Do atheists outnumber radical Muslims in the U.S.A.?
Posted by johnpe1 6 years, 11 months ago to Government
130 comments | Share | Flag
if our atheists received the same honor as radical Muslims,
would terms like faith, supernatural, omniscient
and omnipresent be outlawed? -- j
would terms like faith, supernatural, omniscient
and omnipresent be outlawed? -- j
No 72 virgin raisins for him! (See a previous post about the virgin mistranslation if you don't get that)
Now should atheists ever receive the same honor as a peaceful Muslim, libtards would be fawning all over them and calling critics of atheism bigots and be trampling on their rights to free speech. .
Must be radical Muslim propaganda.
Old dino had been hearing and reading about those silly 72 virgins for years and years and years.
religious, per our constitution. . may it come true! -- j
BTW, I've talked to Muslims, including an ex-PLO propagandist. He was very honest in what the Qu'ran says and it's compatibility with Western laws and thought. I also spoke with an Iranian family who was desperately trying to leave - even twenty years ago. The wife had put makeup on and two boys - not even teenagers - slashed her face with razor blades held between their knuckles. Were those boys punished? No. They were applauded.
Want a more recent example? Not more than 90 miles from my home a seven-year-old and ten-year-old stripped a mentally handicapped five-year-old girl naked in a laundry room and peed all over her while a fourteen-year-old videotaped the entire thing. All three perpetrators were Muslim refugees. And with kids that young doing those things, you know what is being taught certainly isn't respect for Constitutional authority.
Sharia law is not forced upon anyone : https://www.quora.com/What-do-Muslims...
Try this one as well - based on a Pew Research poll of more than twenty Muslim nations: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg
I think another very pertinent fact is this: of the FBI's terrorist watch list, how many of the top 10 are Islamic? Nine - the other being a Black Liberation Army member convicted of killing cops. Extend that to the rest of the top 100 and you'll find that more than 90 are also Islamic.
If you look at the terrorist group watchlist, the entire top 10 is Islamic and more than 90 of the top 100 are Islamic.
You go ahead and tell yourself it's a minority who are radicalized and who support terror bombings, but that's not the issue. The issue is the sovereignty of the Constitution vs Sharia among Muslims. And the fact is that a Muslim can not go against his/her religion and subordinate Sharia to any other system of government - even the Constitution. To me, that's an incredibly dangerous mindset to the rest of us.
As I said, you are welcome to bury your head in the sand and ignore 1500+ years of history and the warnings of the intelligence community. I'm not interested in following such an example. I make my conclusions based on facts and empirical evidence. If it weren't right there in the Qu'ran, and if there wasn't 1500+ years of history, my own conversations with eyewitnesses, etc., I'd be willing to entertain the notion that these acts were the acts of outliers. But the scales have been tipped too far in one direction for me to rationally conclude with you that such is the case.
Does that mean that I view all Muslims as being out to actively undermine basic human rights? Nope. But having studied their religion and its violent history, I also can not conclude that the Islamic faith is tolerant of other religions - let alone the natural rights recognized and protected by the Constitution. It certainly means I'm not going to be leaving my five-year-old alone with an Islamic refugee.
Sorry, went off on a tangent. I think many Christian theists are afraid if the atheists were somehow able to become the majority, that they would attempt to do what the Christians are guilty of doing by insinuating their religious beliefs into lawmaking. That atheists would start a purge all of religions from the country. I will concede that I would attempt to remove it from government by abolishing any laws that have a religious basis for their enactment, but what you believe as long as it doesn'the infringe on any one else's safety and wellbeing is fine by me.
morality certainly does. -- j
Why were these articles removed? Because the Atheists were offended, feeling they constituted a message that the government demands you become Christian, disrespecting their choice to be faithless.
Radical Muslims will likely see the path laid before them by Atheist court victories, and will follow it to have anything they feel disrespects their religion banned. Before you say "so what," think for a minute. Besides the symbols of other faiths, there a lot of publicly displayed items they can argue are offensive. Extreme Islam considers the depiction of the human form (not just of Muhammad) as a form of idolatry, which has resulted in the destruction of many works of art in countries in which they have control. Would they be successful demanding the destruction of many of the nation's statues and art, as offensive to Islam?
There's a long list of things that a progressive, activist court could grant radical Muslims based on the principle those things are offensive to their faith. It would start with public properties, but could, if made law, extend to even private commercial venues.
Many would say the institution of Islamic "blue laws" like many Christian-imposed laws now off the books is unlikely. I, for one, am not so sure, as progressives see Islam as a weapon to bludgeon those who don't fear the power of the state, planning unashamedly to use them as a means to an end as they have the LGBT community.
civil rights" issues is certainly a means to an end!! -- j
The bleeding hearts can't see their way through the cloud of conveinent religion they often participate in, redefining god in their own image to suit the vices they covet. They haven't the clarity requisite for atheism or other solid, logical positions. Therefore they support religion of conveinice as well as under-dog diversity. Does a self-sufficient redneck get the same privlege of expression without question as an inner city person on welfare?
Thor, this is brilliant, IMHO. . I saw this as a kid when I was
rebelling from the church which my parents took me to, and
called it by name. . they thought that I needed to see a shrink. -- j
my favorites! -- j
Have you listened to any Ian Anderson solo stuff. Secret Language of the Birds is good.
BTW - do you know who wrote the lyrics to Aqualung the song? Hint, not Ian.
My first rock concert wasn't until 1989, when I was 22, to watch Jethro Tull at the Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor. Wow, Ian Anderson could sure play. My rock band in the early '80's played this as part of our set. My friend and fellow band member Mark, at that point the best saxophone player in our school, picked up a flute and within two weeks was better than the best flutist in my high school in NJ. Some people just have a gift. I still enjoy singing, but I just can't play the saxophone a tenth as well as I used to.
Good answer! Of course and FIT guy would have good taste in music!
In the USA an atheist has the same "right" to practice his non-religion as an Isamic person (or Christian) has to paractice thier religion.
However, neither the atheist, Muslim, Christian or Jew has any right to infringe on anothers ability to practice their own religion.
(Radical Muslims are not the same as the majority of the Isamic world, just as Jim Jones and even Westboro are not representative of all Christians.)
1) Silently agree with it and either do the killing themselves OR allow others to do it for them
2) Disavow that part of the religion.
I think the majority of muslims fall into the first category. If they want me to accept them, they need to be in category 2.
I am the one who will get blasted for being politically incorrect !!!
actually you are incorrect and the comment "kill the infidels" is taken out of context : http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-i...
If the muslims are so peace loving, why do the huge majority of them not come down hard on the terrorists, but seem to just sit by while the terrorism goes on. Makes me think that they are OK with the terrorism as long as some other muslim does it.
Also, as I understand it, muslims themselves are often killed by terrorist actions. That should really upset living muslims. Why is there so little outcry.
I did what you are talking about, I looked at both sides with open eyes and understood the oftquoted religionofpeace site and others are ridiculous hatemongers. Wait until they accuse factual statements about ISlam and the Koran to be Taqiyya (another term the hatemongers have bastardized lol.)
as an example http://thinkprogress.org/world/2016/0...
overall : https://www.google.com/search?q=islam...
started the combat, or terrorism, and it is their duty
to finish it. -- j
government NOT use its power to help or hurt anyone's
practice of any religion -- and they sure are doing just
that with the preferential protection and importation
of muslims and the shoving of others aside. -- j
"[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
— Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776
I would argue that we treat people sneaking over our borders "preferentially". We mistreat Australians, Eastern Europeans and numerous other nationalities.
An Australian muslim would have a very difficult time in our immigration process because they are Australian. The preferential treatment seems to be to people from areas "at risk" economically and politically.
atheists, though I could. . atheists have been ridiculed
rather roundly since I was a kid and chose that route.
from Madalyn Murray O'Hair to the freedom-from-
religion taunts which adorn the airwaves these days,
there have been references upon references which
routinely diminish the stature of atheists here. . my
point is simply that muslims are getting a free ride,
these days, in not having to "push" their religion 'cuz
our government is doing it for them. -- j
backwards to avoid offending muslims -- with the military
compelled to remove words like jihad and radical muslim
from all documents, for example ... it's rampant! -- j
Well said indeed.
quoted with similar non-aggression words. . isn't it
odd that the practices of many of them differ with that? -- j
I have to disagree, however, with the notion that somehow the Qu'ran does not authorize the killings and enslavement of infidels. It absolutely does and those passages fall late in the book, giving them precedence. It is also known that Mohammed himself often came into villages and butchered dozens of people himself - giving them the opportunity to convert to Islam or die. With that kind of a leadership image and the absolute fixation upon the man himself, it is no wonder that even modern Muslims want to literally take up that sword, as it is glorified not only in their heritage, but in their everyday teaching.
And I would like to hear from you about the actual history of the man revered above all others in Islam: did Mohammed personally kill dozens if not hundreds of "infidels" with his own sword? Do you deny that happened? Do you deny that Islam has been perpetrating war on the rest of the world for more than 1500 years? Remember, many Islamic scholars also deny the reality of the Holocaust, so I'm not real big on taking them at their word...
I would also submit that Islam has defended itself for 1500 years and that some "Islmaic Scholars" deny the holocaust is aireelevant tot he discussion (as is the statement that some Christian scholars deny the holocaust and some people deny the Holodomor.)
is taken as "an attack on all of Islam." . why so? -- j
that if anyone generalizes, then the whole class must
"stay in" at the end of the school day! -- j
“But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” [Quran 9:61].
“Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Quran 2:193]
“…if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” [Quran 5:35]
“From whose tongue and hands the people (an-nas: irrespective of Muslims or non-Muslims) are safe.” [Musnad-i-Ahmad, #6762; narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr]
The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
In addition, that intolerance is the whole basis of ISIS. ISIS is based on an entirely Qu'ranically supported interpretation of Islam that wants everyone - including other Muslims - to live by strict Sharia. And they use that interpretation themselves to justify their lust for killing and rape. Are all Muslims like that? No. But many of their own Islamic scholars fail to condemn this interpretation as being wrong - they just gloss over that part because of where it leads. But ISIS isn't the only group who takes this stance - they're just the ones the American media fixates on. Saudi Arabia supports strict Sharia, they just don't go around in force killing and raping people and invading other nations. Iran doesn't do it themselves, they just support others who do it on their behalf. Iraq wasn't a stranger to funding outside terror groups prior to its overthrow. Syria has been doing it for more than 70 years with its support of the PLO and Hezbollah. Or look at the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Or the Phillippines and Moro. Look at Pakistan and their fight with India over Kashmir. It isn't as if this is an isolated incident or an outlier. There is significant and sustained fundamentalism all over the world. To paint this as fringe behavior is simply to ignore the sheer volume of not only history but current events.
I'm sorry, but when I think of a radical, I'm thinking of less than 1 in 100 and preferably less than 1 in 1000. 20% is WAY too high a number to be called "radical" in my mind - especially when we're dealing with a worldwide population over 1.5 billion. One in a hundred might be an outlier. 1 in 5 is a mainstream faction.
An opinion piece is not a fact.
exaggeration, but a common feeling these days. -- j
If you want to believe our president who says that Islam is a nation of peace, you do that. Just don't try to sell me that line of crap. I'm a meerkat - not an ostrich.
How wishy washy.
The preferential treatment is to bring in people who have no interest in assimilating into our culture!
The non assimilating immigration issue includes the Spanish speaking people who dont want to assimilate and any other group that does not want to assimiliate (including Islamic believer who do not want to)
And this hatred is withn our own borders. I have not seen this type of open hatred by the Islamic community(it may exist but not blatanty inthe open.).
Horrible day in Ankara Turkey yesterday.
The next wave soon after I left high school were the hippie generations and tree huggers meaning pot growers. And so it goes. Some take centuries to assimilate and it is damn difficult when there is no encouragement and a lot of negative influences with the government leading the way in that respect.
But none except Californians came with the attitude of recreating what they had left until th Islamics. Like the Pinoys though most were working to return 'home' when they retired. They weren't out to kill the local population. If you noticed real close look at the one from the LA Airport today that well may have been one of the 40% or so who converted but have been in North America for a hundred to two hundred years.
"In Surah Al-Bakarah (Chapter 1) Quran says
Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.
In Surah Kafiron (Chapter 109), Quran says
1 - Proclaim, (O dear Prophet Mohammed - peace and blessings be upon him), “O disbelievers!”. 2 - Neither do I worship what you worship. 3 - Nor do you worship Whom I worship. 4 - And neither will I ever worship what you worship. 5 - Nor will you worship Whom I worship. 6 - For you is your religion, and for me is mine."
Its not in my memory, its in my debate folder (lol) ... I was raised Catholic and really dont support any religion.
Basically, they need to abandon Islam. Hmmm... Maybe this isn't so simple after all.
You're an Islamic sympathizer. You will refuse to admit to the past 1500 years of history and you have no problems attempting to shift the blame. You are unwilling to recognize reality for what it is. I have no use and no tolerance for such. Adieu.
I used the Pew studies and crossed it with others.
63% of the muslim popululation are immigrants, comprising about 1 % of the population. Athiests 3% and Agnostics 4% with 23% unafilliated. meaning 77% are affiliated of which 76 of the population are not Islamic.
How to handle it? No one has improved on George Washington's solution made when addressing the Quakers request not to be taken in the armed services as combatants. George invited respect for minoirities but required they live by the law of the land and wondered if there wasn't a middle ground. Sure enough Quakers became Medics.
The first conscientous objector to win The Medal Sgt Desmond Dross in 1919. It's not awarded by religious affiliation. Four Canadians also.were recipients.
The danger is in having a one party system of government that sets all the rules allowing only their members to hold the top offices - and those that vote for them.
against anyone, gulchers specifically! -- j
Thanks! -- j
Secular Progressives go after atheists seeing easy converts however....athiests are more likely to be objectivists and immunized against the twin dieties of Yoda Yakoff and Soros.
We have a natural right to be wrong about things. Radical religionists, including Islamists, do want reason banned. But I think I'm right, and they're wrong about this.
and many don't want to be that. . I was purely rational
for 20 years and got over it ... in order to marry and
make a family. . what I got was a family of 2 plus a good
dog. . but appreciating the quirks of a bunch of
interesting people is worth it -- worth bending out of
shape a little. . but I would still like to ban "preventative,"
just for spite! -- j
in this "thread." . CG, you're too predictable! -- j