Shouldn't Islam Be Banned In The USA ?

LOL. Uncle Meat provides actual sources and all you provide is a stupid google link?
Got anything except a google search?

 

Yes it's extremely difficut to understand followers of a religion began by a child molester - Mohammed. I mean how can anyone, with the slightest sense of morality, follow a man who had a child bride.

 

1. Of course it is a bloody religion.

2. Banning any political ideology or religion is unconstitutional.

I notice you just ignore my posts explaining what the Supremacy clause actually does, how amusing.

Just restating your opinion over and over again doesn't make you right protectionist.

Islam is a religion, and it is not unconstitutional.

It's amazing that you think you have "discovered" something this radical in the constitution. A clause that makes it legal to ban Islam, lol. Dear oh dear. Why don't you go and speak to a lawyer about it? Then instead of spending your time ignoring us, you can ignore him.

 

You are forgetting something important! Any Christian who murders other people is not a real Christian! If a Muslim kills other people, he is just doing what his religion has told him to do!

Its how Christians can pretend their religion is so perfect.

 

Mohammed was not a pedophile. People don't understand the definition of pedophile, and that is why they insist that Muhammed was one.

 

Of course. Really, until that guy admits or says that it "Islam" a religion... he won't get another response from me.

Otherwise, it's just a complete waste of time.

 

Of course he was paedophile, everyone knows that. Don't try and make excuses for such disgusting behaviour. just becuase he goes under the name Mohammed. Let's call a spade a spade, not a shovel!

 

Go find the definition of pedophile and get back to me.

 

And here's further food for thought on Muhammed's ferocious, unrepentant child molesting sexual appetites, from 'The Life of Muhammed' :


"Prophet Muhammad and Paedophilia
+Some sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini

From "The Life of Muhammad"

After Khadijah died, Muhammad dreamed that he was to marry A'isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. She was six and he was fifty. But firstly he married the widow Sawdah who was very motherly towards his children and, a few months later, to his child bride A'isha. She continued to play with her dolls for several years until, at the age of nine, her marriage was consummated."

 

^and again, find me the definition of pedophile. Aisha was very young, yes, and should not have been sexually active at such a young age, but lets stick with the facts, and the faxct is that Muhammed is not a pedophile.

 

That paragraph says that international treaties can only be made in compliance with the Constitution of the United States and that they then become the law in all states regardless of the state's own laws and constitutions.

 

And here's the definition of paedophila from the Crime and Misconduct Commission of Queensland:

'Paedophilia

What is paedophilia?
Paedophilia is criminal activity involving sexual offences against children by adults, including the production and distribution of child pornography. It is also known as criminal paedophilia.


How can any religion revere a person who was a paedophiliac?

 

A pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. A person going through puberty is no longer prepubescent.

Aisha had started her periods, no longer making her prepubescent, so consumating the marriage was acceptable.

 

So is Chistianity .. That was the point of my diatribe.

I have no problem with religion .. but when religion gets political it is a problem IMO.

Upholding the Constitution would put religious zealots of of all stripes in their proper place .. Out of Politics.

 

Christianity was founded on barbarity, forced on people through barbarity.

You can say "Oh but these are not Christian ideals" and one could say the same to defend Islam.

It does not matter .. The actions of the institution, as opposed to the words and fluffy ideals, are the judge of that institution.

On that basis both Christianity and Islam are a bloody twisted mess.

 

If you tried telling that to a judge he would, rightly, treat you with utter disdain and give you a long and dismal prison sentence. If you tried that on a child of mine you would get more than a prison sentence!

 

Christian theology is based on love? "Live the way we tell you to or our buddy Yahweh is going to (*)(*)(*)(*) you to hell forever," does not fall under my definition of love. It does fall under my definition of a threat, and strikes me as being about morally equivalent to "Give me all your money or my buddy Vinny here is going to break your legs." Well, aside from Vinny standing behind you smacking his palm with a baseball bat is really a much more credible threat then Yahweh, but I digress.

The relevant principle here is that actions speak louder then words. I really don't care what sort of a theology a person claims is the basis for their actions, I care what their actions are. And by the actions of their followers, it's pretty clear that all ideologies amount to the same thing: "We are Right, everyone else is Wrong, and so we're better then everyone else." From which it is a frighteningly short step to add, "And therefore we are morally justified in whatever we choose to do to anyone else." Just the fact that you're using a term like "Islamofascist" demonstrates this; Islam and Fascism come from radically different historical, cultural, and intellectual contexts. The ideas behind Islam and Fascism are nearly as diametrically opposed as the ideas behind Fascism and Communism. Historically, we've seen very similar behaviors from pretty much all ideological regimes, regardless of what the ideology actually is. Consider the Taliban, Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Christian theocracies, the darkest days of Revolutionary France, even McCarthyism here in the US. While different examples have gone different distances down the road to insanity and darkness, they all tend to show some pretty similar tendencies, such as an intolerance of dissent, use of terror against their own people, and aggression against their neighbors. It doesn't matter if the ideas behind the ideology are political, social, economic, religious, or even the ideas of freedom and democracy.

ROFLMAO You consider that an actual argument? Especially when some of your unsupported assertions here are directly contradicted by examples in my previous post. Particularly the Lord's Resistance Army, an especially nasty piece of work operating today in central Africa notorious for kidnapping children and forcing the males to become soldiers and the females to become sex slaves, all in the name of Christianity.

In the same vein of Christianity supposedly not trying to force people to accept it, perhaps you should try reading up on the recent history of Northern Ireland.

Was Islam really tolerant in the past? Well, compared to Christianity. Admittedly, that's not saying much. However, consider the Spanish Inquisition, which was aimed as much at getting rid of the Jews who had been living peacefully and prosperously in Spain under the Moors for generations as at stamping out Protestantism.

Have you actually read the Koran? For that matter, have you actually read the Christians' book in its entirety, from cover to cover? If you haven't read both, are you really in a position to compare and contrast them? I admit that I've read neither, so I'm not going to try to comment on the theologies involved. But even I know that most of the examples I cited above were committed in the name of Christianity, with specific theological justifications. For example, African slavery was partly justified by the story of Cain and Able, with dark skin being interpreted as the mark of Cain. For that matter, doesn't the Christians' book explicitly condone things like slavery and selling ones daughter to the highest bidder? The problem with religions that elevate a particular book or set of books to dogma is that pretty much any text of sufficient length can be interpreted any way you wish. Never underestimate the human capability for rationalization.

The point you're missing is that pretty much any charge you care to level at Islam can be equally well leveled at Christianity. And like most Christians, most Muslims are just ordinary people trying to live their lives as best they can, and are not crazy, violent, or extremist. And while right now there may be more violence in the world motivated by Islam then Christianity, that is really about the political, social, and economic situations of the West and the Middle East, not the particular theologies of the two religions. And that was not true as recently as the first half of the 20th century. For that matter, the situation was reversed for much of the past millennium and a half.

While I think there is a case to be made that some of the ideas of Islam are problematic and have a great potential to foster ideology and violence, when you get right down to it, those ideas boil down to just one thing: monotheism. As soon as you say that there is only one god, and only one proper way to worship that god, you are automatically implying that all other religions are false and destructive. This obviously is a big first step down the path to ideology and madness. And once again, this is just as true of Christianity as Islam.

 

But if you did it at the time of the Bible, it would be completely normal.

 

In the comparison of Christianity and Islam and concluding that BOTH are equivalent in so far as being NOT religions but Political Forces like Fascism or Communism is delusional TO THE POINT OF BELIEVING APPLES ARE CHAIRS.

Whether the organization is a RELIGION or not, depends on a CENTRAL THEME which forms the BASIS for that Organization.

First let's get something clear: in considering a person being a POLITICAL ENTITY one can stretch the definition of him being so as assuming that since the person votes .....then he is a POLITICAL FORCE.

Thus, one can use casuistry to stretch concepts to make conclusions that are bogus to an extreme.

Your casuistry in concluding that BOTH are RELIGIONS is patentlyFALSE because CHRISTIANITY fits the definition of a RELIGION in that CHRISTIANITY shares the SAME BASIS similar to the other recognized TRUE RELIGIONS of the ORGANIZED RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD in that they ALL SHARE the SANCTITY of LOVE for their fellow Human Beings. Whereas, ISLAM, based on the concoction of the Qu'ran by a Historically Documented MASS MURDERER, THIEF, RAPIST and PEDOPHILIC RAPIST whackjob MuhamMAD (excuse the caps) has as its PRIMARY PURPOSE stated as the FIRST DICTUM which is also stated as superceding any instruction contradictory to it is:"Make Islam the Caliphate of the World, preferably by word, by SWORD (caps mine) if necessary". This is then followed by ADDENDUMS on how to TORTURE & MURDER those who after given the opportunity to accept Islam, oppose it.

Even today, in Public News, we have a Muslim Apostate in ISLAMOFASCIST Iran, who in rejecting Islam for Christianity, is under the DEATH SENTENCE for doing so.

In view of this, to conclude that BOTH Christianity and Islam are RELIGIONS is F-ing (F for Fig) BIZARRE.

Yet, ISLAM has all the ingredients of a POLITICAL FORCE, disguised as a RELIGION, in that its PRIMARY GOAL is WORLD CONQUEST BYFORCE if necessary.

 

Isn't Revelation, by today's interpretations, the story of world conquest by force?

 

That is FALSE.

But, even if it were true, the Historically Documented Mass Murderer, etc., Whackjob MuhamMAD (excuse the caps) was some SEVEN HUNDRED PLUS YEARS beyond the "time of the Bible".

The perverted F-er (F for Fig) Whackjob MuhamMAD (excuse the caps) is a PEDOPHILE with no ifs or buts ..... and, as Diligent correctly pointed out ..... woulda had his slimy butt tossed into the nearest prison.

 

That's stretching concepts to ad absurdum ..... and even an ISLAMOFASCIST SWINE with a modicum of sanity would know that.

 

Discussing the comparison of Islam with Christianity with an ISLAMOFASCIST, and/or a Braindead Supporter of that CRAPPOLA is a monumental waste of time.

It's like talking with a certified delusional person who is convinced that APPLES ARE CHAIRS ..... and has already REPEATEDLY resisted any rational explanations why that is not so.

And, actually, that is the case with ALL the ISLAMOFASCIST SWINE I came across.

Thus, as I stated in numerous posts and threads, that when I post, I post to the rational readers ...... hopefully, to give them ammunition to rebut the DELUGE of ISLAMOFASCIST CRAP.

OVER & OUT.

 

Revisionist BS.

 

When you continually rant like a psychotic, you don't help your case.