It’s Not a Corrupted Version… it IS Islam!
Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 3 months ago to Politics
Warning: Don't read if you're afraid to know the TRUTH. (Take your blue pill). For everyone else, swallow the red pill & open your eyes to the reality of what is REALLY going on. Nope, you won't find this on the elitist-controlled MSM.
Part of the purpose of the bombing was to cause the populace to become disheartened, not merely to remove the war building capability.
Sun Tzu advocated for attacks that weakened the will of the opponent. He similarly advocated never backing an opponent into a corner from which they could not retreat for this same reason. "The Art of War" is a fascinating book.
Yes the Germans did the same on both the eastern and western fronts and for the same reasons that the allies did. I don't see what your point is there.
In Vietnam the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail was to stop the supply of materials into South Vietnam but if there happened to be a convoy or a division (for example) movement, they'd bomb it. Other targets were supply depots and Hanoi to name just one city.
that smacks of 'random targeting of civilians' to me, not any effort to pinpoint military installations.
Also, the Germans put their war making factories in civilian population centers, and hid them underground, so the muzzies aren't unique there.
The German bombing of London was different in that it had no military target and was solely being done to affect the morale of the populace. It wasn't the first time that tactic had been used, but it was the first time in the modern era.
How much time have to served in what service, where and when?
I got out just before they started paying guys to get out.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: in a fight between atheists (who ironically have faith that nothing exists outside of this physical life) and the muzzies: I'll put my $$ on the muzzies winning out. Why? The muzzies have faith (are you seeing the consistency here?) that they will get their 72 virgins in the afterlife. (Mohammed never stated if the virgins were boys or girls, or after one has deflowered all 72, if the 72 somehow magically, get their virginity back...one of those things Mohammed never answers) What motivation does the atheist have? (Aside from instinctual self-preservation)
Faith is the foundation of any belief. Anytime someone has faith in something & holds fast to it, no matter what, that subject then becomes a 'religion' to that person, whether they are aware of it or not. Examples:
The Marxist has faith in their murderous ideology and that someday, somehow, when it is finally 'done properly', the State will magically "wither away" just like their messiah Carl Marx & his lover Engels says it will. And then, the Utopia of a classless society will finally be realized. Communism is the religion, Marx is the messiah and their faith completes the 'religion'.
Here's another example:
The environmentalist (I stress MENTAL, in that word) has faith that global warming is in fact directly caused by man-made activities & over-population & cow-farts & therefore, all those activities, population & cows must be controlled or eliminated. Al Gore is their messiah and their faith completes the 'religion'.
Are any of these grounded in reality?
As to the motivation of atheism being a faith in the belief of nothing existing outside of this physical life, I'll take exception. Again, there might very well be those that base their atheism on a belief or faith, but for myself it's simply that magic and superstition or their effects are not something that I can determine any way to measure. I have no need for a motivation regarding an atheism vs. god belief. Show me a god or have someone send me a brochure from a heaven and I might (just might) reconsider.
The 'proof' exists only in the hope or belief that there IS an afterlife with a heaven or hell, and THAT proof has been shown to be somewhat lacking over the past, say, million years or more.
:) I've been through some religion and philosophies in my life and I'm pretty clear that 'proving existence exists' is a hard thing to... prove.
=) Plus, the muzzies have a proven 1400 year history of success that validates what you say.
I also think one of the most stupid moves by any alleged 'world leader' is/was to tell your opponent the exact timing of your withdrawal from the battlefield. Our finest military minds of the past would have spat in his face over that if they were still around.
1) a failure to remain consistent with the principles of the Founding Fathers;
2) a foreign policy more geared toward altruism than rational self-interest in recent decades;
3) a failure to be converted to Islam;
4) jealousy and envy by those who wish they were the USA;
5) a failure to realize that most of the places we have become embroiled in the last 50 years had nothing of value to exchange for the value we were providing;
6) a misunderstanding that US politicians thought that those in other countries might actually appreciate being liberated;
7) a failure by all three branches of the federal government to force themselves or each other to constrain themselves, both legally and financially;
8) The politicians owe more of their political war chests (pun intended) to defense contractors than to their voters. Finally,
9) The US government does not check its premises.
10b follows: with a failure to identify the enemy automatically comes a failure to identify the measures of success, so everything can be categorized as a failure!
:(
I think making that change to the warning was a mistake. He got it right the first time, and we're still paying for the ignored influence.
I'm in a lot of trouble I guess along with millions of other dog lovers around the world.
Christianity also has its lamentable side: "...kill them all, man and woman, infant and suckling,... " And in the crusade against its own heretics, Christians killed about 20K Cathars in Southern France.
One of the prior threads on this site dealt with the fact that all religions are filtered by the opinion of the people of their current society. This is what I think is happening with modern Islam.
As for Muslim enclaves...I have no trouble with a bunch of people of one religion, Amish, Mormons, or Muslims, deciding to live in towns together. BUT they all come under the rubric of the Constitution of the US. Law - Not Sharia law - takes precedence. It is not a question of whether they are 'good' or 'bad'. We live as a country under the Constitution; if they live within our borders, they live under the Constitution too.
Jan
Jan
Where it does not, and does not violate said Constitution, federal, state, or local laws, then they have every right to voluntarily follow whatever rules they want. Just as Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent, or orthodox Jews don't leave their "home" after sundown Friday night to Sat morning. What we can and should prohibit are those things that go against existing law here.
Jan
Do we end up with parallel legal systems? Which court system would an appeal of a verdict go to?
THAT kind of unintended consequence scare the crap out of me...
Who chooses the venue and who can refuse or object?
If the venue is agreed upon, if one of the parties does not like the judgment or the settlement or whatever, how do they choose the legal system under which to Appeal the first decision...?
And so on....
Time will tell.
A Jew who keeps Kosher might refuse to eat at someone's home who doesn't follow the rituals, but it would be a social-cultural-religious disagreement, not one for civil or criminal courts. Likewise the Fish Business, I'd guess...
And people say that Sharia Law is only for civil cases, but news reports seem to keep coming up where some Islamist goes out and "convinces" someone else that they Must Obey Sharia Law Or Else.... by killing them. That goes beyond a civil disagreement and into criminal activity, by many OTHER legal systems' definitions.
Of course, if you choose the definitions correctly, one can 'prove' almost any case. Maybe that's it... :)
So, how about Spanish as an acceptable alternative language in the US, or flying a Mexican Flag really close to an American flag "to honor THEIR heritage..."?
Which slope got slippery first?.... just wonderin'...
I have traveled a lot in Europe (my sisters lived there) and I have only heard comment in the US about 'other languages'. European countries (and Malaysia) don't even seem to notice that their signs are in multiple languages. They say: "You must be able to speak THIS language and THIS language too." (For instance English and French in the Western part of Switzerland.) but they do not care if you speak a half-dozen languages in addition.
I think that we are over reacting to the concept of alternative languages...as long as English is the "Common Tongue" in the US. Everyone should speak English - bilingual signs in the grocery store do not bother me.
Jan
I can see a logical reason for multiple language signs if the rationale is something like 'making things more comfortable for tourists, so they bring and spend more money,' but for 'cultural reasons' apparently driven by immigration and population concentrations of folks unwilling or unable to assimilate?
I think that's a different situation.
And, of course, open to discussion! :D
The problem is with government providing multiple language documents. This only fosters balkanization, where individuals do not have to blend and integrate with the remainder of the US society.
Of course, you are right that if everyone has a decent command of English, one does not need to print government documents in other languages. So I guess your argument is more elegant than mine.
Jan
Whenever the discussion of islam becomes uncomfortable or embarrassing for the muzzy, or Dhymmi, the conversation ALWAYS turns back onto Christianity and the perversion of the middle Christian church (circa 800-1600 AD) and the Crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, etc.
I could go into some deep Christian-oriented discussion to combat & put down the often used & abused points made by everyone concerning those periods, but this overall post is NOT about Christianity. It's about islam and therefore, I was stick with the subject at hand. No matter how uncomfortable it may be for some folks.
However, I will point out that your cherry pick of the line about killing everyone from 1 Samuel was from the OLD TESTAMENT. Have you read the New Testament? Technically speaking, the Old Testament really isn't Christianity, it's JEWISH. And outside of the 10 Commandments (which still remain valid to this day), the New Testament is the final word from God. Can you explain what was going on in 1 Samuel chapter 15? Who gave the command to kill? Why? Who was to do the killing? Fire up a different post & we'll verbally, mentally & spiritually combat this to come to a greater understanding. Afterwards, we can discuss the New Testament & how those corruptible SOB's who were in charge of the middle church Christian years were in direct violation of what Jesus Christ taught in the New Testament, and how they themselves were in fact heresies.
Moreover, if someone says - say to an audience outside the Gulch - that anywhere that the Muslims have predominated numerically has been rife with violence and suppression, it just undermines the other points that they are trying to make to anyone in the audience who knows some history.
Our current culture has changed in most of the world. We no longer consider burning cats alive to be a fun time and beating your child bloody with a razor strap (which was OK in my granddad's day) is now right out. The problem is that the culture of the Muslim world has not kept pace with that of the rest of the world, and when you filter the Koran through that filter you end up with violence and despicable behavior. (A different filter of the same teachings, in the 10th Century, resulted in a pleasant Muslim society.)
Jan
(And yes, I would be delighted in discussing the Old Testament with you some time. You will be a lot better than I am in talking about the bible, but I am interested in the archeology of the Middle East and we could probably have some worthwhile conversations.)
New and Old testament instructions on killing those who do not convert/believe:
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13
Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5
Other similar instruction for a major religion (Christianity) to restrict knowledge/learning:
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17
Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8
Judge other religions for not following Christ:
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7
Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12
False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9
Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33
Again WRONG, a Christian who is accused has a VERY specific process to make the accusation of wrongdoing. It is bearing FALSE witness that is condemned.
Matthew 18:15-17 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20
16 “Now in case a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and he actually lies down with her, he is to obtain her without fail as his wife for the purchase price. 17 If her father flatly refuses to give her to him, he is to pay over the money at the rate of purchase money for virgins.
18 “You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
19 “Anyone lying down with a beast is positively to be put to death.
20 “One who sacrifices to any gods but Jehovah alone is to be devoted to destruction.
21 “And you must not maltreat an alien resident or oppress him, for YOU people became alien residents in the land of Egypt.
22 “YOU people must not afflict any widow or fatherless boy. 23 If you should afflict him at all, then if he cries out to me at all, I shall unfailingly hear his outcry; 24 and my anger will indeed blaze, and I shall certainly kill YOU with the sword, and YOUR wives must become widows and YOUR sons fatherless boys.
This was part of the Mosaic law covenant and applied ONLY to the Jews. The Jews were a people who VOWED to NOT worship any other gods, so on this point YOUR WRONG.
Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
6 “In case your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or your cherished wife or your companion who is like your own soul, should try to allure you in secrecy, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ whom you have not known, neither you nor your forefathers, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are all around YOU, the ones near you or those far away from you, from one end of the land to the other end of the land, 8 you must not accede to his wish or listen to him, nor should your eye feel sorry for him, nor must you feel compassion, nor cover him [protectively]; 9 but you should kill him without fail. Your hand first of all should come upon him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward. 10 And you must stone him with stones, and he must die, because he has sought to turn you away from Jehovah your God, who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 11 Then all Israel will hear and become afraid, and they will not do anything like this bad thing again in your midst.
Again this applied to the Jews, please READ IN CONTEXT!!!, This was also just after God had taken them out of Eqypt.
Next these cities in the “Promised land, were people who sacrificed to Moloc. They threw babies into the fire as sacrifices. Again in context there was a judgment on the BAD vile behavior of the people being conquered, and these scriptures were closed ended and applied only to them at that time.
Again Your wrong.
I could go on and on and when you place the Bible in context there is a HUGE difference between it and Islam in which ALL its writings are open ended and to be applied by believers as anytime anyplace.
"Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah." Mark 6:11
perhaps this is seen as a prediction of the New Testament God's wrath or condemnation to some hell on Earth, or perhaps as authorization for Christian zealots to attack with abandon.
Muslims have had enlightened societies in the past - they are in their own version of the Middle Ages right now - and therefore one should not conclude that a Muslim society is incapable of being enlightened and tolerant. It is the current behavior of Muslims that is terrible; they are not predestined to behave that way because of their religion; they choose to implement the most negative aspects of Islam. And they should be dealt with harshly by the rest of the world until they stop doing so.
Jan
I am in favor of fighting against the aggressions of modern Islam, but I want to get the granularity correct when I speak about the Muslim religion per se.
Jan
Jan
No, THESE MURDERERS are *fundamentalist* Muslims. They are following Islam to the letter.
Those Muslims who don't follow it to the letter, or don't support that, are liberal Muslims. I'm thankful that they're out there, but frankly, their presence doesn't change the fact that the fundamentalist Muslims are still out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3o...
The reality: 60%+ of Muslims identify with "radical" Islam. Considering that there are about 1.6 billion, that's a scary number.
It sure LOOKS as if the fundamentalist Islamists DO have a strategy and tactic of subtle and slow invasion and patient modification of their new surroundings until they outnumber 'the natives' and take over...
But that kind of begs the question that assumes that EVERY immigrant to a new country shares that 'wait and take over later' strategy. Since it sure looks like there is a negligible (if any) segment of the Islamic population that EVER does any kind of push-back against the Sharia-demanding Islamists, one could easily infer that yes, they ALL ARE bent on the Universal Takeover of The World.
Evidence to the contrary seems to be lacking, which does lead to a very negative and easy generalization about Islam and Muslims.
I'd LOVE them to prove me wrong, but again, the evidence...
In the rest of the world, it's about 70%, maybe...
There's a lot of people who are "Muslim" because if they aren't "Muslim", their family, or their town, or their government, will murder them.
I have said Obama is one of them. Look at the Muslims that have been allowed to take leadership roles in all of our government. We could not decide to fight back without the enemy being forewarned. This could not happen with a President making American decisions...he is making world view decisions.
Consider the hand in hand walks the Saudi Prince and GW Bush had on the ranch and the deep bows of reverence Obama offered to the same guy, what does our progressive government owe the Saudis and by association Islam?
It is obvious to me that Obama does not make decisions on American ideals and interests. My compass tells me he makes decisions on his understanding of the world stage. i.e. he really wants to be President of the World. He wants to be liked. Any successful person can tell you fear of what people think about you is a sure path to failure. That's another argument. My main thrust is if you enter a negotiation with a world view rather than US interests, you will be 1 or 2 steps behind the other fellow representing his nation's interests. Look at Ukraine, Syria's line in the sand, Libya's revolution, Benghazi, Cuba, Iranian sanction, Iranian negotiations, you fill in your own. We are positioned for a subordinate role in the world that may take generations to overcome. He calls it leading from behind. He in Ohio we call that "following"!
It seems like the whole world is going to hell in a hand basket. I feel like I grew up in the best this country had and has ever been-post WWII. I lose sleep at what I see happening to the U S in todays world.
The west has planes, rockets and drones. No need to put our troops on the ground in foreign countries. Why not arm the non-Muslim people who are willing to fight in their countries against the Islamic plague? Ban all Muslims from travel and destroy all mosques.
Christianity was equally bloodthirsty for a thousand years or so, ending about 1800 -- forced conversions, inquisitions, heresy trials, witch burnings, death by stoning for apostasy, and slavery. They outgrew all these things, even though the Mosaic laws in the book of Exodus still support them.
Jan
To be a "good" Christian one must adhere to the Bible as a whole and in its entirety. If you do not you are NOT a "good" Christian. This is a FACT.
Primarily what Jesus said when confronted by the Pharisees when asked what the greatest commandment was.
Hebrew and Greek Original
MR 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and hearing their argument together, and seeing that he had given them a good answer, put the question to him, Which law is the first of all?
MR 12:29 Jesus said in answer, The first is, Give ear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord;
MR 12:30 And you are to have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
MR 12:31 The second is this, Have love for your neighbor as for yourself. There is no other law greater than these.
In essence the 10 commandments which in itself is 100% peaceful.
Now to be a Good Muslim the same principal applies you MUST adhere and follow your holy book to be a "good" Muslim. So we have to ask what are the BASIC fundamental tenants of the Holy Writings? Let's see.
Qur’an:9:88 – “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Here is the FACT and the Reality. The ones we call "Radical" and "Terrorists" ARE THE GOOD Muslims according to their holy book. This is undeniable. This is why ISIS kills other Muslims!! Because they are NOT adhering to their holy writings.
Keep in mind the "Moderates" are NOT good Muslims according to their specific basic tenants.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/...
proves your point.
It gives this link-
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/...
-a comparison between violent passages in the bible and the koran.
The argument is that the bible violence is historical, descriptive, while that in the koran is proscriptive, instructions. The link shows how Muslims in saying the bible is the same conveniently leave out key passages.
But there is another important difference. The bible allows disagreement, but Islam says what is written in the koran is 'the seal of the prophet', it cannot be changed. Recall in the old testament the bargaining between Abraham and god, and the dilemma faced by Job. In Islam there are instructions to put aside thinking and questions, only submission is permitted.
For example, I, being a Christian, currently have bacon, ham and one leftover pork chop in my fridge.
I don't have to have pork. I just happen to like pork.
Perhaps bacon lack is one of the causes of the anger emanating from the middle east for the last 1300 years.
Don't forget the diaspora, part voluntary, part involuntary, and more than one wave. Until 1947, there really had not been a large concentration of Jews in the region for quite some time. Certainly no country of their own at any rate.
Roosevelt carved Israel out of Palestine..
I was typing at technocracy
All I was trying to say was that Christians are freed from all the picky sacrifice goat laws of the Old Testament.
That would include Jews who become Christians.
I definitely would not stone an adulterer.
Psst! I ate the spare pork chop in the fridge with a dinner of microwaved leftovers.
Not that the Koran should not be attacked/exposed, it is just hard to do from ones own glass house.
Click the link and read if you want to. If you don't want to, so be it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Chri...
But, never reported (maybe not understood) is what goes on inside a Muslim community behind the scenes. It’s called “We Know Where You Live.” It really means we know where your family lives, and particularly your children. This is how the people are controlled by the militants. This is what goes on in third world societies. Even when those societies are in America; the police can’t stop it.
You can call it Militants regarding Islamic communities or people, or Black Hand for Chinese, or Cartels for Mexicans, those various peoples dare not cross them. End of story. This is pretty horrific for Americans to believe, it is basic for Third Worlders. Talk about politically incorrect. I’m just getting warmed up.
Ask yourself, why Russians are never kidnapped by Islamic terrorist, or very few other crime syndicates or groups. If you don’t know it’s because they can and do play the same game, but often harder. To go after the perpetrators’ family is uniquely taboo in America and many western cultures. That America condition is not unknown in the Third World.
Well America, like Jack Nicholson said, “You can’t handle the truth.”
JE SUIS CHARLIE
I am not afraid
Brave new world.
It is a non-biased and comprehensive account of those events carried out by Islamic separatist militants. The following is a sample:
The Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov immediately denied that his forces were involved in the siege, calling it "a blasphemy" for which "there is no justification". Maskhadov described the perpetrators of Beslan as "madmen" driven out of their senses by Russian acts of brutality. He condemned the action and all attacks against civilians via a statement issued by his envoy Akhmed Zakayev in London, blamed it on what he called a radical local group, and agreed to the North Ossetian proposition to act as a negotiator. Later, he also called on western governments to initiate peace talks between Russia and Chechnya and added to "categorically refute all accusations by the Russian government that President Maskhadov had any involvement in the Beslan event." Putin responded that he would not to negotiate with "child-killers", comparing the calls for negotiations with the appeasement of Hitler, and put a $10 million bounty on Maskhadov (the same amount as put for Basayev). Maskhadov was killed by Russian commandos in Chechnya on 8 March 2005, and buried in an undisclosed location.
The following people were named by the Russian government as planners and financiers of the attack:
• Shamil Basayev – Chechen rebel leader who took ultimate responsibility for the attack. He died in Ingushetia in July 2006 in disputed circumstances.
• Kamel Rabat Bouralha – British-Algerian suspected of organizing the attack, who was reportedly detained in Chechnya in September 2004.
• Abu Omar al-Saif – Saudi national and accused financer,[154] killed in Dagestan in December 2005.
• Abu Zaid Al-Kuwaiti – Kuwaiti and accused organizer, who died in Ingushetia in February 2005.
ELSEWHERE:
August 10, 2014|9:38 am
National spokesman for Iraqi Christians and Chaldean-American businessman Mark Arabo said the "evil" being carried out by ISIS militants in Iraq now includes shocking beheadings of children, and he praised President Barack Obama for authorizing an intervention in the crisis Thursday.
"They are systematically beheading children, and mothers and fathers. The world hasn't seen an evil like this for a generation. There's actually a park in Mosul that they've actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick," Arabo told CNN's Jonathan Mann last week.
"They've marked the red stamp of death on Christian homes and basically saying we know who you are and if you come back, you will get killed. That's why we're saying this is a Christian holocaust within our midst and the world community cannot turn a blind eye," said Arabo. "They are absolutely killing every Christian they see. This is a genocide in every sense of the word. They want everyone to convert and they want Sharia law to be the law of the land."
Jan
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence."
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
and ignored by Obama and Holder.
One should also recognize that Islam succeeds as a philosophy in part because it takes advantage of base emotions such as lust and hate and channels them into furthering the religion itself.
It just dawned on me that I've never read anything of AR's that had to do with war. My guess would be that she'd be very against the draft but all for volunteering (be in the military). I don't know where she might stand on wars in general. My guess would be against. It's hard to be your own man in the Army.
I heard on Fox News Sunday a D and R lament that the congresspeople would be more amenable to compromise but are afraid of being primaried by someone more extreme if they compromise. That's exactly the reaction that they should have, as it obviously represents the sentiments of their constituents, and if they do not represent them faithfully, those same constituents will find another who will. The system works.
When looking at the whole passage it is clear that Timothy was indicating that loving money may lead to various evils, not that it was the only source of evil. As I indicated, the love of power is another source of evil.
Last night I was watching a panel discussing Boko Haram, who they are and why they and others such as ISIL and Al Qaeda do what they do. Two scholars, one Arabic and an American college professor, quite casually spoke of them as "Traditional" Islamic groups that took the Quran seriously and believed in strict Sharia law. Some individual members of these groups were singled out for perhaps exploiting the traditional faith for their own ends but the conclusion was that this is what happens when there is widespread hopelessness in the lives of a large group of people.
I will withhold final decision on the truthfulness of that discussion but considering the source I thought it was extremely interesting.
Take me. I was drawn to the Gulch by Ayn Rand movies. I like the way a lot of people think here.
As for Islam, it's my belief that it is an invention of the devil that has been way far more effective than idiots into Satanism.
Yes, I'm a Christian. I have a problem with climate change hustlers but none at all with the science of evolution.
A Southern Baptist preacher would tell me I'm going to hell for that. I say uh-uh. Jesus is my door to a better place.
If that's not normal, I don't want to be. I'm happy.
As it was repeatedly said in The Scorpion King flick, "Live free and die well."
I'm just thinking of my life. My mom is Methodist; my dad is Catholic. They take some few elements literally and view most of it as metaphoric. My wife's mom/dad were Methodist/Catholic by background too, but they were even less into it, dismissing all religion completely even at the end of their lives. My wife and I were both UUs when we met.
At an event, it's not uncommon for us to meet other people from different backgrounds-- maybe one's some version of Muslim and her parents are really into it, and the other is Catholic by background but knows almost nothing about it. And we're all here in the modern world doing our things.
It would be inconceivable to me that meeting someone at an event I would reject someone on the basis of religious background. Almost no one I meet takes their religion of background literally; it just informs their world view. I can't imagine giving my business card to someone at a fundraiser, knowing that they might have read an article I wrote likening their background to the devil. Usually their sweet grandma was really into, and they're doing research at the UW and view the world empirically/objectively as I do.