Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: BuzzKill on August 28, 2010, 11:06:08 PM
-
http://http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html
-
Here's his most recent speech on the GZ mosque (posted about 11 hours ago):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk)
A lecture to athists who disagree with his criticism of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC35KHoI6_E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC35KHoI6_E)
"What I know about Islam"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74)
One entitled "Wake Up America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSjpNe1-Vc)
Another good one by a different guy (Thunderf00t):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApmnezyPSMc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApmnezyPSMc)
-
http://http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html
I was neither surprised, nor astonished when the speaker lied within the first minute of the video when he stated that the facility was being built a few yards from ground zero. Since this is not the case, one is left to ask why the speaker is lying.
-
I was neither surprised, nor astonished when the speaker lied within the first minute of the video when he stated that the facility was being built a few yards from ground zero. Since this is not the case, one is left to ask why the speaker is lying.
It's a figure of speech. It is very close to GZ, however.
-
Nope. A few yards is not a figure of speech, it is a description of a given spatial relationship, and in this case it is a false description. So one is left to ponder the motivation behind the deception.
-
Nope. A few yards is not a figure of speech, it is a description of a given spatial relationship, and in this case it is a false description. So one is left to ponder the motivation behind the deception.
I'm a few inches from tearing my hair out at your idiocy.
-
Zero tolerance for Hasbara here, partner. The Cordoba House is not being built a few yards from "ground zero". To say that it is is a lie, and it follows that one must ask why the speaker is lying.
-
* The Mosque is being built as close to Ground Zero as possible.
* It's being called "Cordoba" after the Cordoba mosque built immediately after Islam's conquest of spain.
* The source of funding for the mosque is unknown, meaning It's likely a Saudi funded mosque which will preach Wahhabism.
* The Imam for the mosque does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization and blames the US for 9/11.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to build the mosque. I'm just saying it's an extremely offensive thing to build so close to a place so many died because of Islam... Not by those who took the commands of Muhammad out of context, but by those who followed them to the letter.
-
Even some American Muslims (in name only, obviously) find the concept offensive:
Iraqi Columnist in Arab Liberal Online Daily Elaph: The Hostile and Provocative Name Chosen for the Planned Ground Zero Cordoba Mosque Symbolizes Dreams of Expansion and Invasion of the Territory of the Other
Iraqi-American columnist Khudhayr Taher published an article in the Arab online liberal daily Elaph.com on May 18, 2010 in which he warns against the desire to turn the U.S. into a Muslim country. Taher called upon the American administration to ban the building of mosques, and especially the Cordoba Mosque, planned for construction near Ground Zero in New York, because, he says, these mosques pose a danger to the security of the U.S. as they are centers for spreading extremist and terrorist ideas.
Following is a translation of excerpts from the article:
"In these days, the issue of the Muslim decision to build a mosque near the place where the crime of the cowardly September 11 terrorist attacks took place has come up. We must note that a hostile and provocative name [Cordoba] has been chosen for this mosque. It is well known that the first Cordoba Mosque was built by Muslims in a city in Spain, after they occupied this Christian country, killing its men and capturing its women to bring them to Arab countries as slaves and servants to serve their sexual pleasure. The Arabs and Muslims have never ceased to take pride and bask in the glory of this imperialist history, which they consider to be a symbol of their strength and power, and they are unashamed of the fact that the annals [of their history] are full of shameful crimes.
"Today, it seems as though some Muslims in America are enamored of the dream of bringing back this ugly imperialist Muslim history, which is based on occupying peaceful peoples, on trying to force them to change their religious beliefs by the sword, on killing the men, and on abducting the women from their homes and bringing them to their own countries. Choosing the name 'Cordoba House' for the mosque to be constructed in New York was not coincidental or random and innocent. It bears within it significance and dreams of expansion and invasion [into the territory] of the other, [while] striving to change his religion and to subjugate him…
"New York has many mosques, for Sunnis and for Shiites. Of course there is a significant infiltration of extremist terrorist ideology among some of the Sunnis, and likewise there is a significant infiltration of the Iranian intelligence [apparatus] among some of the Shi'ites. This infiltration, both among the Sunnis and among the Shi'ites, has spread across the U.S. New York State has many mosques, and doesn't need any more of them – not to mention that for work reasons Muslims do not attend mosque every day, but only on Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, the Muslims have no real need for the construction of this mosque, which constitutes a provocation against the sensibilities of the Americans and a reminder for them of the Muslim imperialism in Spain and of the acts it committed against the Christians – such as murder, pillage, taking captives, and aggression against women.
"As a Muslim and as an American citizen, I hope that the U.S. government will issue a decision to confiscate the funds designated for the construction of this mosque, and to transfer them to a budget for rebuilding the towers of the World Trade Center in New York, [and also to] ban the building of [additional] mosques in the U.S., because there is no real need for them. Also, [we must] take into account the danger that they [i.e. the mosques] pose because they are hothouses for extremist terrorist ideology and for hatred of the other, and because they carry out open missionary activities considered a violation of the freedom and religion of others."
source:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4225.htm (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4225.htm)
-
So Hasbaranik, back to the original post in this thread and the immediately apparent attempt at manipulating the audience with false information. Why would the speaker lie about the location of the facility, claiming that is a few yards from "ground zero", when this is simply not true? We know it's a lie, the question that remains to be answered is why the man in the video was lying.
-
Perhaps to this British citizen a couple of blocks means a few yards - it is a relative term unless one is actually taking a measurement, and a Brit would not use yards so possibly this term has little more precise meaning to him than kilometer does for me.
One thing is for sure he is not lying, but the Islamic cleric IS because this is what his prophet tells him he must do when dealing with infidels'; because Islame is at war with all others and war is deceit. They are Liars and murderers and theives of freedom, prosperity and culture.
I hope every pig farmer in the nation is storing up great buckets of swine blood and refuse to dump all over the threshold of this monstrosity should they ever actually attempt to build it.
-
A few yards is a false representation of the geographic relationship of the facility to "ground zero". The man is lying to manipulate the viewer. The question remains, what is the purpose of this manipulation?
-
They have a right to build it where they want. People have a right to tell them they think it's in poor taste and will do nothing to further relations. People don't have a right to attempt to get the government to stop it just because it's "offensive". Just as in the instances of KKK rallies. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to protect freedoms. Sometimes that includes people saying or doing things we don't like.
-
No one is disputing they have a right to build. The city counsel did have a right to stop its going up on that spot if they felt the building to be demolished was of historical significance. They said it is not. So, they can build. The governor or mayor or president have no say in the matter. All they can do is express an opinion which they have done, and which I and many others find to be disturbingly ignorant and politically correct to a ridiculous degree.
We have got to get real with regard to what Islam is. We have got to understand this monstrosity is an declaration of Victory; an out-post and command center in the war against the infidel.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/g ... osque.html (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque.html)
Liberal America can not afford to be warm and fuzzy on the issue of Islam. Cold, hard, very unpleasant facts must be faced. They must admit and acknowledge the concept of taqqiya and Abrogation and what these concepts mean for us, the Infidel, when dealing with them - the Islamic faithful.
For you ajax: "THE FACTS: As noted above, it is not unreasonable to characterize the site as being “at” Ground Zero, given that it was one of the buildings damaged in the 9/11 attack, is within the zone over which the remains of the murdered were scattered and has been called by the promoter of the initiative himself “the Ground Zero mosque.”
http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/ ... ro-mosque/ (http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/08/20/fact-checking-the-ap-fact-check-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/)
see also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCt ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8&feature=related)
and just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGy ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGyssc&feature=player_embedded)
Finely I'd like to suggest: Read the following, and if it seems reasonable to you sign it -
http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/th ... claration/ (http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/the-ground-zero-declaration/)
-
No one is disputing they have a right to build.
Oh yes they are. And many of them are putting pressure on the gov't to stop it. And if it's just about the location, as many of the protesters say, why are Mosques in Tennessee and other states being protested? Hell, the one in Tennessee was just burned down. Why are there Q'uran burnings? How far away is far enough? It's being labeled as the "ground zero" Mosque even though it's a full 2 blocks (and NYC blocks at that) away from 'ground zero'.
And sorry, Christianity isn't so peaceful itself. Crusades? Inquisition? Abortion clinic bombings? Doctor killings? The Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Now we've got Q'uran burning and Mosque destruction.
We have religious freedom in this country. It applies to all religions, not just Christianity or the ones we like.
-
Anne Bonney wrote;
"And sorry, Christianity isn't so peaceful itself. Crusades? Inquisition? Abortion clinic bombings? Doctor killings? The Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Now we've got Q'uran burning and Mosque destruction.
We have religious freedom in this country. It applies to all religions, not just Christianity or the ones we like.
Quite true. And please let's not forget that Nazi Germany was a WHITE CHRISTIAN
NATION
-
No one is disputing they have a right to build.
Oh yes they are. And many of them are putting pressure on the gov't to stop it. And if it's just about the location, as many of the protesters say, why are Mosques in Tennessee and other states being protested? Hell, the one in Tennessee was just burned down. Why are there Q'uran burnings? How far away is far enough? It's being labeled as the "ground zero" Mosque even though it's a full 2 blocks (and NYC blocks at that) away from 'ground zero'.
And sorry, Christianity isn't so peaceful itself. Crusades? Inquisition? Abortion clinic bombings? Doctor killings? The Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Now we've got Q'uran burning and Mosque destruction.
We have religious freedom in this country. It applies to all religions, not just Christianity or the ones we like.
Very well said.
-
Well, I've not seen anyone arguing they don't have the right to build. Not one person. In fact, over and over even the more strident critics explain they have the right - but that they are lying about their intent b/c if they really wanted to increase inter-faith tolerance and understanding they'd definitely not build there, and/or other faiths would also be welcome in their massive building. They are fanning the flames of pain and outrage and they know this.
And of course other faiths have been militaristic and violent but nothing in modern history compares with Islam; Its not even a close contest. And with regard to the blood shed by the RCC, they were acting in direct opposition to Christ's teaching, or that of any of the apostles or even Paul.
Not so with regard to the koran and it's faithful. They are commanded to murder and to lie and to brutalize.
-
Hitler and the SS were practicing ancient Germanic paganism. They were quit hostile to biblical Christianity and there are SS documents indicating the church was next in line for annihilation and that Germany was allied in this goal, as with the goal to destroy the Jews, by the Islamic nations.
-
Not entirely true[attachment=0:23witsur]goring wedding.jpg[/attachment:23witsur]
-
[attachment=0:1x0ing03]hitler_cardinal4.jpg[/attachment:1x0ing03]
-
[attachment=0:2eldmbx5]Hitler-with-Muller.jpg[/attachment:2eldmbx5]
-
[attachment=0:1lhi8scy]mrs hitler's grave.jpg[/attachment:1lhi8scy]
-
[attachment=0:1yacoxvs]nazi bishop.jpg[/attachment:1yacoxvs]
-
[attachment=0:1jd5ksh6]nazi bishop 2.jpg[/attachment:1jd5ksh6]
-
[attachment=0:2to1cm9v]Untitled-6 copy.jpg[/attachment:2to1cm9v]
-
GET THE IDEA?
-
Initially, hitler claimed christianity. Yet,yet. look up Thule gesellschaft. Also, maybe read the work of John Jay Robinson or Barbara Tuchman, might change your mind vis'a'vis' the 'Crusades'. In 400 years, only 40 people were sentenced to death by the 'court of spiritual welfare " The rest met their fate by Spanish Civil court.
Civilian in peace, Soldier in war... You get the idea. Yeah?
J.O.M.
-
Boy, the christians are quick to distance themselves from the nazis.
Maybe with the execption of the ku klux klan!
-
Like the Islamic clerics the Nazi's cozied up with those who tolerated them or provided "moral" support for their policies. It is still true that Hitler was deeply into Germanic paganism. If you are interested you can find plenty to read on the subject and there are several documentaries that mention it and at least one in which their pagan beliefs are the primary focus.
As to the "Christians" that supported Hitler and the SS - they were deluded and blind with no understanding of the scriptures and the tenets of Christ's church; or if they had understanding and embraced the Nazis anyway, they were evil shepherds serving the Great Liar and not Christ and they did so with intent.
But what we're dealing with today is Islam and their intent, and the blind delusion of those who think Islam is a peaceful religion hi-jacked by radicals; and /or the evil intent of an evil shepherd.
-
My point is that there are NO peaceful religons.
Never have been. Never will be.
-
My point is that there are NO peaceful religons.
Never have been. Never will be.
Amen!!!!!
-
.
-
What I should have done was bump up this link and not the whole topic (SORRY)!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk&NR=1)
-
No one is disputing they have a right to build.
Oh yes they are. And many of them are putting pressure on the gov't to stop it.
Very few are doing that. Those who are are wrong. Government force is not the right way to oppose this thing. There are real religious freedom issues... but just because somebody has the freedom to, for example, protest against gays at military funerals, does not mean I have to like it or that it shouldn't be opposed by other means.
And if it's just about the location, as many of the protesters say, why are Mosques in Tennessee and other states being protested?
Because people are starting to realize how dangerous Islam is as an ideology and do not want it to spread. I'm not sure that's possible (other than by education), but people certainly have the right to protest.
Hell, the one in Tennessee was just burned down.
And that is terrible, if in fact somebody opposed to the mosque building did it. Last time a mosque burnt down (just a few months ago), it was discovered to be the act of one of the partitioners, seeking to make it look like a hate crime to gain sympathy.
Why are there Q'uran burnings?
The Qur'an commands husbands to beat their wives, commands murder of unbelievers, condones rape (women taken as war booty), and the list goes on and on. Burning the Qur'an is merely a carryover of the Cartoon controversy. It's a statement of free speech.
How far away is far enough? It's being labeled as the "ground zero" Mosque even though it's a full 2 blocks (and NYC blocks at that) away from 'ground zero'.
Still as close as possible, and they admitted it. They claim it's to build community between Muslims and non-muslims but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the Imam of the mosque blames the US for 9/11 and doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist organization.
And sorry, Christianity isn't so peaceful itself. Crusades? Inquisition? Abortion clinic bombings? Doctor killings?
Christianity itself cannot be blamed when people disobey it's strict commands to turn the other cheek no matter what. Strictly speaking Christians** should oppose war, the death penalty, aggression of any kind, etc...
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV
Blame those individuals who call themselves Christians and yet do not follow the teachings of Christianity.
** note that I am not a Christian. Pacifism is idiotic. In most situations the above advice is wise but when people are irrational and intend to kill you, they cannot be negotiated with and must be defended against with as much force as is necessary.
The Murrah building in Oklahoma City?
Tim McVeigh was an atheist.
We have religious freedom in this country. It applies to all religions, not just Christianity or the ones we like.
Sure we do. We also have the freedom to run through Harlem screaming "nigger nigger nigger nigger" at the top of our lungs. Building a Mosque called "Cordoba" as close as possible to GZ is just about as offensive and people who would take such action should be protested against to the full extent possible within the law.
-
Nazi Germany was a WHITE CHRISTIAN
NATION
Hitler once said Jesus was a bastard child of a Roman soldier. He was hardly a Christian. Like any cult leader, he wanted to be God. Just because people call themselves Christian does not make it so. on the other hand, when Muslims kill in the name of their religion they are indeed following the immutable commands of their God. While members of both religions commit violence, only one religion endorses it. There have been over 15,000 Islamic-ally motivated terrorist attacks since 9/11. Name me one other religion that comes remotely close, despite the few, cherry picked, exceptions.
-
GET THE IDEA?
Yeah. Organized religion is easily corrupted. Point taken -- but organized religion is not necessarily Christianity. If you read the Bible, which I have, despite not being a Christian, you'll find no justification for the actions of those few who wanted to rally the ignorant masses in the name of something. See. Back in the time of the crusades, your average Christian did not have access to a Bible. He could not read what it said and had to take the Church's word for it -- so when the church said "go kill and you'll be saved", they did it. It was only much later, during the reformation and after the invention of the printing press, when people started reading the Bible for themselves, did they discover that the Church was lying to them. At that point the Church fractured.
Also, the Crusades, despite their horrific excesses, of which there were many, were mostly a long delayed defensive conflict. Much of the middle east was once Christian, Zoroastrian, and pagan. They were wiped out, subdued, enslaved, or they converted. Rather than address the problem immediately, this went on unopposed for centuries, giving Islam a very strong foothold. Even after the armies of Islam had taken Jerusalem, the Church did not react. While it is true that many Christians and Jews were allowed to live in relative peace as Dhimmis (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi) (all others were either killed or enslaved). It was only much later, when me Muslims started to interfere with Christian pilgrimage and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, did all out war erupt. Regardless of the justice of injustice of the Crusades, it's likely that if they did not happen the entire world would now be an islamic Caliphate.
Also realize that the Catholic Church was in a difficult position at the time of WWII. If they resisted openly, they would have been annihilated as the Vatican city was surrounded. It was decided that the preservation of the Church was more valuable than an act of futile protest. Depite all this, there were priests who smuggled jews and allied soldiers in and out of the Vatican. There were priests who aided the resistance. There were priests that were sent to the concentration camps. Just because the organization itself couldn't take an official stand with a gun to their heads doesn't mean they didn't help under hte table. It was a fragile political situation and Hitler was itching for an excuse to shut the Church down entirely.
One example of a resistance priest sentenced to death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer)
Don't believe everything you see in movies such as Kingdom of Heaven. Read history books from both sides or even Wikipedia. Sure the Crusaders were barbarians being manipulated by a lying Church, but they did end up playing an important role stopping the violent spread of Islam.
-
The armed forces of the United States have invaded two muslim countries in the last ten years. US armed forces routinely conduct aerial strikes in at least two more muslim countries. The US operates military bases in Afghanistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Kosovo, Albania, Bahrain, and Djibouti. There are zero bases on US soil owned and operated by muslim countries, and no muslim countries have invaded nor occupied the United States.
-
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... n-threads/ (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/aug/28/common-threads/)
Cordova Christians put out welcome mat for new mosque
* By Lindsay Melvin
* Memphis Commercial Appeal
* Posted August 28, 2010 at midnight
When pastor Steve Stone initially heard of the mosque and Islamic center being erected on the sprawling land adjacent his church, his stomach tightened.
Then he raised a 6-foot sign reading, "Welcome to the Neighborhood."
The issue for Stone and the 550-person Heartsong Church in Cordova, came down to one question:
"What would Jesus do if He were us? He would welcome the neighbor," Stone said.
The Memphis Islamic Center, a nonprofit organization formed three years ago, is two weeks from breaking ground on the first phase of a multimillion-dollar complex.
While plans for Islamic centers across the country and just miles away have triggered vitriolic responses and divided communities, here in Memphis it's been a peaceful process.
On a 31-acre stretch at Humphrey Road and Houston Levee, Memphis Islamic Center leaders plan to build a massive gathering place during the next several years. It will include a mosque, youth center, day care center, indoor gym, sports fields, medical clinic and retirement home.
While the 4,000-square-foot worship hall is being completed, Heartsong has opened its doors to its neighbors throughout the monthlong observance of Ramadan.
Under a gigantic cross constructed of salvaged wood, nearly 200 area Muslims have been gathering each night to pray.
"I think it's helped break down a lot of barriers in both congregations," said Islamic center board member Danish Siddiqui.
Yet, only a four-hour drive east of Memphis, Murfreesboro saw intense protests, with billboards going up to try to block plans for a similar Murfreesboro Islamic Center.
Even televangelist Pat Robertson weighed in against it.
Elsewhere in Middle Tennessee, plans for a Brentwood mosque were defeated in May after residents mounted a campaign raising suspicion over mosque leaders having ties to terrorism.
The most publicized of the debates has been the furor over an Islamic center proposed near ground zero in New York.
"I've got fear and ignorance in me, too," said Stone, referring to his and some of his congregants' early apprehension toward the Memphis center.
But as members of the Christian congregation take the opportunity to sit in on Ramadan prayers and meet people at the nightly gatherings, much of that mystery and fear has dissipated.
"People in Memphis appreciate faith, even if it's not their faith," said Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, the Islamic center's scholar in residence and a Rhodes College professor.
The peaceful tone in the Bluff City has been refreshing for Qadhi, 35, who recently moved to Memphis from Connecticut, where early this month his Bridgeport mosque was descended on by angry protestors yelling slurs at families as they arrived for evening prayer.
"We're living in a climate of Islamophobia," he said.
The Memphis project hasn't been entirely free of criticism. Bloggers and religious publications have speculated that the Memphis group is receiving funding from Saudi Arabia, which the local Islamic board says is completely false.
"If the community can't put it together, it's not worth it," said Siddiqui, a Germantown resident.
Other accusations have been lobbed at Shaykh Qadhi for anti-Semitic comments made a decade ago.
"I made a very major mistake," said Qadhi, adding that he has spent years apologizing for the statements he made as a young student discounting the importance of the Holocaust.
The Islamic scholar's track record since has been one of promoting peace.
He recently returned from a trip to Auschwitz concentration camp, where he joined other Islamic and Jewish leaders to draw awareness to the atrocities of the Holocaust.
"I've learned one of my biggest lessons since that time. We have to separate our theology from politics," he said.
The overarching fear being voiced in protests going on across the country is that Islamic centers will become hubs for teaching extremism.
But Islamic center board members say it's to the contrary.
Islamic community centers help form solid Muslim-American identities and keep young kids and adults from feeling marginalized, they said.
Without a place to call home, young Muslims are more likely to seek more radical interpretation of the Quran online, says Arsalan Shirwany, a board member and father of three.
When it is finished, the new facility will be a center for the whole community, and a place for interfaith cooperation, Shirwany said.
"This is what we need to fight extremism," he said.
-- Lindsay Melvin: 529-2445
-
Like the Islamic clerics the Nazi's cozied up with those who tolerated them or provided "moral" support for their policies. It is still true that Hitler was deeply into Germanic paganism. If you are interested you can find plenty to read on the subject and there are several documentaries that mention it and at least one in which their pagan beliefs are the primary focus.
As to the "Christians" that supported Hitler and the SS - they were deluded and blind with no understanding of the scriptures and the tenets of Christ's church; or if they had understanding and embraced the Nazis anyway, they were evil shepherds serving the Great Liar and not Christ and they did so with intent.
But what we're dealing with today is Islam and their intent, and the blind delusion of those who think Islam is a peaceful religion hi-jacked by radicals; and /or the evil intent of an evil shepherd.
If we're gonna talk about the violence in the Islamic religion, you can't ignore all the violence in the Bible and there's a TON!! Should we start stoning adulterers? Don't even get me started on Leviticus.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 916AAAPGde (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090720234916AAAPGde)
Why Bible has so much Violence?
Ritual Human and Animal Sacrifice
God sends himself to die for himself to allow himself to change a rule he created himself. (Jesus, New Testament)
Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God (Genesis 22:1-18)
Kill first-born humans and animals (Exodus 13:2)
More human sacrifice (Leviticus 27:28-29)
Jephthah Burns His Daughter (Judges 11:29-40 NLT)
God Commands Burning Humans (Joshua 7:15 NLT)
Josiah and Human Sacrifice (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT) (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)
Human Sacrifice (Wisdom 3:5-7 NAB The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon is mostly in Catholic versions of the Bible.)
Child Sacrifice (Wisdom 14:21-23 RSV The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon is mostly in Catholic versions of the Bible. This passage condemns human sacrifice but acknowledges that it did happen by early God worshipers.)
Humans are Fuel for Fire (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)
Burn Nonbelievers (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Rape
Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Slavery
Slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
How Hebrew slaves are to be treated (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
It is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
You can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slavery is still approved of in the New Testament (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Beating slaves who didn't know they did any wrong (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Murder
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Death for Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
Kill False Prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT) (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
Infidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Kill Brats (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
God Kills the Curious (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
Killed by a Lion (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)
Killing the Good Samaritan (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)
Kill Sons of Sinners (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
God Will Kill Children (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
Kill Men, Women, and Children (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
God Kills all the First Born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Kill Old Men and Young Women (Jeremiah 51:20-26) (Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)
God Will Kill the Children of Sinners (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
More Rape and Baby Killing (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
More of Samson's Murders (The Lord saves Sampson from standing trial for 30 murders and arson by allowing him to kill 1000 more men.) (Judges 15:14-15 NAB)
Peter Kills Two People (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)
Mass Murder (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
You Have to Kill (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
The Danites Kill the Next Town (Joshua 19:47 NAB)
God Kills Some More (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)
God Promises More Killing (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
The Angel of Death (Exodus 23:23 NAB)
Destruction of Ai (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)
Killing at Jericho (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)
God Kills an Extended Family (1 Kings 14:9-16 NLT)
Mass Murder (Judges 20:48 NAB)
The Angel of Death (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)
Kill Your Neighbors (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)
Kill the Family of Sinners (Joshua 7:19-26 Webster's Bible)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)
Murder (1 Kings 18:36-40 NLT)
Kill All of Babylon (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)
Micah Kills a Whole Town (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) (Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/cr_list.html (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/cr_list.html)
Leviticus: Cruelty and Violence
1. God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord." Chapters 1 - 9
2. "Kill the bullock before the LORD ... bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar." 1:5
3. "Flay the burnt offering; cut it into pieces." 1:6
4. Lay ... the head, and the fat ... on the fire which is upon the altar: But his inwards and his legs ... burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice ... a sweet savour unto the LORD." 1:8-9
5. "Kill ... before the Lord and ... sprinkle blood round about." 1:11
6. "Cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat ... and burn it ... for a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:12-13
7. "If the burnt sacrifice ... be of fowls ... wring off his head, and burn it ... and the blood thereof shall be wrung out." 1:14-15
8. "For a sweet savour unto the Lord." 1:17
9. "Part it in pieces... it is a meat offering." 2:6
10. "It is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire." 2:10
11. "He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it ... and .... sprinkle the blood ... round about." 3:2
12. "The fat that covereth the inwards ... and the two kidneys ... and the caul above the liver.... It is ... a sweet savour unto the Lord." 3:3-5
13. "He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it ... and .... sprinkle the blood ... round about." 3:8
14. "The fat ... the whole rump ... the inwards ... the two kidneys ... burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD." 3:9-11
15. "If his offering be a goat ... he shall lay his hand upon the head ... and kill it ... and ... sprinkle the blood ... round about." 3:12-13
16. "The fat that covereth the inwards ... the two kidneys ... and the caul above the liver ... burn them upon the altar; it is the food of the ooffering made by fire for a sweet savour." 3:14-16
17. "All the fat is the Lord's."
When you do your burnt offerings, remember that "all the fat is the Lord's." (And he doesn't like to share!) 3:16
18. "Kill the bullock before the Lord and take of the bullock's blood." 4:4
19. "The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord." 4:6
20. "Put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar ... and ... pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar." 4:7
21. "Take ... all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat that covereth the inwards ... the two kidneys ... and the caul above the liver ... and ... burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering." 4:8-10
22. "And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung...."
What to do with the fat, kidneys, liver, skin, head, entrails, and dung from your burnt offerings. 4:11-12
23. "Offer a young bullock for the sin ... The bullock shall be killed before the Lord." 4:14-15
24. "Bring of the bullock's blood ... And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord." 4:16-17
25. "Put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar ... and ... pour out all the blood ... and ... take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar." 4:18-19
26. "He shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it." 4:24-25
27. "The priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood ... and he shall burn all his fat upon the altar." 4:25-26
28. "Slay the sin offering ... and the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering ... and shall pour out all the blood." 4:29-30
29. "He shall take away all the fat ... and ... burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD." 4:31
30. "Slay the sin offering ... and the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering and shall pour out all the blood." 4:33-35
31. "He shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD ... a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats."
If you touch an insect, dead animal, or "the uncleanness of man" or if you swear to do something good or bad (5:2-4), kill a female lamb or goat for God. (A female will do since it's a minor offense.) 5:6
32. "If he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring ... two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD ... and wring off his head."
If you don't have a lamb to kill for God, then you can wring off the head of a pigeon or dove. 5:7
33. "And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering." 5:9
34. "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul ... sin through ignorance ... then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish."
If you sin without knowing that you've done anything wrong, kill an unblemished ram for God. 5:14-15
35. "This is the law of the sin offering: the sin offering [shall] be killed before the LORD: it is most holy." 6:25
36. "The trespass offering: it is most holy"
The holy law of trespass offering: Find an animal; kill it; sprinkle the blood around; offer God the fat, rump, kidneys, and caul; burn and eat it in the holy place, for "it is most holy." 7:1-6
37. Kill the trespass offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle round about upon the altar." 7:2
38. "Offer of it all the fat thereof; the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them ... and the caul that is above the liver." 7:3
39. "It shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings." 7:14
40. Be careful what you eat during these animal sacrifices. Don't eat fat or blood -- these are for God. (And he doesn't like to share!) 7:18-27
41. "The fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD." Wave the fat and the breast for "a wave offering before the Lord." 7:30
42. "And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'." 7:31
43. "And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering." 7:32
44. "He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part."
Aaron's sons get the right shoulder from all peace offerings. 7:33
45. "For the wave breast and the heave shoulder ... a statute for ever."
Be sure to do your wave breast or heave shoulder today. It is a statute forver. 7:34
46. Moses does it all for God. First he kills an animal; wipes the blood on Aaron's ears, thumbs, and big toes. Then he sprinkles blood round about and waves the guts before the Lord. Finally he burns the whole mess for "a sweet savour before the Lord." 8:14-32
47. "Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering and he slew it." 8:14-15
48. "Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger .. and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar." 8:15
49. "And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar." 8:16
50. "But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses." 8:17
51. "Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he killed it." 8:18-19
52. "Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about." 8:19
53. "And he cut the ram into pieces; and Moses burnt the head, and the pieces, and the fat." 8:20
54. "And he washed the inwards and the legs in water; and Moses burnt the whole ram upon the altar: it was a burnt sacrifice for a sweet savour, and an offering made by fire unto the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses." 8:21
55. "Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. And he slew it." 8:22-23
56. "Moses took of the blood of it, and put it upon the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot." 8:23
57. "And he brought Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and upon the great toes of their right feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar round about." 8:24
58. "And he took the fat, and the rump, and all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and the right shoulder." 8:25
59. "And he put all upon Aaron's hands, and upon his sons' hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD." 8:27
60. "Moses ... burnt them ... for a sweet savour." 8:28
61. "And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD." 8:29
62. "And Moses took ... of the blood which was upon the altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' garments." 8:30
63. "Moses said unto Aaron and to his sons, Boil the flesh." 8:31
64. And that which remaineth of the flesh .... shall ye burn with fire." 8:32
65. More killing, sprinkling of blood, waiving animal parts, and burning carcasses "before the Lord." 9:2-21
66. "Take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before the LORD." 9:2
67. "Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering." 9:3
68. "Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the LORD; and a meat offering." 9:4
69. Kill the calf, dip your finger in the blood, sprinkle the blood round about, burn the fat and entrails, and wave the breast for a wave offering before the Lord. 9:8-21
70. "Aaron ... slew the calf of the sin offering." 9:8
71. "And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto him: and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar, and poured out the blood at the bottom of the altar." 9:9
72. "But the fat, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver of the sin offering, he burnt upon the altar; as the LORD commanded Moses." 9:10
73. "And the flesh and the hide he burnt with fire without the camp." 9:11
74. "And he slew the burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled round about upon the altar." 9:12
75. "And they presented the burnt offering unto him, with the pieces thereof, and the head: and he burnt them upon the altar." 9:13
76. "And he did wash the inwards and the legs, and burnt them upon the burnt offering on the altar." 9:14
77. "And he ... took the goat ... the people, and slew it." 9:15
78. "He slew also the bullock and the ram ... and Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the altar round about." 9:18
79. "And the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver." 9:19
80. "And they put the fat upon the breasts, and he burnt the fat upon the altar." 9:20
81. "And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD; as Moses commanded." 9:21
82. Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-2
83. Moses tells Aaron that his sons were burned to death to sanctfy and glorify God. 10:3
84. Moses tells Aaron's cousins to drag the burned bodies out of the camp, and he warns Aaron not to mourn the death of his sons or God will kill him too, along with everyone else. 10:4-6
85. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by uncovering their heads, tearing their clothes, leaving with holy oil on them, or by drinking "wine or strong drink", then God will kill them and send his wrath on "all the people." 10:6-9
86. God will kill any priest that leaves the tabernacle. 10:7
87. If priests misbehave at the tabernacle by by drinking "wine or strong drink," then God will kill them and send his wrath on "all the people." "It shall be a statute for ever." 10:9
88. "And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place." 10:14
89. "The heave shoulder and the wave breast ... bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD." 10:15
90. "She shall bring a lamb ... for a burnt offering, and... a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering."
After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God likes it when things are killed for him. 12:6
91. "If she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons ... and she shall be clean." 12:8
92. God's law for lepers: Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 14:2-32
93. "Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean ... and the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water." 14:4
94. "And on the eighth day he shall take two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish ... And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering ... and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD." 14:10-12
95. "And he shall slay the lamb ... in the holy place: ... it is most holy." 14:13
96. "And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and ... put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot." 14:14
97. "The priest shall offer the sin offering ... and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering." 14:19
98. "If he be poor, and cannot get so much; then he shall take one lamb for a trespass offering to be waved ... and two turtledoves, or two young pigeons ... and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering." 14:21-22
99. "And the priest shall take the lamb of the trespass offering ... and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD:" 14:24
100. "And he shall kill the lamb of the trespass offering, and the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot." 14:25
101. "And he shall offer the one of the turtledoves, or of the young pigeons, such as he can get." 14:30
102. "Even such as he is able to get, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, with the meat offering." 14:31
103. "When ye be come into the land of Canaan ... I put the plague of leprosy in ... the land of your possession."
God "put the plague of leprosy" on the Canaanites. 14:34
104. "He shall take to cleanse the house two birds ... And he shall kill the one of the birds ... And he shall take ... the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird ... and sprinkle the house seven times ... And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird." 14:49-52
105. "On the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons ... and ... offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering." 15:14-15
106. "On the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons ... for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness." 15:29-30
107. God warns Aaron that he might have to burn him to death like he did his sons. (10:1-2) 16:1-2
108. God explains the use of scapegoats. It goes like this: Get two goats. Kill one. Wipe, smear, and sprinkle the blood around seven times. Then take the other goat, give it the sins of all the people, and send it off into the wilderness. 16:8-28
109. "Kill the bullock of the sin offering." 16:11
110. "Take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it ... seven times." 16:14
111. "Kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood ... and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat." 16:15
112. "Take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about." 16:18
113. "He shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times." 16:19
114. Sprinkle the blood and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. 17:6
115. If you upset God, he'll cause the land to vomit you out. 18:25
116. "Whosoever shall commit any of these abominations ... shall be cut off from among their people." 18:29
117. Don't eat sacrifices on the third day or God will cut you off from among your people. 19:6-8
118. Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2
119. If you refuse to kill someone who gives his seed to Molech, God set his face against you and your family. 20:4-5
120. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9
121. Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10
122. If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11
123. If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12
124. If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13
125. If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14
126. If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16
127. People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27
128. A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. 21:9
129. "Ye shall offer ... a male without blemish ... Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD ... Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut."
God wants us to kill lots of animals for him. Not just any animals, though. God only wants dead, male animals without any blemishes. 22:19-24
130. God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn't enough. He says we must do this because he really likes the smell -- it is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 23:12-14, 18
131. Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30
132. A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23
133. Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16
134. "He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." 24:17
135. "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him." 24:19
136. "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." 24:20
137. "He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death." 24:21
138. God tells the Israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors and their families. The "heathens" and "strangers" are to be their possessions forever. 25:44-46
139. God tells the Israelites to "chase" their enemies and make them "fall before you by the sword." He figures five of the Israelites will be able to "chase" a hundred of their enemies, and a hundred will be able to "put ten thousand to flight." 26:7-8
140. If you don't follow all of the laws in the Old Testament, God will shower you with all of the curses in the next 25 verses. 26:14-15
141. "I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 26:16
142. "I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies." 26:17
143. "I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins." 26:21
144. "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle." 26:22
145. "I will bring a sword upon you ... I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." 26:25
146. "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29
147. "I will ... cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you." 26:30
148. "And I will make your cities waste." 26:31
149. "And I will bring the land into desolation". 26:32
150. "And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste." 26:33
151. "And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies." 26:37
152. "And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up." 26:38
153. All "devoted" things (both man and beast) "shall surely be put to death." 27:28-29
-
Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
-
Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
I can't take the credit. I copy/pasted from the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Really, really interesting reading!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)
-
Damn Anne... You put some work into that.... But you are right... this seems like a continuence of the other thread but more detail...
Tell it like it is sista !!!!
I can't take the credit. I copy/pasted from the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Really, really interesting reading!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)
Throw the hammer on them Sledge.... :seg:
-
Great link, Kim. I have to throw this in too, though it's only tangentally related to the discussion. Almost everybody gets the "turn the other cheeck" thing wrong. Here's a quote from some biblical schollars site.
To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
Perhaps the beating would not have been stopped by this. But for the superior, it would at the very least have been disconcerting: he could continue the beating only by treating the peasant as a social peer. As Wink puts it, the peasant was in effect saying, "I am your equal. I refuse to be humiliated anymore." That is not all. The sayings about "going the second mile" and "giving your cloak to one who sues you for your coat" make a similar point: they suggest creative non-violent ways of protesting oppression.
There's more along the same lines. I think Peter McWilliams' "Ain't Nobody's Business" covers some interesting stuff. Point is that, like Islam, Christianity started out as a rebal movement, came to power and becamse murderous as opposed to self defensive.
BP's right, though. Force of law is not the way to respond to an idea or movement. Education is. I remember reading somewhere that the Muslim terrorist cells have had an extremely hard time retaining sleepers. Once the dudes are over here, living the life, not quite so cloistered as they were back home, the brainwashing wears off and they lose fidelity to their religion.
-
O0
-
:clown:
-
:tup:
-
As I said, no one is disputing their right to build.
That is not the issue.
The issue is Why There? People must face what this really is, what it really means.
-
Leviticus and Deuteronomy have nothing to do with the problem of Islamic brutality. Christians do not stone women to death anywhere in the world. Muslims do. Christians do not saw off the heads of Jewish reporters and teachers caught teaching little girls. Muslims do. Christians do not seek to blow air-planes out of the sky b/c the passengers are not Christian. Muslims do. Christians do not preach that murder and lying and destruction are pleasing to G-d. Muslims do.
If you'd really like to talk about the law as given to Moses and the Christian POV as understood from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, then we can, but it has nothing to do with the topic in this thread.
-
The only use of nuclear weapons in history was by the armed forces of the United States, killing tens of thousands of civilians at one go. The death toll in the nuclear attacks was not as high however, as the death toll from US firebombing of Tokyo, where the death toll was approximately 100 000. The armed forces of the United States sprayed approximately 18 million gallons of Agent Orange over the Vietnamese countryside resulting in the deaths of approximately 400 000 Vietnamese children, and producing birth defects in another 350 000. Currently, the armed forces of the United States use depleted uranium munitions. A tendency for significant increases in cancer and birth defects has been observed in the former Yugoslavia where these munitions were used by US forces, and in Iraq where they were also used by US forces.
-
Just as Christianity has different sects - some of which are insane - and just as Fred Phelps doesn't represent all Christians, neither does Bin Laden represent all Muslims or the Sunnis, or Shi’ites, or Sufis.
To lump all Muslims into one group is akin to lumping all Christians into Mormonism, Scientology, Christian Scientists (who let their children die because they think god will cure them). Again, we have freedom of religion in America. I can't stand the fact that Phelps & Co. protest Gulf War Veterans funerals, but it is his right. It's also my right to call him a bigoted asshole.
Besides, how quickly we forget that Bin Laden and other violent Muslims were our "allies" and "friends" just a few years back.
(http://http://dutchpatriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/donald-rumsfeld-meets-saddam-hussein.jpg)
-
I'll attempt to simplify the whole situation so that a five year old could understand it:
1. For decades, US & Saudi Arabia engage in high-dollar illicit trade involving oil and arms
2. Money trickles down to groups of religious fanatics (oops, uh-oh)
3. proverbial shit hits the fan back in 2001
4. events are used for political fodder
5. the fires of racist hatred are fanned
Did I leave out anything?
-
I'll attempt to simplify the whole situation so that a five year old could understand it:
1. For decades, US & Saudi Arabia engage in high-dollar illicit trade involving oil and arms
2. Money trickles down to groups of religious fanatics (oops, uh-oh)
3. proverbial shit hits the fan back in 2001
4. events are used for political fodder
5. the fires of racist hatred are fanned
Did I leave out anything?
Nope. That's pretty much it. Nicely done! :tup:
-
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
http://www.colbertrally.com/ (http://www.colbertrally.com/)
(http://http://www.colbertrally.com/static/images/colbert-rally.jpg)
What: It's time to Restore Truthiness to America!
When: TBA (Ask Stephen Colbert)
Where: TBA
Why: America, we are at a crossroad. Truthiness in this nation is at an all-time low since the inception of the concept was founded by the great American, Stephen Colbert. In its rich history over the past five years, Truthiness has become synonymous with American values such as freedom, honor, and Taco Bell. Recently our nation has suffered a truthiness drain. In fact, untruthiness is as common as measles vaccinations that cause cancer. We as a nation have stopped relying on our emotions and gut. We need to get back to what makes this nation great. Act on impulse not fact. Stop wasting time analyzing and just take what people say on face value. Why think when someone else can think for you. It’s superficial. It’s quick. It’s American. Restore Truthiness now!
How can you help? Spread the word. Tweet, Facebook Like, Join the Facebook Group, Share, Upvote, Do whatever you have to do. Make this be tomorrow's news!
Restoring Truthiness is a true grassroots movement propelled by YOU, the citizens of the internetz. Our goal is simple: Petition Stephen Colbert to hold a Restoring Truthiness Rally for the American people.
We are looking for volunteers to help us write content and build communities. If you are interested, email support@colbertrally.com
-
Well, I've not seen anyone arguing they don't have the right to build.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpi (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich_make_ground_zero_a_national_battlefield_t.php?ref=fpi)
Gingrich: Make Ground Zero A National Battlefield To Stop The Supposed Mosque
The majority of New Yorkers want the developers of Park51, known to its opponents as the "Ground Zero mosque," to voluntarily move the community center further from Ground Zero -- but the majority also acknowledges the developers' right to build there if they want.
Newt Gingrich doesn't feel that way. In a radio interview today, he said he wants the national government to step in and stop the developers from building the Islamic community center by whatever means necessary. (My comments: Newt holds much more sway than a regular civilian)
"I think the Congress has the ability to declare the area a national battlefield memorial because I think we should think of the World Trade Center as a battlefield site; this is a war," he said, apparently thinking that if Ground Zero was a national park, Park51 would be restricted from building near it.
And if that fails, he said, the state government should step in and use its considerable power to stymie the development.
"The Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, could intervene because frankly he has the ability to slow it down for decades if he wants to."
And, if the federal government doesn't intervene, and the state government declines to use its regulatory and enforcement powers to delay a private development project, Gringrich says the mayor should step in.
"I am surprised that Mayor Bloomberg said it was okay and I think that if he reconsiders it, he'll decide its not."
In fact, on whatever level, Gingrich thinks government intervention is the answer.
"There are a number of different steps that could be taken. There's no reason this has to occur and whether it's city, state, or federal there are plenty of ways for America to stop it," Gingrich said.
-
Inside the Beltway
By Jennifer Harper
The Washington Times
8:06 p.m., Thursday, September 2, 2010
STRONG BREW
Yeah. It's political. The bodacious, unapologetic "tea party" is ready to rumble on Sept. 12 when the National Mall will be wall to wall with those who favor less taxes, smaller government and a return to traditional American values. Unlike Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" folks, the tea partiers are encouraged to play hardball and bring their political signs, enthusiastic strategery and inner mettle, their sights set on swaying the midterm elections.
"Let me be clear about one thing. We are not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but rather a hostile takeover of it," says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a grass-roots group founded by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and a major organizer of the event.
(my comment: grass-roots my ASS! They're funded by the Koch brothers, the Republican version of Soros) http://exiledonline.com/washington-post ... es-levine/ (http://exiledonline.com/washington-post-links-freedomworks-tea-party-koch-family-only-5-months-after-ames-levine/)
"Last year, we demanded leaders who will defend our freedoms and advocate sustainable economic policy. This year, we assemble to remind them that if they can't follow through, we will vote in somebody else who will," Mr. Kibbe declares.
Four days of events organized by several groups begin Thursday, highlighted by a "One Nation Back to God" worship service, a march down Pennsylvania Avenue and a rally at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday. There is a veritable army of speakers, including Mr. Armey, Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican; Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, BigGovernment.com founder Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Hispanic Coalition director Tito Munoz, Redstate .com founder Erick Erickson, and 15 more.
-
Well, I've not seen anyone arguing they don't have the right to build.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpi (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich_make_ground_zero_a_national_battlefield_t.php?ref=fpi)
Gingrich: Make Ground Zero A National Battlefield To Stop The Supposed Mosque
The majority of New Yorkers want the developers of Park51, known to its opponents as the "Ground Zero mosque," to voluntarily move the community center further from Ground Zero -- but the majority also acknowledges the developers' right to build there if they want.
Newt Gingrich doesn't feel that way. In a radio interview today, he said he wants the national government to step in and stop the developers from building the Islamic community center by whatever means necessary. (My comments: Newt holds much more sway than a regular civilian)
"I think the Congress has the ability to declare the area a national battlefield memorial because I think we should think of the World Trade Center as a battlefield site; this is a war," he said, apparently thinking that if Ground Zero was a national park, Park51 would be restricted from building near it.
And if that fails, he said, the state government should step in and use its considerable power to stymie the development.
"The Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, could intervene because frankly he has the ability to slow it down for decades if he wants to."
And, if the federal government doesn't intervene, and the state government declines to use its regulatory and enforcement powers to delay a private development project, Gringrich says the mayor should step in.
"I am surprised that Mayor Bloomberg said it was okay and I think that if he reconsiders it, he'll decide its not."
In fact, on whatever level, Gingrich thinks government intervention is the answer.
"There are a number of different steps that could be taken. There's no reason this has to occur and whether it's city, state, or federal there are plenty of ways for America to stop it," Gingrich said.
They even tried offering alternative locations to build the mosque on and they said they would not build one if they could not build on that site.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/ ... ing-koran/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/03/rev-john-rankin-pastor-terry-jones-dove-world-outreach-center-burning-koran/)
Seven Questions for the Pastor Who Wants to Burn Copies of the Koran on 9/11
By Rev. John Rankin (my comment: too bad there aren't more Christian leaders like him)
Published September 03, 2010
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, plans to publicly burn a copy of the Koran on September 11. The timing coordinates with the ninth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the present controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero.
His church is small, about 50 members, but named the Dove World Outreach Center. (Yeah, great way to outreach there "pastor") He believes this is the right thing to do, posting ten reasons on his website, and having written a book called "Islam Is of the Devil."
He admitted to the New York Times in an August 26 article that he has no knowledge of the Koran: “I have no experience with it whatsoever. I only know what the Bible says.” As well, in my direct contacts with his church, I have learned that he claims God told him “to do this burning.”
Really? How well does he know the Bible? Is it biblical to be deliberately ignorant concerning a matter about which you write a book? Is he claiming to be a prophet, and if so, what will the results show?
This man, and his shrinking congregation, have assigned themselves the power to roil the Muslim world.
Imagine the Internet being flooded with pictures of a burning Koran, viewed incessantly and widely. Every time it is viewed, especially by tinderbox elements within the Muslim ummah, the potential for dangerous conflict will only grow. It could easily catalyze and bring harm to persons and property. Threats within the Muslim world are already growing. Is this the nature and purpose of the Gospel, to whom Pastor Jones claims allegiance?
First, the church should speak with one voice against such provocative folly. And second, President Obama should be quick to oppose it as well – in concern that international reactions could also threaten American interests, and, as a professing Christian who speaks of his respect for Muslim peoples, he should be especially intentional about being a peacemaker in such a context.
In my attempts at dissuasion, I have been in touch with the church staff twice. As an evangelical minister, I have sought to talk directly with Pastor Jones but to no avail. I have invited him to debate me, and the answer, repeatedly, has been no.
I have never before made such a public challenge, as I have in recent posts on my blog. I have been involved in some 200 debates and forums across the years, on a range of subjects, on university campuses, in churches and elsewhere. But this one matters especially.
Interfaith appeals and larger social pressure have their place. We see growing opposition, including the fact that the church has been refused a burn permit by the city, their insurance policy has been canceled, and the bank has pulled their mortgage note.
But Pastor Jones is still pressing forth with his agenda, claiming in an August 25 e-mail to his supporters, three times in bold: “BUT WE WILL STILL BURN KORANS.”
Pastor Jones claims to believe in the Bible, so this is where I challenge him. I do so having written a statement of affirmation, on my website, inviting biblically faithful Christians to join in: Yes to the Bible, No to the Burning of the Koran.
In it, we affirm the full and equal dignity of all Muslim peoples in the sight of the one true Creator. We do so in affirming the complete truth of the Bible, while at the same time not affirming the nature of the Koran. In the public sphere in the United States, unalienable rights, as rooted in their historical source, are to be honored equally for peoples, Muslims likewise. This is due not to religious identity, but on the grounds of a deeper shared humanity.
Thus, to put it in political language, our partisan affirmation of the Bible leads us to affirm the full human dignity of those who believe in a text we do not believe in. This is to love God and neighbor, to fulfill the “Golden Rule” of treating others as you wish to be treated.
The ethics of the Bible are by definition proactive, reflecting the declared goodness of the order of creation, and its redemption in Jesus. The word “Gospel” means “good news,” it starts in Genesis and is fulfilled in Jesus. This is Theology 101 for Christians.
Therefore, we who are biblically faithful Christians always seek to be proactive in our actions toward all people. The Gospel empowers us to give to those who would take from us, love those who would hate us, and bless those who would curse us. And as Jesus said, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
The poet, Heinrich Heine, a German Jew who converted to Christianity, wrote in 1820: “Where books are burned, they will, in the end, burn people, too.” Of course, those words were prophetic of what was to come, a century later, in Nazi Germany.
So, here are seven questions for Pastor Jones:
1. How can his proposed action be other than one of reactive fear, not one of proactive confidence? It is foreign to the Gospel.
2. Is not the burning of the Koran seen by Muslim peoples as bad news, and thus a hindrance to Muslims grasping the Good News in the lives of Christians?
3. Is not the burning of the Koran an act of accusation and condemnation? The name of Satan in the Hebrew (ha’satan) means “the accuser” or “the slanderer.”
4. Does not the burning of the Koran thus burn Muslims in their very souls?
5. Does not the burning of the Koran by professing Christians thus slander the name of Jesus Christ?
6. What happens if people are killed, injured or persecuted as a result, if properties are burned or damaged, due to an inflamed Muslim world as images of a burning Koran flood the Internet? Who will be ultimately responsible?
7. Jesus, in the face of his enemies during Passover Week, embraced their toughest questions in public assembly. Is not the burning of the Koran the opposite of such confidence in communication?
For Christians who embrace the proactive confidence of the Gospel, we seek out the toughest questions from Muslims in public assembly, among equals in the sight of the one true Creator, where the Bible and the Koran can be looked at side by side.
Does Pastor Jones have enough confidence in his position to be publicly accountable to such questions? Or is he a prisoner of his own reactionary fears? My offer to debate – in a sober and gracious manner – remains on the table.
The Gandhi quote bears repeating:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi
-
Ghandi was right. This is a point I often make myself. This is also why no one can be redeemed by their own merit.
Back to the topic at hand - the Ground Zero Mosqe:
Newt acknowledges that as things now stand the thing can be built. He is proposing making changes to stop it. And this guy: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk points out that there are limits to rights with the second amendment the example. He also explains why this thing is viewed with such upset by those who understand what it is and why they want it there.
What ever their many faults, a Christian will generally do their best to explain the truth about their faith as they understand it. So will a Jew.
Please Google: Islam+taqqiya and Islame+Abrogation
And please allow me to further repeat myself:
No one is disputing they have a right to build. The city counsel did have a right to stop its going up on that spot if they felt the building to be demolished was of historical significance. They said it is not. So, they can build. The governor or mayor or president have no say in the matter. All they can do is express an opinion which they have done, and which I and many others find to be disturbingly ignorant and politically correct to a ridiculous degree.
We have got to get real with regard to what Islam is. We have got to understand this monstrosity is an declaration of Victory; an out-post and command center in the war against the infidel.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/g ... osque.html (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque.html)
Liberal America can not afford to be warm and fuzzy on the issue of Islam. Cold, hard, very unpleasant facts must be faced. They must admit and acknowledge the concept of taqqiya and Abrogation and what these concepts mean for us, the Infidel, when dealing with them - the Islamic faithful.
For you ajax: "THE FACTS: As noted above, it is not unreasonable to characterize the site as being “at” Ground Zero, given that it was one of the buildings damaged in the 9/11 attack, is within the zone over which the remains of the murdered were scattered and has been called by the promoter of the initiative himself “the Ground Zero mosque.”
http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/ ... ro-mosque/ (http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/08/20/fact-checking-the-ap-fact-check-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/)
see also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCt ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8&feature=related)
and just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGy ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGyssc&feature=player_embedded)
Finely I'd like to suggest: Read the following, and if it seems reasonable to you sign it -
http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/th ... claration/ (http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/the-ground-zero-declaration/)
All this said, perhaps I should be clearer that my problem isn't with people but the totalitarian ideology that horribly subjugates girls and women and demands the bloody murder of me and mine.
I view most of the population of the lands controlled by this viciously oppressive ideology as victims of it. I applaud those who sacrifice their lives attempting to educate the girls and in general bring access to alternative ideas to the populations. I have not the courage to do as much myself - but I do have just enough to resist it's growing influence in my own nation and culture despite the inevitability of being labeled a racist and/or hate-monger. I am very grateful that this is the worst I can reasonably expect and hope it will always be so.
-
Ghandi was right. This is a point I often make myself. This is also why no one can be redeemed by their own merit.
Back to the topic at hand - the Ground Zero Mosqe:
Newt acknowledges that as things now stand the thing can be built. He is proposing making changes to stop it. And this guy: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk points out that there are limits to rights with the second amendment the example. He also explains why this thing is viewed with such upset by those who understand what it is and why they want it there.
What ever their many faults, a Christian will generally do their best to explain the truth about their faith as they understand it. So will a Jew.
Please Google: Islam+taqqiya and Islame+Abrogation
And please allow me to further repeat myself:
No one is disputing they have a right to build. The city counsel did have a right to stop its going up on that spot if they felt the building to be demolished was of historical significance. They said it is not. So, they can build. The governor or mayor or president have no say in the matter. All they can do is express an opinion which they have done, and which I and many others find to be disturbingly ignorant and politically correct to a ridiculous degree.
We have got to get real with regard to what Islam is. We have got to understand this monstrosity is an declaration of Victory; an out-post and command center in the war against the infidel.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/g ... osque.html (http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/08/ground-zero-mosque.html)
Liberal America can not afford to be warm and fuzzy on the issue of Islam. Cold, hard, very unpleasant facts must be faced. They must admit and acknowledge the concept of taqqiya and Abrogation and what these concepts mean for us, the Infidel, when dealing with them - the Islamic faithful.
For you ajax: "THE FACTS: As noted above, it is not unreasonable to characterize the site as being “at” Ground Zero, given that it was one of the buildings damaged in the 9/11 attack, is within the zone over which the remains of the murdered were scattered and has been called by the promoter of the initiative himself “the Ground Zero mosque.”
http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/ ... ro-mosque/ (http://bigjournalism.com/fgaffney/2010/08/20/fact-checking-the-ap-fact-check-on-the-ground-zero-mosque/)
see also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCt ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8&feature=related)
and just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGy ... r_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI9GLSGyssc&feature=player_embedded)
Finely I'd like to suggest: Read the following, and if it seems reasonable to you sign it -
http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/th ... claration/ (http://www.groundzerodeclaration.org/the-ground-zero-declaration/)
All this said, perhaps I should be clearer that my problem isn't with people but the totalitarian ideology that horribly subjugates girls and women and demands the bloody murder of me and mine.
I view most of the population of the lands controlled by this viciously oppressive ideology as victims of it. I applaud those who sacrifice their lives attempting to educate the girls and in general bring access to alternative ideas to the populations. I have not the courage to do as much myself - but I do have just enough to resist it's growing influence in my own nation and culture despite the inevitability of being labeled a racist and/or hate-monger. I am very grateful that this is the worst I can reasonably expect and hope it will always be so.
I understand what you're saying, but as I said before....we have freedom of speech and religion....even if we find it repugnant, like the KKK. What right do we have to ban a religious building? We absolutely have a right to protest it and make our feelings known, but to attempt to get the government to stop it goes against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It goes against what this country was founded upon. I'm not happy about the location, but I recognize the right to build it where they want as long as it is within the bounds of the law. :peace:
-
Absolutely bizarre and demonstrative of the surreal nature of this whole phenomenon. The arguments of both sides are based entirely on strawman arguments. The building is not at ground zero. There is no such entity as "islam" trying to build the facility as a triumphal statement about the 2001 attacks. The principal movers behind the creation of the facility are not random muslim citizens trying to express their religion, they are globalists.
But also hilarious. John Hinckley comes to mind. Hinckley shot Ronnie Ray-gun in the name of Jodie Foster. According to somebody or other, the 2001 terror attacks were conducted in the name of Islam, and thus "Islam" is implicated. So apparently Jodie Foster is somehow implicated in the attempted assassination of the Gipper.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the citizens of the United States continue to lose their ability to earn a livelihood as their armed forces push farther across the globe and their future prosperity is mortaged to arms manufacturers.
-
Absolutely bizarre and demonstrative of the surreal nature of this whole phenomenon. The arguments of both sides are based entirely on strawman arguments. The building is not at ground zero. There is no such entity as "islam" trying to build the facility as a triumphal statement about the 2001 attacks.
And Nazism didn't invade Poland. Nazis did.
The principal movers behind the creation of the facility are not random muslim citizens trying to express their religion, they are globalists.
But also hilarious. John Hinckley comes to mind. Hinckley shot Ronnie Ray-gun in the name of Jodie Foster. According to somebody or other, the 2001 terror attacks were conducted in the name of Islam, and thus "Islam" is implicated. So apparently Jodie Foster is somehow implicated in the attempted assassination of the Gipper.
Jodie foster didn't say "go and slay Regan wherever you find him". On the other hand Islam does tell it's followers to slay unbelievers wherever they're found. The 9/11 attacks were entirely in line with what Islam teaches. Bin laden even warned the US to turn to islam prior to the attacks (required by the Qur'an... read Sura 9 for details).
-
"Islam" didn't say "go and slay" anybody either. Islam cannot say anything, and it cannot teach anything, as it is an abstract and thus incapable of action. You continue to play with a reism, Hasbaranik.
-
"Islam" didn't say "go and slay" anybody either. Islam cannot say anything, and it cannot teach anything, as it is an abstract and thus incapable of action. You continue to play with a reism, Hasbaranik.
As just an observer here, you're being silly. A book or ideology says/teaches things. If it didn't it wouldn't be an ideology at all. You also come off like an idiot claiming everybody who disagrees with you is some kind of internet secret agent Jew. The poster in question (IslamIsViolent) goes by another name and has been around here for quite some time (and it's not TheWho either).
-
If you're just an observer, you don't call me silly, or an idiot. Once you made a judgement about what I was saying and communicated that idea, you ceased to be "just an observer". An ideology doesn't teach anything. People teach things, and people learn things. I can propose the most ridiculous idea, and I can waterboard you until you tell me that I'm right, but my preposterous idea hasn't taught you anything. My idea is an abstract and cannot, by it's definition, teach anything. That is the crux of the issue. In the context of this whole website, Milller Newton and his predecessors like Erhard can say whatever they choose, but their ideology doesn't teach anyone anything. It takes an asshole to teach an ideology. It is my belief that an asshole has the right to espouse their ridiculous belief, just as it is my right to accept or reject such ridiculous ideas. As for Islamisviolent going by another name, it proves that my original assumption that it was a sock puppet was correct.