A Qur'an Got Burnt at 9/11 Mosque Protest

[Uncayimmy]

Because, as I noted, the core issue for the courts (even the original judge) was not Muslim beliefs, but religious beliefs in general. And, as you'll note from the various court cases involving Christian denominations that the appeals court cited in their decision overturning this one, a lot of claims by those Christians that their particular religious beliefs meant that a law did not apply to them made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Meaning that, unlike in this case involving a Muslim defendant, the Christian defendants' claims had been upheld by numerous lower courts.

It's kind of dumb to freak out about finding a single carpenter ant eating away at the frame of your house when it's already infested by dozens of termites. Sure, the carpenter ant represents a potential problem, but the termites will destroy your house long before the ants do.

It's amusing to me that we can see the same thing and take from it different meanings. I agree, the fact is that this religious stuff about Christians made it through the courts long ago. The reality is what I said: It was a widespread and prevalent behavior in law enforcement and the courts. It wasn't some narrow, esoteric case. So, if we see it again, shouldn't we be looking around to see what else is happening?

The fact that it's so clear cut and previously settled about religion makes me wonder why are we going through it again. Tim's point seems to be that Muslims are being treated with kid gloves. Seeing a case like that this day in age actually supports his point, and the reversal doesn't dismiss it.

It took a long time to get the government to treat everybody fairly when it came to religion and the law. When we see it happening again, even if it gets struck down in the courts, we should be concerned. How many other orders of protection have been refused? How many domestic violence cases were settled with the husband not getting any punishment? Is this the tip of an iceberg or just a shard of ice floating in the ocean? We should find out.

I'm concerned about Muslim influence on government. I'm concerned about Christian and Jewish influence on government. What I'm seeing on this board is that no ill can be spoken of Islam, but other religions are fair game. It looks to me like all objectivity is lost when it comes to Islam. I'm not sure who is worse, the bigots against Muslims or the bigots against the other bigots. Both have a tendency to shout down any moderate and reasoned discussion.

 

[Thunder]

has a fatwa been issued on this guy yet?

losing his job ain't enough. he needs an extra-large fatwa. supersize it.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So Thunder, you call for his death?

 

[A'isha]

It's amusing to me that we can see the same thing and take from it different meanings. I agree, the fact is that this religious stuff about Christians made it through the courts long ago. The reality is what I said: It was a widespread and prevalent behavior in law enforcement and the courts. It wasn't some narrow, esoteric case. So, if we see it again, shouldn't we be looking around to see what else is happening?

The fact that it's so clear cut and previously settled about religion makes me wonder why are we going through it again. Tim's point seems to be that Muslims are being treated with kid gloves. Seeing a case like that this day in age actually supports his point, and the reversal doesn't dismiss it.

It took a long time to get the government to treat everybody fairly when it came to religion and the law. When we see it happening again, even if it gets struck down in the courts, we should be concerned. How many other orders of protection have been refused? How many domestic violence cases were settled with the husband not getting any punishment? Is this the tip of an iceberg or just a shard of ice floating in the ocean? We should find out.

I'm concerned about Muslim influence on government. I'm concerned about Christian and Jewish influence on government. What I'm seeing on this board is that no ill can be spoken of Islam, but other religions are fair game. It looks to me like all objectivity is lost when it comes to Islam. I'm not sure who is worse, the bigots against Muslims or the bigots against the other bigots. Both have a tendency to shout down any moderate and reasoned discussion.

The risks aren't comparable, for historical and cultural reasons. That is, the US has a strong Judeo-Christian heritage. Even though we've learned, as a nation, that establishing laws based on strictly religious grounds is generally a Bad Idea, the fact remains that our culture is still pervaded by that particular religion (take a look at the money in your wallet if you don't believe me). That's why, as you noted, the legal journey towards excising religious influence from government was so long and difficult. And despite your assertion that the issue is "clear cut and previously settled", it's still not fully complete, though we are much farther down that road than we've ever been as a nation.

But that's the reason why there's no risk of Islam gaining anywhere near the same traction in terms of influence in our government. That cultural space is still filled by Judeo-Christianity, with almost no room left over for Islam. Muslims aren't being treated with kid gloves; any attempt by any form of Islam to gain influence sticks out like a sore thumb - that's why this case in New Jersey is such a big deal, but no one spread Fox News articles about any of the other similar cases involving Christians that the appellate court cited. That's why it seems to you that Islam is getting some kind of special treatment - we're used to it when fundamentalist Christians try to do this, even when they're a hell of a lot more successful in getting their cases up the court system chain before getting smacked down, but a fundamentalist Muslim trying to do it is still strange and unusual. To worry about the few times when Muslims try this over and above worrying about the many times when Christians try this is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

If religion ever again gets a chokehold on the government and courts in this country, it will be because we backtracked into some form of Judeo-Christianity, not because we embraced some form of Islam. And if this happens, it will happen long before any form of Islam gets anywhere near being able to achieve the same thing.

 

[timf1234]

IWhat I'm seeing on this board is that no ill can be spoken of Islam, but other religions are fair game. It looks to me like all objectivity is lost when it comes to Islam.

This disease is not only in this board, it is almost every where. Lobotomized brain of bleeding heart liberals can't call a spade a spade.

Muslim mobs in Germany demanded police to go a Jew's apartment and take down the Israel flag that the Jews was hanging in his window from inside. In order to keep the peace Police complied.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,601122,00.html

Wake up liberals.


Muslim mobs in UK clash with British police calling police "Kuffar", run kuffar, run. Coward. Police retreat to appease Muslims. Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-lwSe2llg


Muslims illegally block the entire street and prays on Friday. Police were ordered not to enforce the low to avoid a clash.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=714_1283436235

http://standupamericaus.com/muslim-prayers-in-the-streets-of-nyc-traffic-issues-no:37141


ANTPogo Wrote"

But that's the reason why there's no risk of Islam gaining anywhere near the same traction in terms of influence in our government. That cultural space is still filled by Judeo-Christianity, with almost no room left over for Islam. Muslims aren't being treated with kid gloves; any attempt by any form of Islam to gain influence sticks out like a sore thumb

If I had asked you on September 10, 2001, Do you think Islamic countries around the world or any group of independent Muslim are strong enough, or capable enough to attack the only super power USA, and will bring two tower down, and attack on Pentagon, what would have your answer be?

Stealth Jihad is worse than active terrorism. By the time you gullible West figure these out it will be already too late. It is probably already too late. Ball is already rolling. You can't stop it.

And what is happening in Australia?
openly supporting Osama Bin Ladin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbwvwRkVtPI&p=69B8D2F0F3F0D0E5&playnext=1&index=6

 

[kerikiwi]

This disease is not only in this board, it is almost every where. Lobotomized brain of bleeding heart liberals can't call a spade a spade.

Muslim mobs in Germany demanded police to go a Jew's apartment and take down the Israel flag that the Jews was hanging in his window from inside. In order to keep the peace Police complied.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,601122,00.html

Wake up liberals.


Muslim mobs in UK clash with British police calling police "Kuffar", run kuffar, run. Coward. Police retreat to appease Muslims. Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-lwSe2llg


Muslims illegally block the entire street and prays on Friday. Police were ordered not to enforce the low to avoid a clash.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=714_1283436235

http://standupamericaus.com/muslim-prayers-in-the-streets-of-nyc-traffic-issues-no:37141


ANTPogo Wrote"


If I had asked you on September 10, 2001, Do you think Islamic countries around the world or any group of independent Muslim are strong enough, or capable enough to attack the only super power USA, and will bring two tower down, and attack on Pentagon, what would have your answer be?

Stealth Jihad is worse than active terrorism. By the time you gullible West figure these out it will be already too late. It is probably already too late. Ball is already rolling. You can't stop it.

No Islamic country brought any tower down.
A group of Muslims did.
Not all Muslims are responsible for that.
Just as Christians have committed terrorist acts, but not all Chrisitans are responsible.
I will always call a spade a spade, but absolutely refuse to call a rake a spade.

 

[timf1234]

No Islamic country brought any tower down.
A group of Muslims did.
Not all Muslims are responsible for that.
Just as Christians have committed terrorist acts, but not all Chrisitans are responsible.
I will always call a spade a spade, but absolutely refuse to call a rake a spade.

When you compare today's Muslims with today's Christians, a much higher percentage of Muslims are inspired by the Islam, Quran, Hadith, Mohammadian acts, and Islamic history to not only commit terrorism but spread injustice.

Few Christian nut cases can kill an abortion doctor. But what percentage of Christian support the killing in private?
Timothy McBeh brought down Oklahoma city government building. How many Christian support Timothy Mcbeh's act?

On the other hand, how many OBL sympathizers are there in the world?

and bottom line is about freedom of speech.

What percentage of Christian desire to outlaw Jesus cartoon?
What percentage of Muslims desire to outlaw Mohammad's cartoon?

It is not the fringe of Muslims but overwhelming majority of the Muslims want to bring the West down. Replace it with Caliphat.

So far Western leader has no clue how to handle the situation. They are pissing in their pant. For the time being they decided just to appease them.

This is neither conventional war nor nuclear war. This is a war of ideology. War of Meme. The mental virus of Islam is so strong that nuclear bombs are futile.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Can you show me cases similar to the Muslim one (in nature and recency) that went to a higher court but were not covered by the press? Even if you can, that doesn't preclude us from looking for more evidence of this catering towards Islam. Like I said, the fact that it got slapped down by the higher court doesn't negate a reason for concern.

If somebody wants to be concerned because they hate Muslims, that doesn't mean a "non-bigot" can't be concerned about the same thing. Problem is, anyone expressing a concern is treated like a bigot.

 

[A'isha]

If I had asked you on September 10, 2001, Do you think Islamic countries around the world or any group of independent Muslim are strong enough, or capable enough to attack the only super power USA, and will bring two tower down, and attack on Pentagon, what would have your answer be?

That they were strong and capable enough to have already tried to bring down the towers back in 1993 and had gotten awfully close to pulling it off, and that we knew they were going to try something again.

Stealth Jihad is worse than active terrorism. By the time you gullible West figure these out it will be already too late. It is probably already too late. Ball is already rolling. You can't stop it.

It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. I first became aware of it, timf1234, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, timf1234. Women...women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, timf1234...but I do deny them my essence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's not really an accurate summation. EDIT: And it's absolutely false that the judge said that "under Sharia law he could not issue the order because it was the man's religious right to beat and rape his wife". The original judge's ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with sharia, but with how the judge felt that the statutes as written by the legislature should be applied.

Except that it is by Sharia law that this behavior is allowed so long as there isn't criminal intent. Had it not been for Sharia law or the teachings of Islam, this would never have been a ruling by any judge. But I didn't mean to imply that the judge was using specific Sharia laws.

As noted in the appellate court decision, the original judge felt that the sexual assault statues required "criminal intent", and ruled that the defendant's religious beliefs meant that such intent was not present. He didn't say the Muslim man had the "right" to rape and beat his wife, but that his religious beliefs meant that his actions were assault, but not sexual assault under the strict definitions of the law (as that particular judge interpreted the sexual assault law, at least).

Which is wrong.

The appellate court pointed out that such an interpretation was massively incorrect, of course, when they overturned his decision.

And they were correct.

In addition, that reasoning, legally (and morally) flawed as it was, was only why the domestic violence part of the suit was dismissed. The judge's stated reasoning for denying the protective order had nothing to do with the defendant's religious beliefs.

Which was the basis for the protection.

The appellate court smacked down the judge for that fallacious reasoning as well, saying:

Note especially the last sentence (EDIT: the appellate court, I should add, did have concerns that the judge's view that the defendant's actions were "culturally acceptable" colored his perceptions, despite the fact that the judge didn't actually say so in his denial of the protective order).

Which anyone outside of that belief system can easily see.

Absolutely. The original judge made a horrifically dumb series of rulings all around, and they were justly, firmly, and rather definitively smacked down by the appeals court.

So, as an example of the dangers of encroaching Islamization of the West, this particular case seems rather lacking.

I could not think of a better example than this. But I respect your opinion otherwise.

 

[kerikiwi]

When you compare today's Muslims with today's Christians, a much higher percentage of Muslims are inspired by the Islam, Quran, Hadith, Mohammadian acts, and Islamic history to not only commit terrorism but spread injustice.

Few Christian nut cases can kill an abortion doctor. But what percentage of Christian support the killing in private?
Timothy McBeh brought down Oklahoma city government building. How many Christian support Timothy Mcbeh's act?

On the other hand, how many OBL sympathizers are there in the world?

and bottom line is about freedom of speech.

What percentage of Christian desire to outlaw Jesus cartoon?
What percentage of Muslims desire to outlaw Mohammad's cartoon?

It is not the fringe of Muslims but overwhelming majority of the Muslims want to bring the West down. Replace it with Caliphat.

So far Western leader has no clue how to handle the situation. They are pissing in their pant. For the time being they decided just to appease them.

This is neither conventional war nor nuclear war. This is a war of ideology. War of Meme. The mental virus of Islam is so strong that nuclear bombs are futile.

I wouldn't expect Christians to be inspired by Islam, etc, so your first statement is a given.
As to percentages, I really wouldn't like to hazard a guess. Perhaps you could give precise figures.
But whatever the percentage, it doesn't negate the fact that not all Muslims can be held responsible for the actions of a few, just as not all Christians can be held responsible for the actions of a few.
How did you arrive at the overwhelming majority wanting to bring the west down? Because, quite frankly, I don't believe you, though I am perfectly willing to be convinced by evidence.

 

[A'isha]

Except that it is by Sharia law that this behavior is allowed so long as there isn't criminal intent. Had it not been for Sharia law or the teachings of Islam, this would never have been a ruling by any judge. But I didn't mean to imply that the judge was using specific Sharia laws.

The fact that it was sharia law that was the basis for the husband's belief is irrelevant, since the appeals court treated the judge's decision as saying any religious belief that the wife owed the husband sex would have made prosecution under the sexual assault laws invalid. They properly realized that, for example, a fundamentalist Christian could make the exact same argument with the exact same result (as revealed by their citations of court cases involving Christians as applicable precedent in this case), so it's not really the case that "had it not been for Sharia law or the teachings of Islam, this would never have been a ruling by any judge."

It is possible that the original judge wouldn't have ruled the way he did if this were, say, an American Southern Baptist. As Skeptic noted, there's a lot of uncomfortable "White Man's Burden", "oh, he's a Muslim from Morocco...of course he didn't know any better, because no one taught him any better" assumptions that tend to underpin decisions like this. As someone on the liberal end of the spectrum, I'm all too disturbingly aware of the patronizing reasons behind some of the decisions underpinning the "cultural awareness" decisions of my cohorts.

But understanding why a member of a particular culture does something shouldn't mean excusing what they do. Especially when it comes to obeying the laws of the United States. Part and parcel of the statement that "Islam" and its beliefs are not responsible for the actions of those who claim to follow them is the corollary that they also cannot be used as a crutch to allow people to escape their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions.

The appeals court here recognized that - no matter how firmly held your belief may be that you're perfectly entitled to do something, if what you do is illegal, then you are subject to the full force of the law. And, as the court noted, this wasn't about using sharia to claim you thought it was okay and therefore the law shouldn't apply...it was about using anything to claim you thought it was okay and therefore the laws shouldn't apply.

That's why the court ruled as it did and cited the cases it did.

Which is wrong.

It's absolutely wrong, in more than just the legal sense, and I am really glad that the appeals court recognized what an utter boneheaded ass that the original judge was to rule the way he did.

Which was the basis for the protection.

No, the original judge said that the wife didn't need protection because a) he assumed that a protection order issued in the criminal case (this decision was in a civil suit) was already covering things (as the appeals court noted, it wasn't, and the judge should have known better than to assume that), and b) since the judge assumed the husband and wife wouldn't be having any more contact, that there was no need for protection (also, as the appeals court pointed out, hideously wrong in light of the fact that the couple would have to have contact because of their child together).

Neither of those assumptions by the judge, as egregiously wrong as they were, had anything to do with the husband's religious beliefs, nor did the judge mention them as a reason for his ruling, just the above justifications.

Which anyone outside of that belief system can easily see.

People within that belief system had no problem assuming that the husband's beliefs excused his actions, either. The wife certainly knew what her husband did was wrong (that's why this suit existed in the first place, after all), and while the decision doesn't say, both the Pakistani woman who first helped the wife and the Pakistani nurse who assisted her later were both at least fairly likely to have been Muslim as well.

I could not think of a better example than this. But I respect your opinion otherwise.

Thank you. I do have rather strong opinions, and have rather less reticence about expounding on them than I probably should.

But I also value researching something before talking about it. I'd much rather discuss the actual court ruling and the words contained in it, for instance, rather than bandy about outrage generated by secondhand Fox News reports about the case.

 

[A'isha]

Can you show me cases similar to the Muslim one (in nature and recency) that went to a higher court but were not covered by the press? Even if you can, that doesn't preclude us from looking for more evidence of this catering towards Islam.

It usually doesn't add to a conversation when you ask me to post evidence in one sentence, and in the very next sentence say you don't care what I might post because it won't change your mind anyway.

Like I said, the fact that it got slapped down by the higher court doesn't negate a reason for concern.

If somebody wants to be concerned because they hate Muslims, that doesn't mean a "non-bigot" can't be concerned about the same thing. Problem is, anyone expressing a concern is treated like a bigot.

Look, it's vital that we be vigilant in ensuring that the First Amendment is not watered down, and our multicultural, multireligious nation is protected from having any one religion taking advantage of the power of the government to legitimize their Beliefs at the expense of anyone they consider non-Believers. In that sense, being concerned about cases like this, where a wife-beating rapist douchebag tried to get a court to legitimize his rapist douchebaggery because he claimed he was "just following his religion" is perfectly fine.

Being concerned about cases like this because you're worried that it's a harbinger of the US' transformation into an Islamized state subject to the rule of sharia law, though, is just counterproductive paranoid nonsense.

 

[Thunder]

So Thunder, you call for his death?

since when does a fatwa ONLY call for someone to be killed?

can't it call for someone to be educated?

 

[Uncayimmy]

It usually doesn't add to a conversation when you ask me to post evidence in one sentence, and in the very next sentence say you don't care what I might post because it won't change your mind anyway.

You should always be prepared to back up your claims that are presented as statements of fact. When you don't and refuse to do so when asked, then some of us simply won't take you seriously in the future. Since your point is dependent on drawing an inference from a "fact" then I can avoid the nastiness of arguing about the inference simply by proving your fact to be wrong. Since I can't prove a negative (that such cases don't exist), I called upon you to back up your claim. It's Debate 101.

Look, it's vital that we be vigilant in ensuring that the First Amendment is not watered down, and our multicultural, multireligious nation is protected from having any one religion taking advantage of the power of the government to legitimize their Beliefs at the expense of anyone they consider non-Believers.

Why did you write any one religion? Are you okay with them banding together? And why does it have to come at the expense of non-believers? Why can't it also come at the expense of believers? Muslim women are believers, and they seem to get the short end of the stick.

Being concerned about cases like this because you're worried that it's a harbinger of the US' transformation into an Islamized state subject to the rule of sharia law, though, is just counterproductive paranoid nonsense.

And this is what I mean about the inability to discuss the subject without going to extremes. I never said anything about them transforming the USA into an Islamic state. I'm very confident they cannot succeed just as I am very confident that the Christians won't succeed. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about the effort. That woman should never had to go to an appeals court. I find that appalling.

I'm old enough to remember Ed Meese's report on pornography and the chilling effect it had on free speech. Adult magazines were removed from numerous chains where they had been sold for years. For a while Forum was using the words penis and vagina in their adult stories where for years they had used, well, more colorful terms. It was something that should never have happened, and its roots were in religious beliefs.

Even today we're fighting battles over creationism and sex education. It's a fight against Christianity. So, if there's a new player on the field looking for influence, I'm going to be concerned. What I keep seeing, though, is that people can badmouth the Christians and have their arguments debated on their merits. Comments about Islam are met with accusations of bigotry and extremist positions like yours (it's not like it's going to be an Islamic state, so shut up).

When I look at Islamic countries and the violence that is so prevalent, I'm naturally going to be concerned about it coming to this country. I don't think that's an unreasonable concern. I'd be just as concerned about (say) Catholics if, for example, Catholics in the UK firebombed mosques because Muslim clerics invoked some term they felt was proprietary to their religion.

In case you're not aware, I am alluding to the riots and violence in Malaysia regarding the use of Allah. Rauf of Park51 fame wrote an editorial about it and instead of condemning vehemently the violence advised Catholics not to use the word, which he agreed was legally and theologically correct. That concerns me. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims. It just means I need to keep one eye on them just like I keep an eye on other religions.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem, as I see it, is WWII and the holocaust.

What do I mean?

The one good thing Hitler did was to give bigotry (antisemitism especially) a bad name. Having learned from the horrors that even a little bigotry might lead eventually to the gas chambers, people today not only abhor bigotry intensely, but also "put a fence around bigotry" in the same way that Ultra-Orthodox Jews "put a fence around the Torah": forbid (socially, if not legally) anything that might conceivably lead to any sort of minor bigotry.

The problem is that one of the things inside the "fence" is honest criticism. Today, almost every honest criticism of any minority group -- even for the blindingly obvious -- is automatically considered "bigotry" by some people, because in the past dishonest criticism had such bad results.

So now we see the same problem with Islam. Islam is a great "barracks religion", but not too good in creating a modern civil democracy. It's treatment of women, minorities, and homosexuals is abysmal. In particular in the USA, many Imams and mosques have ties to terrorist groups (esp. the Muslim Brotherhood) and are funded by the extremist Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. Such people don't see Islam as a private matter, but see their Mosques as a proselyting-cum-recruitment center to the war against the infidels, as an avant guarde in the coming Islamic takeover of America. Pressure on the courts to be "considerate" of Sharia law is part of this plan.

Pointing this out is verboten and "Islamophobic" because people remember how Jews were unjustly accused of trying to "take over the world", and what that led to. They are afraid that if such criticism is allowed, it will end up with Muslims in the gas chambers. But the situation is not comparable: the synagogues in Germany were hardly massively funded by a Jewish theocracy whose flag states "there is no God but Jehovah" below which is a sword to symbolize the war against those who disagree.

What people are forgetting is that there is a double lesson to be learned from the Third Reich. Just as one must not be bigoted, one must not shut one's eyes to how the Third Reich came about. One must not ignore those who would uproot and destroy liberal democracy by first exploiting the freedoms liberal democracy gives them to spread their anti-democratic and anti-rights religious or philosophy.

The problem is that we are castrating ourselves. The best reply to such would-be theocratic dictators is not censorship or denying their freedom of speech and religion. I am a free speech absolutist and if someone preaches Islamic takeover of America, however disgusting, that in itself (as opposed to taking action to do it, e.g., sending or receiving money from terrorist groups) is no crime. The best reply is to use one's own freedom of speech to expose them.

But what are we going to do if every attempt to do just that is shouted down as "Islamophobic" and "paranoid" and something that will eventually lead to gas chambers for Muslims? Then, the Islamists win by default, and those who shout the most against "bigotry" would be the most instrumental useful idiots in helping establish a far worse bigotry.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Excellent post, Skeptic. Spot on.

 

[timf1234]

since when does a fatwa ONLY call for someone to be killed?

can't it call for someone to be educated?

Like, Jihad as inner personal Jihad. Right?
Fool the gullible West. But I am an insider.
Of course, most of the words have multiple meaning.

When a person burn a Quran and a Muslim says get a fatwa.
Muslim is not talking about fatwa of love.
He is looking for severe punishment for the Quran burner.


In addition, we must look what inspires those suicide bombers?
If they are driven by an ideology then ideology is the problem.
Bible was revised from Old testament to new testament then came separation of church and state. Islam has not seen that evolution.
In addition, Jesus (even if it is a work of fiction) was a gentle person. Mohammad was a war monger. Mohammad advocated and practiced barbarism. Jesus did not.
More Muslims love Mohammad and loves far more than Christians loves Jesus.
Close to 20% of the West are agnostic or atheists. another 30% or so don't take religion seriously. Majority favor seperation of church and state.
these belief are the brain's operating system.
Ideas/belief translates to action.

 

[timf1234]

The problem, as I see it, is WWII and the holocaust.

What do I mean?

The one good thing Hitler did was to give bigotry (antisemitism especially) a bad name. Having learned from the horrors that even a little bigotry might lead eventually to the gas chambers, people today not only abhor bigotry intensely, but also "put a fence around bigotry" in the same way that Ultra-Orthodox Jews "put a fence around the Torah": forbid (socially, if not legally) anything that might conceivably lead to any sort of minor bigotry.

The problem is that one of the things inside the "fence" is honest criticism. Today, almost every honest criticism of any minority group -- even for the blindingly obvious -- is automatically considered "bigotry" by some people, because in the past dishonest criticism had such bad results.

So now we see the same problem with Islam. Islam is a great "barracks religion", but not too good in creating a modern civil democracy. It's treatment of women, minorities, and homosexuals is abysmal. In particular in the USA, many Imams and mosques have ties to terrorist groups (esp. the Muslim Brotherhood) and are funded by the extremist Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. Such people don't see Islam as a private matter, but see their Mosques as a proselyting-cum-recruitment center to the war against the infidels, as an avant guarde in the coming Islamic takeover of America. Pressure on the courts to be "considerate" of Sharia law is part of this plan.

Pointing this out is verboten and "Islamophobic" because people remember how Jews were unjustly accused of trying to "take over the world", and what that led to. They are afraid that if such criticism is allowed, it will end up with Muslims in the gas chambers. But the situation is not comparable: the synagogues in Germany were hardly massively funded by a Jewish theocracy whose flag states "there is no God but Jehovah" below which is a sword to symbolize the war against those who disagree.

What people are forgetting is that there is a double lesson to be learned from the Third Reich. Just as one must not be bigoted, one must not shut one's eyes to how the Third Reich came about. One must not ignore those who would uproot and destroy liberal democracy by first exploiting the freedoms liberal democracy gives them to spread their anti-democratic and anti-rights religious or philosophy.

The problem is that we are castrating ourselves. The best reply to such would-be theocratic dictators is not censorship or denying their freedom of speech and religion. I am a free speech absolutist and if someone preaches Islamic takeover of America, however disgusting, that in itself (as opposed to taking action to do it, e.g., sending or receiving money from terrorist groups) is no crime. The best reply is to use one's own freedom of speech to expose them.

But what are we going to do if every attempt to do just that is shouted down as "Islamophobic" and "paranoid" and something that will eventually lead to gas chambers for Muslims? Then, the Islamists win by default, and those who shout the most against "bigotry" would be the most instrumental useful idiots in helping establish a far worse bigotry.

How many Jews were there then? or percentage wise?
How many Muslims are there today?
With massive oil money?

Were jews doing most of the terrorism in the world?

West already has lost.
We already have compromised our freedom of expression, the most important right. Today, no major media can broadcast or publish Mohammad's cartoon, or criticize Quran very seriously.
Is this self censorship due to the respect for Mohammad, Islam or by fear?
Answer is "FEAR"
shame on us. We gave up our freedom of expression for fear.

 

[DC]

Like, Jihad as inner personal Jihad. Right?
Fool the gullible West. But I am an insider.
Of course, most of the words have multiple meaning.

When a person burn a Quran and a Muslim says get a fatwa.
Muslim is not talking about fatwa of love.
He is looking for severe punishment for the Quran burner.


In addition, we must look what inspires those suicide bombers?
If they are driven by an ideology then ideology is the problem.
Bible was revised from Old testament to new testament then came separation of church and state. Islam has not seen that evolution.
In addition, Jesus (even if it is a work of fiction) was a gentle person. Mohammad was a war monger. Mohammad advocated and practiced barbarism. Jesus did not.
More Muslims love Mohammad and loves far more than Christians loves Jesus.
Close to 20% of the West are agnostic or atheists. another 30% or so don't take religion seriously. Majority favor seperation of church and state.
these belief are the brain's operating system.
Ideas/belief translates to action.

aaah an insider, what kind of insider? what does that mean?

btw Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. But i am sure as an insider you knew that.