Ask Newt why he thinks atheists want Muslim terrorists to win.

[332nd]

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land.....

Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it.

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

So you share Newt 's irrational fears. K.

 

[Robrob]

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

Let me know if you need help understanding the difference between free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others.

P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?"

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Once again, you confuse the concepts of free practice of religion and government support of one religion above others. Why is that?

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land.....

So your point is the phrase should be removed from the oath?

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

You do realize this is a majority "Christian" nation? Feel free to provide examples of your supposed "harsh clamp downs" on the majority?

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?"

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Oh, I think it's a complete misunderstanding. The athiests who are so quick to stand up for the rights of muslims to build their mosque next to the 911 attack site, who are so quick to pounce on any evidence of christianity in the winter holidays....you know, those athiests?

The ones who are so quick to quash every evidence of some type of prayer anywhere, but who have a blind eye to muslims on their little prayer rug five times a day?

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases...

 

[madfoot]

Newt is a smart person. He just happens to lie extremely well.

 

[Travis]

Look, don't just repeat sound-good phrases. Think a bit about what you are doing and saying. Here's an example.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

But there are many other examples. The above is the oath of office for members of Congress and for federal judges.

And it's.....taken.....on.....government.......land.....

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?

Please, don't ask ME questions that YOU need to answer. It's your OP. Not mine. I'm only trying to comment on it.

Think it over and consider if it isn't true that (A) in many, many cases, athiests...and liberals, in general...are giving muslims a "free pass" where they clamp down harshly on Christians.

I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda.

A lot of the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum is simply hate talk. Deal with it. A lot of anti-muslim rhetoric is hate talk, but a fair part of it is not...it's concern over the fact that islam is a system of government as well as a religion.

You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?

No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either.

 

[Travis]

No, there is not. It also isn't part of the earliest versions of the oath of office or enlistment either.

Then I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Bri]

P.S. What "mosque next to the 911 attack site?" Or do you consider two city blocks "next to?"

Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how.

Your paranoid fantasy aside, feel free to elaborate how a decentralized religion, without formal clergy, with multiple sects and splinter groups is somehow a "government?"

I'm guessing he's referring to sharia law? Of course, other religions -- Judaism is one example -- have their own laws as well, and like sharia law there is generally no consensus as to how it is practiced. So I'm curious as to what non-hate-talk anti-muslim rhetoric he's referring to and what the concern is exactly.

-Bri

 

[Hawk one]

Meanwhile, there are plenty of churches in the area as well. And at least one synagogue. If mhaze is suggesting that allowing a mosque in the area is somehow discriminatory against Christianity, I'd like to know how.

Not to mention that it wasn't really a planned mosque as much as it was a planned community center with some praying area in it.

 

[mhaze]

Is there a requirement that they say the last sentence?.....

The fact that any oath may be affirmed, instead of sworn to, and that alternate books can be used instead of the bible, does not negate in one bit my point.

You don't want references to god in public places. But our very oaths of public office are only affirmed by individual choice, not the mandated requirements by atheists. Individual choice is not a factor for the same athiests regarding various behaviors they would force on the public, is it?

....I've never heard of this happening. Atheists deal with whoever happens to be intolerant around them. Every atheist I know wants to fight Al Qaeda....

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

....You mean unlike Christianity that didn't itself engage in holy wars and huge purges of it's own?

see above...

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years.

 

[Almo]

Cow cookies. Learn some history.

The banning of school prayer as it was practiced up until the 1960s was actually about defending the rights of both those Christians who disapproved of the practice and those of other on no religion who felt put upon by the government intrusion into their spiritual life...

Lefty nailed that one. Solid post, dude.

 

[mhaze]

Bull feathers. Supposed "Christians" have set an awful lot of bombs in the last thirty years.

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

 

[Random]

It’s all a matter of perception. Christians in the US have received preferential treatment for so long that anything that challenges that entitlement seems like an attack. The system has been crooked for so long it looks straight to them.

The pledge of allegiance debate is a perfect example. Christians up in arms about banning the pledge from schools simply because it mentions God, while non-Christians scratch their heads and wonder why “under God” was tacked on in the first place.

 

[gnome]

@mhaze -- There are a lot of things that Christians are supposed to do in the bible that most Christians don't. Are you unwilling to suppose that the same is true of Muslims?

 

[Bri]

I don't particularly care about who you know, but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest. Fundamentalist Christians, or any other type of Christian, do not want to kill you.

You apparently don't know the difference between fundamentalism and radicalism.

But, yes, radical Christians have in the past persecuted and killed people who don't believe as they do.

-Bri

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The fact that any oath may be affirmed, instead of sworn to, and that alternate books can be used instead of the bible, does not negate in one bit my point.

Actually, the fact that it can be affirmed has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. The phrase "so help me God" does not appear in the original oath of office for the president or military serive does. Further, you seem to be conflating the made up protocols for swearing in as president with swearing in for court tesitmony and taking the oath of office (re: placing one's hand on a Bible).

That's something someone who had ever taken an oath of office would not confuse (as I have 3-4 times per my best recollection).

You don't want references to god in public places. But our very oaths of public office are only affirmed by individual choice, not the mandated requirements by atheists. Individual choice is not a factor for the same athiests regarding various behaviors they would force on the public, is it?

Your fantasies about this topic are nearly as amising as your conspiracy theories regarding AGW. Neither of which have any effect on reality though.

I don't particularly care about who you know...

Of course you don't. You have constructed a reality in your own mind and if any fact contradicts it, it must, inherently, be wrong.

...but I do know one thing. Fundamentalist Muslims, by their basic belief set, want to kill you, the athiest.

All of your blather about crazed, radicalized jihadis has, and I'm going to type this slowly for you - N O T H I N G TO DO WITH Newt's crazy comments about atheists supposedly wanting to have Muslims take over America and impose sharia law. What exactly about the slander and insanity of Newt's comment are you having such trouble comprehending?

 

[tyr_13]

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

No, Christians have a mandate to kill homosexuals, 'witches', and not to work on Sunday or where blended cloth.

 

[Bri]

Irrelevant.

Christians do not have a mandate to kill atheists.

Muslims do.

What do you need, a Koran cite?

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

This isn't complicated. "People of the book" include Christians and Jews. "Disbelievers" are, duhhh, Athiests.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.​

-Bri

 

[GreyArea]

Back a bit Newt gave a talk where he alleged that secular Americans were actively trying to let Muslim terrorists win and take over the USA.

Gingrich is about sixty years older than the two children he mentioned. So, in his speech to Hagee's evangelical/charismatic church, Gingrich claimed that he is "convinced" that by 2070 the radical Islamists who today make up less than 0.6% of the population will grow to a large enough plurality (or a majority) to "potentially" "dominate" the U.S. Lets look at some numbers.

How large does a voting bloc have to be to dominate a country as large and populous as the U.S.? 10%? 20%? More? Do the children count, or do they not because they can't vote?

The U.S. population is estimated to be about 363,500,000 in 2030.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations/population-projections/ProjectionsStateAgeSex2005.html

The Pew Foundation has projected the U.S. Muslim population to 2030. They estimate it to be about 6.2 million then. "The Muslim share of the U.S. population (adults and children) is projected to grow from 0.8% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2030, making Muslims roughly as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the United States today."
http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-americas.aspx

I know there are plenty of people in the U.S., including many Christians, who think that Jews run the country today. So maybe it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to believe that a different 1.7% could run things in another two decades. But it's still balderdash in either case.

By 2070, the population here is projected to be around 463,000,000 people.
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t5-g.txt

I haven't found any actual estimates for religious demographics in 2070. But if we were to continue Pew's trend of a doubling of the percentage every 20 years, by 2050 it would be 3.4% and by 2070 it would be 6.8%. If we double the absolute number, the percentage by 2070 would be 5.4%.

I doubt the growth rate would remain that high for that long. First, it is easier to have a high growth rate when your absolute numbers are smaller than it is when they are larger. Look at Canada's forecasts in the Pew report for an example. Second, my projection does not account for the number of Americans who will leave their childhood upbringings in Islam, as today's kids and tomorrow's grandkids assimilate into an increasingly secular society. As Pew says "By 2030, … more than four-in-ten of the Muslims in the U.S. (44.9%) are expected to be nativeborn," up from 35.5% circa 2010. That's a lot more room for people to move away from the mosque. Thirdly, today's Muslim Americans are mainly first-generation immigrants and probably have a higher birthrate than their daughters and grand-daughters will have. And finally, these estimates are high in terms of imagining political power because they include people under 18, who can't vote, are not likely to be able to vote by 2070, and usually make up about a quarter of any population.

So, 6.8% is similar to the proportion of Historically Black Churches in the U.S. today (6.9% according to Pew). And 5.4% is the percentage of Mainline Methodists today. I don't see any domination by either of them now, so why should such small numbers dominate us later?
Percentages from this PDF: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf , page 110.

In addition, my wild projection is for the total number of Muslims in the U.S. The number of Islamists would have to be smaller, and the number of radical Islamists (the group Gingrich identified) would be even smaller than that.

I suspect that Gingrich was consciously lying to curry favor with a particular audience. I don't think he is so stupid as to actually believe what he was telling them.