ISIS has come to implement Islam, by the book,

Actually he was just held for 13 hours, but hey.
They are not jailing the Islamic street preachers for any time.

 

Paul's sign was bad "Love Muslims - hate Islam" better would have been "Love Muslims but hate Islamist Ideology".

That said - me thinking his sign is bad - is not an excuse for abridging freedom of speech. Belief in freedom of speech is not belief in freedom for "Only speech that one agrees with". Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom of speech is belief in freedom for speech that one disagrees with - Salmon Rushdie

Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses" would be banned today.

 

Run for the hills Syria law us coming. The real fear of Islam should be from the left. The true version of sharia law is much closer to the far rights version of government. There isnt much fact finding and science in either Islamic teachings nor the far right extremist version of governance. So, while you’re ragging about sharia law, look in the mirror.

 

If they were brand new, the Qur'an and Sunnah would probably be banned today.

 

Europe is exploding as we speak - and the MSM is doing everything in its power to hinder us benefiting from this lesson by hiding and distorting the Truth ... in fact making laws that criminalize speaking the Truth.

This what Russiagate is all about - criminalizing the Truth. Its all connected my friend.

 

It's slowly coming out, but there is too much money involved.

 

I agree 100% with your post - sans the contradiction "Run for the hills Sharia Law is coming" - followed by you inferring that it is already here "Look in the Mirror".

This is the whole point of my diatribe = condemn the "Islamist" - not "Islam". Sharia Law is already here - the religious right version.

I do not speak in terms of "Islam". I speak in terms of - Forcing religious "or personal" belief on others through physical violence. I do not distinguish between Islam or Christianity in this respect - There is a distinction between illegitimate non religious justification and religious justification for law .. however - illegitimate non religious justification for law is just as evil and immoral.

This is then "NOT" a religious test. The test is simple - either one has respect for individual liberty - the founding principles and the rock on which Western democracy is based - or one does not.

 

As would the OT ..

 

This is where I disagree, and pointed out to you to read the sunnah.
You have to have a certain knowledge of the religion before you can stick up for it or condemn it.
You can't just use 'forcibly convert" and that answers all questions,


The problem is a combination of many things, all starting with the written documentation of the religion.

 

I agree.

 

The left supports Muslims and gays over whites. But Muslims toss gays off tall buildings. Doesn't this cause some tension on the left?

 

We don't disagree - this is critical point you keep missing. And what is this "forcibly convert" nonsense ? Get some reading comprehension. There is a big difference between forced conversion and forcing religious belief on society through law. You are moving the goalposts and building a strawman at the same time. Stop it.

The ideology that is the root case of the problem is the ideology I keep harping on = ideology that tries to justify forcing religious belief on others through physical violence (Law).

We do not disagree about Islam. I condemn Islam for a host of reasons - based on having a certain knowledge of that religion. I have never "Stuck Up" for Islam .. ever. I my opinion it is a disgusting religion.

Your problem is that you have many arguments that fail horribly. When I point out the failures of these arguments (such as attributing the acts of radical extremists to all Muslims) you commit the "non sequitur" fallacy of claiming that this is me sticking up for Islam. Its not.

You are failing to distinguish the difference between having a belief - and forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

Just because I believe in freedom of religion - that people should be able to worship what they want - does not mean I agree with that religion or any of its ideology.

Belief in freedom of religion is not belief in freedom - only for religious beliefs that one agrees with. Belief in freedom of religion is belief in freedom for beliefs that one does not agree with. That is what belief in freedom is.

What I do not abide - is when someone wants to force that religious belief on me through law.

So then - have your belief - keep it - be happy you live in a nation that allows for freedom of religion - but, do not try to force that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

 

Most of your post you just completely made up but I will address one point

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

You are failing to distinguish the difference between having a belief - and forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

Just because I believe in freedom of religion - that people should be able to worship what they want - does not mean I agree with that religion or any of its ideology. ​

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

This is where the knowledge of the religion is important.

forcing that belief on others through physical violence, is an important part of the religion.
You are ordered to do this.

If you have the belief, but don't do it, than you really don't have the belief.


And please don't waste my time by posting a dozen made up points that nobody would bother answering anyways.

Post one at a time so we can actually look at it.

 

Are there no "white gays" ? This turns your argument into nonsense. Why conflate what might be a perfectly good argument - supporting Islamist's- with the this other argument ? These are separate issues.

You also conflate "Islamists" with "Muslims" not all Muslims are Islamist - the ones who throw gays off buildings - agree with Sharia.

Generalization fallacy is how 'NOT" to get your point across... because argument containing this fallacious gibberish are easily crushed.

You do however have a perfectly good argument - it is just stuck in between so much fallacious nonsense.

So lets clean it up. The Left supports Islamist ideology - Sharia - but at the same time claims to support gays. The problem -as you point out is that this ideology dictates that gays be killed. This is a complete contradiction.

Examples - Omar was never questioned on her stance on Sharia - if she agrees with and/or believes in this ideology. The MSM does not even use the term "Islamist" - refusing to educate the public on its meaning = one who hates individual liberty - one who wants to force his/her religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law)

Obama armed and supported the radical Islamist side in the Syrian War. The side we were fighting against were the moderate Muslims and Christians - the people of Syria fighting to keep their freedoms. We fought on the side of the Islamist nut jobs (Al Qaeda, ISIS and others of the same ilk) who wanted to take those freedoms away from the people of Syria.

Those on the left (and right) who pointed this fact out - "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" - are demonized. In particular "Tulsi Gabbard" who sponsored the bill. A large percentage of the Left hates her for this and she is constantly demonized by the left and the Left MSM.

Demonized for being against - throwing gays off building - being against radical Islamist extremists who want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence ..

Liberals support the actions of these Islamist extremists - calling them "moderates"

The following is a small part of an "Open Letter to Assad" from Senator Richard Black - who - like Tulsi - actually went to Syria to see the carnage first hand.

Virginia Senator Thanks Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for Saving the Lives of Christians
Open Letter of U.S. Senator Richard H. Black to President Bashar al-Assad Acknowledges US Support to Terrorists

What is the position of most of the Blue Establishment - and the Left Establishment's propaganda mouthpiece - CNN, MSNBC ?

The rebel opposition are Hero's .... "Moderates" fighting against the evil Syrian Army.
.

 

Nothing in my post was "made up" you are projecting your flaws onto me - again !

This is covered directly in my post. What part of - there is a difference between 1) having a belief, and 2) forcing that belief on others do you not understand ?

One can observe the edicts of Sharia on a personal basis - say not consuming alcohol - yet - not believe in forcing others - through law - to abstain.

You can counter with - Islamic teachings also dictates that one must believe in making the dictates of Sharia into Law - Sharia Law.

Your argument is then - if someone does not observe all the teachings from Islamic religious texts - then that person really does not belief in Islam.

OK - but who cares what your interpretation of what someones belief is - this person believes that they are a believer in Islam and you are not going to convince them otherwise. . This is then just semantics. Good luck finding a Christian or a Jew who believes in all the dictates of their religious texts. If you want to say that these are not Christians or Jews .. OK - believe what you want.

I don't care what someone believes - or what they claim to believe - so long as they are not trying to force that belief on me through Law.

 

And you are also conveniently ignoring the fact that you are ordered to lie about your belief's, or intentions.

 

You know, you can be a Dhimmine and still hold on to your own religious belief's.

 

What, still arguing about Islam and Isis?
It is definitely a totalitarian ideology, the evidence is piling up every day.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tanbul’s-hagia-sophia-museum-a-mosque.553110/

 

what people will not accept is there is no Radical Islam.
There is no moderate Islam.

There is just Islam.


There are radical and moderate Muslims, ( Hmmm, No Pacifists)

But then all muslims are moderate until they are caught.

 

6 Christian based terrorist groups.
They have been active for decades lending support to white activists and birth control clinics attacks. Of course, mums the word because they are Chrustians....and all Christians are moderate..llsure.

1. The Army of God.
2. Eastern Lightning, a.k.a.
3. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)
4. The National Liberation Front of Tripura.
5. The Phineas Priesthood.
6. Concerned Chtistians

 

They're not really Christian, or only nominally so, that much is obvious if you look at their beliefs.
The same thing with the "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom" in China (1864).
For many of them their main objectives are not Christian ones but they make a half-hearted attempt to meld them together.
It's no secret that there are many Christian-inspired cults, that have deviated off the mainstream path, some more cult-like than others.

 

Oh, only moderately Christian. Funny....just like the only moderately violent Islamic .

 

No, there's a difference.

But it's easy for the lazy mind to not see it.

Do you think policemen are the same thing as robbers because there happen to be a few bad policemen?

 

The difference is, if a Christian becomes a terrorist, s/he is a "bad" Christian.
However, if a Muslim becomes a terrorist, s/he is a "good" Muslim.

 

Not sure why you are addressing this to me but, OK. I am well of- and have often commented on - the fact that religious right Christians are guilty of violating the stated principle.

Abortion, Prostitution, Pot, Alcohol (prohibition) and so on.

I don't care who it is, religious, atheist, black, brown, white - or what race - Either one has respect for individual liberty - or one does not.

The Golden Rule - do unto others what you would have done to you - this is the basis of the founding principles - which is a secular justification for authority of Gov't. This also happens to be the rock on which Jesus based his teachings.

Hammurabi had this principle in his law code 1800 BC. Confucius and Buddha expounded on this principle. And guess what - even Muhammad.

If you don't want others forcing their personal or religious beliefs on you through physical violence (Law) then do not do the same to others.

Either one understands this - or one does not. Violators of this rule are "human garbage" Islamist's are thus not human garbage on the basis of a religious test - on the basis of their belief in Islam. They are human garbage on the basis of violation of this rule ..same as the religious right ... same as liberals using utilitarian justification to violate the founding principles - to do an end run around protection of essential liberty.