Good job, Bog.
Posted on 09/12/2004 1:40:12 PM PDT by quidnunc
Islam invades societies, uses their laws and tolerances against them and installs Sharia which is intolerant, disabling and archaic.
All borders of Islam are at war. Whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian or Buddhist, all are at risk to loss of cultural identity and heritage.
Whether we admit it or not, we are in a religious/cultural war, one that is crude and brutal.
Then expel those who oppress these women. there cannot be two sets of laws in a sovereign country.
Do you oppose laws based on the Bible?`
Is this different from laws based on the Koran?
SECTION 1 (j) Speech alone is not sufficient to support an action brought pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), except upon a showing that the speech itself threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be committed against them or their property and that the person threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.Still, I would argue that current law protects all citizens of California adequtely. If we protect some individuals from threats and intimidation, we should protect them all. Are we not enforcing our current laws adequately?
Amelek in particular is a recurring enemy. Terrorist Muslims are the Amelek of this generation.
Yes, I support laws that are legally and democraticly passed that are based on the Bible, but not because they are based on the Bible. Laws that are based on the Koran are not democraticly passed, and those who are governed by the Sharia law do not always have an true voice in submitting to the laws. I never agree to having a two tier system of law, at any rate. It is pure folly to start down that road. I consider religious head coverings in schools to be the same as gang labelling accesssories, inciteful and distracting.
I think there will be a battle between what I refer to as liberalism (the psuedo-religion of the West's ruling elite) and Islam. Though in cases, I could see a move on the left's part to set up some sort of Baathist model in places - just look at how Chirac has been carrying the Muslims' water. On the other hand, liberals are quite fond of their freedom from all moral constraints. I can't imagine they would enjoy living under the mercies of Sharia law. They would have to find a way to be above it while imposing it upon others.
I view the globalist left as divided into two camps - chiefly over how to deal with Islam. The rationalist wing (Tony Blair) sees that Islam would surely destroy liberalism along with the West if it were to prevail. Thus they are in favor of fighting the WOT, but refuse to name the enemy (Islam) and continue with unlimited immigration. The other wing (Chirac, Schoeder, and Euro-weasels in general) look upon the invaders as shock troops to finally destroy the last vestiges of the traditional West. However, they are betting that the Muslim invaders will end up being seduced by the degenerate media and culture and rendered controllable via the welfare state and ultimately a Baathist-style regime.
Here's one of the more revealing quotes from the article at DhimmiWatch:
"People working at the emergency ward at the major hospital in Malmø receive threats every day, and are starting to get used to it. Patients with knives or guns are commonplace. They have discussed having metal detectors at the emergency entrance, but some fear this could be seen as a provocation."
Only after decades of swallowing the gallons of Kool-Aid pumped forth by a leftist regime through its public schools, its state "churches", and its echo-chamber media, could people be so completely, pathetically bloodless and empty of all moral principle that they would view the installation metal detectors at the entrance of a hospital as a "provocation." This is end-stage liberalism. These people (apparently the majority of Swedes) have lost the will to live. I would not be in the least surprised to read that the Swedish reaction to the Muslim barbarity in Beslan, Russia was something to the effect of 'what did the Russians do to provoke this?'
Before we get to feeling cocky about ourselves here in America, we should consider that the same program that has been in operation in Sweden is operating here. It's not as advanced - and there is still hope to stop it. We are importing Muslims at taxpayer expense as well (Somali Bantus, Afghans, and other assorted "refugees") and we have a Republican president and leadership that resolutely refuses to even consider enforcing our immigration laws. The other major party - the Dhimmicrats - are even worse, and plan to grant full voting and citizenship rights to the lawbreakers.
OK, thanks for the information.
It's appreciated.
Hopefully, the other location is a tad more mild in the winter...
Cheers, Ape.
Wow, what an essay B... I couldn't have said it anybetter in 1,000,000 tries.
On a scale of degradation and capitulation, there's a long way to get to Sweden, like Canada (on the way, we're behind Canada by maybe one or two election cycles with a RAT), but then again, Spain jumped to the front of the pack in it's election cave to Muhammadans...
We are on the way unless we continue what we've started, and for crying out loud, secure our borders and don't elect sKerry...
Hasta la vista, vaya con Dios...
Good job, Bog.
A great evening to you and yours, Ape...see ya.
Saudi Arabia's people are very different mentally, culturally, and historically to Iranians.
Part of the whole problem with laws like this lies with the judicial interpretation. The statute is a masterpiece of double-speak. (The whole idea of special classes of victims is wring to begin with, but that's another issue.)
One the one hand, it states that speech alone is insufficient cause to apply the law. Yet in the next clause it states that if a speech threatens violence (without defining exactly what that is) or that a member or members of the special class feels threatened by such speech, the law goes into full force,
The law has been created to bring about excatly the type of thing that took place in Sweden.
Scenario: Conservative Christian minister delivers a sermon stating the biblical position on homosexuality which is attended by members of the local "gay rights" agitprop gang. Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned, along with the Hebrew laws and punishments. (Violence). That's all it takes. Agitators go before symapthetic judge (most are), who rule law was violated. Minister is charged, Chrurch is sued to revoke tax-exempt status. etc., etc.
The agitiators wouldn't dare go to the local Wahabi mosque to attempt a stunt like this - they know that their heads might end up in a refrigerator somewhere if they tried. Besides, the multicultural judiciary would protect any sermon delivered by an Imam which actually promoted the faithful to go and behead these infidels under freedom of religion. This is what happens when idealogues take over the judiciary and legislatures.
Answer rocks and knives with bullets, that'll learn em...
LMAO
That being said, I have made a lot of friends with Iranians who fled their country and they are among the nicest folks you'd ever meet.
All of them I've know in the bay area can't wait for the US to either invade Iran or topple it's government.
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.