Pamela Geller: If Lorretta Lynch wants to ban 'violent talk', she should ban the Quran

[ScreamingEagle]

In the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, Obama’s jihad denial took a malevolent and tyrannical turn. The day after a horrific ISIS rampage, Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, pledged to an Islamic supremacist lobbying group that she would prosecute anyone who used “anti-Muslim” rhetoric.

Lynch declared: “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted. My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

If Lynch is serious in prosecuting hate speech, then she will have to start closing down mosques and banning the Quran. She wants to restrict the First Amendment so as to curb “actions predicated on violent talk?” Then she should ban this “violent talk”:

And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers. (Quran 2:191-193)

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Quran 4:34)

They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper. (Quran 4:89)

Pamela Geller: If You Want to Ban Violent Talk, Ban the Quran

 

[irosie91]

a scriptural writing is just that------it is not "talk" There are lots of books with violent writings. A book written centuries ago is not a LESSON HOWEVER the stuff taught in mosques ------IS AN ISSUE -----I support
the recording of all-----"sermons" Loretta wants to prosecute violent talk----FINE WITH ME--------she should prosecute ALL OF IT

 

[Pete7469]

Prosecute me Lynch, I DARE YOU. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dot Com]

breitbart? SERIOUSLY!!! The guy went to meet Republican jesus,

 

[emilynghiem]

I really don't get all this onesidedness.

How OBVIOUS is it, when people want to BAN one side from saying this or that,
but that rule doesn't apply to THEM?

When Obama openly criticizes OTHERS for dividing and making enemies,
when HE HIMSELF has singled out conservatives as the "enemy", divided against, and targeted THAT group?

Claims the actions of a FEW should not determine that the whole group is rejected,
but then turns right around and treats conservatives as the enemy, affiliated with and fueling the "rightwing extremists" as the dangerous terrorists, while insisting not to blame Muslims as enabling Islamic terrorists.

Is this not OBVIOUS when such leaders say NOT to do X Y Z,
and then do those very things themselves.

Is it REALLY that hard to see this? What?
Tell me somebody else on the progressive Left gets this.
That it's not just the opponents of Obama's agenda who can see this,
and not just the opponents of those opponents who can see their onesidedness either!

Are we really so blinded by our own partisan politics
we can't even check our own leaders objectively, but defend one side or the other
regardless of the ethics at stake. I've got my biases and preferences, but I recognize
when the beliefs of others I don't even agree with are being violated and don't want that either!

Why can't we be open and admit this is going on? How long can this go on?

 

[September]

It's interesting to imagine how America would attempt to justify banning the Quran and not the Bible.​

 

[bendog]

In the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, Obama’s jihad denial took a malevolent and tyrannical turn. The day after a horrific ISIS rampage, Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, pledged to an Islamic supremacist lobbying group that she would prosecute anyone who used “anti-Muslim” rhetoric.

Lynch declared: “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted. My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

If Lynch is serious in prosecuting hate speech, then she will have to start closing down mosques and banning the Quran. She wants to restrict the First Amendment so as to curb “actions predicated on violent talk?” Then she should ban this “violent talk”:

And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers. (Quran 2:191-193)

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Quran 4:34)

They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper. (Quran 4:89)

Pamela Geller: If You Want to Ban Violent Talk, Ban the Quran

Oh thank God, I thought Buffy might have lost her pretty head.

 

[Seawytch]

Here's What Happens When People Think Bible Passages Are From The Quran

 

[BlindBoo]

Prosecute me Lynch, I DARE YOU. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Oh man I love me some Joe Walsh.



Opps wrong Joe. That was is just a blowhard. Did he threaten anyone?

 

[Pete7469]

That was is just a blowhard.

Put the bong down for a while so you can form coherent sentences.

 

[BlindBoo]

That was is just a blowhard.

Put the bong down for a while so you can form coherent sentences.

Typical Republican, jump on a slight grammatical error like it means something. Keep up the good work.

 

[Pete7469]

That was is just a blowhard.

Put the bong down for a while so you can form coherent sentences.

Typical Republican, jump on a slight grammatical error like it means something. Keep up the good work.

Usually your sense of humor is better, did you miss sorting a seed out and end up with a headache?

 

[guno]

In the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, Obama’s jihad denial took a malevolent and tyrannical turn. The day after a horrific ISIS rampage, Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, pledged to an Islamic supremacist lobbying group that she would prosecute anyone who used “anti-Muslim” rhetoric.

Lynch declared: “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted. My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

If Lynch is serious in prosecuting hate speech, then she will have to start closing down mosques and banning the Quran. She wants to restrict the First Amendment so as to curb “actions predicated on violent talk?” Then she should ban this “violent talk”:

And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers. (Quran 2:191-193)

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Quran 4:34)

They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper. (Quran 4:89)

Pamela Geller: If You Want to Ban Violent Talk, Ban the Quran

while we are at it we should ban the goyim's bible

Gospel of John the goy
The Gospel of John collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews". In none of the other gospels do "the Jews" demand, en masse, the death of Jesus; instead, the plot to put him to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees. John's gospel is thus the primary source of the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus, which later became fixed in the Christian mind.

For example, in John 7:1-9 Jesus moves around in Galilee but avoids Judea, because "the Jews" were looking for a chance to kill him. In 7:12-13 some said "he is a good man" whereas others said he deceives the people, but these were all "whispers", no one would speak publicly for "fear of the Jews". Jewish rejection is also recorded in 7:45-52, 8:39-59, 10:22-42, and 12:36-43. John 12:42 says many did believe, but they kept it private, for fear the Pharisees would exclude them from the Synagogue. After the crucifixion, 20:19 has the disciples hiding behind locked doors, "for fear of the Jews".

 

[bodecea]

Here's What Happens When People Think Bible Passages Are From The Quran

Interesting difference in the way those people reacted when told the truth and what I believe Americans would react. There was a lot of "oh, you got me there!" Americans, IMO, would get really pissed off at the two guys.....and then spin like hell to rationalize.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's interesting to imagine how America would attempt to justify banning the Quran and not the Bible.​

Simple, Goddess_Ashtara
There are passages in the Bible that check both the Quran and the Bible.
While the passages in the Quran that check the Quran aren't respected and enforced
without the authority backed by the Bible. So the Bible is necessary to check either one from abuses.