Muslim Rights Endangered in America

[Al Mumtahanah]

It was ruled Tanvir v Tanzin that Muslims can't be forced to spy or inform on each other as this violates religious freedom (spying on Muslims or informing behind their back is forbidden in Islam). Now the Trump administration is challenging that and trying to get it overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Think Progress published an article BACKING him, specifically because overturning it would allow cracking down on Christian religious freedom.

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-lawyer ... 274cb/amp/

What do you think? It's a very dangerous precedent and should be opposed by all, this could also be used to force Catholic priests to inform on people who confess to them.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

It was ruled Tanvir v Tanzin that Muslims can't be forced to spy or inform on each other as this violates religious freedom (spying on Muslims or informing behind their back is forbidden in Islam). Now the Trump administration is challenging that and trying to get it overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Think Progress published an article BACKING him, specifically because overturning it would allow cracking down on Christian religious freedom.

https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-lawyer ... 274cb/amp/

What do you think? It's a very dangerous precedent and should be opposed by all, this could also be used to force Catholic priests to inform on people who confess to them.

Trump is making an intelligent choice. I’m not for the religious right, but I’ll take a victory whenever I can.

[Geneviev]

This will be dangerous for religious freedom in America if the Supreme Court overturns it. Hopefully they won't.

[Vetalia]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the government to use extortion to force people to be informants? That sounds like something you'd expect the KGB to do, but I know full well this type of nonsense has happened numerous times in the past.

I think exposing government employees to personal liability for violating the law would be a great step in enforcing accountability for their actions; if I do something illegal in the course of my work, e.g. cause an serious accident due to reckless driving on the way to a client, both myself and my employer can be held liable. I see no reason why it should be different for employees of the government who after all are ultimately accountable to the citizens of this country. We're the ultimate boss of the President, Congress, and all the rest of the Federal Government.

[Fartsniffage]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the government to use extortion to force people to be informants? That sounds like something you'd expect the KGB to do, but I know full well this type of nonsense has happened numerous times in the past.

I think exposing government employees to personal liability for violating the law would be a great step in enforcing accountability for their actions; if I do something illegal in the course of my work, e.g. cause an serious accident due to reckless driving on the way to a client, both myself and my employer can be held liable. I see no reason why it should be different for employees of the government who after all are ultimately accountable to the citizens of this country. We're the ultimate boss of the President, Congress, and all the rest of the Federal Government.

Where in the US Constitution does it disallow it?

[Totally Not OEP]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the government to use extortion to force people to be informants? That sounds like something you'd expect the KGB to do, but I know full well this type of nonsense has happened numerous times in the past.

I think exposing government employees to personal liability for violating the law would be a great step in enforcing accountability for their actions; if I do something illegal in the course of my work, e.g. cause an serious accident due to reckless driving on the way to a client, both myself and my employer can be held liable. I see no reason why it should be different for employees of the government who after all are ultimately accountable to the citizens of this country. We're the ultimate boss of the President, Congress, and all the rest of the Federal Government.

Where in the US Constitution does it disallow it?

That's not how the Constitution works chief.

[Vetalia]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the government to use extortion to force people to be informants? That sounds like something you'd expect the KGB to do, but I know full well this type of nonsense has happened numerous times in the past.

I think exposing government employees to personal liability for violating the law would be a great step in enforcing accountability for their actions; if I do something illegal in the course of my work, e.g. cause an serious accident due to reckless driving on the way to a client, both myself and my employer can be held liable. I see no reason why it should be different for employees of the government who after all are ultimately accountable to the citizens of this country. We're the ultimate boss of the President, Congress, and all the rest of the Federal Government.

Where in the US Constitution does it disallow it?

The Ninth Amendment.

And seriously, do you think it's a good idea to base the government's power on what it can get away with? There would be no issue with establishing federal debtors' prisons and a feudal system with titles of nobility based on that logic.

[Fartsniffage]

Where in the US Constitution does it disallow it?

That's not how the Constitution works chief.

It really does.

[Fartsniffage]

Where in the US Constitution does it disallow it?

The Ninth Amendment.

And seriously, do you think it's a good idea to base the government's power on what it can get away with? There would be no issue with establishing federal debtors' prisons and a feudal system with titles of nobility based on that logic.

You guys are always talking about your constitution like it came down from god. Not my fault it doesn't say what you want it to in this case.

[Totally Not OEP]

That's not how the Constitution works chief.

It really does.

Stop before you say anything else that shows how uninformed you are and then go read the 9th Amendment.

[Vetalia]

You guys are always talking about your constitution like it came down from god. Not my fault it doesn't say what you want it to in this case.

It didn't come down from God, it was written that way for this very purpose, to protect the people and keep the government accountable. And evidently it may say what we want or else a lower court wouldn't have found for our position, requiring it to be elevated to the Supreme Court based on the government's appeal.

[Fartsniffage]

It really does.

Stop before you say anything else that shows how uninformed you are and then go read the 9th Amendment.

I know it. I also know that the Supreme Court has never held that bullying people by Federal agents is against the Constitution. In fact, they've supported it. So ....

[Kowani]

Stop before you say anything else that shows how uninformed you are and then go read the 9th Amendment.

I know it. I also know that the Supreme Court has never held that bullying people by Federal agents is against the Constitution. In fact, they've supported it. So ....

The Court also upheld Dred Scott and Korematsu.

[Fartsniffage]

I know it. I also know that the Supreme Court has never held that bullying people by Federal agents is against the Constitution. In fact, they've supported it. So ....

The Court also upheld Dred Scott and Korematsu.

And Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I doubt SCOTUS will overturn such a law. Or rather, I hope it doesn’t.

[Kowani]

The Court also upheld Dred Scott and Korematsu.

And Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

The point, is that relying on the Court for what the Constitution says/doesn’t say is only a matter of time.

[Fartsniffage]

And Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

The point, is that relying on the Court for what the Constitution says/doesn’t say is only a matter of time.

Indeed. When were your examples versus my examples?

[Vetalia]

The point, is that relying on the Court for what the Constitution says/doesn’t say is only a matter of time.

Indeed. When were your examples versus my examples?

Both of your examples expanded citizen rights against efforts of the government to interfere with them so I'm not really sure if those were the best choices.

[Fartsniffage]

Indeed. When were your examples versus my examples?

Both of your examples expanded citizen rights against efforts of the government to interfere with them so I'm not really sure if those were the best choices.

They were good choices.

[Vetalia]

Both of your examples expanded citizen rights against efforts of the government to interfere with them so I'm not really sure if those were the best choices.

They were good choices.

You're up to something, I know it but I don't know what it is.

By the way - good to see you again.

[Fartsniffage]

They were good choices.

You're up to something, I know it but I don't know what it is.

By the way - good to see you again.

You too.

[Purgatio]

Tanvir v. Tanzin was a terrible decision and I sincerely hope it gets overturned. Sorry but your religious beliefs aren't some line-item veto on either the criminal law or the criminal investigative process. The reality is that these men and their refusal to serve as FBI criminal informants placed incredible suspicion on them and their activities, it was too dangerous not to place them on the No-Fly List, and citing some obscure verse in some obscure book is not an 'excuse' to hold up an investigative process. Religious liberty is not some catch-all term that can be used to ham-string counter-terrorism and criminal investigation or to excuse behaviour that obstructs that process.

Anyway, hope it gets overturned and these despicable men get placed back on the No-Fly List where they belong. They deserve much worse and should be grateful that's all that happened to them.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Tanvir v. Tanzin was a terrible decision and I sincerely hope it gets overturned. Sorry but your religious beliefs aren't some line-item veto on either the criminal law or the criminal investigative process. The reality is that these men and their refusal to serve as FBI criminal informants placed incredible suspicion on them and their activities, it was too dangerous not to place them on the No-Fly List, and citing some obscure verse in some obscure book is not an 'excuse' to hold up an investigative process. Religious liberty is not some catch-all term that can be used to ham-string counter-terrorism and criminal investigation or to excuse behaviour that obstructs that process.

Anyway, hope it gets overturned and these despicable men get placed back on the No-Fly List where they belong. They deserve much worse and should be grateful that's all that happened to them.

It's not obscure, it is a well known doctrine among most Muslims, I even saw a fatwa against security cameras around a mosque based on it.

[Nova Cyberia]

One should never be forced to spy on others by the government.

[Purgatio]

Tanvir v. Tanzin was a terrible decision and I sincerely hope it gets overturned. Sorry but your religious beliefs aren't some line-item veto on either the criminal law or the criminal investigative process. The reality is that these men and their refusal to serve as FBI criminal informants placed incredible suspicion on them and their activities, it was too dangerous not to place them on the No-Fly List, and citing some obscure verse in some obscure book is not an 'excuse' to hold up an investigative process. Religious liberty is not some catch-all term that can be used to ham-string counter-terrorism and criminal investigation or to excuse behaviour that obstructs that process.

Anyway, hope it gets overturned and these despicable men get placed back on the No-Fly List where they belong. They deserve much worse and should be grateful that's all that happened to them.

It's not obscure, it is a well known doctrine among most Muskims, I even saw a fatwa against security cameras around a mosque based on it.

So what? You can't cite religious belief to obstruct a criminal investigation without consequence. Imagine how messed up a society would be if religion were a line-item veto to criminal investigation. Imagine I were to invent a whole new religion, and I write down in my new holy book "thou shalt not ever testify in a court of law", and you get subpoenaed by a prosecutor and refuse to answer any questions as a witness on the grounds that you believe in my new religion, and my religion prohibits witness testimony in court. What if I create a religion that says its against my new religion to answer questions in police interrogation. Or to call the police at all. What if I create a religion that obligates my followers to commit obstruction of justice because it is divinely-commanded.

This is a ridiculous and absurd slippery slope. Yes, your religion prohibits you from informing on other Muslims. So fucking what? Its still obstructing a counter-terrorism investigation and there are serious consequences for that shit. "Religion" is not some lame excuse that makes every dangerous activity okay.