1. Face to faith

Comment #243606 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 11:09 am

Quetz, I'll sign up, if you resurrect your cute avatar. ;)

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243602 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 11:03 am

Re: 1063. Comment #243563 by SidewalkCynic

What's "won ton behavior'? Asian gangs?

Did you mean wanton?

Yeah and global warming has increased while the number of pirates has decreased.

As for the rest of your rant, all I can ask is WTF?

3. Opening minds

Comment #243593 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 10:45 am

Re: 193. Comment #243575 by Roger Stanyard

Then there is Melton Combustible, a village in East Anglia. In mediaeval times, the locals got, well lets say, a bit concerned about the local Bishop taking religion somewhat too seriously and kindly and out of the generousity of their own hearts, helped him to get the message by burning his palace down (hence the name of the place).Perhaps you should try the same thing with Pat Robertson or Ken Ham.

Careful, David Robertson is quotemining for his new book.

I assume you are joking since you earlier advocated using the tools of a liberal democracy. :)

The neocons are at work for John McCain.

4. Opening minds

Comment #243566 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 8:23 am

Hellene, I give credit to my atheist father who tried his best in a fundamentalist culture. He is the one who bought the subscription to Natural History and watched nature shows with me and bought me any book I requested and paid for and encouraged my education. It's because of him that I have such a thirst for knowledge and that I read so much. I was the first one on either side of my family to go to college and later graduate (law) school. He never told me what to believe about god, just that he did not believe in a deity, and that I had to read and learn as much as I could about all subjects, including religion. The Christian influence came from my school, friends and my mother's side of the family. I was very close to them growing up and it is very difficult to buck family, societal and peer pressure. But my father taught me to read, research and think and gave me the tools to overcome the Christian pressure cooker here in Tennessee.

5. Opening minds

Comment #243559 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 7:53 am

Re: 181. Comment #243551 by Laurie Fraser

Laurie, I read your story awhile back. It's one of my favorite "deconversion" stories. LOL

182. Comment #243553 by Roger Stanyard

Roger, as an American living admidst these nutcases, I agree with much of what you say. RD also agrees with you and Lawrence Krauss and Eugenie Scott that different tactics are required for the politcal battle for rational education and that he is not the best spokesperson for that cause. I have heard him say so many times.

I, like RD, am so tired of the influence religious people have over education. I'll think about your points, but I can't help but think that letting them keep their delusions (and imparting them to our children) undermines the cause of rationalism so much that it may not be worth it in the long run.

Edit: When I say "letting them keep their delusions", I mean without ridicule or confrontation and not by trying to force them to give them up. I do agree with you that it has to be done with the tools of liberal democracy.

6. Opening minds

Comment #243549 by Titania on September 6, 2008 at 6:48 am

131. Comment #243121 by Hellene

Hellene, my daughter majored in theater and is now always looking for work as an actress/dancer/choreographer. Yet she is one of those "militant atheists." Ever heard of them? :)

My son who is studying quantum physics thinks that atheism is a non-subject. He says there is no evidence for any deity so it is a non-issue for him.

I am equally proud of both of them. They are two of the most rational people I know. The key to parenting is to expose them to as many subjects as possible and then watch their brains work.

Children understand way more than most adults realize.

When my daughter was very young, I tried to shield her from the knowledge that dead people were buried because my father died when she was three and I did not want her to be upset about him being underground. We went to a picnic on a farm that had a private cemetery when she was 4 and I couldn't find her for a few minutes. When I finally did and asked her where she was, she said "Over there where all the dead people are buried." It was an eye-opener for me. I never tried to "hide" any knowledge from my kids after that. They are going to find out things on their own. We openly discussed everything after that. It is the only way to raise rational, curious children.

What I do not like about religion is the continual brainwashing of children to believe in things without evidence and the inculcation of guilt to keep them in line with the program. The only good thing is that many children do ultimately rebel and work through it. However, people like Sarah Palin almost never do. [Oops wrong thread, but I think related to this topic.]

It took me years of reading and thinking to get over the religious indoctrination in my public high school in Tennessee. We were forced to watch movies on the "Rapture" and listen to fundamentalist evangelical preachers, some of whom were teachers. I was fearful, had feelings of existential guilt, and was deeply depressed for years. It was only after reading The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable and many years of Stephen Jay Gould's essays in Natural History along with Isaac Asimov (and a lot of science fiction) and Carl Sagan and Joseph Campbell, etc, that I was able to break free of the irrational guilt and fear that such Christian indoctrination engendered in me. I have not been depressed since I read the Selfish Gene in the early 80's. [It is why I am so grateful to RD and why I hang out on this website.] I get incredible pleasure from learning all I can about this amazing universe and trying to communicate that to children and any adults who will listen. I cannot do it as well as RD or for as many people, but I can do my small part with the children around me.

My biggest objection to Christianity is how children are told from a young age that they are sinful and need saving. I made very sure that my children never suffered from such abuse. As a result, they are well-adjusted independent thinkers and have a natural self-confidence that it took me decades to develop.

Edited for clarity.

7. Opening minds

Comment #243136 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 7:37 am

133. Comment #243124 by Dhamma

Dhamma, Have you read Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor?

MixMaster: I said Coming Back to Life is a joke for the religious relatives. Plus I love the music. For some reason, it reminds me of "A Tale of Two Cities."

8. Opening minds

Comment #243108 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:50 am

Laurie, I leave the Zappa songs to my husband. My son loves Zappa because of him!

At my funeral, I want Pink Floyd's Coming Back to Life played. What a joke on all the religious people in my family!

9. Opening minds

Comment #243106 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:47 am

CFL, I forgot Steppenwolf's The Pusher. That had a bad word as well as drugs. :)

Being the responsible mother that I am, we also discussed how bad drugs are for you. My son is in college now and he says he knows too much about what drugs do to your mind and body to do drugs. I hope he is able to resist the peer pressure.

10. Opening minds

Comment #243105 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:44 am

Thanks, Vaal, but my husband the infectius disease doctor deserves much of the credit. Your story about your nephew reminds me of my 9 year old nephew. Last year, he was standing outside whistling. I asked what he was doing and he said he was communicating with a bird up in a tree. He had noticed that if he whistled, the bird responded. So of course, I went out and bought him Peterson's Field Guide to the birds and cds (along with the player)to listen to bird songs and we went to websites, etc.

A few weeks ago, he mentioned to my husband that there were only two galaxies, so my husband showed him the Hubble Deep Field pictures and they talked about galaxies, stars, star formation and the big bang.

You have to take every chance you get with kids.

Now, I really do have to get to work.

Have a good day, ya'all.

11. Opening minds

Comment #243100 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:35 am

Thanks, Decius. I'l try it next time. I have to get ready for work now. Gotta keep those drug dealers from being deported. :)

12. Opening minds

Comment #243098 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:30 am

By drug songs, I mean songs literally about drugs like Legalize Marijuana by Peter Tosh and Cocaine by Eric Clapton and the other cocaine song by Jackson Browne. There were others but I can't remember them just now.

13. Opening minds

Comment #243096 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

Thanks, Decius. As I often say, "You can't insult me; I'm a lawyer."

Decius, why did your smiley face show up and mine did not?

14. Opening minds

Comment #243095 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:25 am

Laurie, my 19 year old son agrees with you about 70's music. His Ipod is full of it. Although, he does make me listen to Mars Volta and They Might Be Giants sometimes. He agrees with me that almost no music today rises to the level of 70's rock. He also gets his friends to listen to it. His friends used to beg me to turn on those "drug" songs in the car. I had to make them sign in blood to not tell their parents where they heard those songs.

15. Opening minds

Comment #243092 by Titania on September 5, 2008 at 5:20 am

Vaal, my children (now pretty much adults at 19 and 23) and my nieces and nephews do get excited about science. We subscribe to Nature and Natural History. We discuss articles at dinner. When my children were growing up, we watched Cosmos together and any other nature or science show we could. We performed science experiments at home. My house is full of science books. We took them to museums and went on nature walks and field trips. We discussed evolution with them at very young ages. My children were puzzled and appalled when some children at their school were excused from science lessons on evolution based on their religious beliefs. [I was outraged!]

Last year I took my niece and nephew to NYC to the Natural History Museum. We talked about human and animal evolution. Last weekend, we went to the Aquarium. My 9 year old nephew knew more than I did about the fish, turtles, seahorses, penguins, otters, etc. Afterwards we all went for pizza and the kids started asking my 19 year old son who is studying quantum physics in college about the big bang and the age of the earth, etc. The sad thing is that my nieces and nephews will probably learn more science from me and my husband and tv than from school or their parents. We have also greatly influenced children in our neighborhood. Kids are so thirsty for knowledge about the world. It is our duty (and it is truly a great pleasure) to teach them about the world and how we know what we do.

Susan, thanks for the article. We need writers like you in the US.

16. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242914 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 6:00 pm

953. Comment #242913 by decius

He looks more like a sasquatch to me.

But not a red headed one....

17. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242911 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Brandy,

Al has repeatedly said that he is not a Republican and that he voted for Gore and Kerry. That is why he thinks you are a troll when you keep calling him a Republitard or whatever your term is. I can't tell exactly what you are arguing against. You are beating a dead horse.

18. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242898 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Laurie, from now on I'll stick to my Guinness and Jameson.

19. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242892 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Laurie,

I'm sorry; I had plum wine with my sushi and when he said "I am not a point" it cracked me up. ;)

20. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242889 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Re: 917. Comment #242839 by al-rawandi

I am not a point.

Brandy, Al wins. So please stop!

21. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242677 by Titania on September 4, 2008 at 10:55 am

Re: 701. Comment #242599 by al-rawandi

The Palestinians are, sad to say, a pawn for the Arab kelptocracies

Al, I had a strange vision of little Arabs swimming in a large bed of kelp....

22. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242476 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Re: 617. Comment #242470 by mordacious1

My daughter got assigned to watch the Palin speech for homework and she made me watch it with her. I'm wondering why she didn't have to watch Biden's speech.

That's what parents are for. :)
Edit: I should have added: to show alternate points of view.

How old is your daughter?

23. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #242443 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I also registered.

24. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242431 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 4:52 pm

What the heck is a McBush atheist? Will someone enlighten me? Or do I really want to know?

25. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242427 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Re: 543. Comment #242374 by decius

Decius,

Sometimes you are funnier than Diacanu!

26. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #242416 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Maybe I'll go and post reports to the site.

From looking at the brochure, I think that Templeton is sponsoring the afternoon session. I do not think Sean Carroll will speak at a Templeton sponsored event.

27. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241906 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 7:44 am

Mitchell Gilks:

How many gender-obsessed men are there who will vote for a woman solely because she is a woman? I interpreted it in the light of news stories that have been about women. Also, the volume of email I have received on this issue from Democrats. It has been unbelieveable.

If you think that Sam was talking about a large number of men as well as women who are so gender-obsessed they would only vote for a woman, then that would be very strange. I think you are wrong.

I can't respond anymore as I am at work. Sorry.

28. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241900 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 7:33 am

Re: Mitchell Gilks

Though...such an inference is no surprise from someone that states "I'm not voting for Hillary solely because she is a women, ergo, no Hillary supporters are."

I am not sure who you are quoting. I never said there were none. I just don't think there are millions.

29. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241895 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 7:29 am

Mitchell Gilks: Sam said:

it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes.

As I said, I am a little disappointed that he would think this and he clearly was talking about female supporters of Hillary. I agree with the rest of what he said.

30. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241885 by Titania on September 3, 2008 at 7:21 am

As a Hillary supporter, I can tell you most Hillary supporters would never vote for McCain/Palin in a million years. I am somewhat disappointed in Sam Harris for saying that there are millions who would base their vote solely on gender. It's a little misogynistic.

Palin is the epitome of anti-feminism.

Hillary lost the race. My vote and my money will go to Obama. He is the best chance we have to distance ourselves from this administration.

Quantum Flux- what in the world do you think Shrub has been doing to America with this war and his tax cuts for the rich? We need alternate sources of energy,not more off-shore and Alaskan oilfields.

31. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239545 by Titania on August 29, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Coco, I am in Tennessee, Central Standard Time. I am a doctor's wife so I know how you feel about playing second fiddle to the job!

Laurie, I am also not happy with the Democratic Party, but I think if they win the election and a majority in Congress, they will be more bold in bucking the neocons and getting us back on track.

Edit: I can't hold my eyes open. Night ya'all, as we say in Tennessee.

32. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239544 by Titania on August 29, 2008 at 10:39 pm

276. Comment #239514 by hawt4dawk

I agree. Good post.

You are the cat's pajamas. That one I remember from my great-grandfather. He used to bounce me on his knee when I was a toddler and tell me I was the cat's pajamas. I thought he was a bit touched as I knew that cats did not wear pajamas!

33. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239537 by Titania on August 29, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Hi Hawt. It's after midnight, but what the heck. I'll pop over in a few minutes.

Coco, I can pm you a list, unless others express an interest, in which case, I will post for all.

Laurie, Tia is darling. Children are what it's all about.

Edit: What does bomb-diggity mean? Never heard the term.

34. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239534 by Titania on August 29, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Laurie, you are so right on every point. I hope this election will turn the tide for my country. Believe me, there are many of us who think exactly like you about the Rethuglicans. I hope we will make you proud in November.

35. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239523 by Titania on August 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm

119. Comment #239177 by Steve Zara

And as for your views on expulsion... Unlike others here, I don't think we are all on the same team, as some of us (me at least) won't tolerate breaches of fundamental human rights being casually discussed as if they were just another possibility.

Steve, I assume you were referring to my comment in the thread Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque Comment #236770 by Titania on August 25, 2008

If you will read that post together with my post just prior to that (Comment #236516 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 6:19 pm), you will see that I never conceded that I was wrong or that I condoned what TWP and Fanusi were saying. It's just that I realized when I woke up the next day that it was like arguing with a brick wall. I thought that by calling them fascist and extremist, it would alienate them and they would never listen to what I had to say, so I took what I thought was the high road of agreeing with Vaal that we are all on the same side of preserving Western society and ideals. I then tried to move the discussion away from the stalemate on their tactics to a discussion of reasonable measures short of the ones they were advocating.

I stopped posting because TWP skimmed my post again and thought I was conceding to her point of view when I clearly said that I was not wrong and that their proposed methods would turn us into what we despise about the jihadists, so I thought there was no point in continuing any discussion with her.

Then Fanusi came up with his list of proposals at 431. Comment #236911 by Fanusi Khiyal on that thread. I sighed and went to work. It became crystal clear that even though he pays lip service to the Constitution and Western values that he was advocating the exact opposite and that his position is set in stone.

He also made comments that people (and I assume he was referring to me) do not know what fascism or extremism or totalitarianism mean and should not use the terms.

I decided not to engage with him anymore. I do know quite a bit about these subjects and do know full well whereof I speak. He is just now reading on the Holocaust. I have 8 full shelves of books relating to the Holocaust and Nazi Germany, most of which I read three decades ago, and another 8 relating to WWI, WWII, communism in China and Eastern Europe, etc. Despite what he thinks, he is not the only one who has read up on these subjects.

So Steve, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that these topics should not be discussed casually.

In reading through this thread today to catch up, I find that I am incredibly appreciative of Al R and Diacanu who uncannily are able to express in most excellent sound bites what I think.

I tip my hat to Decius for post 394 Comment 239394. Best post of the month, maybe the year.

As for CFL's post 172 239323, you must admit I had had a long day posting (which I am not used to) and more than a wee bit o' Jameson when I made the Star Wars reference. I was getting a bit desperate to get the youthful posters to see my points. My 19 year old son says there is no debate in which Star Wars cannot be used. I don't argue much with him as he is studying quantum physics and he is light years brighter than his mother. Just send me a PM whenever you require a Star Wars argument and I will gladly oblige.

Sargeist, re your post at 182. Comment #239339 By law, stateless people cannot be deported from the US. It's late and I cannot get you a cite right now, but I will if you want. If they are a danger to society they are incarcerated in immigration prisons. Others are released from ICE custody and must report periodically. There are still Cubans in custody from the Mariel boatlift in the 1980's.

Sargeist, Re your post 187. People are rounded up by force and deported by the immigration service every day. I was consulted in one case about the deportation of a man who supports Nazism and has written several books on the subject. I was not able to help him because he was deported very quickly (more quickly that I have ever seen anyone deported in my decades of practicing immigration law). I hated everything he wrote and stood for, but I would have done everything I could to stop his deportation on the basis of his beliefs and writing. I believe very strongly in free speech.

Re: 212. Comment #239373 by Fanusi Khiyal

I think that we have a chance of getting through this nightmare with minimal casualties and minimal regression to barbarism.

We have no such chance if we use your proposed methods.

Sorry for the long post, folks. I can only post at night or on the weekends and you all move so fast when I am at work.

Edited for paragraphing which did not survive cut and paste.

36. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #238408 by Titania on August 28, 2008 at 5:43 am

106. Comment #237750 by Vaal

Can you imagine Wooter, Joe, and David Robertson out for an evening at the pub debating over their various philosophy's and belief systems. Now, that would be interesting.

As a longtime lurker, I would agree that wooter and Joe are beyond hope to ever become rational. I think David Robertson's fundamentalism has been modified by his interactions on this site and there may yet be hope for him. Some have pointed out that he has modified his stance on evolution and homosexuality and possibly even biblical infallibility since last year. Someone has said that he is a closet atheist or at least wants to be an atheist but he can't come out because of his job.

From reading David's posts over the past few weeks, he does appear to want to be considered as an enlightened (intelligent and educated) Christian who believes that science and religion are compatible. As many of us know from our own experiences in the process of becoming atheists, once you realize the value and truth of science and the very few gaps left for god to hide, it is a small step to becoming atheist or at least agnostic.

When my daughter was a teenager, I read an article about how teenagers argue with their parents, not because they disagree with them or because they are contrarians, but because they want to hear how their parents justify their arguments and beliefs. David Robertson's continued posting on this site, especially given the pounding he takes, is evidence that he is like a teenager questioning his elders. He is intelligent enough to be attracted to a rationalistic world view, but he cannot yet shake his magical thinking.

The obstacles to becoming atheist for David seem to be that he cannot conceive how atheists can be moral and because he is so indoctrinated in the idea of sin (the Fall) and his belief (outside of any evidence) that his god is a god of love and compassion. He cannot see how being a Christian can be immoral because he has been taught (mostly by himself) that it is moral. One of the many reasons I became an atheist is that as my world view expanded, it became clear that Christianity is incredibly immoral. I have been thinking about addressing these issues with David but I have held back because of time limitations and because others on this site can (and have) made the case better than I. I do think it worthwhile to engage him on these issues.

I understand the frustration of some (alright many; alright maybe most) on this site with David, but I think that abusing him adds to his Christian persecution complex and gives fuel to his internal argument that atheists cannot be moral. I think if we are persistent with him and address his concerns about morality, there is hope that he will come to see how immoral Christian belief is.

37. Monkeys Enjoy Giving To Others, Study Finds

Comment #237740 by Titania on August 27, 2008 at 5:07 am

Re: 21. Comment #237455 by Sciros

Sciros, did you get any pictures? Can you give us more details? Thanks.

38. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236770 by Titania on August 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

TWP, I'll take back fascist if you will take back missy.

What I meant when I say the spouse and the children would also be deported is that most people who are deported end up taking the spouse and the children with them. Most families do not want to be separated and they also go for financial reasons.

Vaal is right; we are all on the same side. When I went to bed last night, I thought about the posts on this thread and realized that I was defending the human rights of Islamists (thanks Bonzai, it's shorter than typing Muslim extremists) when Fanusi is right, they would not consider mine. I do not think I am wrong, but I do want Fanusi and TWP to know that I do understand the very real threat of Islamism to Western society and I do think we need to quit catering to Islamic religious sensibilities when they conflict with Western values, just as we have done since the Enlightenment with Christians, for the most part.

Fanusi, I saw the hidden mosque video when it first came out. It is very scary and it should be publicized so long as people can see the whole video and not edits. People who threaten and encourage violence should be prosecuted and jailed.

Fanusi, I am sorry for the extremist charge. I will be more careful with my language. I was just trying to get TWP to see that our Constitution and its protection of civil and human rights represents a huge advance for humanity and I do not want to give up any part of it to combat Islamists. If we do, we become like them. I have had Muslim clients who have had the tendons in the backs of their ankles sliced so they can't walk without assistance, who have had their homes burned, relatives killed, tortured, raped or "disappeared", acid poured on their tongues, etc. by Muslims. I do not want any of this to happen in Europe or the Americas or anywhere else in the world. I agree that we have to combat this barbarism; I just don't want us to become barbarians. If we do, what are we fighting for?

I hope we can agree to disagree on tactics that hopefully we will never have to employ and move the discussion to how to combat the spread of Islamism and sharia into Western society and to help Muslims who are already here better assimilate.

I could be wrong but it appears that the problem of the hatemongering Imams appears to be worse in the UK than in the US.

39. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236516 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 6:19 pm

360. Comment #236493 by thewhitepearl

It's against the law now? Change the law.

Well, I was wrong. You just don't get it. You would change the law based on knee-jerk prejudices instead of upholding the principles of three hundred years of jurisprudence as a shining example for the world to follow or before trying less drastic measures that likely do work. Did you miss Nairb's statistics? It is clear you have not really read or thought about anything I or others have posted. You cherry pick as much as David Robertson.

No, the spouse and the children would not be legally deported, but they would be in practice. I see it happen every day.

I was also wrong about your willingness to learn. You don't follow the arguments or really read the posts of anyone on these threads. You skim and react, but do not appear to process the information. Your "research" program to learn about Muslims is clearly going to be about reading anything that confirms your prejudices about Muslims and will justify your fascist beliefs.

Why don't you try meeting and getting to know a few American Muslims?

Believe it or not, you and Fanusi almost scare me more than the Muslims. You know what it is like to live in a free country where civil rights are more guaranteed that at any time or place in human history, and you would change the entire system to take away the civil rights of the native born. Maybe if we change the law as you want to deport intolerant people who would deny the civil rights of others, you will be one of the first ones who is deported.

Please do explain how your views are any different than a Muslim extremist in Saudi Arabia.

I am wasting my energy, so I'm off to bed.

40. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236496 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm

325. Comment #236386 by Nairb
Yes, it has been done by the US. The Constitution was actually changed by the 14th Amendment. Please see my link to the testimony before Congress of Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General in LEGISLATION DENYING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH TO CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

While the Constitution recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications for President, Senators, and Representatives, it contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Prior to that time, citizenship by birth was regulated by common law. And the common law conferred citizenship upon all personsborn within the territory of the United States, whether children of citizens or aliens. The only common law exceptions to this generally applicable rule of jus soli were children born under three circumstances -- to foreign diplomats, on foreign ships, and to hostile occupying forces -- which, under principles of international law, were deemed not to be within the sovereignty of the territory.
As the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment makes clear, the definitions of citizenship contained in both were intended to codify the common law and overrule Dred Scott's denial of citizenship to persons of African descent. Thus, with the three limited exceptions already noted and the additional exception of tribal Indians, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, including children born to aliens.

There are footnotes in the original link.
I am not sure if Britain or France changed their laws or if they just changed policies. I am not very familiar with the Human Rights Convention, except with regard to refugees and torture. However, others may be. I can try to read up on it when I have time.
The US Constitution was changed to reflect that everyone born in the US is a citizen due to the violent social conflict of the Civil War and in response to the mistreatment of Native Americans. Now people want to change this so that children of illegal Mexicans cannot be citizens. The link I gave you to the testimony of Mr. Dellinger spells out why this is a bad idea. Do we really want to create a class of slaves and people without the rights of citizens within our borders when these people were born here?
I really do not have the time and it is way off topic to go into a discussion of the perceived problem of illegal immigration that has taken over the national debate and has supplanted the debate on how we can best be protected from terrorists, to the detriment of national security.

41. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236483 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 5:15 pm

317. Comment #236370 by thewhitepearl

Right. And if I do recall the statement correctly muslims that claim they are apart of the Islamic faith but do not agree or abide by the Sharia are also considered kaffirs. And according to the more extreme views should also be dealt with accordingly?

Titania

Taken this into consideration do you believe that if this misunderstanding is made aware by the powers that be it would be easier and allowed to deport all followers of Sharia?

When Fanusi and I were discussing our little "methods" earlier I believe that between us it went without saying we were throwing ideas based on the event that political leaders and the leaders of nations would very much realise the threat of Islam and the truth of Sharia, ergo allowing deportation to be an appropriate step. I'm sure if that wasn't clear one of us should have stated that outloud.

TWP, I must ask you to clarify whether you include citizens in with the group "all followers of Sharia?"

If you do, then I think that my answer would be no. To do so would require us to change our Constitution and I think our government and would engender much social unrest. This would cause many ramifications that I am asking you to consider. Only one of which is that we would be acting on par with the totalitarian actions of sharia states.

I could tell you some sad stories about Palestinians (and please let's not go into the Pal/Is controversy) who were born and raised in Kuwait and who were expelled during the first Gulf War. Now I know you are trying to make the distinction between people like that and violent jihadists and I do understand where you are coming from. What I want you to see is that they were identified by the Kuwaitis as the "other." How cruel is that for a child who has been born and raised in the country? When you deport jihadists, you will be deporting their children as well. The Muslim children who are living in Western democracies are the biggest hope for change in Muslim outlook, notwithstanding the British studies (cases) of second and third generation jihad advocators, which I think are probably an anomaly based on the misguided invasion of Iraq, justified in part by people like Fanusi on the basis that it is an Islamic country and somehow is a threat to us.

TWP, the face I want the US to give to the world is not one of intolerance or our fitness or willingness to give tit for tat, but one of justice, respect for the basic human rights for all people, democracy, etc. You have been seduced to the dark side by Fanusi's extremism, however, I think you are a thoughtful person and once you see what Steve Z, Laurie, bugaboo, Mark Till and others are saying, you will come back to the side of human rights. We want to remain Anakin; we do not want to become Darth. (Whoa, too much Jameson,I had better quit.)

Fanusi, I also have hope for you. I understand your fear of Islam. One of the most terrifying and saddest days of my life was September 11, 2001. But you do not have to become like them to defeat them. That is what the enlightenment was all about. I have other points to make involving melting pots and forced expulsions of populations, but I had better leave them for now.

42. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236363 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Someone asked what would be required for the law to be changed to deport US citizens who are advocates of violent jihad. Fanusi also asked what would be required to deport Hizb ut-Tahrir, who I will assume is a US citizen? Since these are somewhat related, I will try to answer with my thoughts. Now it's late in the day and this discussion requires some lubricant for my brain, so I am going to have a bit of Jameson, so excuse any typos.

I have to say being forced to think about having to defend citizens from deportation has my brain in a twist. [It would mean more money for me and mine. ; ) ]

First, I think (and I am no expert here) that is a given in most Western legal systems in the modern day, and especially in the US, that citizens have the basic right of residing in their home countries, even if it is in prison.

I did major in history when I was in college way back before twp was born, probably, but that was a long time ago so forgive me for any errors. Think about it: Was it right or moral, even though legal at the time, for England to send horse thieves to Australia? Was Devil's Island a moral solution for the French?

The US has a history of redefining who is a citizen. If you will read the link I posted in my response to huzonfirst 274. Comment #236301 http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm you will get a bit of history on this. It deals with slaves and Native Americans (although I kind of like the Canadian term of First Nations) and even women who have married foreigners.

I think in order to change the law for citizens to be deported, the Constitution would have to be changed, either by redefining who a citizen is (and under Fanusi's scheme to someone who does not advocate jihad) or by specifically spelling out when a US citizen could be exiled. Then it would be up to Congress to define who meets those qualifications. As I have reminded TWP, the Constitution should not be lightly regarded or changed.

Think about the regimes that send their citizens into exile. Why would anyone want to live in a country where citizens can be deported? First the jihadists and then the atheists? Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

Fanusi, I will ask you: why deportation and to where? Why can't people be prosecuted and imprisoned or punished within the borders of the US? If you deport people, they become a security threat, and they may be freed when they should not be, and they may hide out in a cave in Afghanistan and strike out at us from afar.

And to lighten the mood; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFUhQk0LwT0

43. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236332 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Re: 227. Comment #236243 by thewhitepearl

I'm surprised by this. Do you have any idea what the sharia contains?

Yes, I generally know what sharia contains but sharia is applied differently in different Muslim countries. I should have been more clear in the sentence you quoted. As I understand it, the sharia advocated by Islamic activists in the UK is a severely truncated form of sharia different than would be found in Saudi Arabia and would mainly deal with civil, domestic and religious matters. I do not think someone who advocates sharia in such a form would be deportable. They would be wise to call it something else.

I do think it was wrong under German law (and would be under US law) in an article posted awhile back for any judge to hold that sharia law would be applied in a domestic violence or divorce case to excuse a perpetrator of domestic violence.

Edited for typos.

44. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236322 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Re: 222. Comment #236237 by Hellene

If an Imam stated "We must do Jihad on Hollywood"

and then stated "We must do Jihad on GW Buch".

Would he be open to arrest?

Or could they claim "Spiritual Jihad"?

Hellene these are good questions. Pardon me, while I drop into lawyer mode. I would approach the question differently as a criminal defense attorney or an immigration attorney trying to keep someone from being deported than a law enforcement officer.

I would say that someone who said such a thing about Bush would likely be visited by the Feds and would possibly face arrest based on a threat since the common understanding of jihad is violent holy war. (Although I recently read an article by a Muslim objecting to the hijacking of this term by extremists.) As a defense attorney, I would look at the entire context of the speech and try to make the spiritual jihad argument. Has the Imam defined jihad as nonviolent means of protest ala Tipper Gore back in the day who fought for warning re violent lyrics on record albums? Has the Imam made threats or supported violent jihad or violent organizations?

If in the context, it was clearly a fatwa calling for violent action, I think the Imam may be subject to arrest for making terrorist threats.

I'm doing my best to keep up and not interject at inappropriate places in the discussion, but it is hard!

45. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236306 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

re; 249. Comment #236271 by thewhitepearl

Regarding my Comment #236209 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 11:27 am

Re: 140. Comment #236136 by Fanusi Khiyal

TWP, if you read my post and the one I was responding to, you will see that I was responding to a specific post made by Fanusi. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

46. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236301 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 1:02 pm

157. Comment #236158 by huzonfurst

#124 (Titania) I agree with almost everything you said, but have two questions. Does the Immigration Act that you mentioned really ban
communists from becoming citizens? And don't you think that automatic citizenship for those born here should only be for those whose mothers
were here legally? These 'anchor babies' are a loophole that many illegals use to get their whole families into the country, and it's ridiculous that it's still on the books.

Sorry I took so long to respond, but I missed this earlier and found it while I was keeping my promise to TWP to re-read the thread.

Yes, the INA does prohibit communists from becoming permanent residents or citizens. If you read the links in my first post, INA Section 212 spells out who is inadmissible to the US with exceptions:

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-

(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership.- Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membership.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that-

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least-

(a) 2 years before the date of such application, or

(b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and

(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(iv) Exception for close family members.-The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

Also, the anchor baby supposition you have alluded to is a battle cry of right wing extremists that is not based in reality. There is no such thing as an anchor baby. People who have children in the US are deported every day and the fact that you have a child here does not give you the right to stay in the US and avoid deportation. A US citizen child cannot apply for a parent or any other family member to immigrate (except a spouse) until that child turns 21 years old. There is no waiver for fraud in immigration applications for parents of US citizens. There is also no waiver for the three or ten year reentry bar for parents of US citizen children that most parents who stay here illegally become subject to after a period of unlawful presence of 180 days or 1 year.

People who have violated their non-immigrant status in the US who have overstayed or who have entered without inspection are barred from changing or adjusting status within the borders of the United Stated, except in rare circumstances, even those who are adjusting or changing status based on a petition filed by a child.

People who have been unlawfully present in the US for more than 180 days and more than one year are subject to a three or ten year bar to reentering the US upon any departure from the US, such as to pick up a visa based on a petition by a child. There is no waiver of these reentry bars for parents of US citizens.

People who have been physically present in the US for more than ten years may sometimes be eligible for a form of relief called cancellation of removal if they can prove that they have been persons of good moral character for 10 years and if they can prove that their US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse will suffer extreme and unusual hardship. This standard is very difficult to meet.

Also, US citizens cannot apply for siblings until they are 21 and there is a minimum of an eleven year wait for most siblings before a visa umber becomes available. Minor children of the parents cannot come with the parents. The parents can apply for their other children but there is a minimum 5 year wait for most and for Mexicans and Filipinos there can be close to a 15 to 20 year wait.

The numbers of people who immigrate through an anchor baby is not really very high.

You should also research the issue as to why we have this law to begin with.

Please see http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

LEGISLATION DENYING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH TO CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES
A bill that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face.
A constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship, although not technically unlawful, would flatly contradict the Nation's constitutional history and constitutional traditions.
December 13, 1995
STATEMENT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS AND ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WALTER DELLINGER, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel

We can continue this discussion by pm, if you want.

Edited to add: Saul Arellano, via his pastor, tried to argue in federal court in Chicago that his due process rights would be violated if he had to leave the country. The court rejected that argument, finding the law didn't require Saul to leave: As a citizen, Saul would be allowed to stay if his mother turned over guardianship. Thus, the court said, there was no due process violation of Saul's rights inherent in his mother's deportation. Coleman v. U.S., No. 1:06-cv-04582 (Sept. 29).

47. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236266 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Re: 159. Comment #236160 by thewhitepearl

TWP, I have been reading this site religiously since December 2006, every morning with my coffee and every night before I go to bed. I didn't get up the courage to start posting until March of 2008 and since then only rarely. I am not a newbie. I just don't feel that I have to post on every topic, especially ones where I really am not qualified to post. There are so many smart people on this site and I really enjoy reading their posts. Even yours, usually. I just don't agree that Muslims should not hold political office or should be deported or presumed guilty where no crime has yet been contemplated or committed.

48. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236215 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 11:34 am

191. Comment #236201 by Fanusi Khiyal Please read INA Section 237 that I linked in my first post. They are deportable for terrorist acts so long as they are not US citizens. Well, let me clarify, they may not be deportable for advocating sharia (unless the sharia advocates violent acts or the overthrow of the government) but they would be for advocating terrorist acts or violent jihad.

Naturalized US ciitzens can be denaturalized for fraud in the process and then deported.

49. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236209 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 11:27 am

Re: 140. Comment #236136 by Fanusi Khiyal

I did realize it. My point is there are no grounds for expulsions of US citizens unless there was fraud in the permanent resident or naturalization process. If a person renounces US citisenship, then that person is no longer a citizen. It is actually very hard to renounce to the satisfaction of the US government, for tax and treason or terrorism purposes.

50. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236193 by Titania on August 24, 2008 at 11:11 am

Bonzai:

US prisons do make accommodation for religious diets but have attempted to standardize it:

Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 548
[BOP-1105-F]
RIN 1120-AB04
Religious Beliefs and Practices: Nomenclature Change
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-31703.htm