Sharia law plus Melanie Phillips' Londonistan: Manson-meets-Marx-for-misogyny-and-murder.
Posted on 07/17/2011 5:53:53 PM PDT by george76
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that communities have a right to ban Islamic mosques.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the former Godfather's Pizza CEO said protests and legal challenges to a planned mosque in Tennessee city are an example of local residents pushing back.
Cain said his view doesn't amount to religious discrimination because he says Muslims are trying to inject Shariah law into the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at kiiitv.com ...
At the very least some of Islam is.
Not all.
But that's not the question on the table.
For instance: It's arguable that many in the Catholic Church support, at least, Socialism...some outright Marxism. Nearly the entire Church would see our southern border freely open and the full legalization of anyone who crosses it.
That is clearly an existential threat.
Should we "outlaw" them too?
Some? Moderate Muslims are like Moderate Republicans. Moderate is a mask, a word of deception.
But that's not the question on the table.
It is the crux of this article.
For instance: It's arguable that many in the Catholic Church support, at least, Socialism...some outright Marxism. Nearly the entire Church would see our southern border freely open and the full legalization of anyone who crosses it.
That's the problem with Big L libertarians. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you are espousing a moral relativism, one rooted in the legalistic rules of men. You can't condemn a homicidal bomber, purely based on the notion that he hasn't acted yet. You are paralyzed from taking action, because your belief system tells you that moral discernment is a bad thing.
As for your reference to Catholicism, I'm not Catholic. I will submit that I have yet to see one in a bomb vest.
The incorporation doctrine is centered around the Bill of Rights and criminal law. There is plenty to the constitution that bound the states from the onset, such as the guarantee of a Republican form of government. Almost all of Article 4 for example does little else than apply to the states, save for a few sentences detailing federal obligations to the states.
For what it’s worth, I have no problem with the incorporation doctrine. Any state that would abrogate the principles of the Bill of Rights, has ceased to be American.
Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. The problem with your sentiment is the necessary intrusions to make it happen. Once Islam is outlawed, and its practice moved underground, how are you going to discern who is practicing Islam in secret and who is not? Even Spain's Christian citizens suffered greatly under the inquisitional powers set upon discovering who was doing what in secret.
If you outlaw Islam and do nothing, then it's an impotent gesture that will do more harm than good. Once you ban the practice of any religion, the only way to make good on your proscription is to come down like a hammer on your citizenry, because the practice will move underground. You'll find the citizens of the formerly free USA under the same sort of government scrutiny seen in inquisitional Spain or 1970's China. You wouldn't like it.
Right. Especially the bloody history of Islam.
The problem with your sentiment is the necessary intrusions to make it happen.
Sounds like the arguments coming from the pro-illegal lobby.
Once Islam is outlawed, and its practice moved underground, how are you going to discern who is practicing Islam in secret and who is not?
They will be expelled. Which is more kind than the horrors they visit upon others.
Once you ban the practice of any religion, the only way to make good on your proscription is to come down like a hammer on your citizenry
Which is why expulsion is an appropriate response.
When a "religion" challenges our Constitution, their houses have become political structures.
I don’t want the Tucson City Council to have the power to ban Baptist churches because we teach homosexuality is sin...and Cain’s argument would give them that ‘right’.
If something isn't done soon, your Baptist chuch may lose its freedom of speech before this muslim infiltration loses its freedom to attempt to overthrow our government and Constitution.
I couldn't agree more. Instead of dealing with a group, a theology which states that no mercy is to be shown to infidels, American citizens lose their freedoms. It's not cruel at all to send them packing; what you and so many others seem to miss is that the doctrines of Islam and freedom are wholly incompatible. You would sacrifice Americans in a misguided belief that you are doing the right thing. Islam is one of the most severe forms of totalitarianism, but for some reason you can't see that.
Once you ban the practice of any religion, the only way to make good on your proscription is to come down like a hammer on your citizenry,
Where have you been for the last forty years? Christianity is and has been assaulted at every level of society. The hammer that you speak of has been rising and falling for decades, with barely a whisper from you 'champions of freedom'. Give me a break.
Being in the country illegal is not comparable. I have a birth certificate that can easily be checked if there were truly a will to do so. How are you going to see into my heart to see who I truly pray to? You cannot. It's that simple.
They will be expelled. Which is more kind than the horrors they visit upon others.
There is no national registry of Islamic practitioners or believers which can consult to begin the expulsions. Before you can expel anyone, you must first discern who believes what, which has been my point all along. Even if you somehow did manage to expel them, new ones would come along. Not necessarily from without, but certainly a number from within.
Besides, where do you think you're going to be able to expel the non-immigrant muslims too?
These folks have been asleep at the wheel, yet still insist on driving.
He has removed himself from the Presidential race. Far from it. He sees Islam for what it is, and has the guts to tell it like it is.
When a "religion" challenges our Constitution, their houses have become political structure
This 'religion' threatens death to all who oppose it. Some would propose that Christianity is the antagonist. Tell that to the Buddhists, the Hindus, dot dot dot.
I don’t want the Tucson City Council to have the power to ban Baptist churches because we teach homosexuality is sin...and Cain’s argument would give them that ‘right’.
Deceptive reasoning; Baptist churches are not issuing 'fatwas' instructing the faithful to kill gays. That's being truly disingenuous, but you knew that anyway.
Your position is comparable.
The problem with your sentiment is the necessary intrusions to make it happen.
You contradict yourself. Would the expulsion of illegals entail problematic intrusions?
Would the expulsion of jihadists entail problematic intrusions. You know as well as I do that your answer to both is "Yes". With the subliminal suggestion that neither situation is worth the effort.
How are you going to see into my heart to see who I truly pray to? You cannot. It's that simple.
Oh please. "We are the World....blah blah blah"
There is no national registry of Islamic practitioners or believers which can consult to begin the expulsions. Before you can expel anyone, you must first discern who believes what, which has been my point all along.
Look for the folks facing Mecca several times a day.
Even if you somehow did manage to expel them, new ones would come along. Not necessarily from without, but certainly a number from within.
From within. A whole new ideology inculcated by people like yourself. As is going on right now. Say "Global Citizen".
Besides, where do you think you're going to be able to expel the non-immigrant muslims too?
Anywhere. I don't care much for Globama inspired subjugation. Which is what you are proposing. Pure leftist drivel.
You can't be that stupid. Muslims would simply suspend outward practices of the religion just as surely as they did during the inquisition. I repeat, you do not have the means to identify all or even most of the muslims.
Anywhere. I don't care much for Globama inspired subjugation. Which is what you are proposing. Pure leftist drivel.
Are you drunk? Where have I even remotely suggested that anyone, anywhere be subjugated to anyone? Any such idea is purely a fabrication of your own imagination, inebriated or not.
No hay restricciones a la inmigración, ¿correcto?
See ya.
Yeah, because it naturally follows from this conversation that I can read Spanish. Sorry, but I don’t. Sleep it off pal. Goodnight.
I know that you understand. You have agenda written all over you.
That's interesting. I went through the thread and there was nothing that indicated that you could read Spanish.
Some people should not be allowed to drive. They can’t understand the signs, and usually end up taking out someone else with them. bttt.
In Islam, you do not find the Christian concept of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." In Islam the religion and the state are one. But you are obviously unaware of that and the concept of the "Caliphate" from the Koran and Hadith.
"Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers."
Recep Erdogan, Current Prime Minister of Turkey
You also make an anti-Catholic point on church involvement in Open Borders advocacy and you argue that aside from the Catholic Church it is only a matter of "liberal 'churches' which don’t believe the Bible" where this "mixed allegiance" is "a lot harder to pin down" and "more about psychology." The following excerpt, from the wikipedia article on the "Sanctuary Movement" says otherwise:
The Presbyterian Church:Not to mention the Quakers, Jews.... Notice the dates following the above quotes of these longstanding Open Border policies.The Presbyterian Church recommends that “That the General Assembly support congregations and individuals who provide sanctuary to asylum seekers as a way of showing Christian compassion for them and stressing the need for change in our government's plicies and actions; and that other congregations be challenged seriously to take this stance.” 1983.
The American Lutheran Church:
“Resolved, that The American Lutheran Church at its 1984 General Convention…offer support and encouragement to congregations that have chosen to become refugee sanctuaries.” 1984.
The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.:
“Therefore, we commend to American Baptist churches the following:…that we respect those churches that, responding to the leading of God's Spirit, are providing sanctuary for refugees fleeing certain suffering and death in central America.” 1984.
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.