Islam v The United States: How To Diffuse a Political Time-Bomb

Nah. I can only go by the text of the koran and bible. You seem to be relying upon something else. Did you ever meet Muhammad?

 

I don't know where you get your ideas from. Make then up as you go along ? In 1400 years, not one word of the Koran has been changed. This is one of the most well-known and disturbing facts about Islam.

 

Eat another brownie, have another toke or two and you'll start to understand ... Mannnnnn.... ohhhh, woooowwwww....

Good Thread Launch by Title and the OP wasn't too bad.

Now, Back to pragmatic ways to stop Islamic Radical Violence, since certainly don't want another round (or 400+) of Boston Bombings.

-

 

Isalm should be banned not by virtue of "special rules specifically for and only for Muslims", but by general rules specifically for EVERYONE. Theses are >>

1. US Constitution, Article 6, Section 2 - Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

2. 18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy - "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

As we see here, obviously, by virtue of both of these, Islam is already banned by law in America. This simply isn't being enforced. In addition to its supremacism and sedition, Islam also violates numerous US laws, which this factor, in itself, is also part of the Supremacy Clause.

 

Whatever that was, it didn't refute one iota of what I said. In 1400 years, not one word of the Koran has been changed. And the reason is obvious. Because Muslims weirdly believe that this vile book of hate is actually the word of God (and the word of God can't be changed).

Yes, there's a way to stop Islamic violence. Change the Koran, and that is the ONLY way it will ever happen. It hasn't happened in 1400 years, and in that 1400 years, we've has 270 million people killed around the globe, by marauding, mindless, Koran-following, lunatic Muslims.

 

Christianity hasn't molested children. That was done by pedophiles who entered the Church specifically to engage in pedophila, using the Church and their robes as a cover for their perversion. Pedophilia is forbidden by Christianity, in contrast to Islam where it is accepted, is advocated in the Koran (65:4), and was practiced by Mo the Pedophile himself (stupidly referred to as "the Prophet")

Also,Islam is not a religion, and never has been. It is a vile, evil ideology masquerading as a religion, so as to shield itself from criticism.

 

Christian moralists with medical degrees used to do clitoridectomies on women to stop them from masturbating.

Put the Church of England in time out until they atone for that.

 

no, they were preachers and when the church found out they just moved them to new pastures

... but the point is.. all Christians are not responsible for these preachers actions any more then all Muslims are responsible for the suicide bombers on 9-11



.

 

Whenever Christians are villainized, they are spoken of as "used to do"

When Muslim terrorists and subversives are villainized, the are spoken of as "doing, and going to do".

 

FALSE! They were exactly what I said they were.

In a way ALL Muslims ARE responsible for the suicide bombers on 9-11, AND Nidal Hasan, AND John Allen Muhammad, AND Hesham Mohammed Hayadet, and the Underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, the Times Square bomber, the Christmas tree bomber, and all the resat of them, because unlike Christianity, their violence is advocated in their doctrine (in the Koran). By not taking steps to change that doctrine, ALL Muslims are complicit.

 

Christians had an extra 600-year head start. How come it has taken this long to clean up their act?

Did you know that they are still allowing FMG and putting witches to death?

 

I never said I was in favor of affirmative action, so I don't know why you're asking me to defend something that I never made any claim of supporting. I'm libertarian, I don't think that you can force someone to accept a person against their will, and in general that whole thing ends up being rather counter-productive because it creates the idea in everyone else's head that the black guy is ONLY there because of a quota. Another thing is that since you can by the nature of supply-demand "physics" you only have so many open slots to give out -- I can hire 5 people, or give out 6 scholarships, or something -- and because of affirmative action, what really happens is that the poor white kid from a trailer park in Mississippi is losing out to the poor black kid from the ghetto in Chicago. They are equal, but the white kid is denied to make room for the black kid, so they resent the black kid who did nothing wrong (you don't apply for affirmative action) and actually tends to promote racism among the poor who are competing for the same positions.

Having said all that, I don't think that it's central to the debate on muslims, it's a sideline. the point is that you cannot treat a group of people as a monolith, and you have to look at what each person in that group is doing. Not all black guys are dealing drugs, not all christians are protesting military funerals, not all muslims are terrorists. So you look at the people themselves -- if a preacher is telling people to commit violence, I don't care what religion he is, that's got to stop. If someone is building a bomb, I don't care about the group. The bomb is equally as deadly if it's made by the wiccans as if its made by the muslims. That's the point. The point is to look at behaviors. I don't think you need to be completely blind to the odds, but you also can't target only one group for special restrictions because of religion.

 

The OP of this Thread asked the question, "Islam is getting more and more extreme. Can you think of any reason why?"

Well, the reason seems to be relatively clear to me, they get what they want by violence !

If it didn't work for them, they would stop.

Well, to make it not work for them, you have to be able to limit, restrict, regulate, and otherwise target them for their deeds of violence.

You cannot punish the Suicide Bomber, he's dead and gone, every which way, and in their culture, in paradise with 72 virgins.

Therefore, the only way to punish the behavior, is the punish the greater society of Islam, in America, for their deeds of violence.

The Clergy and Domineering Leadership of Islam benefit from the exploitation of their ignorant masses being led into suicide attacks.

The Imams and other radical Islamic Leadership know that American Law limits holding groups accountable for the actions of individuals, and take advantage of it, to be able to use violence at tool of conquest with impunity.

They profit from the bomber violence, because they are not held accountable for it, yet can make demands based on the Terror created by the looming threat of future Bomber Violence.

But our Law forbids, and our culture abhors the idea of punishing a third party for deeds of guilty.... usually.

There is one way, in which our society has found it can hold a general class of people accountable for the actions of the departed. Our Courts and Legal System, has done this before.

You see, I never lynched anyone. I never bombed a black church, or terrorized a black wedding, or stood on the school house steps denying entrance to blacks, but our society seems to have no problem assigning the guilt to me, because of my paint-job and racial heritage.

Our legal system found the way to hold an entire class of people accountable for the deeds of the departed, in Affirmative Action. Not all legal scholar agree with this policy, but it was, and IS being done.

If it was done to restrain, punish and deal with the violent anti-black racism in the deep south in the 1960s, It COULD be done today to deal with the violent Radical Islamic threat today.

I personally contend that Affirmative Action has long, long outlived it valid use, and it was applied much to broadly to White and Males who had nothing to do with the problem. It has become and incredibly corrupt system of pandering and extortion that needs to be eliminated before it destroys the entire nation, but that's another thread or argument.

The White Males of New Jersey, Wyoming, and Oregon etc. today had nothing to do with the culture of anti-black racism in the deep south, yet today, they are being denied jobs and education based on a problem of racial violence which ended over thirty years ago.

When Affirmative Action was created, the Courts promised U.S. Strict Scrutiny and limited, targeted application, and did not follow through with it.

But that part of the issue of Affirmative Action does not bear directly on the issue of Radical Islam, so I won't go into it in detail here.

The element of Affirmative Action that bears directly on the problem of the violence of Radical Islam, is that it represents a mechanism, within our legal system, where a class of people are held accountable for their moral support, and acceptance of the radical actions of a subset of their Racial / Religious Identity Group.

The problem is that we do NOT want to just create another totally inappropriate vehicle for ever expanding Government Institutionalized Discrimination, like what Affirmative Action has morphed into, if we choose to use this legal tool to address the threat of Violent Radical Islam.

-

 

Despite what some have been saying and assuring others, the Koran and the Bible have been redacted/translated by fallible human hands. I find it completely impossible that in 1400 years time, not one transcriber of the "official" Koran of the day took it upon themselves to not change one single word of it. I suppose miracles are possible. Remember, this was back in the day when very few knew how to read and knowledge was a much more powerful tool or weapon than today. Only the elite had access to it and the elite often has the flaw of being spoiled and having a penchant for manipulating knowledge to benefit themselves..

As for the Bible, an entire disciple's identity was changed to redact a vital statistic. The anonymous "John" [while all other disciples came with full pedigrees/accounting], the most "beloved" of Jesus' disciples also, was in fact Magdalene. A woman. Since the laws of the day forbade women from being weighty political figures, least of all the weightiest [most beloved to Jesus] the romans took it upon themselves to change Mary Magdalene into a harlot and her character became "John" [a "man"]. "He" had to be anonymous because people back in the day remembered who was related to who.

There was a scene at the crucifixion where it is mentioned that near the cross were the three Marys. Mary Jesus' mother, Mary his aunt and Mary Magdalene his beloved harlot? Only three women were there. And in the dialogue, it says "and the beloved disciple said....". They flubbed that up. If the three Marys were the only ones there, which of them was the beloved disciple? Well, we have the rogue gospels that were dispelled from the Bible during various redactions. One of them was Magdalene's. Some others spoke of how Magdalene was closest to Jesus and how some of the others were jealous of him often kissing her on the mouth and preferring her company over them. [Gay Agenda in its infancy?...lol..] And entire swath of esoteric knowledge was completely redacted from Magdalene's account. The dialogue goes "and Jesus said to her..." and about four or five pages were just ripped out. The only references made to it were the other disciples complaining or fighting over what was said as "this knowledge is so strange to us, why would he tell it to a woman?? It must be untrue!" While another argues for Magdalene saying something like "if Jesus trusts her with this great revelation from God, who are we to question him?"...

...Only that great revelation was ripped out of history because who it was told to owns a vagina..... Can you imagine how much worse it would be if the revelations were made to any female prophets or seers in Islam? Probably would've redacted the entire account and had her put to death for good measure. At least Magdalene was reported to escape to the north after Jesus was killed. Not sure if she was in more danger from the State or other jews or just her own homies who were vying to be "the most important disciple" after he was gone.

And I bring all this up to illustrate a crucial point: Humans are political creatures first and sublime creatures second almost always as a rule. The politics of the day left out perhaps one of the most crucial elements of christianity, simply because this deep and unbelievable knowledge was relayed to a person who was of a class that nobody considered worth listening to. How many similar opportunities did leaders of the day sieze in the Koran to "adjust" the revelations within that text? The Torah of the jewish faith reads more like a recipe book than a holy book. Or just a book of ancient penal and civil codes that made sense at the time [don't eat pork]...because then it could make you deathly ill because few had the firewood to cook it completely thoroughly...etc. etc. Now the really devout jews avoid pork as a holy mandate, when it was really just a health law back in the day. And thus another misinterpretation takes root as "god's word"...

Which brings me to my next point:

Kurmudgeon, it's a cheat sheet that has no words. In fact, it is the lack of words that reveals its secrets. If you find yourself in any situation where you are unsure of how to act or what to do, ie: what would be right or wrong, just don't think anything about it but instead, LOOK at it with a completely quiet mind. There's your cheat sheet. The right answer will be provided to you every time. As you get better at it, it's not an exaggeration to say that entire blocks of knowledge about just about anything you set your focus on will become immediately availible to you. But that's more like getting your PhD in "cheating"..lol.. Only a very small percentage of people arrive there. Just like with PhDs. For most people it is most useful to just shut off the thinker box and allow something else to present itself to you. Words confound clear impressions of what to do. It's like a fighter jet pilot and how he shuts off his dialogue and flies from his gut. Some of the best pilots do this.

 

Which is all irrelevant now that both the bible and Koran are accepted as the doctrine of their respective religions. And still, it is muhammads addition of the Medinan verses to the more benevolent Meccan verses that continue to cause problems today. And still, it was Jesus and his apostles that added the more benevolent new testament verses to the less benevolent old testament verses. Precisely the opposite of Islam. Jesus was a Preacher, Muhammad was a warrior. Polar opposites of each other. I get the impression you are unfamiliar with both doctrines.

 

Actually, not only is it not "irrelevant" dixon, it is essentially germane to the point! Shut off your thinker box and mull it over for a minute...

 

Your personal opinions based upon ignorance of both religions have no relevancy. Jesus was a preacher, Muhammad was a conquering warrior. Both religions call upon the believers to emulate their prophets. With Christianity you get Christians who constantly want to share with you the doctrine of Jesus. Islam you get warriors who want to conquer

 

Interesting thing is that with the Holy Spirit there is no end to scripture.

If we believe Jesus said we would know prophets by their good fruit, it is a logical argument that both more prophets can exist and there is no legislation from the grave or fathers, consequently, we the people are the judge of what we consider is good fruit.

So logically “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” surely in context of the entire message of Jesus it impeaches the speech burning of the quisling’s “We absolutely reject its contents”:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...07377-case-impeachment-obama-article-one.html

As someone created equal, I either have a right to a Holy Spirit and the ability to scribe or script or I do not. If I have a right to scribe and script but my Great Leader taxes me and uses that money to say of my script, “We absolutely reject its contents,” then I am not equal and the government is usurped.

 

I am not ignorant about the events surrounding Magdalene and her suppression by authoritarian figures; about the half-dozen +/- gospels expelled from christianity's heritage, at its peril, all because they contained reference to her as the beloved disciple at the right hand of Jesus.

There were only three people at the cross in the crucifixion passage. All women. Which of them was the "and the beloved disciple said.."?

What great hand of violence grabbed at the throat of christianity when this important figure was demoted to a common whore? The christians not only violated many people in the Crusades and elsewhere all in the "name of God", they also violated Jesus himself very early on by committing his most beloved disciple to an eternal dungeon, burying all her important and closest revelations from Jesus with her so that humanity may never know of her or them as important.

A poster here said not a word was redacted or fudged in all the translations of the Koran either. I find that claim iffy at best.

"good fruit"? Like peaches or bananas?...lol...

Prophets are only intermediaries. They have to take that which language doesn't apply to and try to render it into words that for that day and time make sense to people. What a task eh? To render the unimaginable into words... So they use the rickety sticks of language of the day to shove the immense into a teacup so that people can sip from it from time to time...

The way to really get a big gulp is to shut down the internal dialogue and let vast buckets of truth wash through you. But start slowly! You don't want to drown for crissakes...

 

I was wondering why you hadn't shown up in this thread.

As before- of course you are wrong.

]The Constitution protects the rights of Americans to worship any religion, including Islam.

 

But the Constitution doesn't mandate that everything worshipped has to be upheld as a social custom or a recognized religion.

 

The problem is that the divide in the two cultures values has become too wide and ever widening..

It would do both of us good to seek a more common ground...some little compromises even, not big ones. Less "death to America" from the islamics and less worship of butt sex from the West. Little things that might start to improve conditions between us..

 

Less worship of 'butt sex'? Ok, I'm not a fan of being gay (if I may put it that way) but I know better than this. Even if every American became a perfect straight shooter, that will not appease the Islamists. They aren't yelling "death to America" because of anyone's personal sex life.

 

Yeah, I think you don't understand how fundamentally objectionable it is to many cultures. Their parades burning Old Glory are as offensive to us as our gay pride parades are to them. You can't assume that just because you're seeing it from your perspective, that there are no other perspectives to it.

 

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. In order to be self-governing we Americans, through referenda and our elected representatives, should interpret the Constitution as giving us the right to interpret the Constitution.