Are We Embracing Diversity and Tolerance or Committing Treason?

Political Islam is not a religion. It is a political system that disguises itself as religion in order to achieve its ultimate goal: to conquer and subjugate the entire world to Sharia law through terror. Political Islam’s modern-day method of accomplishing this goal is to use the laws of free nations to their advantage in order to further their political agenda.

Political Islam has enslaved civilizations for over 1400 years. Most were subjugated by violence. However, in recent history this ideology has seized control of western nations incrementally. The first stage is accomplished through propaganda. This method of repeated deception used in European nations has been deliberately ignored by the practitioners of politically correct rhetoric.

Over the centuries, political Islam’s end game has not changed. All who are not of its ideology must ultimately die or be enslaved to obey Sharia.

America won a war against Islamic terror when Thomas Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. It ended in 1796 with the American victory which established our Naval forces. Jefferson was a well-known pacifist, yet he knew Islamic terrorists were dangerous foes. Their defeat was as essential to liberty then as it is now. Because of America’s initial show of strength, Islamic terrorists did not attack Americans again until the Iran hostage crisis during the Carter administration.

Today, Americans are force-fed political Islam’s “kinder, gentler” political propaganda through government agencies and a media bent on “diversity and tolerance” toward an enemy sworn to conquer and subjugate America and the world. The dishonesty of this political correctness undermines the safety of all Americans.

We lose the war on terror when we foolishly believe that if we become “kinder and gentler” toward warmongers, our enemies will somehow morph into our allies. Nothing could be further from...

It’s not political correctness that will cause the demise of Western Civilization, but it will be moral softness and inability to achieve the level of savagery necessary to kill every man, woman, and child of the enemy that threatens our survival.

As survival of the fittest is still being contested here on the third planet, if a people become too civilized to do what’s necessary to survive in an uncivilized world, they won’t survive, they no longer deserve to survive, and good riddance.

Well said by James Wilson. Thanks for posting it.

I always gave GWB the benefit of the doubt when he used adjectives such as “peaceful” in conjunction with “Islam”, for two reasons, listed below. However, In retrospect, there were flaws in that support that I didn’t consider fully at the time:

1.) There certainly are muslims who aren’t personally interested in violence and domination. On muslims who are not personally interested, I still feel strongly about this. However, I have since come to recognize that those muslims who aren’t personally interested in violence towards, or subjugation of others, have three main issues:

a) First, the muslims who ARE interested in subjugation are going to cow or kill the non-aggressive muslims. The voice of those non-aggressive muslims does not in any way count or have a voice in reining in the violent ones. No offense to peaceful muslims, but they are as useless as teats on a Bull.

b) Secondly, they can easily be labeled as apostates by the radicals and killed or injured as a result.

c) Third, like any other normal person, they may not agree with the radicals, but because they feel that they are personally attacked, may end up not only being sympathetic to the radicals and not speaking out, may actually begin to aid and abet them in a variety of indirect ways, and as a result, will become indistinguishable from the radicals and therefore...radical muslims. In addition, the concept of taqiya, which is unknown in Christianity, gives them the moral green light to lie and deceive in order to advance Islam. It leaves us as non-muslims very little choice but to have to view them as a monolithic group.

2.) I felt GWB had to say what he did to get as many people on board with what we had to do.

a) The flaw here is that, due to the dynamics of item #1, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO IS ‘ON BOARD’ with us, and who isn’t. I still agree with the initial approach, and I support that we tried it (I feel that we had to do it) but I hope going forward, we recognize (the USA, if not the Western World) that it isn’t going to work, no matter how many muslims appear to be “moderate” living under the thumbs of radicals such as the Taliban and ISIS, they cannot effectively combat radical Islam. If we depend on them to “help us”, we will be disappointed at best, and fail at worst.

Well Washington was right. Remember, it was King Henry the Eighth who started the Church of England as a religious institution responsible to the Crown. This set off a constant feud between Church of England supporters and Catholics.It resulted in the Congregationalist movement which saw both the Anglicans and the Catholics as followers of a somewhat corrupt system that was organised, in both cases, to serve the political dictates of their respective oligarchy.

This is not too different from the struggle that the Maccabees were having against the religious dictates if King Antiochus a couple of hundred years before Jesus and it shows the timelessness of the human religious failing.

By the time the Pilgrims, Puritans, Huguenots and other groups became established in the colony's the concept of Congregational Church meant freedom from political domination of religion.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states that government has not got the right to establish a religion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.