Replies

What are you complaining about? I merely took your idea to its logical end. If I understand your reasoning, she had the right idea, just merely the wrong targets.

You'll have to elaborate. I'm not going thru and entire 300 post thread to get the history here. You didn't include my response that I had to go hunt for.

Not one single person of my opposing viewpoint has even dared answer the questions that I posed in post #71. So no, I am not at all prepared to acquiesce to the notion that some sort of "logical end" has been reached particularly when it's not even clear what that "logical end" actually is for a lack of expansion on it.

I will however offer to you the chance to attempt to bring it to whichever logical conclusion that you seem to believe that it would "logically" end at. Perhaps we are in agreement which I'm not discounting.

Once again, my post #71 to the Chief, great defender of those that seek to turn our nation upside down:

Do you see any conflict, any conflict whatsoever, with the following line out of Amendment 1 of the BoR/Constitution and Islam and the Koran?

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.

Here's a clue. The Koran states the following as a mere sampling of much, much more:

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah

[4.95] The holders back from among the believers, not having any injury, and those who strive hard in Allah's way with their property and their persons are not equal

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.11] But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate>, they are your brethren in faith

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Now, do you see any conflict there CWO with the First Amendment, ... anything, ... anything at all?!

That was my challenge to those opposing me on this issue. We simply cannot progress until those opponents are willing to state how the US Constitution, and more specifically, the Bill of Rights and/or the First Amendment, is compatible with such doctrine.

It's a very simple concept. They either ARE or ARE NOT compatible with one another! There's no middle ground here.

Anyway, if you want to take on that challenge, please feel free. Allegra bailed on it. CWOJackson talks big as if talk means much. I suspect that he's really John Murtha posing as an anonymous. Either way, his polemical tactics are the same on paper as the terrorists in Iraq are on the field and as liberals are in our media and in the government, yet he talks a good game about "being in combat" and whatever else he seems to want us to think about his being so "willing to take on a challenge." Yet, he can't even answer some extremely simple questions. Somehow I doubt that if he can't do that, then he'd wet his pants over in Iraq. The bottom line is that he's effectively bailed on it too.

But it is the question du jour on this topic. NOT, what are we going to do now, what about this muslim or that muslim, or about which mosque goes where. Those are all red herring issues that detract from establishing a basis from which to operate. Which, quite frankly, brings my question around front-and-center!

I'll even restate it in other words:

Is it possible for an Islamically controlled political municipality, namely one in which Islam is not only preached but adhered to according to the verbage that's in the Koran, capable of holding our First Amendment up as the founding tenet of such a government?