Posted on 08/09/2010 12:52:30 PM PDT by Islaminaction
I’m not saying Hakeem shouldn’t be allowed to fast.
I’m talking broader principles.
And yes, different religions can be treated different. Other religions haven’t done what Islam has done ever since the 7th century. The history and current actions tell the tale.
This country was founded in part to protect unpopular religious faiths. The government in England decided what was an acceptable religion, and others were persecuted. The Jewish people have faced worldwide persecution because of their heritage and faith. In every Muslim nation Christians are attacked and killed. In India, Hindus attack Christian pastors for preaching the gospel. Do ya'll realize ya'll sound just like the people in those countries when they justify their attacks on Christians?
I stand up for everyone's right to practice their religion in a peaceful manner, no matter how wrong I think they are. At the same time, Christ calls me to show them the love of Christ in order to win them to Him. If I fail to protect their right to freedom of religion, I endanger my right to freedom of religion at the same time.
Putting aside that I do not consider islam a religion in any way shape or form I'll be happy to get real warm and fuzzy about it once you arrange for them to practice it in a "peaceful manner".
I wonder, if I decided to open a church up today and insisted that my "god" says it is OK to kill and/or enslave you if you would be so willing to turn your cheek?
FYI, I've never said a thing about attacking anyone.
As far as the quote about "We had to destroy the village to save it" Peter Arnett has never said who said that and because it came from Arnett I wonder if it was really ever said. Would Arnett have made that up? Lied? I don't know if that was his practice but I do know that lying is not only practiced by moslems it is uncouraged by their so-called "religion of peace".
Anyone that says that this country was founded "in part to protect unpopular religious beliefs" are correct if you accurately say "in very small part". Religious freedom was not anywhere near the primary driving force behind the American revolution. Things such as the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Act and Tea Act had more to do with the founders doing what they did to cut the cord with the British Empire. Many of the founders were indeed believers in a G-d. I'd expect that they would look at islam and wonder what the heck an allah was. I'd also expect that they would have seen islam as more of a tryant than England. The founders would not have tolerated islam. But you would?
How odd it is to see free men such as yourself say they would protect that which would make them slaves.
Jesus made a scourge of cords and beat the people in the temple because they were buying and selling.
Jesus called the religious leaders of his day vipers, snakes, whited sepulchers full of dead mens bones.
Jesus Christ so pissed of the religionists of his day they tried to throw him off a cliff.
The religionists of his day constantly conspired to murder him. They also did murder and beat his apostles as well as the prophets of God throughout history.
A man of God following Jesus would confront the lies instead of excuse them.
Hakeem can fast all he wants to and I have no problem with it.
I just wonder what he thinks of his dedicated, committed devout Muslim brethren.
It’s the really dedicated, devout and committed Muslims who have destroyed civilizations and peoples since 700 AD.
Here’s a little list:
Islam
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Sikhism
Jainism
anismism
Taoism
Which one of these is not like the others? One stands out as being very different. Can you guess which one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.