Posted on 11/05/2009 3:11:02 PM PST by kellynla
And if you were telling me that we should deport, persecute, or even annihilate every former member of the Nazi party or every Communist, regardless of whether they'd actually hurt anyone or did anything wrong, then it would be a legitimate point there, too.
I'm not telling you not to criticize or oppose Islam or the Koran. Go for it. And any Muslim living here should be able to peacefully abide such criticism. If they can't and threaten you with harm, then by all means put them in jail or send them to their home country.
Instead of using this evasive, apologetic device, why not examine the components of Islam that have fueled -- nearly unabated -- aggression, genocide, mayhem and oppression for 1400 years?
Because such arguments are as weak as the arguments that seek to examine the components of Christianity or Western civilization that have fueled plenty of nasty historical events, as well. At the end of the day, the Bible only tells you so much about what real Christians and Jews actually believe, just as the writings of Islam (Koran, Sunnah, and Hadith) only tell you so much about what real Muslims believe. There are plenty of critics of Christianity, Judaism, and even religion as a whole that will happily make the same sort of argument that the Bible is rotten to the core, too, and turns people bad. I'm not saying that there isn't nasty stuff in the Koran but that matters when we're talking about Wahhabists (who even enhance the bad stuff in their translations) but no so much if we're talking about Sufis. I'm not asking people to hug a Wahabbist or give the nasty stuff in the Koran a pass. I'm asking people to understand that not all Muslims are Wahabbists and not all Muslims abide by the nasty stuff in the Koran.
When talking theology, I have no problem with you calling the entire Koran and all of Islam rubbish. But when the discussion terms to persecution, deportations, ignoring Constitutional rights, and even mass murder, then distinguishing the guilty from the innocent is important and not even trying to do so is unconscionable. Even Ann Coulter exhibited more compassion toward Muslims when she suggested killing their leaders and forcibly converting them to Christianity than some people are expressing in this thread.
I too, know many Muslims who abhor the violent, supremacist actions of some of their co-religionists. In fact, my dearest friend; a man I have trusted my life to on several occasions, is a devout, Shia Muslim. That doesn't change the obvious fact that there is something about Islam that today compels a broad swath of its adherents to murder non-Muslims, and mostly other Muslims, in the name of God.
And I have no problem discussion that and also have a problem with the limitation of free speech rights going on to prevent Muslims from being offended. I'm not advocating appeasement. I'm advocating justice which must include not persecuting and slaughtering innocents simply because they belong to a broad group that contains some dangerous characters.
However, if I were to walk outside of my apartment and begin making statements against Islam, I would likely be beaten to death within a very short time.
What does that tell you?
It tells me something that I already know, which is that plenty of Muslims in the Middle East can't handle free speech and criticism of their religion. But what percentage of Muslims there would actually initiate or participate in your slaughter? 100%? 80%? 50%? 20%? 5%? And as I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that I think that could make a great litmus test for immigrants. Can a potential immigrant to the United States watch a movie that contains the infamous cartoons of Muhammed and other blaphemous remarks about Islam (as well as other religions and perhaps even some proselytizing to annoy militant atheists, to be fair) without turning violent or freaking out? If so, then I think they'd do fine here. If not, then maybe they should be sent home. And maybe we should work harder on getting them to accept more free speech in their counties, too. We should look at how individuals behave and what they think rather than trying to exclude an entire group.
Of course the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that we probably wouldn't even be having any of these discussions if it weren't for oil and oil money.
Even though we're never going to get it perfect, we have to try. The alternative is dangerous and will destroy the Constitution and this country. To grasp that, you need only look at similar arguments from the left directed at private gun ownership, right-wing talk radio, anti-abortion protesters, and so on. They, too, would like to paint all of their opponents with a broad brush and condemn them all. It's sloppy and lazy and it leads no place good.
As libertarians so often point out, liberty and safety are at odds with each other. You can't always have both. And it's always easy to sacrifice the liberty and property of some other group that you don't belong to, whether we're talking about affirmative action and reparations or taxing the rich, but you need to consider what happens when the same principles are turned on you by others. You can't wait until the finger points at your own group to raise an objection to injustice. I'm not advocating coddling (and I think there is already too much of that). I'm condemning persecution of the innocent on the sole basis of their religion. Is it really so difficult for conservatives here to see the danger of that?
And it is not at all clear that the “MTV bomb” of cultural assimilation will ever work in the face of quiet intimidation and indoctrination by the radicals. See: Europe for how this is working; not well, from what I can tell.
It depends on what part of Europe you are talking about but a big part of the problem in Europe is very high immigrant unemployment, social welfare programs that make unemployment a viable lifestyle, and their own racism against those groups that create a large number of angry, unemployed, and unemployable young men. That's a problem everywhere it happens, even if Islam isn't a part of the picture.
They do stop bombings but "a bomb didn't go off" is not as big of a news story as a bomb going off. You seem to assume that because they don't stop all of the bombs that they stop none of them. That's not true.
Now, go preach to your leftist “let’s be nice to our enemies and they’ll be nice to us” friends. And I’ll keep preaching “Kill ‘em all!” If we do it’ll make Jesus’ job a lot easier.
You really don't understand the Biblical passages I quoted earlier in the thread, do you? Stop trying to be God. You aren't qualified for the position.
Yeah, actually exceptions do disprove rules. That's what falsification in science is all about.
If most Muslims didn't approve of 9/11, and of this Fort Hood Massacre and of the 1400 years of Islamic genocide of innocent populations, if the Muslim public did not believe the same as Bin Laden then why do they ,the Muslim world does NOT condemn Osama bin Laden and Islamic terrorists?
You haven't been reading the thread, have you? Some Muslims do condemn Osama bin Ladin. If you haven't noticed, the United States is getting help from Afghanis and Pakistanis to fight the Taliban, too. And some other Muslims remain silent because they are afraid to speak up. That's sad but it doesn't make them guilty nor does it justify genocide against them.
Answer me that , liberal/Marxist/Democrat.
Lighten up, Francis. I've been a Freeper long before you were and supported Sarah Palin long before McCain picked her.
And answer this: Why if Islam is not genocide and world domination why are so many countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran over 99% Muslim? What happened to the Christians and others that lived in Iran? I want an answer , liberal.
How many Jews lived in Europe, Francis? What happened to all of them? What happened to all of the people who lived in the Americas before Europeans got here, huh, Francis? Should you be held morally responsible for that? What do you think happened to all of the pagans who once dominated Europe? I want an answer, Francis.
No, there aren't a lot of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia because there aren't an lot of people in Saudi Arabia, but in case you haven't noticed, the reason why there still sizable numbers of Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, and so on is because until the current particularly radical sects of Islam took over in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and elsewhere. The situation in the Middle East is not great for non-Muslims but for a large hunk of European history, Europe wasn't all that friendly to non-Christians, either. Jews got it just as bad from the Christians as they did from the Muslims.
You can never understand how Laura Ingraham, I, and her listeners think because you are a totally different creature, a liberal/Marxist/Democrat, while I like Ingraham, Mark Levin,General Patton,Most Freepers here, Reagan, Palin am a conservative: I am Republican. I am REPUBLICAN!
You are sounding an awful lot lie a fascist to me. I've had people earlier in the thread suggest not only ignoring the Constitution because it's inconvenient but committing genocide. Are those conservative Republican values? Do you really think Laura Ingraham or Mark Levin or Sarah Palin would endorse ignoring the First Amendment for Muslims, the persecution of innocent Muslims, or genocide?
Have you read the Koran? Well I have. And I can send you more quotes if you want but here is just one command from Allah:
I've read parts of the Koran, including the nastiest passages you've quoted and then some. I've also quoted three passages from the Christian Bible that couldn't be any more clear and the Christians in this thread seem to have no trouble ignoring them because they don't tell them what they want to hear. If Christians can happily ignore large swaths of the Bible, what makes you think Muslims don't ignore large parts of the Koran? You acknowledge as much later in your reply.
Unlike Christianity, Islam was founded on violence and its "holy" book encourages, promotes and demands violence against--and murder of--non-believers.
Yet here I am in a thread where Christians are promoting and demanding the murder of even innocent non-believers and ignoring the passages in their own holy book telling them to love and forgive their enemies and leave the vengeance to God. Why is that?
If we in the West do not awaken to this danger from "radical" Islam, it will mean our destruction, probably within the next 20 years. What Americans--and others in the West--MUST understand is that these suicide murderers are the faithful Muslims . . . those who really believe and follow the teachings of the Koran.
And we should sacrifice our principles and the tenants of our own faith and become just like the bad guys to defeat them?
Keep in mind, as you think about these things, that the average Muslim DOESN'T READ the Koran, just like the average Christian doesn't read the Bible. So, it truly is the faithful Muslim (who studies his Koran) that murders nonbelievers and wants to destroy the West.
And we should be worried about the Muslims who want to conquer the world and destroy the West rather than indiscriminately persecuting or killing everyone who calls themselves a Muslim.
I haven't even hinted at such a thing, nor do I advocate that, so please refrain from engaging in coy slander by association -- it's a cheap trick.
Now to the topics at hand: I would most certainly agree that any Muslim, be he a layman or cleric who calls for an American caliphate or preaches jihad, who urges his followers to choose the Koran over the Constitution; who urges his co-religionists to commit acts of violence and sabotage against Americans or American interests; who works to supplant our system of laws with sharia-compliant ones -- should be arrested and prosecuted and if he is a non-US citizen, immediately deported. I would consider such actions those of a reasonable people intent on the preservation of their values, their culture and their nation.
Because such arguments are as weak as the arguments that seek to examine the components of Christianity or Western civilization that have fueled plenty of nasty historical events, as well. . .
No, such arguments are entirely valid, since there has been no organized, worldwide, violent, genocidal, mass movement of Bible-thumping Christians for centuries. And if you characterize the Christian Crusaders as analogous to current-day Muslim jihadis, the last of the Crusaders died over a thousand years ago.
I'm not saying that there isn't nasty stuff in the Koran but that matters when we're talking about Wahhabists (who even enhance the bad stuff in their translations) but no so much if we're talking about Sufis.
True, but for practical purposes when we talk about Islam as a political force -- which today it clearly is -- we are speaking of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, who together comprise around 95% of the world's Muslims. Sunis and Bahais are a tiny minority of Muslims and they're usually mocked, persecuted or ignored by the two dominant sects. So what's your point?
Even Ann Coulter exhibited more compassion toward Muslims when she suggested killing their leaders and forcibly converting them to Christianity than some people are expressing in this thread.
Coulter's tongue-in-cheek, but she does have a point which I'll illustrate via a personal anectdote: When I was in Iraq, I worked with a crew of Iraqi engineers who were all decent, brave men. We'd often have discussions similar to this one. One evening, in the course of conversation ( as rockets thumped in around us) I asked these guys how much power their clerics had. One of the guys then told a story that drove home a pivotal point. He said that one week there had been a story making the rounds on the news channels about how the burned and blackened spots on the Iraqi bread were bad for one's health. After the story aired, people overwhelmingly ignored the warnings. That Friday during mosque, a number of the clerics made the same point to their flocks. Immediately, people started taking issue with bread that had burn spots on it -- no one would eat the stuff.
After he'd made his point, I asked the same guy this question: "If clerics across Iraq told their flocks next Friday to stop killing each other -- to stop the bombings, the rockets, the beheadings, would they stop?" Without hesitation, he said, "Immediately." Every other Iraqi in the room agreed.
Of course the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that we probably wouldn't even be having any of these discussions if it weren't for oil and oil money.
I think we would be having this conversation. Here's why: To non- Muslim Westerners, maintaining a Middle East presence is mainly about oil and maintaining access to a few geographically strategic areas. But to most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth -- and a significant number of them are willing to do that through the sword. And a more significant number of them are in agreement with that approach, even if they themselves would never commit a violent act in the name of Islam. In a nutshell, they don't want us here not because they think we're stealing their oil, but because we aren't Muslims and as such we represent a threat to their deep-held religious/societal beliefs and practices. You cannot begin to understand the depth of truth in my statement, "To most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth," unless you've spent significant time in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims from the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. I don't say that to slight your opinions, but in retrospect it has taken me years of such immersion to lose my illusions, so to speak.
It's about religion as powerful, addictive ideology.
As a wayward Christian, I could not fathom the incredible depth of religiosity among Muslims until I saw it first-hand, in Muslim lands. I have never seen anything comparable in the West.
Must have hit a nerve there. Because my oppinion is different from yours and I say “Kill ‘em all”, simply saying the same thing Stonewall said, you say I’m playing God.
There are approximately 1,700 muslims in our million person military. I think we can get along without them but they’re there because of P.C. crap!
I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says “all men and women have the right to serve in the U.S. military”. So their “rights” would not be violated by refusing to allow them to serve.
Which ones of those 1,700 are “sleepers”?
How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice so 1,700 muslims can join the U.S. Army?
I’d rather see a billion muslims dead than one American. That’s right. I’m saying I love this country that was founded on Christian principles more than I love people who practice a religion that teaches if you kill a non-believer you’ll go to paradise and get 70 virgins. And that right there shows you how stupid they are. 70 virgins would last no more than a few weeks. Then what?
Have a nice life and I hope to see you in Heaven. Seriously. But I’m not so sure you’ll be too happy there. There won’t be any muslims. Maybe you can talk to God and tell Him he’s wrong not to let them in. After all, it’s what He did to them that makes them the way they are. He chose the children of Isaac.
Do you believe all the Global warming “evidence” too?
My comments in this thread were initially directed at the people calling for those things and that's been my problem all along. As I said repeatedly, I'm not demanding special treatment and on the other side of this, I fully support the right of people to create and publish cartoons, books, and movies critical of the Koran and Islam. The First Amendment protects both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Both are important.
Now to the topics at hand: I would most certainly agree that any Muslim, be he a layman or cleric who calls for an American caliphate or preaches jihad, who urges his followers to choose the Koran over the Constitution; who urges his co-religionists to commit acts of violence and sabotage against Americans or American interests; who works to supplant our system of laws with sharia-compliant ones -- should be arrested and prosecuted and if he is a non-US citizen, immediately deported. I would consider such actions those of a reasonable people intent on the preservation of their values, their culture and their nation.
I'm with you on people urging acts of violence and sabotage. And while I understand your point about choosing the Koran over the Constitution or supplanting our system of laws, I find myself wondering how many Christians would put the Bible before the Constitution and how many people in this thread are putting their own fears and safety before the Constitution and how many people tread the Constitution in a smorgasbord way, much as they treat their religion, only accepting the bits that they like? If that's a crime, then we'll be deporting and imprisoning a whole lot of people. While I understand the desire to squash sedition, it's always been difficult to balance that against the freedoms of speech and association in the Constitution.
As for supplanting our system of laws with Sharia-compliant ones, that would require a Constitutional amendment since that pesky First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, which Sharia most certainly would be. If Muslims have the numbers to pass a Constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, the United States would already be lost, and in the meantime, I consider demanding Sharia being implemented as law a good way to weed the radicals out from the non-radicals.
I'd rather see a more aggressive insistence that Muslims respect freedom of speech and religion, even in majority Muslim nations, but that's not going to happen until their oil is no longer something we need.
No, such arguments are entirely valid, since there has been no organized, worldwide, violent, genocidal, mass movement of Bible-thumping Christians for centuries. And if you characterize the Christian Crusaders as analogous to current-day Muslim jihadis, the last of the Crusaders died over a thousand years ago.
And there are periods where Muslims have been relatively peaceful and places where they do live side-by-side even with Hindus. It's a matter of whether we want to talk about clear and present danger or potential danger. Some in this thread have argued that all Muslims are a potential danger. By that standard, everyone is a potential danger and that's exactly the argument liberals use against guns, Christianity, right-wing ideas and so on. If it's fair to argue that a peaceful Muslim who has broken no laws and advocated no harm to others is inherently dangerous by virtue of being a Muslim because other Muslims have done horrible things, then it's valid to argue that every gun is a potential murder, every Christian is a potential Crusader or Conquistador, every anti-government right-winger is a potential Timothy McVeigh.
How do we know who is a good guy and who is a bad guy? We look at what they say and how they behave and if they've actually committed a crime or are seriously planning or encouraging a crime, then act against them. We don't convict people on statistical potential. And, yes, a terrorist might slip through the cracks but bad guys slip through the cracks of your legal system, too. Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, slipped through the cracks for years. So have numerous other serial killers and bad people. Some guilty people even get off the hook. But that's a price we pay to avoid abusing the innocent. Either we're serious about justice or we're a society where the ends justify the means.
True, but for practical purposes when we talk about Islam as a political force -- which today it clearly is -- we are speaking of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, who together comprise around 95% of the world's Muslims. Sunis and Bahais are a tiny minority of Muslims and they're usually mocked, persecuted or ignored by the two dominant sects. So what's your point?
My point is that we shouldn't also mock and persecute the Sufis and Bahais and other non-radical Muslims who can coexist peacefully with others and treat them like criminals if they aren't. What happens when you have no friends is you gravitate toward the people you fit in with best. That dynamic is how black radical and white supremacist gangs in prison recruit. They abuse the people who don't hate anyone and drive them into the arms of the radicals of their own race who offer to be their friend. In the case of moderate Muslims, that means driving them toward the radical Muslims. That's not touchy-feely liberal nonsense. Examples of that dynamic abound.
Coulter's tongue-in-cheek, but she does have a point which I'll illustrate via a personal anectdote:
I'm serious when I said that I think Coulter showed compassion. Although she said it bluntly, what she was talking about was saving Muslims from their religion, and she suggested a way to do it that doesn't involve killing them all and let God sort them out.
When I was in Iraq, I worked with a crew of Iraqi engineers who were all decent, brave men. We'd often have discussions similar to this one. One evening, in the course of conversation ( as rockets thumped in around us) I asked these guys how much power their clerics had. One of the guys then told a story that drove home a pivotal point. He said that one week there had been a story making the rounds on the news channels about how the burned and blackened spots on the Iraqi bread were bad for one's health. After the story aired, people overwhelmingly ignored the warnings. That Friday during mosque, a number of the clerics made the same point to their flocks. Immediately, people started taking issue with bread that had burn spots on it -- no one would eat the stuff.
Interesting. That explains why they keep blowing up moderate and pro-American clerics, too.
After he'd made his point, I asked the same guy this question: "If clerics across Iraq told their flocks next Friday to stop killing each other -- to stop the bombings, the rockets, the beheadings, would they stop?" Without hesitation, he said, "Immediately." Every other Iraqi in the room agreed.
Then that suggests that the way to fix the problem isn't to persecute and kill the common Muslim but to deal with the radical clerics, correct?
I think we would be having this conversation. Here's why: To non- Muslim Westerners, maintaining a Middle East presence is mainly about oil and maintaining access to a few geographically strategic areas. But to most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth -- and a significant number of them are willing to do that through the sword. And a more significant number of them are in agreement with that approach, even if they themselves would never commit a violent act in the name of Islam.
Yes, but if we didn't need them, we wouldn't have to be so worried about offending them.
In a nutshell, they don't want us here not because they think we're stealing their oil, but because we aren't Muslims and as such we represent a threat to their deep-held religious/societal beliefs and practices.
Absolutely, and I think they fear that for a reason. It's why, earlier in this thread, I said the answer wasn't walling them up but engaging them and spreading other ideas. There is a reason they get their wives from their native countries instead of where they live. There is a reason they live in enclaves. That's exactly why cult-like religions behave the way they do. You can break the spell by exposing them to questions and other ideas.
You cannot begin to understand the depth of truth in my statement, "To most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth," unless you've spent significant time in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims from the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. I don't say that to slight your opinions, but in retrospect it has taken me years of such immersion to lose my illusions, so to speak. It's about religion as powerful, addictive ideology.
I believe you, but I also know that large numbers of Christians also support spreading their religion until it blankets the entire world. That's why Christians "witness" and have missionaries in Africa and Asia and South America and why Christian missionaries have been risking their lives to proselytize Christianity in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations and in India, much to the annoyance of both Hindu and Muslim leaders there. The Gideons put Bibles in hotel rooms and hand them out to people for free to spread the word. Heck, a friend who attended a religious college told me of Christians going to synagogue services in order to proselytize to the Jews attending service there. The Jews for Jesus also specifically target Jews, much to their annoyance. And there are plenty of claims about overly aggressive missionaries and even domestic charities pushing religion on people as a condition for help. Maybe you don't notice it if you are essentially Christian but I have plenty of non-Christian friends and they do notice it.
Further, the Mormon Church has a massive missionary machine in place and sends hoards of young Mormons out on missionary assignments. The Mormons run commercials, offer free books of Mormon, and then try to visit people with missionaries to try to convert them. I've done it out of curiosity. The Mormons have also created quite a bit of controversy by doing posthumous proxy baptisms of non-Mormons to save them, including Jews who died during the Holocaust.
It doesn't surprise me that people of any religion might want to spread their faith and to see the whole world get on board (including militant atheists). That's not inherently wrong or evil unless they seek to convert people by deception, coercion, or force. How many of those Muslims want to spread Islam by the sword? Yes, I think they are wrong and would like to see a Christian world but the Constitution protects the free practice of religion for a reason.
As a wayward Christian, I could not fathom the incredible depth of religiosity among Muslims until I saw it first-hand, in Muslim lands. I have never seen anything comparable in the West.
I have. You mean you've never been visited by a Jehovah's Witness in the United States? Heck, I got visited by them when I was living in Japan. I also met an American college student in Japan who was essentially run through a forced baptism by a Japanese Christian group that wouldn't take know for an answer (very unusual for the Japanese). And that's why I'm asking people for the criteria by which they'd sort out Muslims without catching a lot of Christians or Mormons or people of other faiths, too. So far, I haven't gotten a definition that didn't specify the Muslim faith meaning that they want to target Muslims because they are Muslim rather than on the basis of a particularly offensive practice.
No, not at all. Frankly, as a fellow Christian, I'm concerned about your soul. You apparently believe the sayings of Stonewall Jackson, a man shot and killed by his own trigger-happy troops who shot first and asked questions later, instead of crystal clear quotes from both Jesus and Paul.
I posted three Biblical quotes for you. The first is a parable that ends with a master who had forgiven his servant throwing the servant into prison to be tortured (i.e., damned to Hell despite having previously been forgiven) because he refused to forgive another and Jesus ends it by saying, "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." The second quoted Jesus saying (among other things), "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." The third was from Paul writing in Romans. He says (among other things), "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. [...] Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." In other words, if you are unable to forgive, you won't be forgiven and can wind up buying yourself a one-way ticket to Hell. How much more clear does it have to be? And there are more passages that give the exact same message. Have you ever actually payed attention to the words of the Lord's Prayer or looked at the couple of passages after it in the Gospels?
In return, you quote... Stonewall Jackson? I'm sorry but my Bible is missing the Gospel of Stonewall and I don't think Stonewall Jackson is going to be saving anyone's soul.
I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says “all men and women have the right to serve in the U.S. military”. So their “rights” would not be violated by refusing to allow them to serve.
The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." So how would you pass a law that prohibits people from serving in the military on the basis of their religion? Further, Article VI reads (in part), "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." What's important to that one can find opinions that military officers qualify as holding an "office or public trust under the United States" which would clearly prohibit the use of religious tests as a requirement for service. So while there is no requirement that everyone has the right to serve, there are prohibitions to applying religious tests and to prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Which ones of those 1,700 are “sleepers”?
I have no idea. Estimates suggest that between 1% and 4% of the general population are psychopaths. How many of the people all around us are Dennis Raders or Karla Homolka and how willing are you to impose a police state to ferret them out before they hurt anyone? How many militia members are the next Timothy McVeigh and should the government disband all militias just in case? How many anti-abortion protesters are the next Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, or Shelley Shannon and should all anti-abortion protesters be treated like potential murderers? Do you really want to treat people as being guilty of a crime on a statistical possibility and, if so, at what point does the risk justify treating people as guilty without evidence of guilt or due process?
How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice so 1,700 muslims can join the U.S. Army?
How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice so you can drive a car (over 43,000 deaths in 2008), or to allow people to own guns (almost 30,000 in 2004, with more than 64,000 injured), or to allow people the freedom to smoke, or to allow them to enjoy a Big Mac? These are questions nanny-state liberals ask and I will, again, repeat the relevant Ben Franklin quote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The point that Franklin was capturing is that liberty is at odds with security and if your answer is that you are not willing to accept that liberty might cost some lives or that Constitutional protections will allow some guilty people to walk free, then you should throw away the Constitution, put on the jackboots, and implement a nanny state to keep you safe. I'm not a libertarian but I'm stunned that there are any conservatives who don't understand this.
I’d rather see a billion muslims dead than one American.
And maybe they'd rather see 300 million Americans dead than one Muslim. That makes you different from them how, exactly?
That’s right. I’m saying I love this country that was founded on Christian principles more than I love people who practice a religion that teaches if you kill a non-believer you’ll go to paradise and get 70 virgins.
For someone who loves this country, you don't seem to have much use for the Constitutional protections put in place by our Founders and for a Christian, you don't seem to have much use for the words of Jesus or Paul so that leads me to believe it's neither the United States nor Christianity that you really love because when I've given you the option of standing for country and Jesus, you've opted to quote Stonewall Jackson, a man who died trying to tear this country apart who was gunned down by his own trigger happy troops who were killing them all so that God could sort them out, instead. Do you think you live in the Confederate States of America or that Stonewall Jackson died for your sins or something?
And that right there shows you how stupid they are. 70 virgins would last no more than a few weeks. Then what?
You seem to be waiting for the Rapture while do exactly what Jesus says will get your forgiveness revoked and earn you a one-way ticket to Hell. How silly is that?
Have a nice life and I hope to see you in Heaven. Seriously. But I’m not so sure you’ll be too happy there. There won’t be any muslims. Maybe you can talk to God and tell Him he’s wrong not to let them in. After all, it’s what He did to them that makes them the way they are. He chose the children of Isaac.
In all seriousness, I hope you make it into Heaven, too, but I think you seriously need to reread Matthew 6:5-15, Matthew 18:21-35 (posted earlier in the thread), Luke 6:27-49, and Romans 12:9-21. You might also want to take a look at The Didache, one of the earliest surviving works describing what the early Church (and possibly the apostles who knew Jesus) thought was required of a good Christian. If you'd like to offer me back passages or early Church writings that support a "Kill them all" attitude toward your enemies, I'll happily take a look at them.
You're comparing apples to oranges by giving examples of religious zealotry as proferred by relatively small, separate, disunited Christian sects.On the other hand there are two major sects of Islam comprised of appx. 1.3 billion people. Three hundred million of them belong to the Shiite sect. One billion of them are Sunni. What's next? Comparing the power and reach of these two sects to the power and reach of the Jim Jones cult?
A difficult thing to do, since censorship is heavy in countries where Islam and government are woven tightly to each other. I taught HS part time in a Gulf Arab country while between gigs. By ME standards, it was a pretty loose school. Yet Homer's Iliad was banned there, Joyce, Sinclair, Conrad -- name the great Western authors and chances are that at least some of their works are banned. On top of that, line-by-line book and magazine censorship was the norm there. The most disgusting thing was that some Westerners volunteered to help with the censorship. The Holocaust? -- never happened. It was eliminated from the school's encyclopedias and research books. This censorship is also endemic on the street -- you can't find a magazine where pictures and passages have not been blackened out or completely removed. Even the internet hasn't escaped such control, but of course there are ways around that.
Here's a story which highlights the madness of ME censorship. I enjoy playing the stock market and I'm always looking to tune my abilities. So a few days ago I went looking for a pre-packaged excel sheet of the "Risk of Ruin" tables. Link after link was met with the message, "ACCESS DENIED! GAMBLING." I laughed my ass off, and eventually found what I needed. It took some effort though. I wonder how many inquiring minds in Muslim societies have been squelched by such oppression.
There's another possible angle explaining why "they get their wives from their native countries." As you may or may not know, it is common practice among Gulf Arabs, Iraqis, Palestinians (Jordanians)and Pakistanis to marry one's first cousin. The problem is especially bad within Pakistan, where generation after generation of first cousins marry first cousins, exponentially compounding the risks of congenital defects. Time and time again, I see the effects of that cultural (or is it religious?) tic in the large numbers of Middle Easterners and Pakistanis with crossed eyes, double earlobes, hairy foreheads -- and those are just the outward physical defects. Time and time again I find myself trying to explain simple concepts to men who we in the West would characterize as borderline retarded. Daily, I look in the eyes of such men and can see clear through to the back of their skulls -- there's nothing going on "upstairs." They are not a small minority of the people I deal with here. I think the problem of inbreeding among Muslims plays no small part in the absolutely insane acts many of them commit. No, that conclusion isn't based on hard science, but again, if you could see it for yourself I think you might agree that the endemic inbreeding that goes on in most societies where Islam is a dominant force has something to do with the dysfunctions in those societies.
I started to respond but I almost forgot you’re on my boycott list.
Don’t bother responding because I’m tired of reading about your “love” for animals. You should start a chapter of P.E.T.A.M? That’s PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANGRY MUSLIMS.
And don’t need to worry about my soul making it to heaven. Jesus has that covered. I’ll say hello to Stonewall when I get there?
I finally told the guy he should start a chapter of P.E.T.A.M. People for the Ethical Treatment of Angry Muslims. I hope that shut him up.
For much more on this Jihad attack see this thread:
Fort Hood Texas: Free Republic Archives
******************************************
The war is upon us.... Every Freeper needs to read these books:
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Paperback)
*************************************EXCERPTS*******************************
Review
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The -- Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
***********************************snip******************************
By Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews
I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.
It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.
And we have a new book:
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America (Hardcover)
I started to read the post you were replying to and just had to stop. It is my believe that self defense is a God given right, and we DO have to take the necessary precautions to protect ourselves. With that said, I have no idea was else was said in the post exchanges...
Thank you for the ping..
At least some books have been coming forth that could open more minds as to the real enemies of this Republic.
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.