Bryan Fischer: "No More Mosques, Period"

[bodecea]

Yawn. Find a new schtick.

well, now if i was catholic(hint: i'm not) i could just do what you did and say they were apostates and not REAL catholics

the way I understand it, the catholic church was allowed to stay in Nazi Germany as long as they would let the government use them to promote the Nazi agenda.

Some people sell their souls quite cheaply, do they not?

 

[bodecea]

**** off.

Hitler saw himself as a Christian...look it up if you don't believe me.

I know he did. And again, **** off.

I'm sorry that the truth is so disturbing to you.

 

[elvis]

well, now if i was catholic(hint: i'm not) i could just do what you did and say they were apostates and not REAL catholics

the way I understand it, the catholic church was allowed to stay in Nazi Germany as long as they would let the government use them to promote the Nazi agenda.

Some people sell their souls quite cheaply, do they not?

Many of the priests bought into the ideology without being forced.

 

[elvis]

Hitler saw himself as a Christian...look it up if you don't believe me.

I know he did. And again, **** off.

I'm sorry that the truth is so disturbing to you.

It isn't. Your comment was.

 

[bodecea]

I don't think so.

The Mufti of Jerusalem wasn't Muslim?

No. None of the thug rulers in the Middle East or their Uncle Tom "scholars" are Muslims. Their actions have made them apostates.

I see what you did there.....

 

[bodecea]

I know he did. And again, **** off.

I'm sorry that the truth is so disturbing to you.

It isn't. Your comment was.

Ah...so you are saying that my comment was not true? How so?

 

[bodecea]

the way I understand it, the catholic church was allowed to stay in Nazi Germany as long as they would let the government use them to promote the Nazi agenda.

Some people sell their souls quite cheaply, do they not?

Many of the priests bought into the ideology without being forced.

You are right....and some, gods bless them, fought to save people from the Naziis.

 

[elvis]

I'm sorry that the truth is so disturbing to you.

It isn't. Your comment was.

Ah...so you are saying that my comment was not true? How so?

do you really consider Hitler a christian, in spite of what he thought of himself?

 

[DiveCon]

The Mufti of Jerusalem wasn't Muslim?

No. None of the thug rulers in the Middle East or their Uncle Tom "scholars" are Muslims. Their actions have made them apostates.

I see what you did there.....

yeah, i saw it too

 

[Kalam]

The Mufti of Jerusalem wasn't Muslim?

No. None of the thug rulers in the Middle East or their Uncle Tom "scholars" are Muslims. Their actions have made them apostates.

I see what you did there.....

I'm one of many.

"It is necessary to revive that Muslim community which is buried under the debris of the man-made traditions of several generations, and which is crushed under the weight of those false laws and customs which are not even remotely related to Islamic teachings, and which, in spite of all this, calls itself the 'world of Islam.' " - Sayyid Qutb, Milestones

Qutb lived in Nasser's Egypt. After being imprisoned for plotting to overthrow the government, he was tortured regularly and sentenced to death by hanging. In a rare move, the scholars of Al-Azhar (Egypt's highest religious authority) officially declared him a heretic. Thug rulers, Uncle Tom scholars.

 

[Kalam]

except you failed

In your estimation, I'm sure I did.

they were not apostate as you claim

How could they not have been? We can begin with offering service to an oppressive, non-Islamic regime in an attempt to gain its political support. Muslims do not recognize any authority apart from God's and fight for the sake of no cause but Islam. Then, of course, there is support of methodical mass extermination simply on the basis of ethnoreligious heritage, political affiliation, physical wellbeing, or sexual orientation. Anybody supporting the cultivation of a master race is an anathema to Islam, which rejects any division along racial lines as ignorant and animalistic.

btw, it was in response to an asinine claim by you

My post was excessively belligerent but correct in identifying proposed actions against Muslims as Nazi-esque.

 

[L.K.Eder]

No thread flight. I am not debating the IRA or the crusades or even whackos that kill abortion doctors. I asked how many MASS MURDERS have been committed in the name of radical Christianity in modern America. Perhaps I should be more specific. How about in the last 20 years in the city of NY? Tens of thousands of Irish there.

Oh, I see. It has to have taken place in the United States.

how many mass murders have been committed in the name of radical christianity in manhattan, ny, ny, in the first half of september 2001. downtown manhattan, actually. but not in the first week of september. and with commercial planes.

 

[goldcatt]

careful.. mr ***** gets AWFULLY grumpy when you ask him to post evidence beyond laughable assertions.


Seriously, this is the kind of guy who would insist that he was probed by aliens when asked why his butt hurts after an action packed friday night down at the Manhole.

Meh, I get along all right with Mr. F. It's politics, it ain't personal.

It's still put up or shut up time though.

Would you have palled around with supporters of the Third Reich?

Guilt by association, Kalam? That's as intellectually weak as it gets. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Yet one more great thing about places like this is the ability to seek out opposing views and, with a little luck, be able to fight and argue and still sit down to laugh about something else when we're done. And with even more luck, maybe somebody learns something. Nobody's opinion on one subject is the sum of who they are.

Well, all right there are some around here who can't see past an issue or agenda to find reality with two hands and a flashlight...but I've found extreme views on one subject aren't necessarily the measuring stick for that.

So I have no apologies for having "pals" I disagree with - even if I disagree vehemently.

Now have fun with the bitchfest, I need more coffee.

 

[goldcatt]

Scotus reserves the definition of a religion as a set of beliefs for members.

Islam has laws for non members putting it outside of the normal definition of religion.

9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success[].

9:112. (The believers whose lives Allâh has purchased are) those who repent to Allâh (from polytheism and hypocrisy, etc.), who worship Him, who praise Him, who fast (or go out in Allâh's Cause), who bow down (in prayer), who prostrate themselves (in prayer), who enjoin (people) for Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all what Islâm has ordained) and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds and all that Islâm has forbidden), and who observe the limits set by Allâh (do all that Allâh has ordained and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which Allâh has forbidden). And give glad tidings to the believers


8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world[]]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do

2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh (Alone).[] But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)


I see a massive civil rights violation in these kind of statements .

The essential elements

All right, two problems here.

First, this has nothing to do with RICO.

Second, you glossed over something very important there.

What is that definition of "Religion" under the law? I mean, I can go out and start the Church of the Holy Meatball so long as I meet that definition and my religion will be protected the same as any other.

I'll give you a hint: It's not based on beliefs or teachings.

Want a link?

Intimidation and threats and terrorism have nothing to do with RICO?
Sure post the link Im in a side bar Ill be back shortly take a look at this

Spending Zakah Money on Jihad - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

You're talking about speech and religion issues there, Fitnah.

Terrorism is conduct that, if the perpetrator doesn't blow himself up, is covered under the appropriate criminal penalties.

If what you're calling threats and intimidation are conduct that rises to the level of being removed from First Amendment protection, then they also have their own criminal penalties.

Words written almost 1500 years ago aren't conduct. If you're going that route, we can pull out all of the OT verses that espouse the exact same types of behavior - and those are still part of the Christian holy book, are they not? But that would be getting sidetracked into the mud, so why do it?

But even if everything you've said so far is true, even if I were to accept that every single Muslim in America embraces militant teachings as the "meaning" of Islam, we still don't punish thought in this country. Nor do we punish speech. We punish conduct. And with the exceptions of conduct on the part of a very small number of individuals associated with Islam, I see nothing here but words. I'm not afraid of words.

 

[Kalam]

Meh, I get along all right with Mr. F. It's politics, it ain't personal.

It's still put up or shut up time though.

Would you have palled around with supporters of the Third Reich?

Guilt by association, Kalam? That's as intellectually weak as it gets. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Yet one more great thing about places like this is the ability to seek out opposing views and, with a little luck, be able to fight and argue and still sit down to laugh about something else when we're done. And with even more luck, maybe somebody learns something. Nobody's opinion on one subject is the sum of who they are.

Well, all right there are some around here who can't see past an issue or agenda to find reality with two hands and a flashlight...but I've found extreme views on one subject aren't necessarily the measuring stick for that.

So I have no apologies for having "pals" I disagree with - even if I disagree vehemently.

Now have fun with the bitchfest, I need more coffee.

You're obviously more tolerant of others' viewpoints than I am; I don't know whether I should respect you for that or what. I draw the line at calling for the criminalization of religious beliefs.

 

[Liability]

except you failed

In your estimation, I'm sure I did.

they were not apostate as you claim

How could they not have been? We can begin with offering service to an oppressive, non-Islamic regime in an attempt to gain its political support. Muslims do not recognize any authority apart from God's and fight for the sake of no cause but Islam. Then, of course, there is support of methodical mass extermination simply on the basis of ethnoreligious heritage, political affiliation, physical wellbeing, or sexual orientation. Anybody supporting the cultivation of a master race is an anathema to Islam, which rejects any division along racial lines as ignorant and animalistic.

btw, it was in response to an asinine claim by you

My post was excessively belligerent but correct in identifying proposed actions against Muslims as Nazi-esque.

I notice your sig-line is -- not surprisingly, since you Izzies are perfectly okay with dishonesty -- deliberately out of context.

Shortly after that post of mine you use in your sig-line, little lying Islamic ****, IF you were inclined to ever be honest, you would have noted my response to the claim that the First Amendment should not protect Islam. I flatly disagreed with that.

I also happen not to believe that RICO can be used to "go after" Islam. Mr.F may be mistaken in this instance (imho) but he is still quite smart. You couldn't understand.

Islam is diseased. It is a menace. But it is still protected (up to a point, anyway) by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects religious belief. It has not been interpreted, however, to permit any action taken in its name. For example, certain fundamental Christians take a verse from the Bible literally and therefore they take very dangerous risks when handling venomous snakes. THAT can be outlawed regardless of the First Amendment.

Similarly, religiously based "faith healing" can be prohibited (within bounds) if it adversely affects or risks the health of children regardless of religious belief and regardless of the First Amendment.

And here's an extreme example. SOME religions have a firm belief in "human sacrifice." Well, some used to, anyway. Maybe in some remote regions, some still do. If those folks were to come to our shores to "practice" their religion, the First Amendment would certainly not insulate them from murder charges if they "practice" their religion in that way here.

So, although Mr. F may be off-base in espousing the belief that RICO can be used to go after Islam, he may not be as far off-base as many here presume.

 

[goldcatt]

Would you have palled around with supporters of the Third Reich?

Guilt by association, Kalam? That's as intellectually weak as it gets. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Yet one more great thing about places like this is the ability to seek out opposing views and, with a little luck, be able to fight and argue and still sit down to laugh about something else when we're done. And with even more luck, maybe somebody learns something. Nobody's opinion on one subject is the sum of who they are.

Well, all right there are some around here who can't see past an issue or agenda to find reality with two hands and a flashlight...but I've found extreme views on one subject aren't necessarily the measuring stick for that.

So I have no apologies for having "pals" I disagree with - even if I disagree vehemently.

Now have fun with the bitchfest, I need more coffee.

You're obviously more tolerant of others' viewpoints than I am; I don't know whether I should respect you for that or what. I draw the line at calling for the criminalization of religious beliefs.

Look at where we are, Kalam. It's a message board. /shrug

If it were the halls of Congress it would be a very different story.

 

[goldcatt]

except you failed

In your estimation, I'm sure I did.


How could they not have been? We can begin with offering service to an oppressive, non-Islamic regime in an attempt to gain its political support. Muslims do not recognize any authority apart from God's and fight for the sake of no cause but Islam. Then, of course, there is support of methodical mass extermination simply on the basis of ethnoreligious heritage, political affiliation, physical wellbeing, or sexual orientation. Anybody supporting the cultivation of a master race is an anathema to Islam, which rejects any division along racial lines as ignorant and animalistic.

btw, it was in response to an asinine claim by you

My post was excessively belligerent but correct in identifying proposed actions against Muslims as Nazi-esque.

I notice your sig-line is -- not surprisingly, since you Izzies are perfectly okay with dishonesty -- deliberately out of context.

Shortly after that post of mine you use in your sig-line, little lying Islamic ****, IF you were inclined to ever be honest, you would have noted my response to the claim that the First Amendment should not protect Islam. I flatly disagreed with that.

I also happen not to believe that RICO can be used to "go after" Islam. Mr.F may be mistaken in this instance (imho) but he is still quite smart. You couldn't understand.

Islam is diseased. It is a menace. But it is still protected (up to a point, anyway) by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects religious belief. It has not been interpreted, however, to permit any action taken in its name. For example, certain fundamental Christians take a verse from the Bible literally and therefore they take very dangerous risks when handling venomous snakes. THAT can be outlawed regardless of the First Amendment.

Similarly, religiously based "faith healing" can be prohibited (within bounds) if it adversely affects or risks the health of children regardless of religious belief and regardless of the First Amendment.

And here's an extreme example. SOME religions have a firm belief in "human sacrifice." Well, some used to, anyway. Maybe in some remote regions, some still do. If those folks were to come to our shores to "practice" their religion, the First Amendment would certainly not insulate them from murder charges if they "practice" their religion in that way here.

So, although Mr. F may be off-base in espousing the belief that RICO can be used to go after Islam, he may not be as far off-base as many here presume.

If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right. Many actions are not protected. I posted two cases showing examples earlier, and yet the religions in question are not themsleves outlawed or otherwise unprotected. Only those specific practices that violate already existing laws.

The point I've been trying to make is that big bright line in between thought, or speech, or belief, and specific conduct that is removed from First Amendment protection.

 

[Liability]

In your estimation, I'm sure I did.


How could they not have been? We can begin with offering service to an oppressive, non-Islamic regime in an attempt to gain its political support. Muslims do not recognize any authority apart from God's and fight for the sake of no cause but Islam. Then, of course, there is support of methodical mass extermination simply on the basis of ethnoreligious heritage, political affiliation, physical wellbeing, or sexual orientation. Anybody supporting the cultivation of a master race is an anathema to Islam, which rejects any division along racial lines as ignorant and animalistic.


My post was excessively belligerent but correct in identifying proposed actions against Muslims as Nazi-esque.

I notice your sig-line is -- not surprisingly, since you Izzies are perfectly okay with dishonesty -- deliberately out of context.

Shortly after that post of mine you use in your sig-line, little lying Islamic ****, IF you were inclined to ever be honest, you would have noted my response to the claim that the First Amendment should not protect Islam. I flatly disagreed with that.

I also happen not to believe that RICO can be used to "go after" Islam. Mr.F may be mistaken in this instance (imho) but he is still quite smart. You couldn't understand.

Islam is diseased. It is a menace. But it is still protected (up to a point, anyway) by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects religious belief. It has not been interpreted, however, to permit any action taken in its name. For example, certain fundamental Christians take a verse from the Bible literally and therefore they take very dangerous risks when handling venomous snakes. THAT can be outlawed regardless of the First Amendment.

Similarly, religiously based "faith healing" can be prohibited (within bounds) if it adversely affects or risks the health of children regardless of religious belief and regardless of the First Amendment.

And here's an extreme example. SOME religions have a firm belief in "human sacrifice." Well, some used to, anyway. Maybe in some remote regions, some still do. If those folks were to come to our shores to "practice" their religion, the First Amendment would certainly not insulate them from murder charges if they "practice" their religion in that way here.

So, although Mr. F may be off-base in espousing the belief that RICO can be used to go after Islam, he may not be as far off-base as many here presume.

If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right. Many actions are not protected. I posted two cases showing examples earlier, and yet the religions in question are not themsleves outlawed or otherwise unprotected. Only those specific practices that violate already existing laws.

The point I've been trying to make is that big bright line in between thought, or speech, or belief, and specific conduct that is removed from First Amendment protection.

"If you're talking about actions and not thought, words or belief, then you're right."

There's no "if" about it. It's what I said.

I can believe -- if I so choose -- in a Huge normally invisible God with a White Beard and Robes, floating on a cloud, and surrounded by a choir of angels. Or, I may believe that there is but one God and Allah is NOT his name.

But if I "believe" in "faith healing," I may not be permitted to ACT on that belief when it comes to a sick child. Or, if I believe that God wants me to show my faith by handling venomous snakes, maybe I can do that to myself, but I sure as hell cannot do that to children. And if I happen to be a devout Mayan with a firm belief in human sacrifice, I am sure as hell not allowed under the banner of "protection" from the First Amendment to sacrifice the life of some young virgin to keep the Gods all happy.

Now if (huge "if" imho) Mr. F or others can somehow prove that Islamic practices as preached inside their mosques or by their imams, etc., call for ACTS of violence against us infidels or even against insufficiently "pious" Muslims, then the First Amendment clearly wouldn't protect THOSE "practices" or ACTS, either.

Still, that's a long reach distant from a RICO prosecution.

 

[bodecea]

It isn't. Your comment was.

Ah...so you are saying that my comment was not true? How so?

do you really consider Hitler a christian, in spite of what he thought of himself?

He considered himself a Christian...who am I to argue.

Is it really my place to say whether you are a christian or not if you declare yourself so?