is a great topic for discussion. Of course, it flies in the face of the founding our our country, but it would be a good one for discussion.

Of course, its off topic here.

 

[777]

Still waiting for that link to prove Jefferson loved the Koran..

I understand why you feel that way. He did source the topic but did not link it.

That Islam is intolerant? Well, throw up another link to the Koran is all ya need. They might actually read the link if you do it.


Some posters here even request links for common knowledge subjects that have been discussed at great length. Some of them want links for opinions. That's a sign of laziness bordering on harrassment.

Such as "Is Islam intolerant?"

It's often more than laziness on their part, they usually don't even bother to go to the link. They'll criticize the source and/or you instead. And NEVER post a counterlink, even though they're challenging you.

"But, I didn't say it in the first place!"

Yeah, you didn't say anything except that I'm wrong because it wasn't "proven", which wouldn't mean that at all anyway. I'm not writing them a thesis paper. That's why we don't like to talk to them.

But, for you, here's a good source to see what the Muslims are crying about this time:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/index.php

Or you could just go to al-AP's homepage. I never could figure out what your problem was anyway, don't you realize:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

It's the religion of peace, believe it or else.

 

[El_Guero]

ONLY IN CHURCH.

ONLY.

Discriminating against the disabled outside of church in the normal practice of your job is illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.

It is also illegal to refuse to hire someone based on religious grounds, yet churches can. Why? Because our laws do allow for people's religious beliefs.

 

[El_Guero]

Prospective immigrants ARE NOT UNDER ANY OF OUR CONSTITUTIONS.

PERIOD.

THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.

We need to determine the extent of the threat. And we need to determine how to control what is coming into this country.

IF WE DO NOT CONTROL the immigrants, discrimination AGAINST American citizens might be necessary to prevent a civil war. I do not think that calling for Americans to plan to prevent an insurrection is ignorant or prejudice - I think it is just prudence.

Of course, but we can't take away freedoms.

IF we are talking about limiting immigrations from certain nations that is one thing, but having a religious test to immigrate would go agaisnt the very fibre of our land.

Preach, sound the clarion call, warn against the evil, but we can't deny people their rights under the present constitution.

 

[El_Guero]

I cited my source.

For some reason that defies me you refuse to read.

Would you like it in Turabian?

We have no way of knowing that. The point is, that he should cite his source. It was clear in the OP that he was not providing all the details. A link would have resolved that.

For some odd reason, he kept refusing to provide a link.