Ilhan Omar - A thread about her marriage and immigration history.

[SlackerInc]

Northern Europe and Scandinavia have become very secular, so whatever they’re doing works for me.

[Not_Carlson]

And your reference to France proves what?

[Monty]

@Not_Carlson

France’s constitution guarantees religious freedom.
What it doesn’t have is America’s strict separation of church and state.

What is your take on Article One of the French constitution.

[Smapti]

@Not_Carlson

And your reference to France proves what?

He’s this close to proving Ilhan Omar married her brother and the French constitution is the key piece of evidence that ties it all together.

[SlackerInc]

I don’t even believe she married her brother.

[Not_Carlson]

@Monty

What is your take on Article One of the French constitution.

Well, I’ll have to read it first.
Let me get back to you.

To be clear, I don’t really have a dog in this fight regarding the US constitution.
I’m just perplexed about Slacker’s argument against the religious freedom clauses.
He says he’s agin’ 'em, but his arguments seem to be for 'em.

[SlackerInc]

I don’t like to see religion get official recognition of any kind. It’s just a dumb belief that many people hold. People are allowed to hold dumb beliefs, but we don’t need (and I don’t want) special consideration for certain dumb notions.

[Banquet_Bear]

@SlackerInc

I don’t like to see religion get official recognition of any kind. It’s just a dumb belief that many people hold. People are allowed to hold dumb beliefs, but we don’t need (and I don’t want) special consideration for certain dumb notions.

…but its only Muslims that you think should be banned from immigrating to America correct?

@SlackerInc

I certainly do not! I have said many times that I welcome immigrants from Latin America. I have perhaps not said, but will say now FTR, that I also welcome immigrants from virtually any other part of the world, as long as they are not Muslim.

So you think Christians should get special consideration over Muslims. Christians are welcome. Muslims are not. Which is the real reason you can’t leave this thread alone. You are a racist bigot.

[Not_Carlson]

@Monty

What is your take on Article One of the French constitution.

OK, shopping, dinner, work and masturbation all done (although not in that order).
Thanks for waiting.

Lessee, …
CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1958, ARTICLE 1:

France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis. Statutes shall promote equal access by women and men to elective offices and posts as well as to position of professional and social responsibility.

Well, it seems pretty good to me.
It does state that France is to be a secular republic, so I suppose that is akin to separating religious belief and organization from government, if not so plainly as the US constitution.
It clearly states that equality is to be ensured “without distinction of … religion”, so that seems to cover religious freedom.
Furthermore, it states that the nation “shall respect all beliefs”, which would cover freedom of belief (and which I suspect is not the kind of wording SlackerInc would be happy with).

What’s your take on it?

I still don’t understand why SlackerInc made reference to France in his argument against inclusion of religion in the US constitution.

[Sunny_Daze]

Short version: Because he’s an idiot.

[Monty]

@Not_Carlson

OK, shopping, dinner, work and masturbation all done (although not in that order).
Thanks for waiting.

Lessee, …
CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1958, ARTICLE 1:

Well, it seems pretty good to me.
It does state that France is to be a secular republic, so I suppose that is akin to separating religious belief and organization from government, if not so plainly as the US constitution.
It clearly states that equality is to be ensured “without distinction of … religion”, so that seems to cover religious freedom.
Furthermore, it states that the nation “shall respect all beliefs”, which would cover freedom of belief (and which I suspect is not the kind of wording SlackerInc would be happy with).

What’s your take on it?

I still don’t understand why SlackerInc made reference to France in his argument against inclusion of religion in the US constitution.

Same as yours.

@Sunny_Daze

Short version: Because he’s an idiot.

Yep.

[crowmanyclouds]

Well, show us where Northern Europe’s constitution guarantees religious freedom?!

CMC fnord!

[Chisquirrel]

@Banquet_Bear

…but its only Muslims that you think should be banned from immigrating to America correct?

So you think Christians should get special consideration over Muslims. Christians are welcome. Muslims are not. Which is the real reason you can’t leave this thread alone. You are a racist bigot.

And we now know why SlackerInc is so against Omar.

ETA: And now her eldest daughter, Isra Hirsi, is fighting against climate change, which is 100% against SlackerInc’s chosen position, because he might make a killing in rising land costs in northern Minnesota. The entire family is out to get him!

[Kimstu]

@SlackerInc

But my point was that countries like France don’t have our constitutional protection of religion, yet they also don’t have the parade of horribles Kimstu darkly warned of.

You seem to have confused “not having our constitutional protection of religion” with “not having any constitutional protection of religion”.

You keep saying you think the US should have no constitutional protection of freedom of religion, and attempting to justify it by pointing to countries that do have constitutional protection of freedom of religion, although their forms of religious-freedom protection are, as I said, not exactly identical to ours and thus result in some non-identical policy choices.

None of which does jack-shit to support your still-completely-unfounded claim that it would be fine for the US to have absolutely no constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

At this point, SlackerInc, your rhetoric is probably motivated more by the feeble hope that stubbornly reiterating your illogical arguments may somehow prevent other posters from noticing how illogical they are, rather than by any genuine belief that they make sense, if indeed you ever held any such belief.

@SlackerInc

Northern Europe and Scandinavia have become very secular, so whatever they’re doing works for me.

Okay, here, for example, is Sweden:

The constitution of Sweden provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respects this right in practice. The government at all levels seeks to protect this right in full and does not tolerate its abuse, either by governmental or private actors. The rights and freedoms enumerated in the constitution include the rights to practice one’s religion and protection of religious freedom. […]

Eight recognized religious denominations, in addition to the Church of Sweden, raise revenues through member-contributions made through the national tax system. All recognized denominations are entitled to direct government financial support, contributions made through the national tax system, or a mix of both. Certain Christian holidays are national holidays. School students from minority religious backgrounds are entitled to take relevant religious holidays. No recognition or registration is required to carry out religious activity. Religious groups that want to receive government aid may apply for it.

Education about all major world religions is compulsory in public schools. Parents may send their children to religious charter schools, all of which receive school vouchers, provided they adhere to government guidelines on core academic curriculum. […]

Several of which religious accommodations and recognitions are things you’ve said in this very thread you’re not okay with. So when you claim that “whatever they’re doing” “works for you”, are you lying now, or were you lying then? Or did you instead, as usual, just shoot your mouth off without really knowing anything about the subject you were making such categorical claims about?

@Sunny Daze

Short version: Because he’s an idiot.

Yup. I usually have a lot of patience for the task of ignorance-fighting, but even I am starting to get tired of SlackerInc’s Hitchensesque con job of trying to sound sassy and provocative in order to distract attention from his underlying irrationality and ignorance.

[Gyrate]

@Banquet_Bear

So you think Christians should get special consideration over Muslims. Christians are welcome. Muslims are not. Which is the real reason you can’t leave this thread alone. You are a racist bigot.

Hey now - Islam is not a “race”. He’s a sectarian bigot.

[Sage_Rat]

I have been too busy to post. Possibly this weekend I’ll have some time to follow up with where we were on CAIR (not that it really mattered to the subject at hand).

But, anyways, in the meanwhile, ProPublica caught Omar deleting a tweet where she called her father by his other name:

https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/tweet/346398031572250625

That’s the first conclusive evidence that I know that she is actively deleting social media posts that are used by the right against her.

[Gyrate]

This is definitely the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for!

[iiandyiiii]

@Sage_Rat

I have been too busy to post. Possibly this weekend I’ll have some time to follow up with where we were on CAIR (not that it really mattered to the subject at hand).

But, anyways, in the meanwhile, ProPublica caught Omar deleting a tweet where she called her father by his other name:

https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/tweet/346398031572250625

That’s the first conclusive evidence that I know that she is actively deleting social media posts that are used by the right against her.

What does this have to do with her marriage?

[Atamasama]

@iiandyiiii

What does this have to do with her marriage?

In related news I heard she might have once had a parking ticket. It’s all adding up.

[Kearsen1]

@Chisquirrel

All the new furor is based off of a single accusation by a woman whose husband is leaving her? Pardon me if I don’t believe it based on her word alone.

I imagine that if she cried sexual assault vs a Republican, you’d be rushing to believe her then …

And you guys wonder why the moderates here find this place a very very biased partisan place