Coexist With The First Amendment

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
Bill Warner’s piece is a must read:

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd -- you know -- all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Coexst.png

April 24, 2013
Islam Coexists?
By Bill Warner

Articles: Islam Coexists?

First and foremost, no American who enjoys the freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution can coexist with Islam. The two are eternally incompatible. Islam is a theocracy. Every Islamic theocracy refutes the Constitution especially the First Amendment. Americans should judge Islam on those grounds —— not buy into the crap on a bumper sticker.

America’s history shows that peaceful coexistence among religions is only possible when the First Amendment is respected and enforced. Somebody should be teaching American Muslims to coexist with the First Amendment. I’ll start the ball rolling. Folks communicating on the new media should refer to Islam as a political movement as often as they call Islam a religion. The old media won’t do it.

The danger in coexisting peacefully lies in the B.S. the old media promotes about coexisting with people who have sworn to kill us. Since the end of WWII those same people have been preaching coexisting with communism. The jury is still out on Muslims, but there is no doubt Democrats will never coexist with the Constitution.

Do you see a pattern emerging? Liberals are all for coexisting with two brutal, totalitarian, religions. Conversely, Hussein complained about Christians hanging on to their God and their guns. Notice that he has no problem with arming his personal goon squad (the Ready Reserve Corps), or arming the Muslim Brotherhood and drug cartels.

Now, let’s take a trip down memory lane. Go back to WWI and see how Turkish Muslims coexisted with Armenian Christians:


Today, April 24, marks the “Great Crime,” that is, the Armenian genocide that took place under Turkey’s Islamic Ottoman Empire, during and after WWI. Out of an approximate population of two million, some 1.5 million Armenians died. If early 20th century Turkey had the apparatuses and technology to execute in mass—such as 1940s Germany’s gas chambers—the entire Armenian population may well have been decimated.

There is so much in Raymond Ibrahim’s piece worth quoting, I’ve decided to post a few sentences in the hope they will be enough to prompt a desire to connect them to the premise:

. . . “Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.”

XXXXX

In the city of Malatia, she saw 16 Christian girls crucified: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands,” she wrote.

XXXXX

Even Adolf Hitler pointed out that “Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, i.e., the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention.”

XXXXX​

Now that war has come to Syria—with the U.S. supporting the jihadis and terrorists—the Christians there are on the run for their lives.

XXXXX​

If Christians are thus being singled out today—in our modern, globalized, “humanitarian” age—are we to suppose that they weren’t singled out a century ago by Turks?

XXXXX

As one Armenian studies professor asks, “If it [the Armenian Genocide] was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?”

XXXXX

Meanwhile, the modern Islamic world’s response to the persecution of Christians is identical to Turkey’s response to the Armenian genocide: Denial.

XXXXX​

In 1915, Adolf Hitler rationalized his genocidal plans, which he implemented some three decades later, rhetorically asked: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

The Forgotten Genocide — and why it matters today
By: Raymond Ibrahim
4/24/2013 10:06 AM

The Forgotten Genocide -- and why it matters

One bit of psycho-babble speculation. Women are brutalized by Muslim men. Some Muslim clerics endorse the practice of forcibly circumcising young girls, then they justify savagery with religious double-talk designed to inflame the meanest level of twisted “morality.” The result is that a Muslim’s manhood is forever tied to female virginity.

NOTE: I have to wonder what Al Gore’s hangup is. He’s not worried about virginity —— or is he:


AL GORE: STERILIZE WOMEN UNDER 25
By Frank Lake on June 25, 2011

AL GORE: STERILIZE WOMEN UNDER 25 | Weekly World News

In any event, the burka is the joke on male Muslims. Here’s some of the tongue in cheek stuff I’ve posted over the years.

All of the recent talk about Muslim women being forced to wear burkas in repressive Islamic countries in order to keep them modest, pure, and faithful reminded me of something I read some decades ago. I don’t recall the name of the authoress, or where it was published, but she said that Muslim women love their burkas because it allowed them to make cuckolds of their husbands with impunity. The burka is the perfect disguise! In fact, a burka is a better disguise than a ski mask:


Hunt for the 'Burka Bandit': Man armed with knife and umbrella dressed as Muslim woman to rob travel agents
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:57 AM on 28th June 2011

Hunt for the burka raider: Man dressed as Muslim woman caught on CCTV robbing travel agencies | Mail Online

Clearly, an unfaithful wife can come and go with complete anonymity when she’s wearing a burka. Just imagine how happy a married woman is as she tap dances out of a stud’s pad after consummating a satisfying double-nooner knowing she can’t be identified.

Thinking a burka guarantees fidelity tells me that Muslim extremists are really a collection of morons, or else they don’t mind their womenfolk playing “Let’s hide the pickle” at the drop of a burka —— just so long as the neighbors don’t find out about it.

Westerners are convinced the burka enslaves women. Maybe it does, but there are more subtle considerations at play here.

For one thing, shedding the burka will play hell with the imaginations of Muslim men who become aroused by a sack of rags that might be concealing a woman. I know that sounds far-fetched until you put it in perspective this way: An amorously inclined Western woman calls upon Victoria’s Secret if she wants to arouse her man, but when a Muslim woman tells her man she’s going to slip into something comfortable she dives under a burka. Conclusion: Burkas must be an arousal tool in the Muslim world.

And let’s not forget a Muslim Don Juan laying his best Saturday night moves on a burka —— then coming up with a handful of testicles when it’s time to do some business. Maybe that’s why Muslim men are so damned angry.

On the downside, Democrats will probably come up with a program to compensate cross-dressers in Muslim countries if the burka is done away with? New wardrobes are far from cheap.

Shedding the burkas also poses a great danger. Muslim clerics from the old school won’t be able to handle the overload when the streets are full of attractive women wearing miniskirts. The anti-burka crowd better go easy because Muslim fanatics are still living in the sixteenth century anyway.

Finally, I sense a perverse connection between the burka and liberalism’s aversion to physical beauty. Muslim bow-wows love their burkas just as Socialist bow-wows can be as dumb as dishwater, but love occupying the highest positions in government and business anyway. The choice for Muslim men is simple: Hide all of the beautiful women under the burka, or turn the dogs loose in the Islamic world.
 
Yes.

There are irreconcilable differences between the USA secular laws and the laws of an Islamic society.

I am of the opinion that truly deeply devout Muslims cannot comfortably live in this society because those differences are so vast.


Our cherished Constitutional rights are an affront to Islam.
 
More evidence that when religious law, ANY and EVERY religious law, comes in conflict with agreed upon Civil Law, Civil Law must trump, basically forcing the religious to tolerate their neighbors.
 
Yes.

There are irreconcilable differences between the USA secular laws and the laws of an Islamic society.

I am of the opinion that truly deeply devout Muslims cannot comfortably live in this society because those differences are so vast.


Our cherished Constitutional rights are an affront to Islam.

Only with respect to Sharia Law. Many are the Muslims, like many are the Christians, who're willing to raise their families as they see fit without trying to impose their beliefs on their neighbors.

The US Constitution is not an affront to Islam per se, it's an affront to intolerance from any direction.
 
Of course we can coexist with anyone, as long as everyone has to coexist with the 1st Amendment.
 
Yes.

There are irreconcilable differences between the USA secular laws and the laws of an Islamic society.

I am of the opinion that truly deeply devout Muslims cannot comfortably live in this society because those differences are so vast.


Our cherished Constitutional rights are an affront to Islam.

Only with respect to Sharia Law. Many are the Muslims, like many are the Christians, who're willing to raise their families as they see fit without trying to impose their beliefs on their neighbors.

The US Constitution is not an affront to Islam per se, it's an affront to intolerance from any direction.

Well worth repeating.
 
Quote OP
Folks communicating on the new media should refer to Islam as a political movement as often as they call Islam a religion. The old media won’t do it.

Bill O’Reilly and Pete Ellison, the first Muslim congressman make my case at the beginning of this video:

Ellison: Who knows what these individuals motivation may be, but it probably will have something to do more with politics than religion; so let’s not cast a wide net and just go after a whole religious group.

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Scott Johnson in Islam, Terrorism Awad winning spin

Awad winning spin | Power Line

Like all American Muslims, Ellison insists that Islam be seen as a religion only. When, in fact, it is as much political movement as it is religion. Note that the First Amendment stands in the way of theocracy and every American Muslim knows it.

My case is made stronger by this: Muslims do not have to hide their political agenda in any other country. Muslims in European countries openly advocate transforming those countries into Islamic theocracies. That’s politics not religion.

O’Reilly makes my case because he flat refuses to challenge any Muslim on Islam’s political agenda. Put me in O’Reilly’s chair for five minutes and I’ll expose Ellison for the phoney he is. O’Reilly is a Harvard graduate and an experienced journalist; so why the hell can’t he do it? Letting any Muslim get away with their crap sure as hell isn’t fair and balanced.

Unless you have a strong stomach, I suggest you not listen to O’Reilly’s next guest Nihal Awad.
 
Last edited:
Bill Warner’s piece is a must read:

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd -- you know -- all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Coexst.png

April 24, 2013
Islam Coexists?
By Bill Warner

Articles: Islam Coexists?

First and foremost, no American who enjoys the freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution can coexist with Islam. The two are eternally incompatible. Islam is a theocracy. Every Islamic theocracy refutes the Constitution especially the First Amendment. Americans should judge Islam on those grounds —— not buy into the crap on a bumper sticker.

America’s history shows that peaceful coexistence among religions is only possible when the First Amendment is respected and enforced. Somebody should be teaching American Muslims to coexist with the First Amendment. I’ll start the ball rolling. Folks communicating on the new media should refer to Islam as a political movement as often as they call Islam a religion. The old media won’t do it.

The danger in coexisting peacefully lies in the B.S. the old media promotes about coexisting with people who have sworn to kill us. Since the end of WWII those same people have been preaching coexisting with communism. The jury is still out on Muslims, but there is no doubt Democrats will never coexist with the Constitution.

Do you see a pattern emerging? Liberals are all for coexisting with two brutal, totalitarian, religions. Conversely, Hussein complained about Christians hanging on to their God and their guns. Notice that he has no problem with arming his personal goon squad (the Ready Reserve Corps), or arming the Muslim Brotherhood and drug cartels.

Now, let’s take a trip down memory lane. Go back to WWI and see how Turkish Muslims coexisted with Armenian Christians:


Today, April 24, marks the “Great Crime,” that is, the Armenian genocide that took place under Turkey’s Islamic Ottoman Empire, during and after WWI. Out of an approximate population of two million, some 1.5 million Armenians died. If early 20th century Turkey had the apparatuses and technology to execute in mass—such as 1940s Germany’s gas chambers—the entire Armenian population may well have been decimated.

There is so much in Raymond Ibrahim’s piece worth quoting, I’ve decided to post a few sentences in the hope they will be enough to prompt a desire to connect them to the premise:



One bit of psycho-babble speculation. Women are brutalized by Muslim men. Some Muslim clerics endorse the practice of forcibly circumcising young girls, then they justify savagery with religious double-talk designed to inflame the meanest level of twisted “morality.” The result is that a Muslim’s manhood is forever tied to female virginity.

NOTE: I have to wonder what Al Gore’s hangup is. He’s not worried about virginity —— or is he:


AL GORE: STERILIZE WOMEN UNDER 25
By Frank Lake on June 25, 2011

AL GORE: STERILIZE WOMEN UNDER 25 | Weekly World News

In any event, the burka is the joke on male Muslims. Here’s some of the tongue in cheek stuff I’ve posted over the years.

All of the recent talk about Muslim women being forced to wear burkas in repressive Islamic countries in order to keep them modest, pure, and faithful reminded me of something I read some decades ago. I don’t recall the name of the authoress, or where it was published, but she said that Muslim women love their burkas because it allowed them to make cuckolds of their husbands with impunity. The burka is the perfect disguise! In fact, a burka is a better disguise than a ski mask:


Hunt for the 'Burka Bandit': Man armed with knife and umbrella dressed as Muslim woman to rob travel agents
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:57 AM on 28th June 2011

Hunt for the burka raider: Man dressed as Muslim woman caught on CCTV robbing travel agencies | Mail Online

Clearly, an unfaithful wife can come and go with complete anonymity when she’s wearing a burka. Just imagine how happy a married woman is as she tap dances out of a stud’s pad after consummating a satisfying double-nooner knowing she can’t be identified.

Thinking a burka guarantees fidelity tells me that Muslim extremists are really a collection of morons, or else they don’t mind their womenfolk playing “Let’s hide the pickle” at the drop of a burka —— just so long as the neighbors don’t find out about it.

Westerners are convinced the burka enslaves women. Maybe it does, but there are more subtle considerations at play here.

For one thing, shedding the burka will play hell with the imaginations of Muslim men who become aroused by a sack of rags that might be concealing a woman. I know that sounds far-fetched until you put it in perspective this way: An amorously inclined Western woman calls upon Victoria’s Secret if she wants to arouse her man, but when a Muslim woman tells her man she’s going to slip into something comfortable she dives under a burka. Conclusion: Burkas must be an arousal tool in the Muslim world.

And let’s not forget a Muslim Don Juan laying his best Saturday night moves on a burka —— then coming up with a handful of testicles when it’s time to do some business. Maybe that’s why Muslim men are so damned angry.

On the downside, Democrats will probably come up with a program to compensate cross-dressers in Muslim countries if the burka is done away with? New wardrobes are far from cheap.

Shedding the burkas also poses a great danger. Muslim clerics from the old school won’t be able to handle the overload when the streets are full of attractive women wearing miniskirts. The anti-burka crowd better go easy because Muslim fanatics are still living in the sixteenth century anyway.

Finally, I sense a perverse connection between the burka and liberalism’s aversion to physical beauty. Muslim bow-wows love their burkas just as Socialist bow-wows can be as dumb as dishwater, but love occupying the highest positions in government and business anyway. The choice for Muslim men is simple: Hide all of the beautiful women under the burka, or turn the dogs loose in the Islamic world.

Ironic!
 
Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while socialism/communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is taking on Islam. Let’s pray that taking on socialism/communism is not far behind.


A “human rights” organization is calling on government authorities to shut down three U.S. mosques it claims are not merely religious centers, but political entities and “breeding grounds for jihad terror.”

XXXXX

AFDI argues shutting down the mosques wouldn’t be a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment protecting freedom of religion, because Islam is not merely a religion, but a “political system.”

“AFDI calls for the U.S. and other non-Muslim governments to recognize officially that Islam is a political movement and so not solely religious in the strict sense of the U.S. Constitution,” the organization states on its website. “Islam in its mainstream theological formulations and its dominant form throughout its history – not ‘extremist Islam’ or ‘hijacked Islam’ or ‘Islamism,’ but Islam in the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by Islamic jurists and theologians – can and should be regarded as an authoritarian and supremacist political system as well as a religion, and thus Muslim groups should be subject to all the scrutiny and legal requirements of political organizations, without being able to shield their political activities behind the protection of religious freedom.”

Solution to terror? 'Shut down mosques'
Organization claims these 3 centers not religious, but 'breeding grounds for jihad'
Published: 14 hours ago
DREW ZAHN

Solution to terror? ?Shut down mosques?
 
Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while socialism/communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection.


Right.... because the two things the 1st amendment was never intended to protect was political and religious speech. You keep up the good work, Bingo.
 
Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while socialism/communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection.


Right.... because the two things the 1st amendment was never intended to protect was political and religious speech. You keep up the good work, Bingo.


To PratchettFan: Don’t mix freedom of speech with religion. A religion preaching politics from the pulpit can lose its tax exempt status. This is what the First Amendment says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

Nowhere does it say the First Amendment protects political movements calling themselves a religion. Nor does it say any religion can promote its ideology with tax dollars as is the case with socialism.

Before responding to my threads in the future check with Mark Twain:


Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top