Posted on 04/07/2012 8:55:13 PM PDT by Pride_of_the_Bluegrass
The Dove outreach center supported the Westboro psuedobaptist protest of soldier funerals. They even marched with them agaist some other Christian church.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2584978/posts
What one of the leaders of Jones’ “Dove Outreach Center” has to say about the Westboro loons:
“Westboro Baptist is not anti-military or anti-USA. Rather the opposite, actually. Do some research. They go to funerals because the Bible says that a fallen soldier is a sign of God’s wrath and a reminder of the condition of this world, a fallen world, in sin. We all know that. None of us want to fight wars. We have to, and we honor the fallen for their sacrifice, but funerals are also a chance to repent and get our lives right with God before our own comes along.
The soldier who is already dead knows what’s coming, whether they are in heaven or hell. I think they would be glad for the extra reminder to loved ones that they still have time to make a choice and use the rest of their time given here for God rather than wasting it, in a spiritual sense.”
Freegards
You might want to read this issue of Imprimus: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2012&month=02
It references a journalist from Seatle that is currently in hiding;
“The comedy show South Park refused to show an image of Mohammed in a bear suit, although it mocked figures from other religions. In response, Molly Norris, a cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly, suggested an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” She quickly withdrew the suggestion and implied that she had been joking. But after several death threats, including from Al-Qaeda, the FBI advised her that she should go into hiding—which she has now done under a new name.”
Here is more meat:
snip
**************************
The second threat we face is the specter of cooperation between our government and the OIC to shape speech about Islam. A first indication of this came in President Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, when he declared that he has a responsibility to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Then in July of last year in Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton co-chaired—with the OIC—a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance.” There, Mrs. Clinton announced another conference with the OIC, this one in Washington, to “exchange ideas” and discuss “implementation” measures our government might take to combat negative stereotyping of Islam. This would not restrict free speech, she said. But the mere fact of U.S. government partnership with the OIC is troublesome. Certainly it sends a dangerous signal, as suggested by the OIC’s Secretary-General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, when he commented in Istanbul that the Obama administration stands “united” with the OIC on speech issues.
The OIC’s charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam.” Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” to counter “Islamophobia.” In 2009, an official OIC organ, the “International Islamic Fiqh [Jurisprudence] Academy,” issued fatwas calling for speech bans, including “international legislation,” to protect “the interests and values of [Islamic] society.” The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but the repressive practices of its leading member states speak for themselves.
The conference Secretary Clinton announced in Istanbul was held in Washington on December 12-14, 2011, and was closed to the public, with the “Chatham House Rule” restricting the participants (this rule prohibits the identification of who says what, although general content is not confidential). Presentations reportedly focused on America’s deficiencies in its treatment of Muslims and stressed that the U.S. has something to learn in this regard from the other delegations—including Saudi Arabia, despite its ban on Christian churches, its repression of its Shiite population, its textbooks teaching that Jews should be killed, and the fact that it beheaded a woman for sorcery on the opening day of the conference.
*************************
The thing is, it isn’t just a neighborhood mosque locally established. The Islamic theocratic State of Saudi Arabia is financing the establishment of muslim colonies in the West and there is zero tolerance for any other faith in Saudi Arabia, with true apartheid and segregation of non-muslims from muslims.
Where is it written that our Constitutional separation of establishment of religion in America is limited only to our OWN government and not foreign theocratic governments?
There is no cultural exchange with Saudi Arabia, it is Islamic imperialism, plain and simple. The Leftist regressives who demand the West not provide Bibles or music or political support in the Middle East (because it is “imperialist”) have NO problem with Islamic imperialism in Indonesia, Lebanon, Australia, Russia, or Dearbornistan.
Why is it controversial when a citizen burns a privately owned koran on private property but when the Saudi Islamic theocratic government seizes OTHER peoples’ privately owned bibles and burns them, Obama’s Hate Department under Hillary Clinton says nothing?
Why was it not controversial when Marilyn Manson burned bibles in public owned civic auditoriums at his rock concerts?
Why is it not controversial when Ian McKellen boasts of tearing out the biblical condemnations of homosexuality out of bibles that are NOT HIS in hotel rooms?
Your Black Muslim Bakery in Califoria murdered a journalist and others. It can happen here.
Newt is a Milt guy now if you haven’t got the memo.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/04/gingrich-romney-and-i-are-at-peace-119902.html
It is all rainbows and lollipops between them now.
Rick made similar comments on Levin’s show regarding “unity”.
Party unity after the Primary is a far different thing than what Newt talks about here. One almost see him lobbying for a position on Milts cabinet. Talking about them being both grandfathers? Absolute kiss butt stuff.
Agreed, any form of contender kissy-face is pathetic.
Thing is...if you deny Islam as a “religion”, you must also deny LDS-Mormonism AND Judaism as “religions” on the same grounds.
No one is willing to do that (except for me, my internet campaign for president will begin in June 2012).
Like what? This dude is standing up to the muzzies and pubically criticizing them using the truth. What exactly is wrong with that?
Why don’t you show him and the rest of us how it’s done then?
Why don't I just say it is his mustache and leave it at that.
bookmark
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.