I didn't "twist" your words....I merely copy/pasted them...(that the government should remain neutral)
to claim I was saying the government should not oppose ISIS.
Well...You just did it again.
I was talking about the entire homosexualist ideology, which is inimical to many religious believers, and pointing out the government should not be promoting it, and at most should be neutral.
The government treats islam as though it's a religion, and to remain neutral would allow what I said....
Just like this:
Fury as watchdog says it's OK to send gay people death threats – but only if you're Muslim
(Netherlands) In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.
... According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression....
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3501012/posts#1
My words in context obviously said that government should at most remain neutral AS REGARDS THE HOMOSEXUALIST IDEOLOGY, as that was the topic under discussion. In no way did I EVER suggest that the government should remain neutral about the inhuman barbarities of ISIS or other Islamist militants.