I don't think it's a matter of Cain wanting to re-write the Constitution.  I think it's worse:  He. Has. No. Clue. What. It. Says.

He strikes me as tossing out what he thinks are populist sentiments, and is completely unaware of how ignorant he is.  Then, after one of his handlers informs him just how completely he's shown his ass, AGAIN, he'll stumble it back a bit.

Why he's still part of the conversation is beyond me.  He makes Ron Paul look like a fucking genius.

Simple: change the Constitution to ban islam:

http://tinyurl.com/2qj2nx

Islam is a cancer, we wouldn't inject cancer into our bodies voluntarily, why should we allow islam free reign to destroy our civilization?

He's done. Not because of this one-off statement, but because it never occurred to him that the statement would be a problem. Expect similar self-inflicted injuries in the future.

It's OK. He'll always have his pizza empire.

this thread------ten foot pole

nope

IT'S A TRAP!!

Posted by: robtr at July 17, 2011 01:29 PM (MtwBb)

You may be prophet.

IT'S A TRAP!!

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (R7NIt)

Quick Joe! Grab the beer! It's gonna be a doozy!

12  its 730am here!!!  even retired sailors wait till 8

although i am going to huck a can of gas on this thread in just a second...

Is running for President a business in and of itself?

That was the whole '08 McCain operation right there. Not winning the election as a goal, but running for President as a goal. The consultants get paid regardless, and then move on to the next election. An actual victory would have been so disruptive to their careers, they could not even imagine what it would look like.

okay, for this to be true, then would anyone accept churches like the church of jesus christ christian or a santana church?

the aryan nation and other white power groups have their own churches because they mixed their hatred with religion

do you see islam as a political arm or religious group?

how about the devil worship groups?

Ban mosques... no. Shut down hate cults and those inciting murder and rape... yes!

That's where he went off track. You're welcome to practice any religion that does not break the law. You are not welcome to practice a cult of death and criminality. If a particular mosque had meetings enjoining sedition against America, or the killing or harming of those of another religion, or the killing or harming of those who speak out against this religion, then the elders should be given a chance to reform the mosque. Failing that, close it by force of law.

Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at July 17, 2011 01:41 PM (QBQcg)

That's my belief as well.

Now, time for the popcorn and beers.

I like Cain as a fiscal conservative but I'm thinking that's as far as my admiration can go. This reminds me of a point Charlton Heston made about how you can't allow government to make exceptions to amendments at will. Otherwise those amendments no longer protect the rights of the people and they become pointless. To paraphrase Chuck, you can no more say "you have the right to bear arms, except assault weapons and .50 calibers" than you can say "you have freedom of religion, except Buddhism and Islam."

i think when it comes down to it, let the people of the community vote on it

if you want to go pure constitution, then all hate laws should be struck down

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 01:50 PM (dw7rB)

Actually you are wrong about that. If Islam is a political movement then it has to register as one to keep it's tax free status. It can't do it under the guise of being a church.

Although that holds true for a bunch of religions and they get called on it from time to time.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 17, 2011 01:33 PM (UlUS4)

No, what has happened is that the Non Governmental societal contol machanism of SHAME, public shunning, and dislike, has been destroyed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness...

If I point at a Moslem, and say he is the member of a hateful religion?  I'm the bad guy, even though its true...

If I point at a Flamming Homosexual in assless chaps, and say I don't like his lifestyle??? (when his ass is hanging out in front of my kids)... I'm the bad guy...

When I cannot, in my own business, decide who to hire, or who to serve??? ie, MY freedom of association (and NOT to associate) is hindered by LAW???

The check on Freedom should not be the law, but the disdain and disassociation of the society around you (if your lifestyle is incompatable)...

61  If I point at a Flamming Homosexual in assless chaps, and say I don't like his lifestyle??? (when his ass is hanging out in front of my kids)...

sweet hell, where do live?!!!!

67  Isn't that the default conservative position

you know, i'm not sure

STOP MAKING ME THINK AT 8AM!!!!!

Even among Muslims there are differences of opinion - the Sharia branch seems to be the most destructive, and the one that has always given civilizations (even Muslim ones) the most trouble.

As long as a congregation isn't advocating burning everything down, it isn't a problem.

When they start saying that their law is the only law in a country that separates "state" from "religion", that's when they step over the line.  And that's what we have to delineate.

Unfortunately, until we have legislators and judges in place who are willing to UPHOLD those laws, we're going to have problems.

And I don't care what your religion may be - you are not allowed to hide behind the guise of religion to justify stockpiling weapons.....

When I cannot, in my own business, decide who to hire, or who to serve??? ie, MY freedom of association (and NOT to associate) is hindered by LAW???

The check on Freedom should not be the law, but the disdain and disassociation of the society around you (if your lifestyle is incompatable)...

I don't have a problem with his statement.

There are some who don't think were at war with Islam, they on the other hand know they are at war with us.

How often does a typical Mosque denounce violence when one of its members gets fiesty? Not too often eh? Something to think about.

the confusion for many is that they still think and act as if Islam is some benign religion to be respected and tolerated. It only masquerades as a religion, but it's really a totalitarian political ideology hellbent on conquering and/or killing disbelievers.

91  "Here's why we distrust you," then read from the Koran

then you get charged with a hate crime and/or beaten by a rabid mob when you walk outside

Posted by: Vic at July 17, 2011 02:03 PM (M9Ie6

What, then, do we do about all the Muslims already here who believe Sharia is only the logical outcome of following the life example of Mohammed according to the Koran and Hadith. To them, Sharia is the bedrock of their concept of salvation. Allah demanded it of Mohammed, Allah demands it of them. What to do?

Posted by: exceller at July 17, 2011 02:08 PM (Z7Znk)

Exactly.  Why don't we let Stalinists and Maoists start churches?   The Church of Pol Pot, maybe, for a spicy Southeast Asian variety......

 Yes, it might be very unlikely in the US, but there's always going to be some unhinged kid who's going to take the Imam's words seriously.

Isn't the most susceptible group to Islamic radicalization second-generation Middle Eastern immigrants?  Apologies if I'm recalling this incorrectly.

Anybody here see The Third Jihad? 

104  his followers created some bullshit religion out of Mein Kampf and the random crazed ravings of Hitler's diseased brain

it is the church of jesus christ christian

105  but they are always his standards.

???????

shit, his standards must me as low as my wife's standards in husbands then

Posted by: arhooley at July 17, 2011 02:07 PM (L2e/0)

Interesting take and I agree but for me it all boils down to this.

All Muslims are complicit with their extremist terrorist brethren in their refusal to denounce them. That's all I need.

No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.<<<

Except for all of the people who did.  They just feared the Army's PC police and kept quiet about it.

when a mosque performs its first same sex marriage, i'm consider it a religion

............start holding my breath

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (/9Ezq)

Nice way to MISS the point....

IF we had actual freedom of Speech, and association, away from the now perverse Political Correctness, they would not be building these mosques here as the rest of the populace, would not be making them feel welcome.

The statement was in relation to an earlier post... that talked about how Others use the Freedoms granted by a free society, to destroy it...

And I was attempting to explain that some of the Checks within a Free Society to misbehaviour by a group... that of shunning... and of not giving them service if too far out... is now hindered by Law...

Posted by: Crispian at July 17, 2011 02:17 PM (ULTcD)

I understand that, that's why I didn't mention the Constitution in context with what I was saying.

I was merely voicing my disgust and hatred for an evil culture.

when a mosque performs its first same sex marriage, i'm consider it a religion

............start holding my breath

Posted by: navycopjoe (baracudus maximus is coming) at July 17, 2011 02:21 PM (R7NIt)

I thought you were already married?

No one suspected Hassan until it was way too late.<<<

Except for all of the people who did.  They just feared the Army's PC police and kept quiet about it.'

This thread needs a bit of a tension reliever:

How about this?

That outfit DEFINITELY has the X Factor! Tulisa shows off her curves in a bandage dress as she celebrates her 23rd birthday

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 17, 2011 02:06 PM (/9Ezq)

What.... I can't build my new pyramid? with the new Alter with blood channels???

Help help... I'm being Oppressed!

I'm not 'punishing' anyone's 'thoughts or beliefs'.  I'm objecting to what Muslims actually do--and to what their death cult openly advocates

I don't want to give murders and savage hate-mongers an organized, established, open forum and organizational infra-structure, with tax-exempt status and Constitutional  protection

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 17, 2011 02:29 PM (G/MYk)

Nicely put, thank you.

Posted by: sTevo at July 17, 2011 02:26 PM (uIz80)

Thats the real problem...

I think he knows that Islam is not 'just' a religion.... that its houses of worship are used for other purposes... that you can't have Islam without Sharia... but was not clear...

Face it, if you read the Koran, there is NO way you can be a by the book Moslem, and support the US Constitution... they are incompatable documents.

So why should we allow ANY organization to be on US soil, whose goal is to destroy the very foundation of our Constitution and way of life... even if it does 'cloak' itself as a religion, by saying Allah told them to overthrow us?

Will someone PLEASE show me three examples of how the influx of Islam has actually benefited the West? I mean beyond mealy-mouthed feel good platitudes of “sharing” or “diversity” or “exposure”. I want hard truths. Our oil is cheaper? Fuck no. Okay. How about the improvement of the rights of women in the Islamic world? Nope. What about the practice of “honor killings”. Oh shit – dozens in England last year? Well….I’m thinkin’…….hey, how about the notion that the INCREASE in Islam IN the West results in a DECREASE in radicals FROM the west. Fuck! That fails too! Well, hey, the good news is Muhammed is the most popular name in Britain today, replacing “Jack”. And I’m all for it. Jack’s are such assholes.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 02:28 PM (HlEu/)

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (YyMmz)

I love the internets.    Lucid arguments; intelligent arguments.....

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:32 PM (YyMmz)

Fool. I now regret ever replying to you.

Posted by: sifty at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (ECjvn)

I would LOVE to see Cain - or anyone - cite your list in an interview.

I'll let Billy Connolly speak for me about Islam (and this after he blasted Christianshttp://tinyurl.com/3ggfqwt

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:35 PM (YyMmz)

the Attempted Walk-Back.  Fail.   You clearly implied that your opponents are the same as Nazis who committed mass murder.     Now you want to dance.

Bullshit is as bullshit does......

“They have the right to do that,” Cain said on Fox News Sunday, expressing his concerns with Sharia law. “I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists.”

Cain’s comments were in reference to a Tennessee town that is attempting to ban a mosque in its community. “That’s not discriminating based upon their particular religion,” he said. “There is an aspect of them building that mosque that doesn’t get talked about. And the people in the community know what it is and they’re talking about it.”

“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” Cain said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people in the community do not like it.”

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:43 PM (YyMmz)

Your dancing is as bad as your logic.  

You're saying that people who want to deny a mosque in Tennessee are the same as Nazis who murdered 10+ million people.   Pure genius......

If the North Carolina Church of Cocks, Balls and Bombs had perpetrated all the violence that Islam has in just the past ten years, nevermind the entire history of the religion, and Herman Cain said "fuck no" to their bullshit, would Drew M. still be defending them? Even if the NCCCBB DID have 1 billion followers? And treated their women like jellyfish shit? Hey Drew, pick a different fuckin' point to make on this blog, lad.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 17, 2011 02:41 PM (Ohzoo)

This. We are in a Holy War. This is good vs. evil. That's not cool or fashionable or popular to say but that's the deal.

Yes, I'm coming from a Christian perspective but even if one isn't religious, it should be pretty obvious that Islam is at least the enemy of freedom and should be completely wiped out.

Posted by: Mohammed fucks goats at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (5heTz)

Only if you married the goat when she was nine years old

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 02:47 PM (P8oOy)

No, I like applesauce too much to do that.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 02:48 PM (dw7rB)

I'll get right on that!

_*snicker*

If Islamic rule is so wonderful how come there are so many fleeing Islamic ruled countries in droves any chance they can?

Already in a Toronto school, they have Friday prayer in the cafeteria and make the girls sit separately and out right ban the ones menstruating.  But this is the same city that thinks a "Black Only" secondary school is progress so they opened one.

Mr. Cain is a nice man but he's too naive for the job, hope he comes along politically though.

Thanks for the provocative article well worth discussing further.

212

What number of mosques with jihadists attending changes your mind? 

 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.

BULL SHIT

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 02:52 PM (YyMmz)

btw, this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on the internets.  No wonder you had to toss Adolf in.

 Islam is no different from Christianity, Judaism, or Scientology in that most basic mission of all religions.

Um, one of these things is not like the other, at least in how their adherents go about proselytizing.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7wmOW)

Soccer sucks, but agreed, go USA! 

Are you ok with that? I'm not. Whether or not someone has the money to complete a project isn't the government's concern.

Actually the government takes that position quite a bit, sometimes to the extent of making you post a bond gauranteeing completion of the project if you can't show you have financing to complete it. They also require bonds to gaurantee completion of any public infrastructure you agree to do even if you do have financing.

When you apply for a buidling permit you have to list your construction financing or the account that contains the funds to complete the project.

This just in - "Charle's Johnson jerking off to newest post by Drew M."

What the fuck, dude?

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (YyMmz)

Yes, good tactic:  Don't advance an idea, but demand 'cited date'. 

You're in a Hole of Your Own Making, genius.  My advice:  Cease digging

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:01 PM (YyMmz)

F.O.  You're in a position to demand nothing.

Posted by: Jimma at July 17, 2011 03:02 PM (TfRqk)

Thanks for that reminder.

This word usage of "peace" (i.e "absence of war") and "reconciliation" (what we think of as real "peace") in Islam is also explained in Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and the Revolt of Islam.

This one is simple.

Cain is wrong because the USA recognizes Islam as a legitimate religion.

The USA is wrong because Islam should not be recognized as a legitimate religion. 

Two wrongs don't make a president.

I don't want to give murders and savage hate-mongers an organized, established, open forum and organizational infra-structure, with tax-exempt status and Constitutional protection

They already have constitutional protection, which is the entire point of this thread.

A lot of commenters keep pointing out that it's difficult or impossible to build churches and other places of worship for non-Mulims in Islamic countries.

Yes, exactly.  We're not like them, nor should we strive to be like them when it comes to a de facto banning of specific religions.

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

"I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count.
Anyone got a list?"

Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable"

So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'll try and fail to show you the benefits of the Constitution on Islam other than enabling it as a political force.

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

Yup

I'd be willing to ban every single mosque in this country. We're at war, in case you forgot, with a violent, fascist ideology masquerading as a "religion". Mosques are an extenstion of that and serve as recruiting centers.

World-wide terrorism in the name of their "allah", terrorist cells dot our landscape, (Jamaat al Fuqua) and their avowed goal is a global Caliphate:

Yes, mosques must follow the same laws and regulations as any other religion nor should they be granted any special consideration because in some areas Islam is "the de facto state religion". But the wholesale banning of them because people don't like Muslims or what they believe in? I'll stand with the Constitution.

We're saddled with a Dhimmi-in-Chief and a craven asshole for a DOJ head who think FOREIGN MUSLIM TERRORISTS deserve Miranda Rights, Constitutional considerations, and civilian trials.

Some of you might want to start bowing to Mecca right now and expedite the process, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Suppose the Bloods and Crips get themselves a smart lawyer, and decide to be "religions"? Would that mean we have to start calling them the "Crips Community"? 

All this talk about communities misses the point. The "community" is whoever is standing around. And if we want our communities to be decent places to live, it is way past time we stopped inviting gangsters to come live in them.

Posted by: foguere at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (B60j2)

TWEEET!

Failure to ask in the form of a question!

Five yards from the spot of the penalty! Repeat first down!

"I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count. Anyone got a list?"

Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable"

So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'll try and fail to show you the benefits of the Constitution on Islam other than enabling it as a political force.

Also, Cain isn't being despicable, it's a natural reaction to muslim atrocities. And here's the thing, they aren't stopping nor even slowing down.

Yes, it's a natural, knee-jerk reaction that completely flies in the face of the Constitution, which a President is sworn to uphold.

Yes, exactly.  We're not like them, nor should we strive to be like them when it comes to a de facto banning of specific religions.

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

Islam doesn't 'suck'. Islam openly advocates murder and conquest, and a significant number of its followers take it seriously and act on its instructions.

My 'cited date' ( for 'for real' ) is hundreds of recent events, including 9/11, Fort Hood, etc

It's not a religion; Islam should therefore not have the perks and advantages of a religion.  That is my view, and it is not 'shredding the Constitution'.

"I guess I've missed out on all these parts that conservatives don't think really count.
Anyone got a list?"

Fuck that, champ! The onus is on you. You made the initial point via your hatred for Herman Cain: "he's simply despicable"

So, you make the list! You show us the benefits of Islam to the West. Maybe then we'll try and fail to show you the benefits of the Constitution on Islam other than enabling it as a political force.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 03:08 PM (HlEu/)

Damn, son, loan me one of your balls, you'll still have three to spare. Bra-f'n-vo.

I'll get right on that!

 _*snicker*

Posted by: Eric Holder at July 17, 2011 02:54 PM (r/KvE)

But first, let me mine this booger from my nose.

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

You know what sucks even worse than those two? Considering the Constitution to be a suicide pact.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

Then cite.

It's to the point where nobody is allowed to have any opinion about anything---because everyone has the right to squawk, and everyone has the right to *not* hear others' squawking---so who's gonna get their way?  The makers of the rules, that's who.

PC triumphs by getting *everyone* to shut up. (except for phrases approved by the almighty gov't, that is).....fkn commies.

Won't be long now before we're enslaved and bound.  Not with chains mind you, but regulation.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 03:09 PM (QcFbt)

I am intrigued by your religion and would like to join your church.

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

Yes but this isn't a crisis of some sort. This is a battle for the survival of our way of life that has been going on for thousands of years.

I don't wish to shred the Constitution and I agree it's not an easy subject to approach. Hell, I don't even know what the answer is but we need to recognize that Islam is evil and cannot be tolerated if we are to survive.

I give Muslims the stare down any time I see them. It's not much but it's how I let them know that they are being watched.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

The hits just keep on comin'.............

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

You know what sucks even worse than those two? Considering the Constitution to be a suicide pact.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (LD21B)

Because allowing a mosque to be built is exactly the same thing as committing suicide.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

Then cite.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (LD21B)

Yeah, I'd like to see this "data" too.

Because allowing a mosque to be built is exactly the same thing as committing suicide.

Posted by: robviously at July 17, 2011 03:18 PM (JYBAr)

I take it you don't believe that muslisms intend on subverting the US?

It is human barbarism at its most fundamental and evil.  The Nazis had nothing on these animalistic fucks.

...say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude.  At least it's an ethos!

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)

Except that muslim terrorist acts are a matter of public record, your data? Not so much.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

Then cite.

Posted by: KG at July 17, 2011 03:16 PM (LD21B)

Yeah, I'd like to see this "data" too.

You h8ers and your foolish desire to see real "data"... can't you just trust your betters?

Islam sucks, I know.  Know what sucks worse?  Shredding our Constitution every time there's a crisis of some sort.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:07 PM (WRW1S)

What's worse is thinking the Constitution will protect you from another 9/11 by the "peaceful religion of Islam".  I'll opt for a strong national defense and a homeland security agency (not the one we have right now) that actually targets and profiles muslims. Stop the PC bullshit approach to monitoring and arresting muslim organizations within our borders. Jamaat al Fuqra, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab-American Action Network, have no fucking business in this country.  I would keep close tabs on every mosque in this country. Every. Single. Fucking. One.

Posted by: As if, and stuff... at July 17, 2011 03:00 PM (7FgWm)

Meremortal, you are, without a doubt, one of the biggest losers I've ever encountered on the web. And that's saying something.

Islam doesn't 'suck'. Islam openly advocates murder and conquest, and a significant number of its followers take it seriously and act on its instructions.

My 'cited date' ( for 'for real' ) is hundreds of recent events, including 9/11, Fort Hood, etc

It's not a religion; Islam should therefore not have the perks and advantages of a religion. That is my view, and it is not 'shredding the Constitution'.

I don't need it laid out for me every way in which Islam sucks.  I know.

Trying to declare it a non-religion, however, is Orwellian at best.  Of course it's a religion, they pray to and worship what they percieve to be a god and they maintain religious beliefs (don't eat pork or drink alcohol, etc).  It fits every definition of a religion.

A shitty, violence-prone religion that calls for governing every aspect of life and calls for worldwide domination, but a religion just the same.  Just how far would you like to go in re-defining words in the Consitution in order to twist it's meaning?

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:19 PM (YyMmz)

I'm '274', you pathetic clown, and the incidences of murder in the name of Islam is a long and well-publicized list.   Mumbai, Daniel Pearl

Anyone rattling off the hundreds of  'citations' will sound like that Billy  Joel song. 

Simple: change the Constitution to ban islam:

It's not necessary.

Islam & its notions of Sharia Law are utterly incompatible with the vision [held by the founders] of what this nation would be.

The big problem, here, of course, is that the "Talmud" [and the teachings of the Talmud's major, ah, "itinerants"] is also utterly incompatible with the original concept of this nation, and [of course], the Talmudic folks own most of the major media outlets in this nation [and even own - or at least "pwn" - many of the minor media outlets, like Ace of Spades].

So to point out the obvious about the cancer which is Islam is to tread onto forbidden ground.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)

Wow.... and all those homicides are done in the name of Christianity?

Pure genius.

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:28 PM (YyMmz)

Do you like gladiator movies???

I have lots of cited data too, Christians committing murder, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc.....happens every single day. Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:15 PM (YyMmz)

Oh please you're so deluded, lets just pick the last 10 years, I can quickly name, 911, Bali x2, London, Spain, India x2 - Beslen, Fort Hood and etc..  and likely I'm missing some all done in the name of Islam.

Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:26 PM (zTZGo)

So as long as its adherents claim to be a religion, anything can be a gov't recognized religion?

Fuck the mosques.

XI-ty!!!!!1!

Drew M. said: "I guess according to your "logic", (if others will forgive the bastardization of the word) if the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins could "prove" to majority's satisfaction that religion, especially Christianity, doesn't benefit the nation or has done more harm than good, then it too could be banned."

I made no claim to logic, but to instinctive common sense and, heaven forfend, passion. So, if you've bastardized "logic" in citing it when none was proffered, then, well, you've proven the bastard. I made no premise. Nor any A+B=fuck all.

Further, Hitchens and Dawkins (amazing you'd use them to SUPPORT your point) are quite invested in undermining religion in the West and are well on their way to doing just that precisely by their disingenuous relativism. Something you’ve employed in your post by adamantly, confidently, and without reservation describing Herman Cain, a successful, black American businessman as “despicable”. Yet, ready to disparage and/or dismiss anyone who might consider the activism inherent in Islam the same – that is – “despicable”.

A shitty, violence-prone religion that calls for governing every aspect of life and calls for worldwide domination, but a religion just the same.  Just how far would you like to go in re-defining words in the Consitution in order to twist it's meaning?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (WRW1S)

Oh come on, Hollowpoint. You just said yourself that Islam is violence prone. You don't think that itself should disqualify Islam from being an acceptable religion?

Oh come on, Hollowpoint. You just said yourself that Islam is violence prone. You don't think that itself should disqualify Islam from being an acceptable religion?

Posted by: ErikW at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (r/KvE)

Especially for tax-exempt status, eh?

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:34 PM (YyMmz)

So you know the religious affiliation of every murderer in the U.S.?

Next.

It's simple pushback.

Nothing wrong with that.

I think communities have a right to object when the enemy establishes a base in their own backyard, sorry

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 03:35 PM (dw7rB)

Tbh, you're one to talk. You're defending Islam. I mean, damn.

Drew,  I urge you to learn more about Islam. Jihadwatch has a short Islam101 page that very quickly explains what we are up against.

The problem here is that some people seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "freedom of religion" actually means. It DOES NOT mean that we have the freedom to practice every element of our religion. If a part our religion is contrary to the law of our country, the law overrides the religion.

For example, if I claim that God has come to me in a vision and told me that in order to find salvation I must kill everyone with a L in their name, I can't actually start killing people with L's and then claim that the law can't touch me because it's my religion.  If I recruited others into my stupid death cult, the community at large should be able to protest a group of murderers building a "sanctuary" in their city.

The government can't stop me from believing that God wants me to kill people, but it sure as hell can stop me from acting on it, or punish me if I do.

Hahaha - Dude, be as dismissive as you want - you're the one with a Charle's Johnson thread on your hands.

Posted by: chillin the most at July 17, 2011 03:37 PM (6IV8T)

You're an optimist, aren't you?

Hyperbole much?

We're nowhere near the point of facing an existential threat to our survival.  9/11 was an evil, cowardly act that left thousands dead, but it didn't threaten to destroy us, nor would any other such attack.  Not even close.

If terrorism threatens our way of life it'll be beacuse of our reaction to it, not the act of terrorism itself.  Curently that reaction has been limited to putting up with TSA groping, the possibility that our phone calls to Pakistan might be tapped, and kicking the shit out of countries that so richly deserved it.

Re-defining what freedoms the Constitution protects- that is a greater threat than anything some goat fucking barbarian can pull off.

By all means- keep tabs on suspect mosques, investigate where warranted, limit immigration, etc.  Suggesting that our Constitutional freedoms should be thrown out the window, however, goes much too far.

All I know is, of all the Republican candidates - Herman Cain is despicable!

Posted by: For real at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (YyMmz)

I beg your pardon.

Posted by: Brad at July 17, 2011 03:43 PM (zTZGo)

Um, gov't can tell you what to believe, that is settled. But receiving tax-exempt status? That's something else. Not qualifying for religious tax-exempt status is not telling them they can't believe in whatever kooky idea they fancy. I'd hope you haven't conflated the two.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 03:23 PM (piMMO)

As If,

Your most endearing quality is your lack of a sense of humor. ;D

For Drew @:40http://tinyurl.com/3pdwrar

same old, Same old. When we get a church in Mecca I will be OK with one there.

" Christians commit murder all the time."

Not in the name of Christianity. That's the difference.

Muslims are instructed by Islam to either kill, convert, or tax all nonbelievers. Those are the only options.

Islam can be broken into two parts, Mecca and Medina. The Meccan verses are relatively peaceful (though not exclusively) because they came at the time when Muhammad was building his religion and co-opting bits and pieces of the Abrahamic religions around him. This is where you'll find things like "There is no compulsion in religion."

When Muhammad was run out of Mecca and fled to Medina, the verses become much more extreme and violent. It is here where you will find such verses as the Verse of the Sword and the requirement that Muslims make non-Muslims "feel subdued."

In Islam, there is a concept called abrogation. This means that if there are two verses that conflict, the latter verse, chronologically,  is the one that is interpreted as the "true" word of God. The Verse of the Sword was one of the last Surah's recorded during the life of Muhammad. Thus, Muslims are bound not by the verse that says "there is no compulsion in religion" but rather by the verse that says "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."

This is the problem with Islam. Violence against non-believers is mandatory.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (WRW1S)

That's not what he's suggesting. "" Hyperbole much? ""

( Tossing out passive-aggressive cliches detracts from your argument )

Like it or not, izlam *must* continue to be defined as a 'religion' or else it bloody WILL become our 'state'...

Hyperbole much?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:41 PM (WRW1S)

Not enough. Evidently you don't get it.

Posted by: Rip at July 17, 2011 03:46 PM (onO2O)

That's my point; you made it better than I did.

I'm trying to figure out what country some of you still think you live in. This isn't a free society here. Did not San Fran. just ban circumcision?

In this society, a community sure as hell can restrict religious worship and practices.

Depends on what you mean by "acceptable".  Do I accept Islam as personally accpetable?  No, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a religion and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

Should we sit back and say nothing?  No.  Should we pretend that Islam isn't the motivation behind most of the world's terrorists?  No.  Should we investigate mosques an Muslims suspected of supporting terrorism?  Definitely.  Should we tell the truth to anyone considering converting to Islam?  Absolutely.

Should we engage in Orwellian double-speak to redefine the meaning of the word "religion" (or any other word) as it pertains to the Constitution?  No.

As despicable as we find the KKK, Fred Phelps, neo-Nazis, Communists, and Islam, we punish people for their actions, not for thoughtcrimes or fear of what they might do in the future.

"You can even have your own building where you preach that idea. What you can't do is kill someone. "

Not true. Look at Waco, or the Orthodox LDS church (sorry, can't remember exactly what they call themselves).

If an organization is using religion as a veil for illegal activity (even if the members actually believe the mumbo jumbo the leader is spewing) the government can step in.

I'll say the same thing to you that I like to say to libby gun-grabbers. If you don't like the 14th Amendment (or in their case, the 2nd), repeal the fucker. It's been done before. Until then, it's the supreme law of the land. Don't like it? Tough shit.

In this society, a community sure as hell can restrict religious worship and practices."

THIS!

What a pile of steaming fertilizer Drew has asked us to shallow!

I suggest the author review American history and explain the tolerance of the Mormon church in the 19th century and even today.  How was was it protected?

Can anyone explain to me why anyone would sanction a religion that:

-allows the murder of anyone leaving that religion (Islam)

-sanctions the killing of infidels

-permits and encourages the lying and cheating of unbelievers

-treats women as chattel

How can anyone cite the Constitution to protect a religion that will overthrow this very document?

We are supposed to pledge to support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  If we only pause to examine how the Constitution is interpreted in Dearborn Michigan we see that the defenders of this "religion" are knaves and fools.

I do not support Islam anywhere whenit dictates that It is the supreme law of the land.  Anyone who has lived in a Muslim dominated country knows there is no tolerance for others, only exploitation and rape of other cultures.

To those who interret the Constitution as a suicide pact will have to explain to me why the founding fathers clearly didn't tolerate Islam nor would have extended the first amendments protections to it.

I suggest one read Jefferson's or Churchill's thoughts on Islam.  Then come back and tell me why it should be tolerated.

The BRITISH UNDERSTOOD THE REALITY OF JUSTICE AND RELIGIONS.  WHEN THE GOVERNOR OF INDIA WAS TOLD IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS CUSTOM OF INDIA TO BURN THE WIDOWS OF MEN WHO HAD DIED HE REPLIED IN BRITAIN IT WAS THEIR CUSTOM TO HANG MEN WHO BURNED WOMEN.

Now tell me who is the realist this man or those who argue that there is a place for Sharia law in the USA.

You'll note what happens to nations like France and the UK or even Dearborn that allow mosques. 

Finally I'll ask Drew to do an article telling us about the glorious history of other religions under Islam.  Like the Iraqi Christians or Jews.

I say Drew needs to be sent to live in Dearborn.  We don't need any dhimmies telling us to prepare for our chains and why such tolerance is the sign of a superior culture.

The graveyards of the world are dotted with such fools who lead their civilizations into the boneyards.

From Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

2%
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

2% - 5%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

5%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

10%
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections

20%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues,

40%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare

60%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non- conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

80%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim

100%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-al-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only “Word”,

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

As despicable as we find the KKK, Fred Phelps, neo-Nazis, Communists, and Islam, we punish people for their actions, not for thoughtcrimes or fear of what they might do in the future.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 03:52 PM (WRW1S)

Except for Phelps (that I know of), the others you mentioned all have blood on their hands.

That doesn't make sense, dude.

"Being kind to one another.  Prove the imams wrong."

It doesn't matter. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Not just in Saudi Arabia, not just in Pakisatan. In America. Honor killings are being swept under the rug right here, right now. Once a Muslim, always a Muslim unless you pay with your life. Women are terrified to leave Islam because they don't want to end up like Aminah and Sarah Said. Islam uses our tolerance against us, but how long are we to tolerate women being beaten to death by their own fathers? How long are we to tolerate young boys being taught Jihad before they are taught to read?

Are we to become England, where just days ago Mulsims took to the streets and began a "Sharia enforcement"?

Mosques are simply a front for the worst form of organized crime we have ever seen. It's time they are treated as such.

Why was this ridiculous article allowed on this blog?

The Constitution forbids the US Congress from making any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. THAT'S IT.

It says nothing at all about what local communities can and cannot do. Holy fucking shit, I can't believe people still do not understand this.

Shhh... let the non-retarded people talk.  Or at least those aware of the existence of the 14th Amendment.

Local communities can no more ignore the First Amendment than they can any other Amendment. 

"What happens after something is built is different than saying communities can ban something before it's built because they don't like the people building it."

Hogwash! Community standards have long been recognized when it comes to what can and can not be built. Just try to get a KKK hall built across from a historically black church.

" You simply can't say "some Muslims are bad, so we're going to take away the rights of all them".

We are not saying that. We are saying that Islam is bad. Not only bad, but actually directly contrary to the values of our country.  Islam preaches treason. There might be  moderate Muslins, but there is no moderate Islam.

Except for Phelps (that I know of), the others you mentioned all have blood on their hands.

That doesn't make sense, dude.

Yes, they all have blood on their hands and/or express anti-American sentiment.  That was the point- we don't punish these people based on their beliefs, we punish them based on their actions.

Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable.  The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.

In this country, we fight abhorrent speech and opinions with more free speech.  It's neither necessary, legal or desireable to dictate which opinions or religions deserve First Amendment protection- they all do.

No man, be he a beggar or the President of the United States, is outside its laws. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at July 17, 2011 04:03 PM (hIWe1)

I confess that I keep arguing because I know in my heart what is evil but I also understand that the Consitution is the law and the law is not always applied fairly.

What annoys me is that our President believes that he IS above the law.

Dear God, get this asshole out of here.

We HAVE to set an example and help where we can.

Yeah. Saving the women from Islam is a wonderful idea.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 17, 2011 04:05 PM (dw7rB)

Drew M. cites this iman, perhaps he thought it better not to cite the imans in the UK that have preached against British soldiers and ordered his faithful to disrupt the burials of slain British soldiers.

He obviously sees the Constitution as a suicide pact.  I note that we have a nation where there are many who will have fits if the mere mention of god is intoned at any public event.

We are asked to forget the wearing of the cross or reading the Bible at many schools is some sort of crime yet we are told to tolerate those who refuse to pick up the blind and halt with their aid dogs because of their religion.

I am sick and tired of those who on one hand view the Constitution as a living or flexible document than to look at the intentions of what the founders intended.

Such ignorance is breath taking.  Laws and restrictions at the time of the Constitution extended to who could hold public office based on religion in most states.  In Mass. Catholics, Baptists, Quakers etc could not hold office.  The same applied to about every state but Pennsylvannia.

Times change, attitudes change, but no one would tolerate a polticial system that called for the murder of non adherents and the overthrow of the legitimate government.  How then can one defend a system that uses "religion" as a shield against the same restrictions that would otherwise make it a criminal enterprise?

Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable.  The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.

Yet the SEIU can beat people up at will? Shabazz a booboo can threaten anyone? Holder can give guns to murderers? etc.

"The KKK isn't a religion."

Of course it is. They are acting out of their belief that God has ordained them as the superior race. Can't they build across the street from Rev. Wright's church? Why not?

Dianne, I have heard of the NYC project. It's great. Too bad Ms. Geller is called a bigot for trying to save people's lives.

"but they're just fucking retards living in a fantasy world in which they get to put the Constitution in a shredder."

Again, the constitution does not give a free pass to every aspect of any given religion. Treason dressed up as religion is still treason.

Yes, if a KKK member gives a speech calling for his members to kill black people, that's actionable.  The same should (and does) go for Muslims who call for terrorist acts.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (WRW1S)

But they've already done that. It's what they do. It's their reason to exist.

Women as chattel:

Genesis 3:1: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Ephesians 5:23-33 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Killing nonbelievers:

Deuteronomy 17 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Honor killing:

Leviticus 21:9: "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

It's all there. Not too surprising, since Islam is basically Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.

410: Virtually every one of those can be found in the Old Testament. So I guess we'll be shutting down the churches and synagogues too, right?

cite the text, please.

14th Amendment, Skippy. Look it up. Read it. Don't like it? Repeal it. Until then, it's the law of the land. Sorry.

Simply banning mosques, even if you could, doesn't help US security.

You don't know shit about Anwar Al-Awlaki do you?

It's all there. Not too surprising, since Islam is basically Judeo-Christianity with the serial numbers filed off.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:20 PM (UxDMk)

Wow, you just nailed the modern Christian culture.

Not.

There are plenty more.

"But seriously, you continue arguing that a religion with about a billion adherents worldwide isn't actually a religion because a bunch of people on a website say so."

I never said that it wasn't a religion. I said that it is both a religion and a violent, expansionist ideology.

The latter is hiding under the cover of the former.

Posted by: For real

Yeah, but not in the name of Christianity. Praise Jesus is typically not followed by beheading or shooting.

Only the woman promised to obey, dipshit.

But they've already done that. It's what they do. It's their reason to exist.

Again- you're making my point for me.

Their right to exist as an organization, freely express their beliefs, and peaceably assemble are still protected under the Constitution.  If one calls for murder, then they can be (and have been) arrested.  That some of them in the past have called for or committed murder in accordance to their agenda doesn't invalidate their rights as an organization until it gets into RICO territory.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:30 PM (UxDMk)

Keep digging that hole buddy....

Translation: you have no response. The "mewling horseshit" was direct quotes from the Bible. Dumbass.

Yeah, but not in the name of Christianity. Praise Jesus is typically not followed by beheading or shooting.

 Posted by: kansas at July 17, 2011 04:29 PM (A+g5T)

No, it's usually followed by a potluck lunch while being entertained by a praise band.

Do tell.

You mean the guy who fired Nidal Hassan on the idea of shooting up Ft. Hood from somewhere in Yemen? Yeah, I'm sure banning mosques would have stopped that.

He is an American Imam, now based in Yemen. Prior to leaving for Yemen, he filled many a young American with Jihad bullshit from his local Mosque.

You asked for an example of Christians murdering within living memory. I pointed to Northern Ireland.

Hint: that means you lose. Sorry.

One other thing this illustrates is this is the second issue that Cain has taken the non-incorporation stance on. A while back he took a non-incorporation stance on the second amendment.

So at least he is consistent. Perhaps he should say that. Or maybe he has and Fox edited it out.

I doubt he's thought it through that thoroughly.

"So every practicing American Muslim is a traitor?"

No. Some are completely ignorant of what their religion teaches, and some are afraid to leave less they find themselves without a head.

The remainder seek a Shariah state. Based on the studies showing the prevelance of Jihad material in mosques, if a woman is wearing a traditional Hijab, or a man has a "Muhammad style" beard, they attend a mosque that preaches Jihad.

Do tell.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:33 PM (UxDMk)

And that is relevant, how?

Someone is stupid here all right, but it ain't me, Skippy.

Now you're just playing stupid.

The decades-long religious-based terrorism in Northern Ireland isn't relevant at all. Riiiiiight.

Gee War ignores everything and creates a strawman he demands to be answered.  What a shock.

Posted by: buzzion at July 17, 2011 04:37 PM (oVQFe)

Shhhh.  Go back to sucking Christian-hating cock.  You'll enjoy it more and you're better at it anyway.

That some of them in the past have called for or committed murder in accordance to their agenda doesn't invalidate their rights as an organization until it gets into RICO territory.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:31 PM (WRW1S)

Well, I'll have to defer to you on that one. I don't know dick about particular laws.

I'll let my opinion on Muslims stand, tho. They are the enemy and I will not treat them as my neighbor.

The point was that Christians can, and do, commit large-scale terrorism. Dipshit.

Cross posting this thread at Little Green Footballs so all 37 of CharlesÂ’ remaining posters and his own dozen or so sockpuppets - as well as Drew M.Â’s three or four supporters on this thread - can circle jerk together over their moral and constitutional superiority. Allahpundit of Hotair.com is invited to oversee their efforts. The rest of us racists, bigots, and zealots can go somewhere else and hang our heads in shame at our collective intolerance. Oh, and we'll need beer.

"Banning mosques isn't going to change any of that."

You are forgetting the very vast segment of the Muslim population that falls into the "doesn't know what the hell their own religion teaches" camp. When those folks run into a friendly neighborhood Imam at the friendly neighborhood Mosque who teaches them that they must commit Jihad for Islam, you have a new crop of radicalized youths ready to do battle.

This is by design, btw. It is part of a concerted effort to spread Islam and Shariah to America.

Deuteronomy 22:13-20:

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.< p /> That would be the sound of you shutting the fuck up that I hear, right?

"Too much immigration and not enough assimilation. "

Muslims do not assimilate. See Al-Hijra

Well, I'll have to defer to you on that one. I don't know dick about particular laws.

I'll let my opinion on Muslims stand, tho. They are the enemy and I will not treat them as my neighbor.

Nobody is suggesting you have to like them, be nice to them or even that you can't hate them if you so choose.  Feel free to speak out and tell them "we don't want you here", that's your right.  Speak up and tell your community and the world why Islam is a false, destructive religion- anyone tries to stop you, the First Amendment has your back.

The Constitution does, however, prohibit you or anyone else from deciding which religions get to build a house of worship and which ones don't.

The two "different roles", of course, being that he tells her what to do, and she does it. Yeah, only a "fevered mind" would equate that with chattel/slave status. Dipshit.

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:46 PM (UxDMk)

I find it amusing when a libtard tries to use Scripture they don't believe in or understand against those who do.

The Constitution does, however, prohibit you or anyone else from deciding which religions get to build a house of worship and which ones don't.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 04:48 PM (WRW1S)

Not necessarily. I live in a rural area and I can gaurantee that a mosque won't be built here, even if some muzzie wanted to.

I know that's seperate from your point but I insist on being a stubborn sumbitch!

Women as chattel:

[...]

None of these verses point to women being considered "chattel". You are selectively quoting the Bible without providing context and you completely misunderstand the biblical definition of submission versus that of the Koran. Furthermore, if you read further you will find that God gave instructions for husbands, which will help you interpret some of the verses you quoted.

As for some of the other scriptures, we could argue about God's covenant with Israel but that would be a rabbit trail. Regardless, you will find numerous instances of God's grace and mercy to Israel and the gentiles in the Old Testament.

And I'm not a "libtard", dipshit. Hint: there are other choices besides "liberal" and "pig-ignorant religious fascist".

Posted by: Zombie Pizza Roll at July 17, 2011 04:54 PM (UxDMk)

Oh noes, you wound me!

next...

One last time - this is a post and thread befitting Littlegreenfootballs.com

I came to AoSHQ precisely because of LGF's crack-up. I have no interest in reliving that shit over here.

There is NO DOUBT that DrewM. is an honest, awesome, true and dear conservative. Probably more true and consistent than most of us. I love the guy and his posts and his work.

Even if he rightly thinks I'm a piece of shit.

But we do not need these sorts of posts here at Ace. Not because we're a bunch of group think idiots. We're not. But because there are certain (few) issues we don't need to be smacking each other over. In this instance - Herman Cain and Islam.

I love DrewM (in a blogging sense), even as I'm blasting him. I trust his bonafides. I also believe he is likely a more consistent conservative than I am.

What I don't care to get into is what LGF called "Passion threads" (started with opinions on the movie The Passion of the Christ). It did ZERO good for anyone. It divided allies. There wasn't "honest debate", as much as various sides pretending desiring so. It was a constant flame war that created unnecessary fractures and hurt feelings at the site. It was never the same. And now it's shit. We don't need that here.

Posted by: JDW at July 17, 2011 05:02 PM (HlEu/)

Dude, this mild.

An intellectual exercise: KKK decides to create a chapter in Harlem.

Hardly an "intellectual" exercise.

Here are your two choices:

A.)  The KKK has the right to form a chapter there, but others also have the rigth to speak out in oppostion to the KKK and let them know that they're not welcome.  Those on either side who get caught commiting crimes get arrested.

B.)  Local politicans decide "fuck the Constitution, we don't want them here" and ban them from forming a chapter.  The KKK sues, wins, and probably gets awarded local taxpayer money in the process.

Pick option A if you give a shit about the Constitution, pick B if you don't.

If the First Amendment only applied to opinions we agree with and/or religions we don't find objectionable, it would be rendered both unnecessary and meaningless.

Quick question. How many different armed conflicts are going on currently around the world between different faiths? Follow-up: What faith is almost universally found in one side of the conflicts because it absolutely cannot tolerate the existence of any other faiths? And we are supposed to think of that as a "religion"? Really?

As many have said, there are indeed many wonderful, kind, and moderate muslims. Sadly, Islam is not moderate. Anywhere.

Going forward in this world, there really is a simple two choice question. Choose one:

1: Western Civilization

2: Islam

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 05:03 PM (o2lIv)

Nice! Ephesians is my fave, I like the part about armoring up.

If the First Amendment only applied to opinions we agree with and/or religions we don't find objectionable, it would be rendered both unnecessary and meaningless.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 17, 2011 05:08 PM (WRW1S)

601 - fair enough - and, again, probably right!

Posted by: mike at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (nVRkb)

You must live in a rural area. In my city it's getting to the point where you can't spit without hitting one.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:09 PM (s7mIC)

You pass a simple amendment banning the practice of Islam.

None of these verses point to women being considered "chattel". You are selectively quoting the Bible without providing context and you completely misunderstand the biblical definition of submission versus that of the Koran. Furthermore, if you read further you will find that God gave instructions for husbands, which will help you interpret some of the verses you quoted.

As for some of the other scriptures, we could argue about God's covenant with Israel but that would be a rabbit trail. Regardless, you will find numerous instances of God's grace and mercy to Israel and the gentiles in the Old Testament.

Posted by: '80sBaby at July 17, 2011 04:57 PM (o2lIv)

Speaking of submission, you know what Islam means, right?

This is what Islam wants.

""Islam will be made supreme in the land. Islam will be the ruling system in the land." "Under the Khalifah we will be unified. One state. Not 57 states, but one state." "One united state." "The military be in the hands of the Muslims." "Al Aqsa will be taken back from the crusaders."

-Chicago conference.

This is what is going on right now in England.

"London, Asharq Al-Awsat- Hard-line fundamentalists have pledged to ban alcohol and gender mixing in new areas throughout the United Kingdom where Shariaa will be imposed. According to this plan, a large number of posters bearing the slogans “no gambling”, “no music and concerts”, “no nudity or vice”, and “no drugs and smoking” will be distributed. The posters announce “Beware: You are entering a Shariaa-controlled zone - Islamic rules enforced.”

"completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ."

Why should I tolerate an ideology that would kill me on the spot if given the chance, rape and enslave my daughters, and strap a suicide vest on my sons?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (s7mIC)

Damn straight I'm intolerant of Islam. It goes against everything I believe. It promotes hatred and death. Why should I be tolerant of anything it has to offer?

"Can't they just make Islam more British rather than make Britain more Islamic?"

No. Muhammad went to Medina to increase his territory. Muslims immigrate in order to expand dar al-Islam. (I can't get italics off. Sorry)

(Personal affirmation, not directed toward anyone in particular....)

I shall maintain my opinions, whether considered by others as:

incorrect

offensive

disagreeable

inferior

discriminatory

unacceptable....

in fact, as long as everyone else is allowed to possess their own, so shall I.

G-d bless America.

"marry me?"

My husband might have something to say on that matter.

But Islam isn't just about a disagreement or something we find objectionable, it's about ending our freedoms and to ultimately subjugate us. I disagree with Mormonism, I disagree with Scientology but their ultimate goal isn't to bring me to live under their law.

They can hold believe whatever they want.  If they and their religion call for our freedoms being replaced with Sharia law, who gives a shit until they try and act on it?  Whether they're allowed to build mosques or not doesn't make it any more or less likely that they'll succeed, which they obviously wouldn't.

Be they white supremicists, black nationalists, Communists, Nazis or religious radicals, there have been multiple organizations that for generations have been calling for an end to our way of life and freedoms, and sometimes using violence and terrorism in their attempts to do so. 

It wasn't unconstitutional sanctions that prevented them from succeeding, it was a rejection of their philosophy by our citizens that relegated them to ineffective fringe groups.

Do you have so little faith in the American people that you believe allowing Muslims to build mosques will lead the majority- or even a large minority- of Americans into surrendering their freedoms and way of life?  If not, why so eager to weaken our fundamental freedoms to prevent it?

Posted by: Lauren at July 17, 2011 05:29 PM (froiv)

Posted by: lowandslow at July 17, 2011 05:30 PM (GZitp)

That's funny.  I've had Muslim students in my class.  Not once did they blow me up.  Not once.

That's funny.  I've had Muslim students in my class.  Not once did they blow me up.  Not once.

Yep, Taqqiya's a bitch. Now try teaching anywar in dar al-Islam while openly rejecting Islam.

Lauren, have you heard of Pamela Geller in NYC and her efforts to rescue battered muslim women?  We HAVE to set an example and help where we can.
Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 04:09 PM (+tzv7)

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Do I have sympathy for these women born into this satanic ideology?  Sure.  But if  U.S.  law enforcement/courts weren't such PC wussies, the punishment of the batterers would've been severe enough to dissuade the next incidence.  The head chopper in NY state should have gotten the death penalty immediately on conviction (but no, taxpayers will be paying for his room and board for the next 25 years -- if we're lucky) as should the father who ran over his daughter because she was too Westernized.  These people are living in the 7th century.  The only enlightenment the muzzie ideology embraced was chemistry, specifically, bomb making. 

Our founders championed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe they would be spinning in their graves to know that now means "rescuing untold numbers of a people they would've never allowed to set foot in the country and constantly looking over their shoulder while walking in certain American cities for fear of bodily harm! 

The founders were anxious about needed craftsmen being alowed into the country because they envisioned a just and moral people and never knew how a stranger would fit in.  Their main worry was that the newcomer would insist on bringing his traditions and refuse to assimilate.  Wonder what they'd think of Little Somalia in Minnesota?

How does the guarantee of life, liberty and happiness translate to our local, state and federal govts spending manpower and capital to police mosques, terrorist training compunds all along the East Coast as well as tracking terrorist organizations like CAIR and radical professors?  There are better ways to spend your life.  This is a problem we're agreeing to let fester unabated.

The founders had common sense.  Putting up with these barbarians is the epitome of stupidity. 

I had no idea that there were so many people here who are just completely intolerant of Islam here at the HQ.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:27 PM (s7mIC)

Intolerant? I downright loathe them.

It wasn't unconstitutional sanctions that prevented them from succeeding, it was a rejection of their philosophy by our citizens that relegated them to ineffective fringe groups.

Drew M. is illustrative of the fuzzy headed views at the upper most levels of government.  If you love those who wish you ill and seek to destroy you, they will magically respect you and embrace your attitudes.

Such views silenced the common sense blessed military leaders when they saw an extreme jihadi officer, Maj. Hassan who went on to kill his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood.   It allows our "betters" to select terrorists to recruit other imans to recruit the most lawless and violent criminals in the name of tolerance.

Of course the vast majority of Muslims aren't suicide bombers.  They only create an atmosphere that tolerates suicide bombers and encourages the care and feeding of such extremists.  They recruit, train, educate, and finance such people.  The vast majority of Muslims will not inform on jihaddies but rather do whatever they can to support them.

Has anyone seen vast demonstrations of Muslims protesting the excesses of sharia or the fanatics?  Or have you seen the multitudes of Islam dancing in joy on 9-11 over the murder of thousands of innocents?

Of course the vast majority of Muslims wish you well.  Just ask the adherents of other religions in Iraq, Iran or Lebannon.

Just sleep, believe, obey and your unicorns and magical beans will arrive free of charge.

Prepare for what is approaching.

Seriously though, ChemJeff. Read up on Al-Hijra

Again, ChemJeff, spend 5 minutes and read about Al-Hijra. The ultimate goal of those who immigrate to America is to make America an Islamic state. Their methods go beyond violence, something you can't seem to understand.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:45 PM (s7mIC)

I don't know Jeff, go ask the families of those killed on 9/11 and get back to us on how you can spot them.  Don't pretend this about individual Muslims and not Islam, you know better.

Seriously though, if Islam is such a murder cult, how do Muslims wander around the country on a daily basis and manage not to blow anyone up?

They aren't yet under threat from the Muslims who would have them do so. Yet.

Pay more attention to what is happening in Great Britain and the rest of Europe, jeff. 

Humanity has gained nothing from Islam, and  itstands to lose everything to its most devout adherents.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (P8oOy)

How many does it take? Have all of you completely forgot about 9/11 already?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 17, 2011 05:47 PM (QcFbt)

Fine, then don't go to KKK meetings.  That's different than wanting the KKK banned.

Are you guys listening to yourselves?  We're talking about the internal workings of the country...not the external threat. 

When a sufficient number of Muslims infiltrate a community, the threat goes internal. 

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:40 PM (s7mIC)

Nine years ago I went to play disc golf with some buddies and we stopped at the local muzzie quickie mart to grab some drinks. The place was empty.

The next day was 9-11.

Those cocksuckers knew what was going to happen, Chemjeff.

Don't be an asshole.

How can you be sure?

You can't be jeff, unless you knw he's not a Muslim.

"But if the Islam-is-a-murder-cult crowd is correct, you face that threat too every single time you go to the grocery store.  The guy you pass in the cereal aisle might be a Muslim wearing a suicide vest!  How can you be sure?"

You know absolutely nothing about Islam as an ideology, yet you sit here pretending that those of use who have actually done research on the matter are a bunch of ignorant hicks.

You know that little muslim woman at the store? She hates you. She's waiting on the day when all of America is on it's knees facing  Mecca. That is the ultimate goal. If that goal is realized, you can kiss all of your freedom goodbye. I hope you like the way your wife looks in a burka. Right now Islam is simply laying the groundwork. It's subtle, and patient. It allows people like you to make jokes about how stupid people like me are to have actually read the Koran and Hadiths and believe that they say what is clearly written.

Posted by: As If... at July 17, 2011 05:46 PM

but their leaders do that already, hypocrisy runs deep in Arabia; why it's almost like... hmmm.... like Hollywierd Greentards in private jets and mega mansions

Posted by: Modgi at July 17, 2011 05:50 PM (Vrb/j)

A little of both, I suppose.

I don't want Islam banned because I support anyone's natural right to worship any faith they want.

I had high hopes for Herman Cain.

I figured his skills at at leadership, strategic insight, negotiation annd butt-kicking would be more than enough to fix Congress ... apparently, I was wrong.

As for Islam, as long as there are enough people who take the Koran, the hadiths, etc., literally, EVERYONE else is at risk ... risk of truly ugly things.

Perhaps Christianity was like this too, but not today. And this is due to internal debates, decisions and actions on the part of Christians.

Remember the fool in Egypt, perhaps 3 weeks ago, who said on Egyptian TV (video at HotAir, and here too, IIRC) that when he wanted a girl, he simply went down to the market and bought one? Technically, your sisters, daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc., are at risk. Today. For real. But remember that it is the might of Western arms that keeps them safe. Today.

I've known several muslims over the years, all adults. Some I genuinely believed took their religion seriously, but only in the internal and personal way; sort of like very many Christians. Some said they immigrated as they simply wanted to get out from undr the yoke of the imams. And some treated islam as simply a personal identifier: it's what they write down when asked. Perhaps all were too Westernized. But others ... like many in Europe today ... not so much.

This question is settled, as far as North America and Europe (and I suspect China and India) are concerned, but it still needs to be settled in the Middle East. Seeing that it gets settled over there seems a good plan.

DrewM: "This isn't an emotional story I bought into, it's simply looking at what a candidate for the GOP nomination actually said."

Then why the need for the emotional anecdotal argument (that you "bought into") at all?

Use of the word "despicable" should be reserved for describing the jihadists, not for those willing to speak out against the evil they perpetrate.

"Nope - but maybe these hyperbolic generalizations about ALL OF ISLAM being a "murder cult" is a bit over the top."

I explained Mecca vs. Medina, abrogation, and the Verse of the Sword earlier in the thread. Why don't you go educate yourself about the true nature of Islam before you dismiss what we're saying.

 Wow, some chick in a burqa just delivered my pizza. Strange days indeed, huh?

Which hand was she carrying it in?

Farmer Joe 80% of all mosques in America support violent Jihad.

The only mosques that don't are those that have less than 20 members, and do not follow Shariah.

so sad Herman...

He coulda been a contenda!

DrewM  Maybe this will help next time:

 From the Collins Dictionary:

If you say that a person or action is despicable, you are emphasizing that they are extremely nasty, cruel, or evil. adj (emphasis)  The Minister said the bombing was a despicable crime.

Farmer Joe 80% of all mosques in America support violent Jihad.

The only mosques that don't are those that have less than 20 members, and do not follow Shariah.

And should be investigated, and if found to be advocating violence, shut down. Read what I've read, don't cherry pick my comments.

A little of both, I suppose.

I don't want Islam banned because I support anyone's natural right to worship any faith they want.

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 05:56 PM (s7mIC)

You're an atheist, aren't you?

Posted by: Dianne at July 17, 2011 05:57 PM (+tzv7)

Fine.  No Christmas presents for you!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 17, 2011 06:04 PM (LH6ir)

Yes they actually did say that.

>>>The next day was 9-11.

>>>Those cocksuckers knew what was going to happen, Chemjeff.

>>>Don't be an asshole.

Just like the Jews knew in advance too, right?  Seems like everyone was in on it except the Christians!

Dianne and modgi seem to be rather aggressive for new commenters.

Or, they are trolls looking for a fight.

I'm going with "just plain stupid".

Perhaps the Free Republic comments section shut down for the weekend or something.

"But what if they all are seething with rage against me?  I'm sure there are a few former students of mine who think I'm an asshole as well.  But they haven't yet tried to slash my tires or kill me."

Those (non-muslims) students also aren't following a violent ideology that teaches hate against all non-muslims.

The thing you seem so quick to overlook is the fact that all these "friendly" muslims you've encountererd self-identifiy with Islam. Now, as I've said before, they might be ignorant or afraid, but if they are true believers, they see you as absolute scum who should be subdued or killed.

Would you self identify with a group that announced to the world that everyone outside the group should be killed? Why would you respect someone who does?

Posted by: chemjeff at July 17, 2011 06:06 PM (s7mIC)

You don't seem to have any religious conviction.

Just like the Jews knew in advance too, right?

Anything that might affect the spot price of Gold.  We get a memo.