Religion of Piece…

You know that I don’t usually bother commenting on Islam.  I don’t make it a habit to talk about cancer, either.

Same-same.

But here are two that should help anyone on the fence about Islam.  I did not mis-spell Peace in the title. It’s deliberate.  These sick F’s have written the rules of their society in such a way as to offend any sensible person.

14 Year old Girl lashed to death for being raped.

Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife- Legally Islamic View

Islam does not pose an immediate mortal threat here in America today, except from our idiot Political Class who insist on laying the ground for the invasion.  But Islam is making huge strides in the rest of the world, infesting and infecting, changing the Host until it no longer resembles anything with Western roots or morals.

Part of Restoration must include aggressive, Zero Tolerance defenses against Islam in our republic.  I think most of the women of Islam can be viewed as victims, a great many suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.  I may be wrong, I have never had a real interaction with that community.

No matter what, because of what we know to be true about the goals of Islam, we are fools for letting a single mosque stand in our country.  We are fools for letting a single Muslim remain.  I understand there are many “Westernized” Muslims in America who do not buy into the Jihad concept as strongly as their brothers across the globe…but since we can never know the heart of another…

Kerodin
III

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Religion of Piece…

  1. I am all for punishing the perpetrators of crimes against others. In the specific cases you mentioned, I would like to pull the trigger myself. Public service, you could say.

    But…and I say this with trepidation…we must tread carefully here. Although I sincerely believe Islam is a threat, and will take every opportunity to blaspheme the moon god and his pedophile prophet (cursed be his name), this seems pretty clear:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    The way I read it, Congress can have nothing to say about this. Perhaps it could be a state issue, or a local issue (which would ignite another state vs. FedGov SCOTUS case), but Congress CANNOT, without violating the 1st Amendment, prohibit the establishment and free exercise of a religion.

    It can, however, ensure that the pedophiles, abusers, and jihadis are dealt with properly. I think the declarative and restrictive nature of the BoR precludes the FedGov from taking any action at all against a religion.

    I think that Islam poses a threat to the West due to its arrogant(join or die, or be abused) and violent nature, and I would do anything to keep my children from its influence and control, prohibiting a religion is a clearly unconstitutional act.

    I may not like the religion, I may think it is a threat and destructive, but if Congress has the power to prohibit islam from our nation, then it can do the same to Christianity or any other religion. You know this as well as I. Once a government takes a power, it expands and abuses it at will. If Congres can eradicate the religion from our soil, then it can likewise institute it as the official state religion.

    That's not a road I want to go down, in any manner, for any reason. Punish crime. Enforce laws, yes. Dictate or prohibit religion? That could lead to bad times.

    Maybe I'm off base here. I am not an Islam apologist, anyone who knows me knows that…;-) I just think the First Amendment protects all religions. I also think it protects us from Sharia, as well. Not individual criminals mind you, but religions themselves.

    Thoughts?

    I will resist a government that tramples on the 1st Amendment.

    Like

  2. The premise that accepts Islam as a legitimate, true religion doesn't work for me.

    It is a political system, using the false cloak of religion as a vehicle, rather than a true religion.

    Based on that premise, Congress can intervene.

    No true religion puts a “Join, Die, or be our Slave” diktat out there.

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

  3. “It is a political system, using the false cloak of religion as a vehicle, rather than a true religion.”

    Agreed. I would say that it only assumes the force of law and gains solid ground in the west as a political system when governments yield to it (unlawfully) in the interest of not offending someone. Telling the imams that sharia is NOT the law of the land, and prosecuting criminals is the answer. islam can only gain real power and influence when the government fails, and allows it to do so.

    My problem lies in the government having any say in what constitutes a true religion. The examples of that occuring in the past century are not very encouraging.

    The islamic world comes to mind, as does China, USSR, Nazi Germany…

    If you give the government power to decide legitimate religions, soon, “legitimate” will be defined as what best serves the government. You know that.

    I would say as well that this amendment, read literally, only restricts Congress.

    This is a thought-provoking subject, for sure.

    AP

    Like

  4. What if I started a Thuggee religion here in America? And to join you had to kill one each – a man, woman, and a child. To remain a valid, practicing member you had to kill at least one person per year. Worshipping Kali, you could of course kill as many as you liked, beyond that minimum.

    Who would have the right to say this was not a “real” religion? If the basic tenet of my faith was the necessity to feed souls to Kali, and I could only do so by killing a human being, how could you stop me without interfering in my right to practice my religion?

    If Islam is a religion at all, it is a religion of death. Death to infidels. Death to apostates. Death to blasphemers. Death to those who do not follow the Quran to the letter, as interpreted by whatever imam was handy at the moment. Death to Sunnis if you are a Shiite, to Shiites if you are a Sunni. Death to women and female children if they bring shame upon you, even if they were forcibly raped by your father, brother, neighbor, or imam.

    Given these facts – and I do believe they are facts – can we still justify treating this ideology, an ideology we know was created out of whole cloth, was made up like a fairy tale, as an actual religion? With the requisite protection of the Constitution? Why not permit anyone to kill at will, if it is permissible to muslims?

    The only clear path I see is to rule – in a court of law, in Congress via legislation? – that any ideology that commands killing as part of it creed or ritual is NOT a religion, but a cult. And as such may not be practiced in the United States of America. If Islam has a Reformation such that it disavows killing of any kind other than self-defense, then such a religion would be acceptable.

    And, if they lie, they die. After said reformation, any muslim who kills a woman or female child may be killed in turn by any citizen at the scene, or tried by a court with the only sentence being death. Open season on any muslim who kills anyone for blasphemy or apostasy or any reason other than self-defense. And any muslim who practices genital mutilation of any infant child, child, teen or adult female shall be genitally mutilated himself. And then killed.

    If we accept a death cult as a religion, we deserve what we get.

    Like

  5. The Constitution is not a death pact – I don't remember who said it, but it applies on this topic.

    In Islam it is encouraged to lie to Infidels to advance the cause of Islam. The cause: That all of humanity become Muslim, or a slave to Muslims.

    We do not permit multiple wives for Mormons (with which I disagree, it is victimless). We draw the line at prudent, moral places.

    It is not prudent to let an enemy in your camp under the guise of a religion. Nor is Islam Moral by any Western Standard. It is a political machine designed to empower Muslims and enslave enemies by accusing them of offending Mo and/or Allah.

    We are a tolerant people, but our tolerance need not lead to our demise.

    As a People we do have the Right to determine what is Moral and what we will prohibit. The entire “faith” of Islam is predicated on the goal of conquering the world. As Reg offers, let them “Reform” for 100 years without conquering another nation, beheading an infidel, stoning a 19 year old woman, or diddling a young girl under the guise of Religion, then we'll talk about letting them into the republic.

    Until then, they should all be banned, Mosques turned into parking lots, and any Muslim Citizen in America forced to sign a Loyalty Oath, or get out.

    We the People are the Government – we get to decide the legitimacy of a religion.

    Now I have to find a way to get it into the Platform for the book. 😉

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

  6. Sam,

    Something that occurs to me is that on several occasions that I am aware of, the Feds (FBI each time, IIRC) arrested, tried, and convicted in court people who had been tried for the crime of murder, but had been freed in criminal courts on technicalities.

    They managed this not by double jeopardy, but by charging the perpetrators with “depriving the victim of his/her civil rights.” Justice done in a round-about fashion, if you will.

    Since it is the stated intent, written in their own Quran, Hadith, and Sira, of Islam to deprive any non-muslim – and even some muslims – of their civil rights as we know them and protect them here in this country, said religion becomes a criminal enterprise, a conspiracy even, fostered by the imams and adherents of this ideology, this political construct which seeks to establish – by their own words – dominion over the world.

    It should therefore be deemed not only immoral and unworthy of being practiced in our country, but its true adherents should be deported for their criminal activity. If they are citizens, they should be questioned as to their acceptance of and participation in this criminal enterprise, and arrested, tried and convicted if they do participate. Although I would not be adverse to allowing them to emigrate to some other country that will accept them as either a plea bargain or the outcome of conviction.

    Perhaps this notion of mine will give you some way of incorporating it into the book.

    Like

  7. Reg,

    I think you are right, a US Attorney properly motivated could take such a route. Of course, getting public and political opinion to the point that it could happen is another matter.

    Here's a link to Big Sis: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/janet-napolitano-warns-terror-threat-heightened-sept-11/story?id=12874207

    She says we have an event coming, probably by a Radicalized Citizen. While that is certainly true, our politicians use that meme to tighten their grip on you and me…for our safety. AP mentioned on his blog that Mumbai would have ended differently had it been in his neck of the woods. I know he's right, and that is the proper answer to any terrorist threat.

    Repeal all 2A restrictions and every potential target of terrorism in America will have the bad guys outgunned. They may get a few of us, but dumping a 33 round magazine won't happen.

    There will come a point when the public gives the Muslims among us the option to get out, or face indictment. It's common sense, and we'll get there eventually.

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

  8. What do you guys think about going to the Islam topic in the book? I've been considering this all day. The book is focused on Constitutional reforms, and the Islam issue seems out of place for that discussion.

    I'm thinking we could put together a 40-70 page mini-book dedicated to the topic of Islam from our perspective. I'd even entertain going hardcore and including images/language that may get us hunted by the faithful…

    We could distribute it the same way as the III to Congress book.

    Thoughts?

    Kerodin
    III

    Like

  9. I think your concern that it would be out of place is valid. It would distract from the more important issue of Constitutionality. Were that corrected, the muslim issue might handle itself, as you indicated in the prior post. While a separate book would be useful, again, if it is delivered before anything is done on the Constitutional reform issues it would likely distract. Or perhaps be used to denigrate our Constitutional message.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s