|
|
|
|
|
| | The Constitution and religious freedom Page 10 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) |
and not here
That's just the point. America isn't prey to that sort of mayhem, because we have something they don't--the Constitution. I think it's ironic to see that the very same people who take such a simplistic, extreme--and uniformed--view of the Establishment Clause are willing to ignore most of the Constitution's other restraints on the U.S. government, and practically to disregard the 2d and 10th Amendments altogether.
But playing fast and loose with any part of the Constitution eats away at all the rest of it, too. That's the irony--sticking close to the original meaning of the Constitution protects the individual rights and freedoms of all of us. And making the Constitution say what we wish it did--whatever it may gain this group or that in the short run--undermines those rights and freedoms. If most of us think something in the Constitution's intolerable, we can amend it. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/11/2010 11:27:58 PM |
If this country had any strong colonial ambitions since then, why didn't it keep everything it controlled in 1945? No country in the world has ever been in a better position to colonize whatever it chose. It could have used its nuclear monopoly to prevent anyone else in the world from even trying to get nuclear weapons, and then dictated whatever it liked. That's what victors had usually done before. But the U.S. didn't claim any of the territory it had set free. It occupied Germany and Japan only until they had recovered and formed stable governments of their own.
Do many Muslims really believe the U.S. is a colonial presence in Muslim countries? How do you know that isn't just Islamist propaganda, meant to make us believe that they think that? After all, that was bin Laden's main reason for declaring war on the U.S. in his 1996 fatwa--supposedly our crime was having troops in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are. But that was a transparent lie. There aren't any U.S. troops there now, but the jihadists have made up all sorts of other pretexts.
Yes, these points do need to be reiterated. I think a lot of it has to do with projection. If they or their governments had the kind of power we have, they'd certainly go for the grand empire. So,Who wouldn't? Their main complaint is our backing of Israel, and it stinks to high heaven that we're getting such grief for doing what we felt was compassionate and right at the time. We might have done better to welcome the Jews here instead of backing them in creating a nation on land that we didn't have soveriegnty over at the time. But what's done is done and now we have a situation on our hands. We can't abandon the Israelis and we can't deny that their establishment by the UN with our backing is still a thorn in the side of the entire Muslim world.
You're rehashing a claim Soviet propagandists made fifty years ago. What evidence is there that the U.S. *ever has been* a colonial power worth the name?
Well, there's Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, our involvement with the banana republics in South America, our possession of the Phillipines, and our backing of so many dictators like Sadaam during the Cold War. We have our virtues as a nation and we also have our vices. The Muslim nations have good reason not to implicitly trust us. Does that mean they shouldn't trust us at all? No. We deserve to be trusted for the most part, and many of them deserve to be trusted too--though perhaps not implicitly. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/11/2010 11:30:18 PM |
But playing fast and loose with any part of the Constitution eats away at all the rest of it, too. That's the irony--sticking close to the original meaning of the Constitution protects the individual rights and freedoms of all of us. And making the Constitution say what we wish it did--whatever it may gain this group or that in the short run--undermines those rights and freedoms. If most of us think something in the Constitution's intolerable, we can amend it.
Well said. That goes for Amendmens 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14, regardless of which we might personally prefer over others. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:46:03 AM | Hey Ace
Now I am confused. You wrote:
''Not this week, and not here. But Bosnia wasn't all that long ago, and neither was Northern Ireland. We all have our extremists.''
I am missing the connection with Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and the premise that christianity is involved in the terrorist business, or is at least as involved as militant islamists are. Did I miss something?
Bosnia did have militant islamists at the core of the problem, which is something that most people have no clue about, but Ireland?
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:55:01 AM | The Bosnian Serbs were Christian. They ethnically cleansed the Bosnian Muslims and buried them in mass graves. The Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland were engaged in their "troubles" for most of our lifetimes. It was only recently that they stopped murdering each other in fits of sectarian violence.
Apparently not all Christians can agree on their religion or on sharing land with people who believe differently than they do. HENCE THE NEED FOR A CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, regardless of the religions that might be present. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 12:32:06 PM | ^^^^^^^
Actually, in order to be correct about it, the Bosnian Serbs are orthodox Serbian, slightly different than catholics, but very close non the less. The problem in Bosnia was that the muslims in bosnia were looking to establish a state of their own, and the Serbs, who have been there since there were Serbs, opposed that. As far as mass graves, NONE has been found, neither by the WHO, or the United Nations. There is no problem living in any orthodox Serbian majority country, as long as you don't want to take it over, and declare sharia law.
I was born and lived in an area about 30 kilometers from Belgrade, and can unequivocally say that the communists were hell to live under if you were religious. As a matter of fact, that is the reason we imigrated to the US. The orthodox church does not run any part of Serbia, never has, never will. What the Serbs don't want is others coming into their territory, that has been Serbian for centuries, and wanting to set up a islamic religion based country.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:08:17 PM | And here the U.S. was going to bat for the Muslims in Kosovo. Islamism has cropped up in a lot of places. It's rampant in countries like the U.K., France, and the Netherlands, and the Russians have a lot of it in Chechnya and nearby areas. The Chinese have dealt pretty harshly with their Uighar Muslim extremists (which is why the U.S. didn't send the ones released from Gitmo back there.) It's all over Africa--Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya. It's a problem in the Phillipines.
But the heart of it's in the Middle East and South Asia. It's no accident it burst out in both Iran and Afghanistan in 1979, where the Russians lost a lot of soldiers trying to defeat it. And now it's threatening the government of Pakistan, where a good part of the population likes its Islam straight up, in its most intolerant, hateful, backward, form. (Of course, that's not much of a danger to the world, compared to those "Guns and Jesus" survivalists lurking in the backwoods of Idaho!)
India's just leasing a brand new Russian attack sub for ten years. Good idea. Pakistan's boxed in, and it would be in big trouble if India (or some other power) were to close its ports. The world needs to get the attention of reasonable Pakistanis, and letting them think about the possibility of being blockaded may help. They could do a lot more to control the jihadists who live there, and the rest of the world has to demand it. Too many in Pakistan's ruling class are still sympathetic to the extremists. Its military intelligence agency sponsored one large faction of the Taliban and built camps for them in Afghanistan. And someone there has allowed a number of attacks on India, including the jihadist assault on Mumbai a year or so ago. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:17:44 PM | Paul,
Your account matches what was reported about Kosovo, but not Bosnia. The reason that Milosovic and Vladic were tried for crimes against humanity was because of the mass graves that were found there.
Here is one report from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3120772.stm
The commies might well have been hell to live under for the religious, but as it was a secular government, they put a stop to sectarian violence in the region that had been going on between the Orthodox Christian Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims pretty-much unabated for centuries. They don't call it "Balkanization" for nothing.
My point is not that Serbs or Northern Irish or anyone else are evil. Most are not. Some might well be, and those who are have demonstrated that they are capable of justifying their evil acts on the basis of their professed religion. My point is that there has to be a check on any form of religious zealotry, which requires the police power provided by an impartial government. Just like anything that undermines the right to bear arms, anything that undermines the separation of church and state is a threat to our safety and our freedom.
If you agree with that last assertion we don't have to argue this any more. If you disagree with that assertion, then please tell me why you think that the police power would be safe in the hands of any religious authority for an indefinite period. You might think it's safe in the hands of Christians--at least that's what you imply, but I'm thinking about the Salem witch trials. No. The proper role for a government among free people is to provide a safe and neutral backdrop in which individual citizens can freely worship however they choose. That is the only proper relationship between religious authorities and government authorities. In any public or governmental setting, those who want to pray, pray in such a way that those who do not want to pray, or pray differently, are not excluded. It is easy enough to do if a religious authority is decent and respectful of individual rights. If not, I do not want someone like that operating or unduly influencing my government. Nor should you. What difference does it make if a statist wants to suppress all religions or just yours? | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:24:42 PM |
It's no accident it burst out in both Iran and Afghanistan in 1979, where the Russians lost a lot of soldiers trying to defeat it.
Well, that's a charitable assessment if I ever heard one. I don't think the Soviets even considered the religion of those they overthrew or undermined. It was all just geopolitics to them. Religions were so much superstition to them: beneath contempt. They didn't have to defeat Islamism. All they had to do was secure the means of production, and _then_ eradicate religion. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 2:51:09 PM | Hey Ace
You wrote:
''If you agree with that last assertion we don't have to argue this any more. If you disagree with that assertion, then please tell me why you think that the police power would be safe in the hands of any religious authority for an indefinite period.''
I firmly believe that NO religious authority has any business with any secular power whatsoever. In that we agree fully. That is very simply put in the 1st amendment, in that the 1st amendment b asically states that the state will not set up a state religion. The argument that stems from that is the definition of what setting up a state religion means..............
Probably the only thing that Tito did well was to keep all of the various factions, who would go to war with each other at the drop of piece of baklava, from slaughtering each other. There is a fine line to be drawn to that fracus, and that is that the Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrans, Slovenians... did I leave anybody out?.... all had a common enemy. And that was when the muslims swept through the area.............. While Tito was sitting on all of them, all was well. And, they begrudgingly got along. Then the old boundries faded, they intermarried, etc. Had they just been able to stay civilized for a few generations more........... Once they got their old countries back, it was back to business as usual........... slice and dice each other, with a common enemy, and that would be the muslim.
The problem that you refer to is because you refer to the "Bosnian Muslims". There were no Bosnian muslims, until the muslims injected themselves into the picture, and, until they started clamoring for their own independent state, they were treated as well as anybody else. That area was as "Bosnian", about as distinct as Croatians, and Serbs, and Slovenians and Montengrans can be. Had the muslims just went about their business, there wouldn't have been a problem, but they wanted more than the Bosnians wanted to give, and who can blame them. The Bosnians didn't just wake up one day and decide to eliminate the muslims, they were provoked. Did they carry it too far............. probably..............
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 5:51:36 PM |
There were no Bosnian muslims, until the muslims injected themselves into the picture, and, until they started clamoring for their own independent state, they were treated as well as anybody else.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the Muslim invasion occur something like 500 years ago? Under British common law, adverse possession of land confers title after only 7. That tradition of title after tenancy had to come from somewhere.
At a certain point, you either accept people with their differences or you don't. If we follow the reasoning that only people who are welcome get to stay, we'd all best pack up our gear and head back to Europe, Asia, and Africa, or wherever our ancestors hailed from, because we have certainly worn out our welcome with the Native Americans--another de facto ethnic cleansing operation based on the notion of Christian superiority if there ever was one.
Besides, it wasn't just the Muslims in this last Balkan upheaval. The Serbs went after the Croats as Nazi collaborators, or maybe it was the reverse. And the Croats went after the Serbs as Commie henchmen of Tito, or some such. And yes, the Muslims got the worst of it, but the point is that it was all done in the name of religion. Christians cannot claim moral superiority on the grounds that they are less bigoted. Some are. Some aren't.
We might have a different view of the players involved, but I'm glad to see that we agree on the principle. With such differing viewpoints, I very much appreciate that we can trust each other when it comes to upholding the principle. That, more than anything else, is what makes America so great. I pluribus unum. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 6:18:50 PM | Hey Ace....
Now I understand....... we are talking about two different times that the muslims wanted to create their own state..
You wrote:
''Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the Muslim invasion occur something like 500 years ago?''
YES it did, but then after the communists left, they decided that they kinda would rather have their own run the show, and bascially tried to change it to muslim law, and the Bosnians would have none of it. At the time, Bosnia was loosely confederated with Serbia, as was Montenegro, so that is how Milosavic got involved.
What would you have the Bosnians do? It was still their country, they were the majority, even though the muslims were breeding like rats, and in a short time would have outnumbered them. This is basically what happened in Kosovo, but in Kosovo it was even more agregious, because these muslims were coming from another communist $hithole called albania, and wanted to take the "Kosovo Region of Serbia" for their own, and basically did, with the help of the rest of the ignorant world. The Kosovo Region of Serbia is where they first proclaimed their kingdom way back before the fight with the muslim turks in the mid 1300's. So to say that the poor muslims were innocent victums here is revisionary history at it best. What would you say if the poor mexicans rose up and occupied the southwest of the US, and tried to turn it into mexico? Hey, that is happening, now that I think of it.
As far as the Croat/Serb conflict, yeah, it's real, and yeah, the vast majority of the Croats sided with hitler, AT THE BEHEST OF THE THEN CURRENT POPE. So, no, I don't have a lot of respect for many religions. How do I know this? Because my father turned 18 in 1940, and was conscripted by Tito to fight with the Partisani against both Hitler and the catholic Croats.
The Croat/Serb conflict is more of territory, in that neither side has ever wanted to convert the other to their religion. The ONLY side that has tried to convert others to their religion are the muslims. When you say that the fight is about religion, if you are referring to anything that the muslims are involved in, you are right, if you are referring to the Croat/Serb conflict, you are wrong. To them it was a border dispute. The whole time that Tito sat on them, the borders got fuzzy, croats married Serbs..... then all of a sudden they got their country back, and wanted as much of it as possible.
More details if you want them.........
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:01:43 PM | in Kosovo it was even more agregious, because these muslims were coming from another communist $hithole called albania, and wanted to take the "Kosovo Region of Serbia" for their own, and basically did, with the help of the rest of the ignorant world.
This is exactly how the Muslims feel about Israel.
What would you have the Bosnians do?
What would you have the Palestinians/Jordanians/Lebanese/Bedouin do?
What would I have them all do? I would have them all refer back to the concept of individual rights, sort out questions of land title according to law, and make it clear to them that their ability to live and worship as they choose depends on their willingness to protect the rights of others who are different to do so as well.
| |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:31:12 PM | The Muslims in the rest of Europe are creating the same kind of problems. They have a much higher birthrate than the natives, and as soon as they form a large community, they invariably start trying to impose their own laws. Many of them, if not most, don't *want* to assimilate. They want to take over, keeping their backward ways, "honor killings," veils, and all. Every one of their communities is also a potential base for jihadists, and they've been the breeding grounds for many terrorist plots, both here and in Europe.
No country has to let Islamists subvert their culture through creeping sharia. How many of these parasites, if they still lived in whatever he!!hole of a country they came from, would tolerate Europeans moving in and insisting on doing things their way? Precious few. I'm sure the locals had good reason to start letting these slobs in, but I'll bet most of them wish they never had.
Here, the Supreme Court's recognized many times that Congress has full control over matters involving aliens. We can completely forbid immigration from any country we choose, for whatever reason we like. We can also deport any non-resident aliens we like--all we need to do is give them a hearing first. The U.S. shouldn't be issuing visas to people from problem countries like Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia, and I don't see any reason to let non-resident aliens from those countries remain here. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 8:36:29 PM | Hey Ace
What would I have have the Palestinians/Jordanians/Lebanese/Bedouin do? I would have them all refer back to the concept of individual rights, sort out questions of land title according to law, and make it clear to them that their ability to live and worship as they choose depends on their willingness to protect the rights of others who are different to do so as well.
You wrote it out as good as it gets.
There is a difference when it comes to Bosnia, in that there is no question as to who was there first, who has had title to the land, and which of the two parties are willing to let the other live and worship as they wish. It is called Bosnia, because that group has had the longest control over the area. Before the Isrealis took over, the area they took over was called "Palestine"................. That having been said, what happened over there was baskically an act of eminent domain that at the time was sanctioned by the vast majority of the world, and the quasi watchdog of the world, the UN. My opinion is that is hasn't worked out all that well, but it is way past the point of return.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 9:06:24 PM |
This is exactly how the Muslims feel about Israel.
Maybe, but the question is whether they have any justification for feeling that way. There were Jews living in Palestine even before the Arabs were there. Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank after the Arabs (with their ex-Nazi mercenaries) attacked Israel in 1948. Israel reclaimed this area in 1967, after it had defeated the same coalition of Arab states in the Six-Day War.
I doubt if most Pakistanis, Sudanese, Afghans, etc. give a d--n about the Arabs who now call themselves--misleadingly--"The Palestinians." And if some Muslims do, it's probably because it adds to their sense of shame and humiliation to see other Muslims get a butt-whipping every time they start a fight. Tough luck.
These curs would rather hate the West for being so far ahead of them, than blame themselves. It's the same kind of jealous resentment and false pride that led millions of Germans to support the Nazis, and just as vile. If Muslims don't want to live in failed, miserable countries, let them figure out what it is in their culture and religion that hasn't worked, and change it. Or not--but leave us the he!! alone. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/12/2010 11:59:28 PM |
They didn't have to defeat Islamism.
I'd be the last one to defend the Soviet Union. And you're right that the communist government was hostile to religion in general. But I think if you look into this you'll find they invaded Afghanistan because they were concerned about Muslim extremism breaking out just across their southern border. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgizstan, etc. were Soviet republics, and the Russian leadership in Moscow were worried that the millions of Muslims in those places would catch the fever and turn against communist rule. (Uzbekistan is now home to all kinds of Muslim jihadists, and they control part of that country.)
Russia still has a festering Muslim problem in Chechnya, and part of Georgia is a haven for jihadists who cross into Russia to carry out terrorist attacks. But Russia and China, unlike the U.S. and western Europe, deal very harshly with Islamists. They don't care if they *do* live in their countries, or even if they're citizens. They just slaughter them, even if it means flattening parts of a city with jet bombers and artillery, as the Russians did in Grozny. And I suspect the Chinese deal with troublesome Islamists much like they do common murderers. Give them what they call a trial, have a soldier shoot them behind the ear with a rifle, and then send the chump's family a bill for the cartridge. Makes life rough for jihadists.
Speaking of radical Islam, apparently another Iranian nuclear scientist has had a fatal accident. Dangerous business.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aT3gNEy3PnhQ | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/13/2010 12:03:12 AM | ^^^^^^
My bet is that the Mousaad had something to do with it, as you can't make a nuke without the nuke scientists. Isrealis are very practical sometimes.
Paul K | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/13/2010 7:49:05 AM | | This is the second one. An Iranian nuclear physicist named Ahmanpour somehow inhaled fluorine gas at a uranium enrichment plant a couple years ago and died. Soon after, Iran killed an Israeli defense attache in Paris and made it look like a suicide. Their military newspaper boasted about eliminating him. If the U.S. helped some Iranian dissidents to do this one, great. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/13/2010 12:38:24 PM | No country has to let Islamists subvert their culture through creeping sharia. How many of these parasites, if they still lived in whatever he!!hole of a country they came from, would tolerate Europeans moving in and insisting on doing things their way? Precious few. I'm sure the locals had good reason to start letting these slobs in, but I'll bet most of them wish they never had.
I completely agree. Individual rights trump religious customs. If a custom violates a right, those who are oppressed by it should have legal recourse through a secular authority. All the more reason to keep church--any church--separate in both fact and appearance.
The U.S. shouldn't be issuing visas to people from problem countries like Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia, and I don't see any reason to let non-resident aliens from those countries remain here.
I also agree with this for the most part. No nonresident aliens should get to remain here unless they are making a valuable contribution to our society. Personally, I like to eat and hang out in clean places, so nonresident aliens who do those sorts of jobs willingly are generally people I'm willing to keep around. But people who put their religion ahead of individual rights and the social contract have values that are fundamentally incompatible with our society. We need not acquiesce to their subversion of the social contract, even if they are citizens who claim to be conservative. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/13/2010 5:50:44 PM | Ace, I agree with you, that one person should not force their beliefs on another, taking away their freedom of choice, or lets say "Rights"
But this belief is not only religion, it is any belief. An Atheist shouldn't force his disbelief onto a believer. Just like those who believe in man made global warming shouldn't force their belief either.
All beliefs though, should be allowed to be discussed, debated and spoken.
I believe in God, I personally believe everyone should believe in Him, because I believe He exists. But this is me, It is my view and opinion, and I will share this what I believe to be true.
But in no way would I be involved in forcing anyone else to believe what I believe. Can you really force a belief onto someone else anyway, You may be able to make them act in some way, or do something, but this does not force them to believe. But my point is, you shouldn't force anyone to do anything.
The debate on Global Warming is not closed. To close the debate only is trying to force your will. I will argue that there are many things throughout history of this planet that has caused climate change. This earth has been warmer... and it has been colder... Closing the debate only keeps us from seeing the truth. It can be true that Man made CO2 has an effect, but to think this is the main effect and not looking at other things, only closes our minds. How different is this attitude to that of those who closed the debate of Science and saying the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat? I'm thinking we should be more concerned about another Ice Age... But probably thousands of years away. But that's just me.
Our Constitutional right is to believe in God, any God we wish, which would also mean No God if one wished. But in no time in the History of the United States has there ever been anyone who has tried to force a state religion on the masses. Until lately. There is a movement of a few, a minority, to take Christianity out of America, and force Atheism. Atheists are not attacking Muslims, or any other forms of believers, other than Christians, and God. We were founded in a belief of God, who ever you want that God to be, but in a Creator.
When I see the Catholic Church or Muslims or anyone else trying to exclude the other, I will stand up against them as well. If we exclude Christianity, we should exclude everyone, and come on.... We all know that is not possible. We all should have a right to voice our beliefs. Disagreeing is ok.... Trying to exclude and condemn is not. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/13/2010 6:18:31 PM | An Atheist shouldn't force his disbelief onto a believer. ...
All beliefs though, should be allowed to be discussed, debated and spoken.
Yep. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about.
Government offices aren't people. Officeholders may certainly speak for themselves about their own personal beliefs, but their personal beliefs should not interfere with the neutral conduct of their responsibilities. An atheist, for instance, should not censor children who want to put ornaments that say "Jesus" on a city-sponsored holiday tree. Nor should a Christian leading the invocation at a government sponsored meeting claim that all present are praying in the name of Jesus.
"Let those of us who believe in God, and those of us who do not, work together in unity for the common good. And may our efforts toward that end always be blessed with success. Amen." | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/19/2010 12:18:29 PM | Match, Jack, GG, and Paul,
I think we need to be clear about one essential thing with respect to Islamist terrorism. This isn't a conflict between Islam and Christianity. It is fundamentally a conflict over the primacy of secular vs. religious authority.
The reason that the Mujahadeen could immediately morph into Al Qaeda and go from fighting the Soviets to fighting us isn't so much that they're feckless or traitors. It is because we both represent a Godless form of government to them. They might have seen the Soviets as worse, and their invasion of Afghanistan as an opportunity to assert the primacy of Islam over Communism. But having done that and with the knowledge they acquired about to conduct a modern insurgency, of course the West, and particularly the US would be their next target.
They don't hate us because we're Christian. They hate us because we're secular. That is what they want to destroy because it threatens, in their eyes, the very foundation of their authority. And you know what? They're absolutely right. It does. We are, indeed the Great Satan--or so it seems to them. What they don't understand, and sadly Turkey hasn't been the greatest example, is that Islam can be practiced freely under a secular government that is committed to religious freedom.
The Pope & all his kings finally had to acquiesce. But the Mullahs and their "students?" They don't believe they do. Allah is on their side, so they think, and as long as they think that way they're capable of anything--just like anyone else who is convinced by religious authority or any other ideology that doesn't take human rights into account. | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/19/2010 3:00:05 PM | The terminology gets misleading--Al Qaeda, Taliban, Salafists, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Haqqani Network, etc. The one thing they and many dozens of similar movements have in common is that they're Islamic fundamentalists who are devoted to jihad. Most of them--and under the veneer, even the ones educated in the West--make the most backward, toothless, inbred, whisky-swilling, sister-jiggering stereotype of a hillbilly ever created by Hollywood look like Tony Blair.
These Third World turds want to force the rest of the world to live under their rule, and to kill everyone who refuses to accept their 7th century views. So, accept honor killings, women as slaves who must stay at home, stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death, lynchings and beheadings in the soccer stadium every Friday, the literal worship of blood and human sacrifice, and other similar savagery. Or we will kill you, slowly and agonizingly, as we mock you, laugh, and make videos of the proceedings.
No more showing those depraved movies--the eightplexes would long since have been burned down (after first packing them full with the brats of the apostates and unbelievers, barring the doors, and making their mothers--the whores! watch, to teach them the price of blasphemy!) Of course, the videos of these incidents, with screams and flames set against the background of sacred chants and drumbeats, would be available for moral instruction.
And there would be other amusement in their world. Things wouldn't be dull at all. There's the ever-popular sport of throwing a donkey off a rooftop, and then betting on how long it will writhe around in the dirt before it expires. Oh, so much fun! Or, you can always give the children one of the mangy yellow dogs that roam around at night chawing on the body parts that decorate the alleys and back lots. The boys, already young jihadists, like to use these vile dogs (which God has cursed) to practice their skills with torture and explosives.
This map, on a very good site, gives you an idea of the various forms and incarnations of this proud creme de la creme of Islam that now infests western Pakistan. I'll bet a lot of them have sore necks this month, from looking up to the sky every few minutes to see if there are any drones flying around.
http://www.criticalthreats.org/pakistan/2009-waziristan-conflict-map | |
|
| The Constitution and religious freedom
Posted: 1/19/2010 5:25:07 PM | I hate to say it, but we can't really be completely self righteous in demonizing these terrorists. To the extent that they are depraved, their actions speak for themselves. But our people have engaged in some fairly depraved stuff too. And if our operatives have facilitated delivery to torturers, observed torture, participated in it, or turned a blind eye to it while it has gone on, it means we differ only from the brigands in degree.
What keeps us in check? Somewhere even among the worst of us is that recognition that human rights supersede our own righteous indignation.
Curs they might actually be, but even the curs have rights--because if they don't, all I'd have to do to deprive you of yours is to call you a cur loudly enough and often enough to convince a mob. That's how they rally support among Muslims--by calling us Godless curs.
Having said that, the behavior your speak of is truly reprehensible. Those who engage in it must bear the consequences if there is to be any justice or peace in this world. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
10
of
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
|
|
Home
login 
