Our problem is that we’re ignorant of the McCarran Act and no one is enforcing it.
Basically, it states that a person can ‘believe’ anything he wishes, but he cannot act out those beliefs if it’s against the laws of the land.
IE a person can believe in cannibalism, but he cannot kill and eat people because it’s against the law. A person can believe in honor killings, forced marriages, rape as a form of disciple, but he cannot practice them because they’re all against the law in the United States .... at least until we come under Sharia Law.
Isalm is not a religion it is a murderous cult, there I fixed it!
The problem as I see it is that the main difference between radical muslims and so called moderate muslims is that the radicals act on what they are taught. Moderates and radicals are taught the same things.
Radical islam is real islam. Watch the so-called "moderates" scurry to the shadows when the head-chopping begins. The head-choppers always brush the "moderates" aside once they have sufficient numbers in place in any society.
"Moderate" islam is simply islam in stealth-mode, using the ancient playbook to infiltrate their target societies. This has been the pattern for 1,400 years, and ignorance of history will not excuse anyone from suffering the consequences.
Here is the problem and it is both theological and ideological...http://www.theusmat.com/islamandfreewill.htm
If you practice and/or agree with communism, you are a freaking communist. If you practice or agree with islam, you are an islamist. Period. There are no degrees of separation except what you might call yourself for public consumption.
That said, some ideologies attract dangerous people, and Islam seems to be one of them. It's the sawed-off-shotgun in my metaphorical armory.
The theocracy.
McCarthy is right > Spencer is wrong
Yes.
How much longer and how many more lives lost before we eliminate the plague that islam is?
And there is no, I repeat NO, such thing as a good moderate muslim.
I have no use for scholarly discussion of this crap.
Rather, let's discuss ways to eliminate it.
Once we have eliminated it, then we can argue over what to call it.
It’s not the religion it’s the imams and their followers.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!”
-Winston Churchill
I had an old circa 1850 book. There was a memorable picture of a man with wild eyes riding a horse...the caption was "A sword in one hand and the koran in the other". Nothing has changed!!!
Appropriate here, this is another re-post of my “Islam = Cancer” screed.
Anyone sick of it can skip it and use their time more wisely to burn a Koran.
Think it through with me - the parallels are significant, and denial is a dangerous option.
First, cancer cells are very similar to our own. You can’t quite say they are not human cells, or “our very own cells.” They spring up from our own cells. They are genetically identical in almost every way.
But they have some odd, unusual “thoughts” and “behaviors”. They multiply rapidly. They invade surrounding areas, and spread to distant areas to set up enclaves, pushing aside noncancerous cells and structures.
They use the body’s own mechanisms and resources against it. They insert themselves into key structures and disable or destroy them. They overwhelm the body’s natural defenses and immune system. The body cannot effectively wall them off, keep them in check, change their inherent nature and behavior, or “make peace” with them in any way. Ultimately, left unchecked, the natural history of cancer is to wreak havoc on the body, causing much suffering, and eventually death.
The only known cures are extreme, aggressive, destructive ones - radical cures: surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. There is always collateral damage, death of healthy cells, sometimes removal of entire functional tissues and organs.
But often enough there is improvement, either improved functioning and quality of life, or often a complete cure, which entails permanent and complete removal of all cancer cells from the body. Although not all cancer cells are always invading and destroying vital structures, it is important to aim for complete eradication of all cells as the goal of treatment, or the cancer will return with time.
There are a couple of paragraphs I found particularly fascinating:
“Nevertheless, the question raised by Robert’s unyielding position is whether there are, and can be, other viable interpretations of Islam. The answer is yes. They are not as cogent as we’d like them to be, and they do not compete with classical Islam as effectively as we wish. Most of the time, they are less a refutation of classical Islam than a choice — conscious or unconscious — to ignore its supremacist, political elements. But even a passive choice can change a doctrine or a social system, and can do so even if the ignored elements remain on the books.”
and
“My argument with Islam’s Western apologists is not that this kind of evolution is out of the realm of possibility. It is with their absurd insistence that it has already happened. Not just that it could conceivably happen — about which there are lots of reasons for pessimism — but that it has already happened. This is not only self-evidently untrue; it may be fatally counterproductive. By failing to shine the light of inquiry on supremacist, political Islam — by failing to force Islamists into the position of publicly acknowledging and defending their noxious beliefs — we deprive pro-Western Muslims of the platform they need to promote reform and marginalize the supremacists. This only empowers faux moderates like the Muslim Brotherhood, enabling them to push sharia as if it were unthreatening and promote Hamas as if it were an ordinary political party. “
I also was interested to read his conclusions in the last two paragraphs. IMHO the whole article was a worthwhile read. Thanks for the post.
“There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam” The former president of Eqypt.