Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

‘Who The Hell Do These Muslims Think They Are?’ And Could American Conservatives Accidently Enable Them?

March 13, 2013 by  

‘Who The Hell Do These Muslims Think They Are?’ And Could American Conservatives Accidently Enable Them?
PHOTOS.COM

Professor Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, author and outspoken critic of religious belief, probably isn’t the kind of guy most conservative Americans would call an ally. After all, he has spent much of his career working to further the cause of secularism, often by harshly criticizing the beliefs and traditions of Muslims, Jews, Christians and other major and minor world religions.

But with his latest tirade against religion taking a bigger role in society, Dawkins may have a point even America’s traditionally religious conservatives can agree with.

Early this week, the professor took to Twitter to express his disgust of the attempt of a Muslim activist organization to force gender-segregated seating so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities during a University College London debate entitled “Islam or Atheism: What Makes More Sense?”.

tweetdawk1

tweetdawk2

According to the accounts of some debate attendees, single women were directed to sit in the back of the auditorium, while their male and married counterparts were told to sit in front. Put off by the not-so-subtle Sharianess of the whole situation, Professor Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who would speak that night, encouraged event organizers to scrap the sexually segregated seating plan. When he did, madness ensued. Three young male attendees were accosted by security guards in the debate hall after moving to the women’s only seating section.

Here’s how one woman in the debate hall described the scene:

After having been told the event would NOT be gender segregated, we arrived and were told that women were to sit in the back of the auditorium, while men and couples could file into the front. After watching three people be kicked out of the auditorium for not following this seating plan, Dr Krauss bravely defended his beliefs of gender equality and informed event staff that he would not participate unless they removed the segregated seating. Needless to say, the staff got their shit together pretty quickly and the event (thankfully) continued.

Zayd Tutton of the Islamic Education and Research Academy, who organized the debate, disputed these accounts and alleged the men sat near Muslim women who choose to adhere to orthodox Islamic beliefs and had segregated themselves. Of course, given the Islamic track record with relation to women’s rights, Tutton’s assertion could be deemed questionable.

Using the same logic, one might also suggest that the 15 Saudi schoolgirls who burned to death in a 2002 school fire — after “mutaween” (Saudi culture police) physically barred them from escaping because they were wearing improper Islamic dress — did so at the commission of Allah himself.

In a later statement about the event, Dawkins pointed out the height to which liberal hypocrisy reaches where political correctness and religious tolerance (or often, in the United States, the lack thereof for Christians) intersect: “Isn’t it really about time we decent, nice, liberal people stopped being so pusillanimously terrified of being thought ‘Islamophobic’ and stood up for decent, nice, liberal values?”

Dawkins’ statements should be considered an opportunity for American conservatives to reflect on their place in the cultural divide that keeps religious tolerance and government from colliding in a way similar to what has created disaster for nations since the beginning of time and perpetuates a barbaric norm in the Mideast.

Criticism could be levied rightfully against American conservatives who crusade to legislate morality on a national scale, rather than focusing on their moral agenda locally — where both their power to protect their values without forcing them upon others and their base of community support is likely stronger. That said, if homosexuality disgusts you to the point that seeing people make sexual choices out of step with the natural order makes you physically ill and you live in San Francisco (where a priest removed a picture of the Pope from a Catholic church rectory to avoid offending gays) or Miami’s South Beach, you would probably feel much better if you began researching real estate nearer the Bible Belt.

If a national vehicle exists for the hair-splitting legislative agenda of one group of faithful to ease separation of church and state, there is nothing in the Constitution barring another from using the same track to encourage an agenda that goes against everything America was intended to represent. And today, there is no shortage of potential quislings for religious fanaticism ranging from Sharia proponents to Green movement lunatics. That is why, like the 2nd, the 1st Amendment to the Nation’s Constitution reads with unbridled lucidity.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Another benefit conservatives could reap by putting aside the national moral crusade mainstreamed in the GOP in the early 1990s by Pat Buchanan — and fomented by the likes of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition and such “cultural warriors” as Rush Limbaugh, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson — is the rebirth of a Party capable of winning important elections. A moral agenda for national Republican candidates runs counter to everything small government conservatives claim to stand for, explicitly the idea that Federal government serves only the purposes outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution: Unite the States, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide common defense, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

It’s time to scrap the Todd Akinses and the Richard Murdocks of the national Republican Party and opt for a more libertarian, less moral-centric version of the GOP to represent the Nation in Congress. But this doesn’t mean throwing aside all of the moral and evangelical values that many among the conservative electorate cherish; it is simply time to focus those values more heavily on State legislative and local elections.

With that strategy, Republicans — and more importantly, conservatism as a whole — can create the perfect storm. The GOP politicians then in the national spotlight would be better able to get elected and garner more support from religiously averse independents and libertarians. But once in office, they would not assault States’ rights with legislative initiatives. Meanwhile, with States’ rights safe as long as a Congress dedicated to protecting the Constitution is in place, State legislators with moral agendas would be better able to make legislative decisions based on the values of their respective constituencies.

There was a reason the Founders set up the Nation the way they did; they knew that top-down policy governing everything from the secular to the religious wouldn’t work. It’s time to start using the tools they gave us if fiscal conservatism and small government are ever again going to be tenants of national policy.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “‘Who The Hell Do These Muslims Think They Are?’ And Could American Conservatives Accidently Enable Them?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Here is what John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, an American diplomat, Senator and Congressional representative said about islam & its “prophet”:

    “He [Muhammad] poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by DEGRADING THE CONDITION OF THE FEMALE SEX and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and EXTERMINATING WAR, AS A PART OF HIS RELIGION, AGAINST ALL THE REST OF MANKIND. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Capitals in original)…Between these two religions (Christianity & islam), thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the FALSE prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can NEVER be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

    “As the essential principle of his [muhammad’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is ONLY BY FORCE, that HIS FALSE DOCTRINES can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
    “…he [muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the koran is, perpetual WAR AGAINST ALL WHO DENY, that mahomet is the prophet of God… the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the moslem creed BY THE SWORD IS ALWAYS OBLIGATORY, when it can be made effective.”

    islamists have perpetrated ALL crimes in history in the name of their allah and murderer, child molester, pedophile, rapist, thief, burglar, LIAR “prophet” mohammad. islam is religion of satan. There can be NO COMPROMISE with evil…

    “Between good and evil there is no reconciliation.” (Alexander Soljenitsen)

    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” “We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I would point out Alondra that Jesus said “Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. I John 3:15″

      And do remember

      Luke 9:52-56: “…they did not receive him…And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

      And it was Mahatma Gandhi who said

      “I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian.”

      as well as

      “My effort should never be to undermine another’s faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith.”

      • dan

        I would point out that ,in context, Jesus was referring to one’s spiritual brother (not blood
        or genetically similar) and that one who was not of the Spirit of Truth could not be a brother.

      • Vigilant

        Interesting historical fact: Adams took the oath of office on a book of constitutional law, instead of the more traditional Bible.

      • http://Yahoo Maynard

        Jeremy, It is so refreshing to read intelligent, informed rational comments here. There are other authors of merit, but you are the best. Congratulations!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps Dan. But did not Jesus also say:

        “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” Luke 10:25-37

        and that

        “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment.And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Matt. 22:37-39

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Thank you for the compliment Maynard.

      • Jana

        Jeremy,
        It is true, that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. However, it does not say we are to let our neighbor walk all over us, nor abuse us. Islam wants to make us all subjects of Islam. They want us to turn to their false god allah and renounce our God and our Salvation through Jesus Christ. These people are no longer our neighbor, they have made themselves our enemies.

        We are to pray for our enemies, but again, we are not to bow down and worship their false god, nor let them enslave us (Sharia Law) or run all over us.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can respect your point Jana. The problem is not all Muslims are demanding that we bow down to Islam. All faiths hold that they should be spread and none believers converted. And it is not always in a kind or peacefully way. Joshu in the book of exodus conducts what we would call a genocide on the people of Canaan in order to create Israel. Islam is a religion of over a billion people. We cannot presume what Islam is based on a particular group of Muslims when there are other groups acting completely differently. I have Muslim friends who believe firmly that Islam is to be preached and that non believers are to be told the word of Allah and left to their own to decide. Am I supposed to condemn my friends for being Muslim when they do not act the way you say. Am I supposed to judge Islam as you describe when their descriptions seem so different. I oppose extremism and Sharia Law same as you Jana. But I don’t carry that over to attacking or fearing Muslims.

      • Jana

        Jeremy,
        Not all Muslims are practicing the religion of Islam, and even if they are not all of them are extremists. The ones who want to get along with us and assimilate are welcome, but the ones who don’t, those are the ones we have to watch.

        We never judge (for lack of a better word) any person by what they are called. We do know them by their actions, and who they associate with. However one word of caution. We see many times over an Americanized teenager who becomes targeted by her family because she has become too Americanized. We see also teenaged boys change because they have become too Americanized and his parents are ashamed of him and he has to change or be ostracized. This is a reality not a pretend world we live in, and these parents don’t like change any better than we Americans do.

        I can’t say I blame these parents for not liking change, but they are the ones who moved to our country, we didn’t move to their country and try to change their country.

        How many Muslims do we see condemning these radicals though? Do we see any really stand up to them? NO! We sure don’t. Why?

        • Bob666

          Yo Jana,
          “Not all Muslims are practicing the religion of Islam, and even if they are not all of them are extremists. The ones who want to get along with us and assimilate are welcome, but the ones who don’t, those are the ones we have to watch.

          We never judge (for lack of a better word) any person by what they are called. We do know them by their actions, and who they associate with. However one word of caution”

          Delete Muslims, insert Christians and this would be no different, here on in any Musim country.

          Might you have a double standard? Maybe somthing to consider.

      • Jana

        Bob666,
        No double standard at all. You made my point exactly. Did you not read in that very post where I said
        ———We never judge (for lack of a better word) any person by what they are called. We do know them by their actions, and who they associate with.———-

        I would have thought you would have known me better than that by now. I guess not. I see you are capable of writing like a gentleman,but on this site I haven’t always seen you write like one.

        • Bob666

          Yo Jana,
          I respectfully disagree with you.

    • http://personalliberty Alondra

      Constitution vs. Islamic invasion in U.S. of America

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSkJepn5kxc

      Educate yourself and please feel free to pass it on.

      Thank you

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        Join Ann in her burning of the satanic book koran:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIPPSI4G_N8

        The burning starts @6:20

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Lot to deal with here.

        1: The beleif that all cultures are equal is not something that was conditioned nor is it dogma. The declaration recognizes the self evident truth that All men are created equal. There is no exception to that universal rule.

        2: The constitution in the first amendment recognizes freedom of religion. That includes Islam regardless of what individuals think of Islam.

        3: Multiculturalism is the same as the idea that knoweldge can come from different sources. It is the same as the idea that I am not always right and someone else may be right. Such a philosophy is not only good, it is necessary to live a decent and fullfilling life.

        4: There is no invasion of “Islamists”. There are terrorists. But terrorist is not the same as Muslim.

        5: With all due respect Alondra you are advocating the burning of books and you expect me to place trust in you. Here is what happens when books associated with a hated religion are burned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ppe9WBLu_w&bpctr=1363160417

        It was Heinrich Heine who said ” Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings”. That statement is as true today as it was when he first wrote it.

      • Robert Smith

        Smoking starts at 4:20.

        Rob

      • dan

        Jer…you’d do well to question your beliefs. .Put away the Soviet Constitution and have a look at the Federalist Papers.

      • Vigilant

        Jeremy says, “Multiculturalism is the same as the idea that knowledge can come from different sources. It is the same as the idea that I am not always right and someone else may be right. Such a philosophy is not only good, it is necessary to live a decent and fulfilling life.”

        On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable assessment of multiculturalism. However, if we are to be concerned with moral relativism, which is the direction to which multiculturalism tends, then we are talking something completely different.

        Within the boundaries of a sovereign nation, the laws which either tolerate or proscribe behaviors of its populace, are normally representative of the morality of the people and are an outgrowth of the cultural norms. While it is true that “you can’t legislate morality,” it is equally true that laws are based on morality.

        While you are “not always right and someone else may be right,” that has no bearing whatsoever on the obligation of individuals to respect and obey the law of the land, in our case the Constitution. Seeking to incorporate the brutal aspects of Sharia law, or to render judicial decisions based on international protocols and resolutions is unconstitutional and should remain so.

        We do not allow honor killings, genital mutilation or cutting off the right hand of a thief in this country, nor do we kill homosexuals or adulterers. The secular humanist pronouncement that no moral system is superior to another is debatable, but that does not mean that Americans should be guided by anything other than the Constitution and the legitimate laws that issue therefrom.

        What we are REQUIRED to tolerate within the boundaries of a foreign nation is no argument for incorporation of those norms into our own culture. Our nation was founded not on Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Shinto values, it was based on Judeo Christian values. Whether this nation chooses to depart from those values in its legal system is governed by Article V of the Constitution.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Dan nothing I said compares to the Soviet Constitution. I believe in our Republic and its constitution. And I happen to be familiar with the Federalist Papers.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vigilant

        1: I disagree with the idea that multiculturalism leads to moral relativism. I believe that multiculturalism is based around trying to understand and accept multiple cultures. Accepting more than just your own culture does not mean you become that culture. And you don’t have to accept everything. After all not all people are law abiding so you can’t trust everyone. But I consider multiculturalism to be about accepting more than just your own. To recognize that others might be right. Personally that seems like the opposite of moral relativism. To admit that you may not know what is right.

        2: Not all laws are based on morality Vigilant. The Jim Crow laws of the south were based on prejudice plain and simple. Just because someone may have different laws and perhaps a different morality does not automatically mean theirs is less moral than you. You and I may hold different values to be the most important one. But that does not mean you and I are more or less moral than each other.

        3: I never supported sharia law. The constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion. I would no more support adopting sharia law into our government than I would the ten commandments. And I would point out that numerous Christians including former Presidential candidates have said in one way or the other that ours laws should be based on the ten commandments. As for international protocol. The Geneva Conventions were an international protocol. I consider it constitutional to follow that precedent. Bear in mind it is still our choice whether or not to follow. I believe that depending on the protocol or resolution it would behoove us to listen and consider.

        4: Muslims do not allow or honor “killings, genital mutilation or cutting off the right hand of a thief in this country, nor do we kill homosexuals or adulterers” either Vigilant. Though I would point out Texas seems to honor the death penalty. But they are a special case. At any rate. I also believe we should follow the constitution. The constitution recognizes freedom of speech and religion and expression and assembly and press. People have the right to say and believe as they wish. A Muslim going to a mosque to pray to Allah is not violating any ones rights. A Muslim who honors and follows the five pillars is not violating any ones rights. So long as the actions of an individual do not violate any ones rights according to the constitution it is wrong to violate their rights.

        5: Our nation was founded on the values of equality and liberty. It was founded on principles that are in common among all faiths not just Judeo Christian ones. To recognize and incorporate the values of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Shinto faiths does not mean we depart from Judeo Christian ones. We are not a Christian nation. We are something far greater than an exclusive kingdom. We are a Republic.

      • Vigilant

        Good discussion, Jeremy.

        “To recognize that others might be right. Personally that seems like the opposite of moral relativism. To admit that you may not know what is right.”

        Well, yes and no. Moral absolutism is to be distinguished from moral relativism in that it posits that the ethics of right and wrong are defined by immutable natural laws. Jefferson defined a portion of them in the Declaration, and specifically tied them to rights endowed by the Creator, not an individual, group of individuals or a government.

        A conscientious moral absolutist would task himself to discover which laws are the true laws and which are not, but would never even consider that true morality is a fluid or ever-changing morality. He/she, upon an enlightened discovery that some hitherto unconsidered morality is more just than the values he holds, would rightfully conclude (within his value system) that his prior interpretation of natural law was flawed, NOT that two opposite immutable laws can coexist in harmony.

        Thus, “To recognize that others might be right” is to admit that you are wrong. The moral absolutist accepts this principle, the relativist gives weight to both as if they are equally valid.

        As to the founding of the nation, I believe you are again partially correct. The points of commonality between the religions of the world are not transparent. Shinto and Buddhism are not generally practiced as deity-based religions in most senses. While common principles may be evident, the difference between our founding and the two religions mentioned is that the founding is based on “Creator”-endowed natural rights. This additional step beyond polytheism, for example, recognizes one God as the source of our natural rights.

        The influence of Christianity on the Enlightenment ideals was crucial. While the Founders wisely created a secular constitutional republic, they also deeply understood that such a republic could not stand in the absence of essentially Christian morality. Additionally, we are not a Christian nation in the sense that we have a national church or churches, but in the sense that Turkey is a Muslim nation. It, too, is a secular constitutional republic but its people are Muslim by a vast majority, as is the population of America.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vigilant

        1: I can respect the difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism.

        2: Your argument makes sense. The only issue I take is that when it boils down to it all ur perceptions and beleifs are technically relative. So what to use may seem a opposite immutable law may in fact be very similar. But that is a completely different discussion.

        3: I would have to disagree on what recognition of the other is. The problem with moral absolutism is it leaves little to no room for self reflection and doubt. Its hard to convince a moral absolutist or the wrongness of their position. I feel it is important to recgonize that many sides can have valid al be it different views.

        4: I can admit that our foudners were mostly Christian and had a creater endowed understanding of our rights. However I would point out that the central law which comes even before the creator endowed rights is the self evident truth that all men are created equal. The founders did not include any mention of spirtuality or diety in the recognition of universal equality. They simply understood that it is self evident. So I am left in a quandary since the first law of the declaration is self evident and yet the rights which in our equality we all have come from a creator.

        5: I am not sure Vigilant about your last point. If I am mistaken please let me know. The statement you made “we are not a Christian nation in the sense that we have a national church or churches, but in the sense that Turkey is a Muslim nation. It, too, is a secular constitutional republic but its people are Muslim by a vast majority, as is the population of America.” confuses me. It confuses me because of our dicsussion about moral relativism. This statement makes it sound as though the religious cornerstone of a nation is determined by the majority and by which faith they believe in. To me that sounds like our being a Christian Nation is just a byproduct of moral relativism.

      • TML

        I response to the video; I think Ann barnhardt started off good, up until she says, “we are burning the Quran because it is the manifesto of an evil totalitarian political system”.

        Yet, Bible has been called the same thing, and would continue to be, if it were not for the Separation of Church and State in the 1st Amendment. She talks about how if Christians see a bible burn they get sad because of the hate that such an act is conveying, while her entire video is about burning a Quran out of mere spite and hatred for a religion.

        The woman is a vile hypocrite

    • http://Yahoo Maynard

      I thought John Quincy Adams a wiser man than his statement conveys. Surely, he must have known it was the so-called Christian nations which initiated the very un-Christian Crusades. For centuries, Europe sent men, women and even children to try to slaughter the Muslims. When the Muslims try to defend themselves, we call them terrorists. How convenient.
      The Muslims claim descent from Abraham, and even the Jews’ Bible says they are. Ismael was Abraham’s first son and by the rules of primogeniture should have been his heir. But Sarah, who was over 90 when she had Isaac (Right!) was jealous of Hagar and nagged Abe into evicting the pair. God took pity on them and Ismael survived to become the progenitor of nations. God tried to get ABE to slaughter Isaac to prove his faith. When Abe almost complied, God called it off and said he was just kidding.

      God would later send angel’s to Abe’s nephews town of Sodom. When the mob wanted to have sex with them, the angel’s blinded them. Lot, the nephew, had offered his two virgin daughters to the mob but they turned them down in favor of the angels.(Right!) God did appreciate the gesture because he allowed Lot, his wife and the daughters to flee Sodom before he blasted the place and the surrounding towns for good measure. He turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt which led to the daughters getting Lot drunk and performing incest with him.
      The supposed moral of the story: Homosexuality is a death sentence but incest is best.
      WAIT a MINUTE. What sex are angels? They are NEITHER sex. Therefore, having sex with them is not HOMOsexuality. All this crap about sodomy is misplaced. Even Jesus is said to have known (slept with) Lazarus after he raised him from the dead. So all you breeders (might I say over-breeders) should get off your high horses.

      • Bob666

        Yo Manard,
        well stated!

      • Jana

        Bob666,
        Maynards post is not well stated. He doesn’t even comprehend half of what he has written. How sad, and you have gone along with him.

        You stated the other day As one of my neighbors once said; we all go to heaven, there is just a different seating arrangement and that is based on how you live your life. Since my neighbor was a Rabbi with a doctorate in religious studies and IMHO, a man of tremendous faith that he lived every day, I am going with what I feel in my heart.—–

        I would like for you to show me where that is written down in any Bible, or Torah. I certainly know its not in the Qur’an as they don’t believe anyone like us who they call an infidel is going to heaven. In fact they don’t even believe many woman can possibly make it to heaven. Makes me wonder what sex they think the virgins will be that is supposed to be waiting for them.

        • Bob666

          Jana,
          “Maynards post is not well stated. He doesn’t even comprehend half of what he has written. How sad, and you have gone along with him”.

          I respectfully disagree with you, he writes without the influence of faith.

          “I would like for you to show me where that is written down in any Bible, or Torah. I certainly know it’s not in the Qur’an as they don’t believe anyone like us who they call an infidel is going to heaven. In fact they don’t even believe many woman can possibly make it to heaven. Makes me wonder what sex they think the virgins will be that is supposed to be waiting for them”

          This one will be hard for me to convey this to you. I could name the different faiths that worship Christ and reference the bible doing so. Today was a historic day as the world saw Francis I elected as pope on 3/13/13 (I love numbers). From Catholics to Mormons and every protestant in between, there is going to be a slightly different interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

          I respect you, your faith and will always fight for your right to follow it, but could you be caught up in the details? People of true faith carry it in their hearts, not on their sleeves. I still maintain that most people who quote scripture and try to shove their form of gospel down the throats of others probably don’t really have true faith.

          What I have witnessed in my life around the world is; Christian, Jew or Muslim, those who are truly faithful are both humble and reserved. Most importantly, they do not judge as they leave that up to god and will respect the beliefs of others.

          Respectfilly, we will disagree on this.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Who do these Muslims think they are? Well why don’t you ask Muslims themselves. Judging someone by something other than their own actions is prejudice plain and simple. If I meet someone and learn that they are Muslim it does not change how I treat them nor how I judge them. When Mr. Dawkins says ” I don’t think Muslims should segregate sexes” he is being Islamophobic and prejudice. Because not all Muslims believe in segregating sexes. Yes some people claiming to be Muslim believe such things. But most do not. I prefer to judge Islam and Muslims by the best among them. The best measure of a religion are the actions of the best of its adherents. I am an agnostic and do not believe in god or any of the worlds organized religions. But I was raised to always follow the golden rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. As I want people to respect my beliefs so I respect others. Being a Muslim does not make you a bad person. Adhering to the principles espoused in the Quran does not make you an adherent to every single thing said in it. Those who are prejudice against Homosexuality often quote Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Yet Christianity and Christians in general should not be judged by such a statement. Not all Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death. Like wise Muslims in general cannot be held responsible or presumed to adhere to every statement in the Quran. So again I ask the question Who do these Muslims think they are?. And again I say why don’t you ask them before you assume. Because everyone knows what happens when you assume.

    • BruceB64

      Then according to your “Logic” anyone who does not wish to pray is what Christianphobic? Or cringes at the word Jesus or God? Are they Jesusphobic or Godophobic? NO!! You and others like you say they are only “expressing” their beliefs. Hypocrites like you are what makes these problems “MORE THEN WHAT THEY ARE”!!! Get off of your Pedestal and join the rest of the Free Thinking People!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No Bruce. What I am saying is if someone condemns another simply for being Christian then the condemner could be called Christaphobic. If one presumes that all Christians think and act exactly alike one could be called Christaphobic. My argument is about judging individuals based on their actions rather than their labels. When Mr Dawkins or Mr. Rolley say things like ” I don’t think Muslims should segregate sexes” or “given the Islamic track record with relation to women’s rights” they are passing judgement based on something other than individual actions. They are passing judgement on Muslims and Islam based on the actions of some rather than on the individual actions of individual Muslims and their own beliefs as to what Islam is.

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        Jeremy says: “Judging someone by something other than their own actions is prejudice plain and simple.”

        Jeremy, ANY common sense man is judging islam and followers of mahommed precisely by “their own actions”.

        Jeremy, do you know that islamists have perpetrated ALL crimes in history in the name of their allah and murderer, child molester, pedophile, rapist, thief, burglar, LIAR “prophet” mohammad. Islam is religion of satan.

        Jeremy, go here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm
        This is a list of the ISLAMIC terror attacks on Christian civilians and church workers by muslims since September 11th, 2001.

        These attacks have nothing to do with war, combat or insurgency. The victims are innocent Christians who were specifically targeted and abused solely on account of their faith by those who claim their own religion as a motive.

        Each ISLAMIC terror attack and each murder is MOTIVATED by their SATANIC religion.

        Each ISLAMIC terror attack and each murder they are accompanying with the shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (allah is the greatest) the slogan, which was prescribed by their “holy prophet” Muhammad and by this declaration islamists are opening every islamic prayer.

        Jeremy, Of cause, islamists killed our ambassador to Libya by entertaining and sodomized him for allah’s pleasure.

        P.S. Jeremy, Jewish mothers do NOT put on their child’s waist explosive belt and do not send a child to blow up himself and “Goyim” a.k.a. “infidels” or “gentiles”.

        The Christian mothers do NOT put on the child’s waist explosive belt and do not send a child to blow up himself and pagans a.k.a. Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/unbelievers.

        Each TRUE Christian MUST expose EVIL and FIGHT IT BACK.

        “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        Jeremy, Let’s see what the islamic “holy” book as well as your fraudulent “leader” a.k.a. IMPOSTOR O’Homobama preaching.

        Here just a few commands of the “prophet” muhammed for his followers from the book of “peace”.

        “Slay the UNBELIEVERS wherever you find them.” Qur’an 2:191

        “Make war on the INFIDELS living in your neighborhood.” Qur’an 9:123

        “When opportunity arises, KILL the INFIDELS WHEREVER YOU CATCH THEM.” Qur’an 9:5

        “Any religion other than Islam is NOT ACCEPTABLE.” Qur’an 3:85

        “The Jews and the Christians are PERVERTS; FIGHT THEM.”… Qur’an 9:30

        “Maim [Dismember, Disfigure, Harm, Mutilate] and CRUCIFY the INFIDELS IF THEY CRITICIZE ISLAM” Qur’an 5:33

        “Punish THE UNBELIEVERS with garments of FIRE, HOOKED IRON RODS, BOILING WATER; MELT THEIR SKIN AND BELLIES.” Qur’an 22:19

        “The UNBELIEVERS are stupid; URGE the Muslims to FIGHT THEM.” Qur’an 8:65

        “Muslims must not take the INFIDELS as friends.” Qur’an 3:28

        “TERRORIZE and BEHEAD those WHO BELIEVE IN SCRIPTURES OTHER THAN the Qur’an.” Qur’an 8:12

        “Muslims must muster all weapons to TERRORIZE the INFIDELS.” Qur’an 8:60

        “I [muhammed] shall cast TERROR into the hearts of the INFIDELS. STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS, STRIKE OFF THE VERY TIPS OF THEIR FINGERS.” Qur’an 8:12

        “Those that deny Our’an revelations We will BURN IN FIRE. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Allah is mighty and wise.” Qur’an 4:56

        “MEN have authority over WOMEN because Allah has made the one SUPERIOR to the other, and because they spend their wealth to MAINTAIN THEM. Good WOMEN are OBEDIENT. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and FORSAKE THEM IN BEDS APART, and BEAT THEM.” Qur’an 4:34

        Jeremy, Do you need my blessing to convert into the religion of “piss” off?

        You have it, lamebrained Liberal.

        Jeremy, May allah’s piss be upon you.

        • Bob666

          So says Ms Pigsty,

          Purveyor of hate!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Alondra

        1: You say “ANY common sense man is judging islam and followers of mahommed precisely by “their own actions”. Then why are you advocating the burning of the book that is holy to every Muslim not just the ones claiming to be terrorist.

        2: All those crimes you have mentioned have been committed by people claiming to be of the other religions of the world. See Crusades and Spanish Inquisition.

        3: Those who commit terror in the name of a religion and the religion are not the same. I have friends who are Muslim Alondra. Am I to condemn them simply for being Muslim. Am I to condemn them despite their opposition to all forms of violence. Am to condemn the small child who goes to a mosque out of sincere belief in the same sense of higher power that all Christians and Jews follow. Am I to condemn all for the actions of some. I refuse to do that. You should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWwVMPrfzZc

    • Vigilant

      “I am an agnostic and do not believe in god or any of the worlds organized religions.”

      Jeremy, if you don’t believe in God, then that makes you an Atheist, unless the definitions for agnostic and atheist have changed.

      • Toy

        We are all agnostics: We may believe we are atheists or deists but we cannot know.

      • BigJim

        I really like it when an agnostic has an opinion that he believes is correct! If you don’t know something, get out of the way; let someone smarter do the leading!

      • Vigilant

        “We are all agnostics: We may believe we are atheists or deists but we cannot know.”

        I have had that identical thought many times. However, agnosticism would seem to be more of a statement regarding the nature and grounds of our knowledge.

        According to Wikipedia, “In the strict sense…agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.”

        In that sense, agnosticism would seem to be merely a matter of epistemology, or theory of knowledge, rather than a religious stance. It simply denies that we can definitively know of the existence of any metaphysical entity.

        The “leap of faith” that both theists and atheists take, goes beyond this. To believe is to accept something as true. The agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves.

        All would understand that science can not prove or disprove the existence of God. Even the staunch theist has to accept this as true, but the theist believes that God can be known through means other than, or in addition to, mere empirical evidence. Atheists reject this position.

        Deists believe that God can be known through the evidences of nature and reason alone, rejecting the revelational or supernatural aspects of belief.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Big Jim correct me if I am wrong. But don’t all of us believe our own beliefs and opinions are right.

      • TML

        I reject the idea that agnosticism must necessarily stand on its own in the sense that you either are or you’re not.

        All should understand that science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a God by mere definition. Agnostic is a matter of epistemology, based on the rules of logic that lack of evidence is not evidence against, yet, even with that, one can still lean one way or the other depending on the definition of God – it would be like trying to prove that there is an invisible pink unicorn under my bed; even though it is acknowledged as inherently un-provable by definition, I would lean to not believing, or having a lack of faith in the idea that there is an invisible pink unicorn under my bed.

    • Vigilant

      “Not all Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death?”

      That statement is a bit skewed, wouldn’t you say? More appropriately, the overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe that homosexuals should be put to death.

      Say what you mean and mean what you say, please.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can assure you I do say what I mean and mean what I say Vigilant. The purpose of my statement “Not all Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death” was to say that just because the bible contains a call for violence against homosexuals that does not mean all Christians believe such a thing is right. In fact as you pointed out “the overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe that homosexuals should be put to death.” The reason I made this argument was so often I see and hear people on the stump or from the pulpit denouncing Islam and its adherents. Often they use passages in the Quran which seem to condone or command violence as proof that Islam is evil and that Muslims should be condemned. But as you helped me prove the existence of a particular belief in a holy book does not mean that the adherents of the faith ascribed by that holy book are automatically in keeping with that belief. In fact as you pointed out it is often that the majority of the followers of that faith reject that particular belief. The same goes for Muslims as it does for Christians.

  • Robert Smith

    “Dawkins’ statements should be considered an opportunity for American conservatives to reflect on their place in the cultural divide that keeps religious tolerance and government from colliding in a way similar to what has created disaster for nations since the beginning of time and perpetuates a barbaric norm in the Mideast.”

    Or CHILDREN were blown up in church bombings in the South.

    Rob

  • worldwatchman

    The problem is allowing muslims into the country in the first place. The bigger problem is what Cleon Skousen warned America and it’s happening right now. From the Whitehouse to your 6 year old public school. It’s the “dumbing down of America”.

    • http://Yahoo Maynard

      Michael Springman worked in Saudi Arabia with the State Department and protested that too many were being let in to the US with improper and incomplete applications. The fact was that this was intentional and most of them were coming through a CIA dominated office in Riyaad. It was intentional because they would be used as scapegoats for 9/11. If you still believe that the airliners were “hijacked and flown” by the people on the list we were handed, you better open your mind.
      1. The “hijackers” could not fly large airplanes. Some of their flight trainers, for small planes like Cessnas, called them :Dumb and Dumber.” Hani Hanjour (FL 77) was denied the rental of a Cessna in August, his skills were so weak. Yet Fl. 77 made a very difficult spiral and dive instead of taking an easy straight attack trajectory which would have taken out the top brass, the plane flew past them and made a spiral descent supposedly taking out light poles without losing its wings or being thrown off course. Its aluminum nose was too soft to penetrate through to the C-ring yet there was a round hole there. It conveniently destroyed the records section and killed many accountants who were looking for $2.3 TRILLION Rumsfeld announced missing just the DAY BEFORE. FBI agents confiscated, within minutes, private videos which would have clearly shown what actually hit the Pentagon. Rumsfeld, instead of performing his duties as Secretary of DEFENSE, left his post and played the hero carrying stretchers at what he called the “accident.” Later he would call 9/11 “A blessing in disguise.” Was it a “blessing” for all the innocent victims or simply for him and his cronies who benefited financially and politically through their war profiteering and public acclimation?
      2. Dick Cheney admitted on Meet the Press of September 16, 2001 that he was in the White House Bunker when the Pentagon was hit, yet the 9/11 Commission Report said he did not arrive until 10:00. This would get him off the hook because Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified under oath that he saw Cheney getting updates that Fl 77 was approaching, yet the Pentagon, one of the best defended buildings on earth, put up NO DEFENSES. Not even an evacuation. Mineta’s testimony was OMITTED from the report. WHY?
      3. The phone calls Ted Olson reported on Larry King Live supposedly from his wife Barbara DID NOT HAPPEN, At the Moussaoui Terror Trial in 2006 the FBI presented a report that stated those calls “were connected for zero seconds” which is double-speak for not connected. We were fed propaganda.

      In conclusion, the “hijackers” may or may not been on the planes but the whole intent was to set the Muslims up as enemies. Despite the fact that no Afghans or Iraqis were even accused, we spent trillions, lost thousands and killed millions in their homelands.

      And now you, WORDWATCHMAN are stereotyping all Muslims inaccurately.
      Answer this please:
      How did Jeb Bush know to start Martial Law in Fl on the THURSDAY BEFORE 9/11??????
      How did White House insiders know to secretly start antianthrax antibiotics THREE WEEKS BEFORE the first known threat?????????

      • Toy

        Great comment.
        Islam is not primarily a Religion. It is an aggressive, expansive Ideology.
        The population of passive Moslems is the sea in which the Fanatics swim.
        Their creed tells them to lie as necessary to fool the Unbeliever.
        Demographics will give them their goal.

  • Peter

    i-slam (I refuse to capitalize or spell it correctly), otherwise known as “I slam commercial jets into tall buildings for absolutely no coherent reason”, is singularly the most barbaric, violent, intolerant cult ever to disgrace the planet earth. Call me a nazi if you like, but I firmly believe every i-slamicist should be exterminated.

    • Karolyn

      You’re worse than a Nazi! I can’t even think of a word bad enough to call someone who would kill off millions of human beings because they believe a certain way.

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        Liberal lesbian Karolyn says: “I can’t even think of a word bad enough to call someone who would kill off millions of human beings because they believe a certain way.”

        Ignorant Liberal Karolyn, go here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm

        This is a list of the ISLAMIC terror attacks on Christian civilians and church workers by muslims since September 11th, 2001.

        These attacks have nothing to do with war, combat or insurgency. The victims are innocent Christians who were SPECIFICALLY TARGETED and abused SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FAITH by those who are claiming that they (Christians) “believe a certain way”.

        Karolyn, the “words” for those “who would kill off millions of human beings because they believe a certain way” is Islamic “EVIL”, Islamic “MURDERERS”, international “CRIMINALS”.

        Each ISLAMIC terror attack and each murder was and is MOTIVATED by their SATANIC religion a.k.a. ”believe a certain way”.

        Each ISLAMIC terror attack and each murder they are accompanying with the shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (allah is the greatest) the slogan, which was prescribed by their “holy prophet” Muhammad and by this declaration islamists are opening every islamic prayer.

        Karolyn, Of cause, islamists killed four Americans and sodomized ambassador Stevens by entertaining for allah’s pleasure.

        According to the Center for the Study of Political Islam: Islam fought 548 battles against the world (based on the ancient historic documents; Archeology beneath the Mediterranean; Archeology on land) and 19,000 jihad attacks since September 11th, 2001.

        Karolyn, do you know How many people were murdered during 1400 years in the name of the religion of “peace”?

        Christians – 60 Million (including ~ 1.5 Million Turkish Armenians killed in jihad)
        Buddhists – 10 Millions
        Hindus – 80 Millions
        Africans – 120 Million
        Total: 270 Million

        The Doctrine of the religion of “peace” drives violence. The historical FACTS show the TRUE nature of Islam.

        Islam was the enemy of ALL civilizations.

        “A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart.” – King Solomon (Proverbs 18:2)

        “Woe unto them that CALL EVIL GOOD, and GOOD EVIL; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

        “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:21)

        • Bob666

          Yo Pigsty,
          “Liberal lesbian Karolyn”

          So you have a krush on Karolyn now and you’re a closit Obama Girl too?

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        “As a dog returns to his own vomit, so an EVIL man/bob666 REPEATS HIS nonsensical MADNESS.” – King Solomon (Proverbs 26:11)

        Enough said

        • Bob666

          Oh Ms Piggy,
          please feel free to go back to the third world sand trap you came from, you will never be a true American, you are too full of hate.

      • Hedgehog

        Karolyn, I call them Liberals!

      • Peter

        Karolyn, I may be worse than a nazi in your eyes, but at least I can read and spell. Please tell me where I said I woul exterminate every moslem? What I said, very clearly, is that I would exterminate every i-slamist who, by definition of that label, are the extremists who would kill all infidels which, by the way, you are as well as me, in their eyes.

        • Bob666

          Yo Peter,
          “I would exterminate every i-slamist” & “I may be worse than a nazi in your eyes”.

          I need say nothing more.

      • Peter
      • Peter

        Bob, your name says all anything ever needed to say :-)

        • Bob666

          yo Peter,
          And your reply states Just how shallow you really are.

      • Peter

        Oh by the way Karolyn and Bob, in case you hadn’t realized, with i-slamists it’s kill or be killed. [threatening comment has been removed]

  • ibcamn

    told you,political correctness is killing this country!what melting pot?!be tolerant?!wasn’t it suppose to be,come to America an assimulate to American culture,learn english,go to church,raise yourselfe a family and live the American dream!be happy!be here legally!

    all that went right out the window!be tolerant crap will bring us down!!wake up sheeple!!

    • Walter77777

      The condition of Islam and of the Muslim world is in large part an inheritance of the five hundred years or so of a colonialism which covered almost all of the Muslim world with the exception of Turkey — itself a colonial power. The colonizers held back intellectual development, ruthlessly exploited the natural resources of the colonies, and (hardest to forgive) sent missionaries to try to convert the Muslims and bring them to Jesus. The very limited success of this endeavor failed to erase the enduring bad taste this left in the Muslim mouth.

      It might help to remember this history before being so quick to condemn out Muslim brethren. They who live in glass houses do well to not shower with the light on.

      W.

      • Jana

        Walter 77etc.
        Sounds like you have a grudge on your shoulders. You have the slave mentality that SOME of the blacks of today still have. When you have that mentality you will always be a slave to something, but it is in your own mind.

        So your ancestors were colonized. Your ancestors were using Africans as their slave armies. The first independent Muslim ruler of Egypt relied on black slaves and at his death was said to have left 24,000 (white) Mamaluks and 45,000 Nubian military slaves. In north Africa the source of black slaves from Nubia and Sudan were too convenient to ignore. At the time of the Fatimid defeat, in the twelfth century, black troops formed the majority of the army.

        The Europeans abolished this practice and to do this they colonized Africa and later the Muslim world. So your Muslim ancestors were not so Lilly white in all of this.

        All of our ancestors were enslaved at one time also, but we had to get past it, grow up and get on with our lives and not use it as a crutch.
        We all have something that we can go back to even in our own lives that were unfair to us, or where we were wronged, but if we allow ourselves to dwell in that, we will never get past that and grow up to our full potential.

  • Alex

    Rather than wrestle in the toilet stall of Organized Religion, into which both Jesus and Mohammed urinate, I will address only Mr Rolley’s keen misunderstanding of the short straw Conservatives have drawn in our ridiculous two party system, and howl reality will walk all over his vision of a Reich Wing resurgence.

    The voting populace in these United States—this Exceptional American experiment in genocide, theft, forced labor, and ethnic cleansing gone horribly mad—will only become younger, decidedly less Caucasoid, more female, less material-driven, and more concerned with passing a liveable Earth to their progeny. This portends a bleak future for Crapitalism in general and Fright Wing politics in particular—coming generations will laugh at the Amerikkkan ideals of exploitation and accumulation. Already, in fact, we see better days at hand—your bogeyman president, the non-American, Muslim, Marxist, Satan Obama was reelected by a considerable margin, the “commie” Democrats upped their lead in the Senate and out-polled the GOP in congressional races by FIVE MILLION votes in aggregate. Viewers are leaving Faux Noose en masse while more and more of the young and the female actually listen to Rachel Maddow HERSELF and not what some GOP squawking point says about her….

    While little Tea Tantrums will occasion the election of this wacky Senator here or that ignorant Congressperson there—exclusively in backwards and poorly-educated areas— we will see, incrementally at first and then in free-fall, the abandonment of your old ways.
    Becoming increasingly Progressive, as more and more enlightened people are elected to the offices that confirm its justices, the Supreme Court will be filled with intelligent people capable of overseeing a rewriting of the worn-out and archaic Constitution to more accurately reflect the changing times as well as the will of a more thoughtful populace.

    Certainly, the transition will be very tough for most of the Spoiled American class, used as they are to gratification through excess. Many of you will just not make it, unable to embrace change, even when that change is decidedly for the better.

    Your grandchildren may forgive you for your poor planning, your myopia, and your lack of Human Values. They will look back at the folly of our ways, the superstition and lemming-like rush to our own quick demise, much as we are amazed at the Dark Ages.

    • FreedomFighter

      Wow – what seething smoking pile of hate you just spewed comrade.

      Communism can only win thru force and then only for a short time, as demonstrated all over the world. Our “our ridiculous two party system” isnt exactly 2 parties anymore, due to infiltration of communist and socialist whom have disrupted the workings of government, then blame it on a failed system – only the system failed due to sabotage from them.

      I will take a constitutional America any day – keep your faithless, athiest religon of socialism and communism it really is a failure.

      BTW dont Radical Islamics hang athiests?

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

      • Stuart C. Ashley

        Well, I think I am going to throw in my lot with Freedom Fighter. Here is the precident: Early on in the 20th century Socialism and Communism were somewhat tolerated in the United States. Eventually Communism, but not Socialism, was outlawed, not on the basis that it is different, but on the basis that it advocated violent overthrow of the present government. In other words, it ‘s methodology was to use the freedom characterized by our form of government to eradicate our form of government. If you haven’t started to see a similarity here between the reasons we outlawed Communism and the reasons we should outlaw Muslim-ism (a new word here), than you all are not as perceptive as I think you are.
        Cheers! Stu.

      • Alex

        I am not an Atheist, for sure, and I am not an Agnostic.

        My belief, which is shared by many people, is that there exists a God or a number of Gods, all ineffable and, for the most part, amorphous and indefinable. A guiding and creative entity, not to be FEARED but loved.

        When human beings tell you that they know what God is and what God wants, they are only using your fear and gullibility in order to extract whatever power and money you may cede to them.

    • http://mjnellett.simplesite.com MJNellett

      Alex, you Progressives are standing in a dark place imagining yourselves to be “enlightened”. If America keeps on sliding backwards morally and ethically you won’t have to worry about what America will be like,because it will be like every other socialist nation lost in the dusty pages of history. Enlightened? The more you Progressives profess to know, the dumber you get.

      • Texas Ride

        These arrogant “progressives” beat their skinny, hairless chests thinking they have a clue about what is going to happen to this country.

        In reality, their’s is an “old and failed ideology” that has never succeeded anywhere in the world. They boast about what is taking the country BACKWARD, while in their convoluted minds they think they have “new progressive, FORWARD ideas.”
        What a joke! They show their stupidity everytime they open their mouths and go on some idiotic tyraid.They all have a “mental disorder” that is detrimental their to own health.

      • Alex

        Show us, please, ONE place where Capitalism has ever worked!
        Please, just one…

    • JCfromDC

      More socialist hooey from the brainwashed “ME” generation — composed of spoiled, left-thinking, self-serving, juvenile mentalities of Baby-boomers. All you people seem to think is that “big daddy” government is the answer to all your “me first” problems: fix MY bad debts, fix MY mortgage, increase MY food stamps, ad nauseum. It never has been, and never will be, no matter how the left deludes you into thinking so. Once a government GIVES you everything YOU want, it will have become BIG enough to TAKE it all away. The “considerable margin” your false Messiah was elected with was 51% of the popular, hardly considerable. Since that time he has managed to piss off just about everyone, on both sides of the aisle, issuing decrees like the King of Kings he envisions himself to be, while his court jester Rachel Maddow crows along, as usual, like the badger on PMS that she is. BTW, Fox STILL has a larger audience than CNN, PMSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC combined. Why? Because it is still more credible in the long haul. If it isn’t, then why is the left so fearful of it? When this liberal spending orgy-house of cards comes falling down, and displaying weakness to our self-stated enemies comes down on our heads, then you people might just wake up and smell the smoke.

      See? We can sound just as juvenile as YOU do Alex, without even trying as hard, and still make more sense. Hope you like the sound of it. But you won’t. Your response will be yet another tantrum. Ho hum.

      • Alex

        Let me point out, once again, the Great Flaw in Faux Noose ratings argument:

        Fox enjoys a captive audience—weak, fearful, and unimaginative. Listen to your average Fright Winger—the constant Pavlovian call-and-response memes, the same Teabagger squawking points.

        The brighter people of the Left cull information and opinion from VARIANT sources— which includes Fox News!!!—therefore, the curious Progressive mind spreads its attention amongst many sources—Fox News, MSNBC, the Big 3, LinkTV, PBS, Al Jazeera,
        BBC, RN, et cetera, diluting the ratings value for a particular source.

        We are just WAY more informed. Grow up and deal with reality…

    • SSGRick

      Are you talking about the intellectuals who were recently asked about obaMAO pardoning the sequester and giving it to Portugal? Or the educated ones who recently claimed that the sequester had Constitutional Rights? How about the educated people who only voted for obaMAO because he was black? Those people are they your future? Ha I see nothing but failure and ignorance in the future under your proposed system. “Oh you do-gooders and would be rulers of mankind, Ah you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.” Frederic Bastiat circa 1850 it was true then and still remains so today! Society would be so much better off if you reformers would only REFORM YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • FreedomFighter

    “‘Who The Hell Do These Muslims Think They Are?’ And Could American Conservatives Accidently Enable Them?”

    Muslim religon is a cult by definition, they kill you if you dont join, and kill you if you leave, beat you if you dont follow the rules they set down and war with all around them that dont believe as they do…a cult, a nasty evil cult and should be banned from America because it is a cult of domination and destruction…

    IMHO no real conservatives should accidently or deliberatly enable any form of Islam, its poison to society and our liberty and freedom.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • walter77777

      Oy vay iz mir! Islam is a cult, but the Roman Church which has harbored and hidden child molesters in the clergy for centuries is no cult. You might want to get some education. You might want to put some brains into the your jarhead.

      W.

      • FreedomFighter

        Walter – Im not a Catholic, but I understand the position they take, they have spoken on it many times, maybe you should educate yourself to the “real position of the church” on such matters.

        I personally feel pity for gays, stuck in the wrong body, expected by society to be what they are not. Yet its not being gay, its societys acceptance of it as norm, when it is plain to the eye it is not. If they church trys to help these people and protect them it does not make them a “cult”, it makes them men of compassion.

        No doubt what they did was wrong by any measure and I certainly dont condone it, and I feel they should face the full extent of law, but it does not lower my admiration for the compassion of the church for these men.

        Islamics would just hang them an move on to beating women, mutilation of women, sex with the dead, decapitation, burning christian churches, bombing buildings and other favorite Islamic hobbies.

        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

      • Jana

        Freedom Fighter,
        Islamists are noted for taking their young boys for their own pleasures. Even about 4 years ago a fifteen year old boy rebuffed the advances of his male teacher and had acid thrown in his face for it. Was the teacher punished? NO.
        They are are pedophiles. In fact, their great leader Mohammad was a pedophile. When he was 54 years old he “married” a 6 year old girl, but was good enough to wait to consummate the marriage till she was a whole 8 years of age. Wow how good of him.

      • FreedomFighter

        Thanks Janet, didnt know about the man/boy thing about muslims,

        I did know about the rape of little girls and the mutilation of them, thank you for adding to my information base…btw can you point to a couple of news releases or source information on this subject?

        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        FreedomFighter, here is something on the muslims man/boy relations (it starts @11:15)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mZPIbz-n_c

        Also google an article “Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds”

        F/F, Welcome to discovering the TRUTH thru the self-education

      • Jana

        Freedom Fighter,
        What Alondra gave you is oh so right on target.
        Another on where the boy is pressing charges is:

        On his hospital bed last week, 16-year-old Abid Tanoli sat listless and alone, half of his body covered by burns that all but destroyed both his eyes and left his face horribly disfigured.

        The teenager talked, with difficulty, of how his life had been destroyed since the fateful day in June 2002 when he refused to have sex with his teacher at a religious school in Pakistan.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Acid-attack-on-boy-who…cleric.html

        I used to have so many of these stories but my computer died and they died along with it. Those acid burns don’t look any better on a young boy than they do a young girl or woman.

        In the last part of the piece Alondra gave you she talks about the man boy thing too., and no I can’t find a source for it on line I just know from people being over there that it is common knowledge. They do think women are dirty and you can figure out the rest.

      • http://personalliberty Alondra

        Jana says: “Alondra gave you she talks about the man boy thing too.,.and no I can’t find a source for it on line”.

        Jana, here is the source for the article I mentioned: “Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds”
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/

      • Jana

        Alondra,
        Thank you for that information. It isn’t just the Afghani’s though, it is all Muslims. It is just their culture. They think nothing of it.
        I have had relatives over in Iraq and in Afghanistan as well as Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan and some of the other Muslim countries. The stories are pretty much the same.

        However I will say they also said they met some really nice Iraqi men and women. The men would look around to see if anyone was looking and then hug my relative and say thank you thank you. Some of the Iraqi’s reported where the insurgents were going to attack and it saved American lives.
        One woman was selling food something she was not allowed to do under Saddam Hussein. She said in her native language and her husband was translating for her (he was disabled) (and she was quite animated) that they were starving before because she was not allowed to work under Saddam, but now she can work and save her family. Saddam and his sons were evil evil men. If they saw a woman married or not that they wanted they would go into her house and take her and no one could do a thing about it. When they finished with the woman, they would usually kill her.

      • Jana

        Obviously Saddam and his sons went both ways.

  • Sun Rising

    It’s time to scrap the Todd Akinses and the Richard Murdocks of the national Republican Party and opt for a more libertarian, less moral-centric version of the GOP to represent the Nation in Congress. But this doesn’t mean throwing aside all of the moral and evangelical values that many among the conservative electorate cherish; it is simply time to focus those values more heavily on State legislative and local elections.

    This is key. The “moral” sect of the republicans pften accuse this kind of statement as allowing a cultural slide. But the Founders were strong opponents of government intervention in moral matters. That includes both liberal stripping of religion and the moral right injecting religion into life.

    The federal government was set up to be religious blind, yet its laws were based on a wide variety of religious basis.

    Our moral base was codified in common law in a generic nonreligious form.

    If we keep the founding guidance alive we will not need to fear the religious impacts one way or the other.

  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Montesquieu, the famous French political thinker:

    “A moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a DESPOTIC Government to the Mahometan.

    THE Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel, is INCOMPATIBLE with the DESPOTIC RAGE with which a prince punishes his subjects, and EXERCISES HIMSELF IN CRUELTY.” – “The Spirit of the Laws”, Book XXIV, Chapter III, 1748

    “It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given BY A CONQUEROR. The Mahometan religion, which speaks ONLY BY THE SWORD, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.” – “The Spirit of the Laws”, Book XXIV, Chapter IV

  • Kevin O’Brien

    The author says conservatives should refrain from pushing their ideology nationally and should move if the local ideology is unacceptable. Why is this sentiment always one way with liberals? Liberals have been pushing anti-religion bigotry (secularism) on a national level along with other silly PC crap (not to mention imposing Obamacare and more), though I agree that Muslims have no right to expect us to set aside our beliefs in their presence and knuckle under. In that respect Muslims and progressive liberals, and much smaller groups of right fringe nuts (not simple conservatives, Republicans, or Tea Party members), have the desire to FORCE others to their ideology. If a liberal doesn’t like guns perhaps they should move to Switzerland (or simply don’t buy one instead of trying to take everyone else’s away-duh!) and stop taking away women’s choice in the matter. If they don’t like large sodas or fast food, don’t buy them instead of taking everyone else’s choice away. As the author asks… “who do they think they are?” The difference today between liberals and conservatives is that if a liberal doesn’t like something they want it banned for everyone, and if they approve of something they want everyone forced to it through legislation. Liberty loving conservatives don’t want either and are the ones who believe in real, actual choice. Conservatives seem better positioned to co-exist with differing ideologies who are willing to leave others alone than are liberals who insist that everyone be like them, and if not they should be forced to be via legislation. In that respect progressive liberals and Muslim fundamentalists are on the same page.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      To start Kevin that sentiment isn’t always one way with liberals. I am a liberal. Though I do not believe in any organized religion I denounce anti religious bigotry. I do not expect others to be like me though I admit I try and convince people to. But if they do not wish I do not push. It is the same for Muslims towards Islam. At least that is the way it is for the Muslims I know. Liberals don’t want to ban or force anything. I don’t want to to ban soda or fast food. I think you are mistaking liberals for extremists. You are mistaking left for far left.

    • Jana

      Kevin,

      You say, “The author says conservatives should refrain from pushing their ideology nationally and should move if the local ideology is unacceptable. Why is this sentiment always one way with liberals? Liberals have been pushing anti-religion bigotry (secularism) on a national level along with other silly PC crap (not to mention imposing Obamacare and more)”——————

      You are so right. There is always someone wanting us to give up our STANDARDS.
      I can no more give up my standards than quit breathing.

  • ONTIME

    Unfortunately for the cult islamics, this country is based on Judeo/Christian Law and uses the rule of law, We are a Representative Republic, not a theocracy, we expect those who want citizenship and to live in America to assimilate and live under our laws, not made up shariah law that condones intolerance, criminal action and inability to conform to the truth.

    Austrailia has had to make it clear to these useless cults that they need to move out and go find a new place if they cannot conform to our laws…I make the point it will be the same here…

  • TML

    Seems like a simple issue in which the solution is already ingrained in the Constitution.
    In this country, they can segregate themselves only upon consent, but no rules and no laws should be in place to respect that, nor to disallow it, else it would obviously be a breach of the 1st Amendment. That is the line; stand that ground and respect each other. The squabbling over the issue seem childish.

    • Jana

      TML,

      Is Sharia Law ingrained in our Constitution? I don’t think so ! Yet we have Muslims suing Popeyes and McDonalds because they think they are not serving Halal meats. Yes, we are already having to eat fast food meats that conform to the Muslims belief system.(Sharia Law)

      Just look up Muslims sue fast foods, it gives you quite an eye full.

      What about the Sharia compliant Banks?

      Shariah Compliant Banks – Jim’s Diodon, Christian American …
      We receive many emails asking us for a list of banks participating in Sharia finance. We urge you to visit this website. It lists financial institutions here and …
      adjunct.diodon349.com/…on_USA/shariah_compliant_banks.htm

      Go ahead and close your eyes and ears and be lulled to sleep with a false sense of superiority.

      • TML

        Jana says “Is Sharia Law ingrained in our Constitution? I don’t think so !”

        Of course not, neither is Christianity or any other religion which was the point.

        Jana says “Yet we have Muslims suing Popeyes and McDonalds because they think they are not serving Halal meats. Yes, we are already having to eat fast food meats that conform to the Muslims belief system.(Sharia Law)”

        Halal meat is like Kosher foods. Get a grip. I didn’t see anywhere that they had succeeded in their effort to sue, and how exactly is that any different than someone suing McDonalds for their coffee being too hot? People do dumb things. What’s even worse is those people who try to legislate the food people can eat, such as we have seen recently in New York, by people that aren’t even Muslim.

        Jana says “What about the Sharia compliant Banks?

        What about them? We have Jewish compliant banks as well. Frankly, I don’t like any bank whatsoever.

  • Fay Guht

    Hang on. The militant muslims are going to become the global police force for the 1%ers. Notice how everything is becoming more and more “militarized?” Police, bureacrats, etc? Spead this muslim riffraff around the world, then declare a global Jihad, and poof!…..destruction, mayhem and martial law. Obey, or die by the sword.

  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Truth about islam – British man’s view on islam
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg

  • http://personalliberty Alondra
  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Brit on mosque at Ground Zero
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4

  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Islam and hypocritical and STUPID Liberals like Jeremy, Karolyn and her mental twin evil man bob666
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk

    • Bob666

      Oh Pigsty,
      Still pinning as an Obama Girl and he won’t give you the time of day. Don’t let the door hit you in your ginormas rear end when you leave.

  • Chris

    Gender-segregated seating…….not nice, but no big deal: after all, the amendments say the government shall not get involved in religious “practices”. However, when those religious “practices” DO harm to someone physically, that “IS” a big deal……….well, we all know what “physical” harm is (against the law), but what about the “mental” harm that the “no big deal” gender-segregation may be causing??????? I guess that means the amendments okay “mental” abuse? I thought we did away with “segregation” years ago!

  • http://RevoltAgainstMarxism.com Russ

    I submit Islam is not a religion ! It is political/military movement!
    We must outlaw Sharia Law!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.