Skip to comments.Are you American first or Muslim first?
Posted on 04/23/2013 12:35:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Boston bombing crime shows that comprehensive immigration reform should not be only a southern border problem or even just a problem of illegal aliens. Its also a problem of foreigners who are admitted legally but should never have been admitted, and of others admitted legally on a visa but are not tracked to make sure they depart when their visitors time expires, as U.S. law requires.
For starters, why would our government have admitted the Tsarnaev family whose son was named Tamerlan? That should have been a red alert because that is the name of one of the worlds notorious mass murderers, a 14th-century Central Asian warlord named Tamerlan, who killed about 17 million people.
The original Tamerlan was a devout Muslim who referred to himself as the Sword of Islam and was especially known for his shocking brutality. His name is well-known in Central Asia.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that the Boston bombers crime poses questions similar to those we asked after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, such as How did 19 people get in here to kill 3,000 people? He said the Boston marathon crime is a reminder that weve got to do better than what weve done. They were evidently here legally.
Grassley said the Boston crime should trigger the U.S. to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. He asked, How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I am a Catholic first.
“Moderate” muslims recognized the brothers immediately but admitted in interviews that they did not report this information to the authorities.
“Moderate” muslims witnessed muslims around the world cheering these attacks and said nothing against these celebrations.
CAIR spoke out against the attacks but I didn’t hear condemnations of the celebrations.
Followed truthfully and honestly there is no other way
Tamerlan (Timur for short) envisioned the restoration of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan.
As a means of legitimating his conquests, Timur relied on Islamic symbols and language, referring to himself as the Sword of Islam and patronizing educational and religious institutions. He converted nearly all the Borjigin leaders to Islam during his lifetime.
His armies were inclusively multi-ethnic. During his lifetime Timur emerged as the most powerful ruler in the Muslim world after defeating the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire and the declining Sultanate of Delhi. Timur had also decisively defeated the Christian Knights Hospitaller at Smyrna, styling himself a Ghazi.
By the end of his reign Timur had also gained complete control over all the remnants of the Chagatai Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde and even attempted to restore the Yuan dynasty in China.
Timur’s armies were feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, sizable parts of which were laid to ruin by his campaigns.
Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.
On the other hand, Timur is also recognized as a great patron of art and architecture, as he interacted with Muslim intellectuals such as Ibn Khaldun and Hafiz-i Abru.
“Moderate muslime” is a myth - they don’t exist in reality.
I think religion comes first with a lot of people
If 9/11 didn’t shock common sense into the majority of the country, nothing short of a nuclear bomb going off will. I don’t know if there is any hope for this country...
Muslims have a word for “moderate” Muslims...
Paraphrasing, “Are you American first, or Democrat first?”
It’s a foolish question to ask a Muslim. Just as so many Christians have pointed out God, Family, Country is the correct priority for a believer of any flavor. The problem is when one of those three wants to destroy the other. If that is the situation then it’s not a matter of priorities but of getting rid of something evil.
If the bloody religion were so peaceful, why the need for ‘’moderates’’, as in ‘’moderation’’ Kind of make the argument it isn’t peaceful. doesn’t ‘t it?
I’m an American, simple as that.
Catholic first... Don’t have to worry about the Pope evolving.
the Constitution of the US allows ad protects your freedom to practice Catholicism within this country.
You want to pledge allegiance to a religion and you are without a here is no Catholic State.
Any and every Catholic needs to be ensuring their country remains free for this purpose.
Culturally you might feel oppression, but not from the Constitution.
Guess the main thing is that our New Testament doesn’t instruct us to kill, lie, deceive others who don’t believe like we do. On the other hand, the Koran instructs and even blesses that kind of negative behavior.
So, are you gonna follow a God who wants you to be a better person and think of others first, be killed for your beliefs as you compassionately/peacefully try to share your beliefs, or do you want to follow a god who tells you to rape an innocent girl, cut off limbs and heads of those who have wronged you, treat women and children like property instead of people, lie to “fool” a nonbeliever, kill someone and then call yourself a martyr, etc.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Enough said...
The question is if Islam is compatible with republican democracy, or a free civilized society in general, and the answer I think in the aggregate is a clear “no”.
Individual muslims may vary, because individuals are in the end individuals. But immigration from muslim countries should always be very limited in order that they never form colonies and have every opportunity to assimilate. In numbers, muslims will never assimilate.
To answer her question; I am Christian first and I would expect every religious person would answer in a like manner. Regardless of their religion.
Most will claim their faith first.
The problem with islam is that it not compatible with itself , let alone western philosophy.
God Family Country Nascar
Actually this question is foolishness.
If you have a belief in some kind of all-powerful gods who can reach anywhere, you must consider that religion above all else (hence part of why Moslems are dangerous).
These beliefs have no borders.
Shlafly is a Catholic.
She knows just what she means, I think. She is not comparing religions.
And she is talking about immigration - that Catholicism and Christianity, Judaism are compatible with being an American
For a Moslem there is only one possible answer to that question, but then- are you an American or a Christian first? I know the implications are radically different but the answers should be equivalent.
Not so sure about this. Maybe it depends on the country.
Family is composed of individuals. I will not equate my commie-enviro-atheist cousin with my mother. In fact, many people have treacherous family, including the closest, either totally at odds politically or even cruel.
Since the US is supposed to be based on a brilliant constitution maximizing liberty, I think it’s worth defending over my commie pinko cousins, to maximize benefit for others. Just as the religion of Christ maximizes benefit for others, regardless of relation.
So, I’d put the broad term “family” lowest.
Here’s the problem.
The “allah” that the moslems worship is Satan.
How do I know?
Jesus said, speaking metaphorically of Satan, “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy:”
Perfect description of Mohammed, who says “allah” told him to do all those things.
Jesus goes on to say, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
YHWH/Jesus/HolySpirit is a very different God than “allah”.
You know I think most God fearing people would say that. Which is why those trying to wage war upon a religion are waging a fools quest. It may be true that the foundation of Islam is rotten and at war with everyone else but you cannot defeat a religion with the sword of the state.
They call it the “nation of Islam” for a reason. Their loyalties are not to any land, nation, people or law, but to their religion, to Islam, not to God, mind you, but to Islam.
“For starters, why would our government have admitted the Tsarnaev family whose son was named Tamerlan? That should have been a red alert because that is the name of one of the worlds notorious mass murderers, a 14th-century Central Asian warlord named Tamerlan, who killed about 17 million people.”
Immigration officials must have ignored the law that prohibits persons named Tamerlan from entering the United States.
Should we also prohibit people named “Adolph” from entering the country?
Christian, Dad, American, Texan...
Lately when I get real depressed about things: Christian, Dad, Texan, (reserved spot), American.
Likewise; I am Christian first.
I’m a Christian first and I do not see a conflict with my priorities because in being a good Christian I am also a good American.
There was a time when the two were synonymous.
Personally I have said that the minute a country constitutional-izes religion, it ceases to be a recognized religion. It becomes a political theocracy.
Under that viewpoint the extremists, terrorists, etc. are then agents of the country from where they originate.
so if your church preached that you should kill others you would follow that? I am just checking to see if you are logically consistent or merely blowing smoke.
If the government demanded that I must give up my faith in order to continue to participate in the US economic system, bank here and use credit cards and pay my bills, and even to hold a job, I would have to politely decline. If they continued to insist that I must, then I would have to leave.
Notice this is the exact demand that government makes to its citizens when it is influenced by the False Prophet in Revelation chapter 13.
A government that can demand that it is more important than God is a government that has escaped the bounds of its Constitution.
But the difference between Christianity and Islam is substantial. There is very little that conflicts with Christian belief and the enumerated powers of the text of the Constitution, abuses notwithstanding. The first right that the Bill of Rights protects is that it circumscribes religion from government scrutiny. Government is forbidden from having an opinion about how a person practices their religion in public or private life, or if they choose to have no religion at all.
However, Islam seeks to control government to such an extent that it can forbid other religions upon pain of death.
In practice, the problem for me is that the more I understand the deep meaning of the sacrifice of Christ, the more I want to live at peace with others. It appears that more the adherents of Islam understand their sacred texts, the more dangerously violent they are to people who reject Islam.
Indeed, this is the power of the writings of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood. They convinced a growing minority of Muslims that they must take their sacred texts literally or else they will go to hell. And those texts demand the utmost violence against those who reject Islam.
RE: If the government demanded that I must give up my faith in order to continue to participate in the US economic system... If they continued to insist that I must, then I would have to leave.
If they continued to insist, then this would NOT be the United States of America any longer where the First Amendment is and should be SUPREME.
In which case, I don’t see how you can owe allegiance to such a country. The USA would not be in existence if what you described happens.
Not a good question, as most Christians will identify as Christians first, Americans second.
But, of course, we believe in loving our fellow man. Most importantly, no Christian holds to the idea that if he cannot convert someone of another, or of no faith, he must kill or enslave them.