Muslim takeover in the UK....???

[Tags]

I believe in every freedom written in the US Constitution as long as none of those "freedoms" is used to dismantle the very Constitution that allows it......

So a 'religion' that has, as one of its doctrines, pedophilia, or human/animal sacrifice, marriage/sex with animals, and many other despicable practices long recognized as despicable in this western society from its very inception is not to be tolerated.....we won't and must not change the values of the very society we have created to appease some lunatics in the name of tolerance....

Can't live within our western social structure, ....leave....thats freedom.

Thats as plain as I can put it in this limited post....

As plain as I can read it, you don't believe in freedom of religion, the foundation of the United States and you don't believe in the Constitution. How un-American does that make you?

"The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right." - James Madison (you know, one of the founding fathers)

 

[Canceled2]

As plain as I can read it, you don't believe in freedom of religion, the foundation of the United States and you don't believe in the Constitution. How un-American does that make you?

"The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right." - James Madison (you know, one of the founding fathers)

So you would personally recognize a claim to "religion" just because someone says their beliefs are a religion? The things Bravo named are anathema not only to the idea of religious practice (worship of God), but to the very sense of our societal conduct.

 

[Canceled2]

As plain as I can read it, you don't believe in freedom of religion, the foundation of the United States and you don't believe in the Constitution. How un-American does that make you?

"The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right." - James Madison (you know, one of the founding fathers)

Madison was assuming a belief in God when he addressed General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia- here is where you pulled your quote from. Here is a snippet

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of

 

[Lowaicue]

As plain as I can read it, you don't believe in freedom of religion, the foundation of the United States and you don't believe in the Constitution. How un-American does that make you?

"The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right." - James Madison (you know, one of the founding fathers)

Ah yes, Madison. The man who designed the square gardens.

 

[Tags]

Addressing your first post: Bravo is referring to Islam, the second largest (and from what I've heard the fastest growing) religion in the world, not some dogma adhered to by only one person. It is globally recognized, so I don't see why you refer to it as a 'religion.' The actions of a few nuts do not represent the entire belief system if Islam. You can support the freedom of religion and still uphold the rule of law. Also, I recognize that Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic religions, Judeo-Christian belief follows Abraham's grandson Jacob (I think Jacob was the grandson), while Islam traces the genealogy from Abraham to his descendant Muhammad (Muslims see Abraham as the first Muslim).

Thank you for posting the whole quote. In my experience people will not read a long quote, so I try to post short ones, snippets as you called it. I think we should examine this thoroughly though. It supports my point of view very well.

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

The first paragraph refers to how Madison opposes establishing state supported teaching of the Christian religion.

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of

There is a very small portion of Christians or Muslims that believe that force and violence are part of their religion. Those that commit acts of violence should be dealt with just like any common criminal, without regard to their religion. Most have a belief in God (one god, the god of Abraham) that encourages rationality. He goes on to say that the belief in God is between each man's conscience and God. I don't think anyone on this board would appreciate the government trying to regulate their beliefs in God. Alias and Bravo would literally fight against a system that tried to control their religion, which I think they should. Our government, established on freedom since the Pilgrams fled England to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit, should not and cannot try to tell any person that their religion is wrong. Madison calls this an 'unalienable right'. He goes on to say that this right cannot be 'abridged by the institution of Civil Society'. In his third paragrah (you didn't quote it) he says, "The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves." This shows that any legislation that limits religion creates a tyrant, while any society that supports this restriction becomes slaves.

Restricting anyone's freedom of religion destroys everyone's freedom of religion.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Not according to Herman Cain and his adherents. Strangely, this man also fears a Muslim takeover: http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf

 

[Canceled2]

Addressing your first post: Bravo is referring to Islam, the second largest (and from what I've heard the fastest growing) religion in the world, not some dogma adhered to by only one person. It is globally recognized, so I don't see why you refer to it as a 'religion.' The actions of a few nuts do not represent the entire belief system if Islam. You can support the freedom of religion and still uphold the rule of law. Also, I recognize that Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic religions, Judeo-Christian belief follows Abraham's grandson Jacob (I think Jacob was the grandson), while Islam traces the genealogy from Abraham to his descendant Muhammad (Muslims see Abraham as the first Muslim).

Thank you for posting the whole quote. In my experience people will not read a long quote, so I try to post short ones, snippets as you called it. I think we should examine this thoroughly though. It supports my point of view very well.



The first paragraph refers to how Madison opposes establishing state supported teaching of the Christian religion.



There is a very small portion of Christians or Muslims that believe that force and violence are part of their religion. Those that commit acts of violence should be dealt with just like any common criminal, without regard to their religion. Most have a belief in God (one god, the god of Abraham) that encourages rationality. He goes on to say that the belief in God is between each man's conscience and God. I don't think anyone on this board would appreciate the government trying to regulate their beliefs in God. Alias and Bravo would literally fight against a system that tried to control their religion, which I think they should. Our government, established on freedom since the Pilgrams fled England to be able to practice their religion as they saw fit, should not and cannot try to tell any person that their religion is wrong. Madison calls this an 'unalienable right'. He goes on to say that this right cannot be 'abridged by the institution of Civil Society'. In his third paragrah (you didn't quote it) he says, "The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves." This shows that any legislation that limits religion creates a tyrant, while any society that supports this restriction becomes slaves.

Restricting anyone's freedom of religion destroys everyone's freedom of religion.

You deal with an individuals acts-agreed. But in the case of Muslim terrorism, terrorism in the name of Allah, then that groups religion must be viewed in order to understand why they are motivated. Agreed that this does not mean all Muslims are terrorist's- But all Muslim extremist's who support terrorism are. That number is estimated to be 1% of all Muslim's- about 1 million. There is no such correlation to extremist Christian's having 1 million adherents sworn to kill unbelievers as a legitimate biblical view.

Madison had only Christian's in view when giving this address regarding freedom of religion- Indeed worship of the Christian God was the only acceptable practiced religion at that time in our nations history. The fact of the matter is persecution from within the Church-not outside of it- has always been the only real violence practiced by Christian's apart from the Crusades which were Muslim against Christian-. It was not until 1930 or so that the first Mosque was ever even built here. Madison was speaking to the ability to be Anabaptist; Lutheran; Presbyterian etc. without being punished by the Anglican Church. The Anglican church in America, now the Episcopal Church, tried to establish itself as THE CHURCH-as it was in England. THAT is what Madison was addressing- their desire to be the established religion in education and local governments etc.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So you don't agree with Teabaggers who claim Islam isn't protected by the First Amendment?

 

[Tags]

You deal with an individuals acts-agreed. But in the case of Muslim terrorism, terrorism in the name of Allah, then that groups religion must be viewed in order to understand why they are motivated. Agreed that this does not mean all Muslims are terrorist's- But all Muslim extremist's who support terrorism are. That number is estimated to be 1% of all Muslim's- about 1 million. There is no such correlation to extremist Christian's having 1 million adherents sworn to kill unbelievers as a legitimate biblical view.

Madison had only Christian's in view when giving this address regarding freedom of religion- Indeed worship of the Christian God was the only acceptable practiced religion at that time in our nations history. The fact of the matter is persecution from within the Church-not outside of it- has always been the only real violence practiced by Christian's apart from the Crusades which were Muslim against Christian-. It was not until 1930 or so that the first Mosque was ever even built here. Madison was speaking to the ability to be Anabaptist; Lutheran; Presbyterian etc. without being punished by the Anglican Church. The Anglican church in America, now the Episcopal Church, tried to establish itself as THE CHURCH-as it was in England. THAT is what Madison was addressing- their desire to be the established religion in education and local governments etc.

I don't know where you get your numbers. There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, of which 1% would be up to 15 million, not 1 million. As for Christian extremism and the slaughter of unbelievers, I would argue that that has gone on for a very long time, to include the Crusades. Even today, in places like Sudan or the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) in Uganda, Christians openly advocate and practice the killing of Muslims. I wouldn't even be surprised if some Muslims view the war in Iraq, in particular, as a new Christian crusade. A predominantly Christian nation invaded and overthrow a Muslim country on a claim of WMD's, which were never located regardless if they ever existed. Then, they might view the democratic government set up by the Christian invaders as an attempt to create long-term colonization. To those of us in America this might sound absurd, but they might have a completely different perspective. I think American's, in general, have a sheltered view of the world and have a tendency to always see themselves as the "good guys."

As for Madison's case, Christianity was the only religion in the states, but it comes from a time when the different sects of Christians were constantly trying to control or dominate other sects. Even in the 1960's, protestants feared that the election of a Catholic President would result in a papal control of America. I don't see any difference between the control Christians used over each other that Madison spoke against and the control that of "Christians" over Islam in America today. The Constitution does not uphold Christianity over any other religion, merely the freedom of religion in America.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

According to the Teahadists, Islam isn't a 'real' religion.

Just like Anders Breivik isn't a 'real' Christian.

​

 

[Tags]

According to the Teahadists, Islam isn't a 'real' religion.

Just like Anders Breivik isn't a 'real' Christian.

​

Lol. I didn't know the Koran mentioned the Constitution.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I didn't know the Bible ordained small government, but that's what Teahadist Alias claims.

​

 

[Canceled2]

I don't know where you get your numbers. There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, of which 1% would be up to 15 million, not 1 million. As for Christian extremism and the slaughter of unbelievers, I would argue that that has gone on for a very long time, to include the Crusades. Even today, in places like Sudan or the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) in Uganda, Christians openly advocate and practice the killing of Muslims. I wouldn't even be surprised if some Muslims view the war in Iraq, in particular, as a new Christian crusade. A predominantly Christian nation invaded and overthrow a Muslim country on a claim of WMD's, which were never located regardless if they ever existed. Then, they might view the democratic government set up by the Christian invaders as an attempt to create long-term colonization. To those of us in America this might sound absurd, but they might have a completely different perspective. I think American's, in general, have a sheltered view of the world and have a tendency to always see themselves as the "good guys."

As for Madison's case, Christianity was the only religion in the states, but it comes from a time when the different sects of Christians were constantly trying to control or dominate other sects. Even in the 1960's, protestants feared that the election of a Catholic President would result in a papal control of America. I don't see any difference between the control Christians used over each other that Madison spoke against and the control that of "Christians" over Islam in America today. The Constitution does not uphold Christianity over any other religion, merely the freedom of religion in America.

I stand corrected, 10 million Muslim fanatics support the Muslim principle of jihad. The crusades was a religious war between Christian's (Catholics) and Muslims...I already acknowledged that violence amongst Christians is something that happened within its religious contexts.

The LRA are not a "Christian" group. That they claim to be does not make it so. They are a bizarre mishmash of traditional religion, Mysticism and Acholi traditions. No Christian church aligns with them or their bizarre ideas or their brutal assertions.

Muslims attacked us on 9/11 as an act of jihad...so your statement of not being surprised at how they see us through some sort of religious lens is what is a bit surprising.

Restating what I already acknowledged again? Yes, Madison, wanted to keep religious freedom FOR Christians by preventing the "Anglican Church" from being a State Religion-because that is what they fled from. Anglican's persecuted other Christians over their not wanting to use the Book of Common Prayer; infant baptism; the Lords Supper etc...the persecutions happened over Church polity- WITHIN the Christian faith-not outside of it!

 

[Tags]

I stand corrected, 10 million Muslim fanatics support the Muslim principle of jihad. The crusades was a religious war between Christian's (Catholics) and Muslims...I already acknowledged that violence amongst Christians is something that happened within its religious contexts.

The LRA are not a "Christian" group. That they claim to be does not make it so. They are a bizarre mishmash of traditional religion, Mysticism and Acholi traditions. No Christian church aligns with them or their bizarre ideas or their brutal assertions.

Muslims attacked us on 9/11 as an act of jihad...so your statement of not being surprised at how they see us through some sort of religious lens is what is a bit surprising.

Restating what I already acknowledged again? Yes, Madison, wanted to keep religious freedom FOR Christians by preventing the "Anglican Church" from being a State Religion-because that is what they fled from. Anglican's persecuted other Christians over their not wanting to use the Book of Common Prayer; infant baptism; the Lords Supper etc...the persecutions happened over Church polity- WITHIN the Christian faith-not outside of it!

If only 1 percent of Muslims support extremism or terrorism, then I would say that Islam must be a very peaceful religion.

In the time of the Crusades there was no such thing as Protestantism, so I think Christian is just as accurate as Catholic.

The first descriptor of the LRA is Christian. Breivik believed in Christian principles. There are armed Christian groups all over America, including Hutaree, which are militant and dangerous. Also I would argue that it wasn't Muslims that attacked the United States on 9/11, it was Al Qaeda. Just because they claim to be Muslim, doesn't make them Muslim. Why can't the same principle apply to Al Qaeda not being Muslim and Breivik or the LRA not being Christian?

So if the Constitution and the founders were so influenced by Christian beliefs (and not for other religions), why is there no mention of Christ, God, or any church in the Constitution? Instead, the word Lord is only used once as part of the saying "In The Year of Our Lord," which appears in secular and religious texts of many religions all over Europe at the time. I would even further argue that Islam is a sister religion of Judaism and Christianity, since all three worship the God of Abraham. Thus, even if Christians don't like it or feel that Islam lost its path, both religions can trace their religions to the same God. This would indicate that Lord, God, Jehovah, Allah, etc., are all names for the same deity. Islam even acknowledges (much like Judaism) that Jesus Christ was a prophet of God.

 

[Canceled2]

If only 1 percent of Muslims support extremism or terrorism, then I would say that Islam must be a very peaceful religion.

In the time of the Crusades there was no such thing as Protestantism, so I think Christian is just as accurate as Catholic.

The first descriptor of the LRA is Christian. Breivik believed in Christian principles. There are armed Christian groups all over America, including Hutaree, which are militant and dangerous. Also I would argue that it wasn't Muslims that attacked the United States on 9/11, it was Al Qaeda. Just because they claim to be Muslim, doesn't make them Muslim. Why can't the same principle apply to Al Qaeda not being Muslim and Breivik or the LRA not being Christian?

So if the Constitution and the founders were so influenced by Christian beliefs (and not for other religions), why is there no mention of Christ, God, or any church in the Constitution? Instead, the word Lord is only used once as part of the saying "In The Year of Our Lord," which appears in secular and religious texts of many religions all over Europe at the time. I would even further argue that Islam is a sister religion of Judaism and Christianity, since all three worship the God of Abraham. Thus, even if Christians don't like it or feel that Islam lost its path, both religions can trace their religions to the same God. This would indicate that Lord, God, Jehovah, Allah, etc., are all names for the same deity. Islam even acknowledges (much like Judaism) that Jesus Christ was a prophet of God.

Of course you say that- because that's the position liberals have chosen to take- but taking the position that 10 million indoctrinated people who are motivated to kill others is no mere pimple on the ass of humanity.

I never said that it was otherwise- my point, that you can't seem to fathom, is that violence with regards Christianity have been from within not directed outside itself. That some mystic nut job combines the Ten Commandments and tribal traditions does not Christianity make as that is what the LRA is. Muslim's have not disowned AQ as being non Muslim- some have said that they are from a radical fundamentalist stripe- Indeed the complaints of many is that Islam has not loudly denounced AQ- that radical clerics are invited to preach their hate in Mosques.

The term "The Year of Our Lord" is a direct reference to Christ <shrug> As to why God or Christ is not referenced in the U.S. Constitution? What this lack of these words illuminate is not a love for or disdain of religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

And yet when perusing state constitutions we see states rights in action, as they include God in theirs.