Falwell: Press downplaying Islamic atrocities

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, January 4, 2003

[ZULU]

My arguments aren';t stupid, your responses are.

People who belong to a religion which teaches them that they are to surpress, forcibly convert, or kill all non-believers, which teaches them that a theocratic government is the ideal to be aimed at, which advocates murdering members of their own belief system which convert to another, which advocates murdering people who try to convert any of their own followers is a CULT, plain and simple. A civilized society has the responsibility to protect its members against such a cult.

If these beliefs were merely written dogma, it wouldn't be such an issue, but both recent history and current events demonstrate it is not.

As I mentioned before, in nearly all other countries where Muslims form a majority or large minoryt. they have employed violence against their non-Muslim fellow-citizens REGARDLESS of their religion.

This is unrefutable, and not a "stupid argument".

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Oh, so I guess Jerry Farsmell believes the media's job is to point out that Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile."

Hey, somebody's got to do it. Why not ol' Jer?

[ZULU]

Jhoffa, I caught you.

"Black Muslims" are not considered "true Muslims" by the world Muslim community.

According to Islam, Mohammad is the Seal of the Prophets", i.e., the last prophet sent from God. There is none after him. Therefore, "Black Muslims" who consider Elijah Mohammad, their founder, a prophet, and they do, are guilty of heresy and blasphemy by orthodox Muslims. Black Muslims also have some very strange and unorthodox beliefs which separate them from mainstream Islam in other respects.

You can't compare American "Black Muslims" with the creatures from the Middle East threatening us now.

[Jhoffa_]

This is unrefutable, and not a "stupid argument".

It is refutable.. The Koran also advocates no forced religion? Did you know that?

You can take parts of the Old Testament and make the exact same statement about Christians and Jews, the left has been doing it for years in fact.

We have laws here, we are a nation of laws and destroying our first amendment will do nothing more than put us all on a slippery slope.

You don't care because Christians here are in the majority, for now. You feel there is safety in mumbers today so you aren't worried about the consequences of your actions or your precedent tomorrow.

That's unconstitutional, it's short sighted, it's unjust and it's not conservative.

[Jerez2]

Stop calling people who disagree with you dolts, mouth-breathers and children. You have a right to your opinion, others have a right to theirs. And the opinion of many here, that there is far too much attention paid to 'anti-Muslim backlash' and far too little to Muslim atrocities, has been created by events and actions, not by prejudices.

It would be good if we started calling the Islamist terrorists Jihadis, instead of Muslims, to differentiate them from the peaceful Muslims in this country. However, the Jihadis use the Muslim community as cover, and even the peaceful Muslims seem content to allow them to do so (or perhaps they are afraid for their lives).

To ignore the self-identification of the terrorists as Islamist is foolish. It is a helpful characteristic with which to detect and deter future atrocities. It MUST be recognized and used.

Also, 'laws' against terrorism are no longer enough. This has gone beyond a crime wave, and into war. There's a whole different set of rules in our Constitution for dealing with combatants in a war situation, versus mere criminals.

Further, Christ is our example and way-shower, a man of peace and love. The same cannot be said for Mohammad. Those who misrepresented Christ have been removed from power in Christianity. When the same happens with Islam, they will have made the first step toward acceptability in our modern world. But not until then.

[Jhoffa_]

You can't compare American "Black Muslims" with the creatures from the Middle East threatening us now.

1) You drew no such distinction.

2) We are going to get the bad guy's in the Mid East. they are terrorists and tyrants. We're getting them already.

There's no reason to deport muslims like my ex-maintenance man? If he's bad we have laws to address that. We don't need to crank up a tyrany of our own.

[BenR2]

IMO?

Falwell is 100% right about the media bias.. Just like I said in my first post.

He hit it right on the money.

Well, then, I owe you the most abject of apologies for misconstruing your position. I stand corrected: And apologize.

[Jhoffa_]

Stop calling people who disagree with you dolts, mouth-breathers and children.

Oh Bite me.

[Jhoffa_]

Jhoffa, I caught you.

LOL! You didn't "catch" me at anything..

Your entire argument has been one long, arbitrary rant to justify your bigotry and hate.

[Jhoffa_]

No need. But thanks though.

I do appreciate it.

[ZULU]

"It is refutable.. The Koran also advocates no forced religion? Did you know that?"

The passage states "there shall be no compulsion in religion". But that is just one passage out of very many more which urge surpression of the unbeliever, do not make a friend of the Jew or the Christian, etc., etc.

The University of Michigan has a web site with the entire Koran on it. You can plug in any word and do a search and it will give you all the Koranic passages with that word in it. I can't remember the website address, but it is there.

If you ever find it, plug in "unbeliever", "Jew" and "Christian". Its pretty scary. Nothing like Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, or even the Torah for that matter.

"We have laws here, we are a nation of laws and destroying our first amendment will do nothing more than put us all on a slippery slope."

There are restrictions on EVERY article in the Bill of Rights. Try to carry a bazooka down mainstreet. The leftist press on the otherhand, has succeeded in sanctifying the freedom of the press and speech clause almost unrestrictedly.

"You don't care because Christians here are in the majority, for now. You feel there is safety in mumbers today so you aren't worried about the consequences of your actions or your precedent tomorrow."

I WANT Christians to continue to be in the majority here and am not ashamed of that. Do you think a bunch of Mullahs could have come up with the Bill of Rights???

"That's unconstitutional, it's short sighted, it's unjust and it's not conservative."

Its not unconstitutional as society has a responsibility to protect itself against a violent, intolerant belief system dedicated to its destruction.

Its not short-sighted as Muslims exist in large numbers, have a high reproductive rate, and are favored by our current insane immigration laws.

It is conservative because it seeks to conserve the non-theocratic, representaive republican government under which we have all thrived for so long.

[Jhoffa_]

I have stuff to go do, as far as I am concerned the "I hate all Jews mooslimbs, regardless of anything" and the "Let's destroy the constitution and call it good" crowds can go suck an egg.

We aren't going to agree on this.

[Republic of Texas]

We're all happy as clams for Lamonte, but the leader of his brand of Islam is an anti-American racist. He may be a nice guy, but he is severely misguided. As for the rest, when I see "mainstream' Islam taking on the Wahabbi's and terrorists, I'll change my opinion. That HAS NOT happened yet, and is not likely to at this point.

You forget, Baptists get murdered for opening hospitals in poor Muslim countries, not the other way around. Your Constitutional defence of Islam is admirable, but won't insulate you from their wrath if they ever acheive their goals of killing and enslaving all who oppose them.

[Michael2001]

We punish actions here, not religions.. so there's no need to stir up a bunch of hate for Islam in general.

So if Infidels cannot point out the flaws of Islam, then can blacks and others not point out the flaws of Christian Identity (the religion of the KKK)?

[Jorge]

I just haven't hear this - just continual whining that 'this isn't Islam' (so tell me that the jihadists are going straight to hell because they broke 'x' commandmants --- not likely since they apparently followed them), and statements that the Bible has equally offensive passages - which is utter balderdash.

That depends on interpretation and context, especially of many Old Testament passages...which I have even heard so-called "Christians" claim are easily interpreted likewise as you interpret the Koran passages.

And many Muslims also claim those Koran passages are misinterpreted and taken out of context by those who advocate violence.
So this argument can go round and round.

[Jorge]

Which statement would you have him apologise for Jorge?

It's so hard to choose...probably whichever one offends the most people and aggravates already volitile sitituations in the world.
Jerry's pretty good at choosing which statements he needs to apologize for.

Falwell is right on, the lamestream media coverage of the death of these three Christians and the massacres in the Sudan pale in comparison to the death of CNN's journalist.

And this is news to you?

[jwalsh07]

I asked you a simple question and as usual you took a pass because you are so full of sh%t it is cutting off the blood supply to your internal carotid arteries.

What in this article should Falwell apologise for Jorge? Get back to me post enema.

[Jerez2]

ESAD

[RnMomof7]

"If a massacre were being conducted against people of color, God forbid, or groups like gays and lesbians, there would be an understandable outcry that would demand change," Falwell told Baptist Press. "It is a tragedy that Christian lives do not seem to have the same value to the national media."

Christians = only group that it is fair to mock and discriminate against

God bless Falwell for truth speaking

[El Cid]

RE: Post 75

That depends on interpretation and context, especially of many Old Testament passages...which I have even heard so-called "Christians" claim are easily interpreted likewise as you interpret the Koran passages.

And many Muslims also claim those Koran passages are misinterpreted and taken out of context by those who advocate violence.
So this argument can go round and round.

Hi Jorge,

I just have two requests:
1) Show me one of these 'offensive' Christian passages.
You can't.
Oh I guess if you're a homosexual, a bestiality imbiber, or a Canaanite you might have a reason to be offended -- but the Bible always holds out hope for those that repent.
2) Point to a link, or lucid explanation, that describes why the passages in the Koran/Hadith that encourage their readers to kill (if failing to convert) the infidel - don't mean what they say. And while you're at it, show me the passages that make it clear that a jihadist is going to rot in hell. I've really looked and haven't found them, and I'd appreciate any inputs.

What I have found is this 'broadbrushing' comparison of the Bible (and claims that un-named passages exist that tell us to kill unbelievers - which as I wrote earlier, is utter balderdash. The Bible tells the Christian to bring the Gospel - period. There is a lot of violence - but that is during the Judgement, and God is the Judge - not the believer) to the Koran/Hadith. If you want to push the moral equivalence angle - please don't wave a broadbrush and provide specifics. Thanks.

P.S. Just to be clear, I believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves muslims want to get along, and are peaceful. They just haven't gotten around to reading their book(s), or don't consider their words the inspired truth. My concern is that if they read their book(s), and accept these satanic lies as the truth - we have a problem. (on the other side of the coin it is unfortunate that many people who call themselves Christians don't read the Bible nor consider it to be God's inspired word).

In short the message for ALL of us: 'Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near'...