The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 22, 2014, 05:31:49 pm
-
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/01/01/america-is-going-muslim/ (http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/01/01/america-is-going-muslim/)
The Islamic takeover of the US is gaining ground.
(http://www.jewsnews.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/49.jpg)
America is going Muslim, and with the current policies in place, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating top government positions and with the influx of immigration from Muslim countries, Islam will be taking over quicker than Phil Robertson can get suspended from Duck Dynasty for expressing his Christian views. It may sound far-fetched, but the rug is being pulled out from under us, and before anyone takes notice, the transformation will be complete.
There is nothing like demographic data to illustrate a point. Immigration is changing the face of the nation, and there are irrefutable statistics which prove this very point. There is US Census data which is part of the picture, but then there is the 2010 US Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study, analyzed by the Washington Post’s Niraj Chokshi in an article earlier this month.
This is the type of data that is often disregarded because any time religion comes into play, people consider it a nonfactor, insignificant or for some reason, unreliable information. However, this is a mistake. There will always be a margin for error in any study, no matter what the subject. In this case, religion plays an important role in our culture, in any culture really. It sets the stage for our behavior, as we are shaped by our beliefs and our culture. With that being said, the melting pot of the United States was always molded by the Judeo-Christian values set forth by the forefathers who built the nation. But now that melting pot is doing less melting, and the bashing of Christianity and Judaism is perpetrated by the leftist, liberal culture which has overtaken the country, while all other religions are given free rein in the name of “freedom of religion.”
This freedom of religion would be fine on two conditions: first, that the religion of the majority, the religion that founded this nation, is also allowed to exist without the shame that is being placed upon it nowadays; and second, that any religion which seeks to eliminate the rest, which seeks to conquer and destroy the nation and which is dictated by “holy” books and clerics calling for the violent acts of rape and murder in the name of their god, is not granted the same rights as the other religions. In other words, Islam, the only religion which falls into the above mentioned category, cannot be treated the same as the other religions whose adherents simply wish to be left alone to worship in peace.
Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. America is going Muslim. Sure, the South is still the Bible belt with the Southern Baptist Church maintaining its strength, and Catholicism is still prevalent throughout much of the country. However, the growing trend is secularism. Many Christians and Jews are becoming more secular, placing less importance on their religions, while the religions of the immigrants remain important. When those immigrants are Muslims, whose favorite chants at their protests against our governments are “Death to America,” “Death to Israel,” and “Death to the UK,” as they burn our flags, our lack of interest in our own religions is allowing for Islam to creep in.
-
Charles De Gaulle, jackass that he was, predicted muslims would be the biggest problem we would face after WW 11.
-
Charles De Gaulle, jackass that he was, predicted muslims would be the biggest problem we would face after WW 11.
Your point about muslims would be stronger, if you didn't introduce your negative assessment, which discredits De Gaulle.
Churchill held similar views.
-
In other words, Islam, the only religion which falls into the above mentioned category, cannot be treated the same as the other religions whose adherents simply wish to be left alone to worship in peace.
The problem is not the zealotry of Muslims (95% of whom are peaceful adherents who have nothing to do with the radicals), but the lack of faithfulness of Christians and Jews.
In other words, the answer is not to outlaw Islam, but to strengthen the practice of Christians and Jews.
-
The problem is not the zealotry of Muslims (95% of whom are peaceful adherents who have nothing to do with the radicals), but the lack of faithfulness of Christians and Jews.
In other words, the answer is not to outlaw Islam, but to strengthen the practice of Christians and Jews.
In my twisted, sordid mind, "peaceful adherent" translates into "passive-aggressive supporters" of Radicalism in Islam.
-
In my twisted, sordid mind, "peaceful adherent" translates into "passive-aggressive supporters" of Radicalism in Islam.
So does a "peaceful adherent" of Catholicism translate into "passive-agressive supporter" of abortion-clinic bombings?
I'm not really sure what you expect a Muslim guy who goes to Mosque, prays every day, and goes to work every day just like you and I to do about radical Islam.
I'm far from a fan of Islam, but milquetoast Christians calling for second-class citizenship for Muslims is kinda funny.
-
So does a "peaceful adherent" of Catholicism translate into "passive-agressive supporter" of abortion-clinic bombings?
I'm not really sure what you expect a Muslim guy who goes to Mosque, prays every day, and goes to work every day just like you and I to do about radical Islam.
I'm far from a fan of Islam, but milquetoast Christians calling for second-class citizenship for Muslims is kinda funny.
I don't believe that Muslims should have second-class citizenship. I think that we should not give Islam recognition as a religion until it comes into the 21st century.
Abortion clinic bombings...
One in 2011, the one before that in 2001.
Maybe if pro-lifers would manage more than one bomb a decade we would be in a better position to judge the id of devout Catholics.
Here is something that I hav discussed quite frequently with my best friend (you knew him in FR). He is a devout Catholic and staunch pro-lifer.
He argues that the pro-life movement application of the terms "murder" and "genocide" to abortion hurts their credibility.
If you were walking down a street and saw that a child was being murdered in an alley, you would stop at absolutely nothing to stop that from happening. I know that I would jump, and to the risk of my own life, I would intercede.
No pro-lifer, Catholic or not, will defend the act of doing whatever is necessary to stop an abortion from happening, even as they stand outside the clinics where it is happening.
That's a very odd paradox that approximates passive aggressive behavior.
-
So does a "peaceful adherent" of Catholicism translate into "passive-agressive supporter" of abortion-clinic bombings?
I'm not really sure what you expect a Muslim guy who goes to Mosque, prays every day, and goes to work every day just like you and I to do about radical Islam.
I'm far from a fan of Islam, but milquetoast Christians calling for second-class citizenship for Muslims is kinda funny.
I think a better comparison would be Protestants who hold the Amish in reverence because they see them as leading lives that are more authentic to the faith. The jihadists are held in esteem by the moderates because they are living lives that are more consistent with the teachings of their faith.
When a Christian prays, he prays for the strength to forgive his enemies. When a Muslim prays, he prays for the strength to defeat his enemies. That is a major distinction between Muslims and most other religions, and it is one that cannot be ignored. It explains why moderates in Islam usually do not speak out against jihad.
That said, I do not believe the activities of Muslims should be restricted in any way in the USA. All people have inalienable rights, and should be held accountable based on their actions, not on their beliefs.
-
I think a better comparison would be Protestants who hold the Amish in reverence because they see them as leading lives that are more authentic to the faith. The jihadists are held in esteem by the moderates because they are living lives that are more consistent with the teachings of their faith.
When a Christian prays, he prays for the strength to forgive his enemies. When a Muslim prays, he prays for the strength to defeat his enemies. That is a major distinction between Muslims and most other religions, and it is one that cannot be ignored. It explains why moderates in Islam usually do not speak out against jihad.
That said, I do not believe the activities of Muslims should be restricted in any way in the USA. All people have inalienable rights, and should be held accountable based on their actions, not on their beliefs.
The only problem that I have with that is that mosques are used as cover for actions meant to harm and kill US citizens.
It's that old "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" thing.
-
The only problem that I have with that is that mosques are used as cover for actions meant to harm and kill US citizens.
It's that old "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" thing.
Conversely, the mosques are also used by our intelligence people to gather information and infiltrate the movement. Based on the near absence of domestic terrorism since 2001, I'd say the latter use has been more efficacious than the former.
-
The problem is not the zealotry of Muslims (95% of whom are peaceful adherents who have nothing to do with the radicals), but the lack of faithfulness of Christians and Jews.
In other words, the answer is not to outlaw Islam, but to strengthen the practice of Christians and Jews.
Do you include in those zealots the muslim brotherhood which got its start being complicit with Hitler?
-
I think a better comparison would be Protestants who hold the Amish in reverence because they see them as leading lives that are more authentic to the faith. The jihadists are held in esteem by the moderates because they are living lives that are more consistent with the teachings of their faith.
When a Christian prays, he prays for the strength to forgive his enemies. When a Muslim prays, he prays for the strength to defeat his enemies. That is a major distinction between Muslims and most other religions, and it is one that cannot be ignored. It explains why moderates in Islam usually do not speak out against jihad.
That said, I do not believe the activities of Muslims should be restricted in any way in the USA. All people have inalienable rights, and should be held accountable based on their actions, not on their beliefs.
Psalm 35:1-9
1Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me;
Fight against those who fight against me.
2Take hold of buckler and shield
And rise up for my help.
3Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me;
Say to my soul, “I am your salvation.”
4Let those be ashamed and dishonored who seek my life;
Let those be turned back and humiliated who devise evil against me.
5Let them be like chaff before the wind,
With the angel of the LORD driving them on.
6Let their way be dark and slippery,
With the angel of the LORD pursuing them.
7For without cause they hid their net for me;
Without cause they dug a pit for my soul.
8Let destruction come upon him unawares,
And let the net which he hid catch himself;
Into that very destruction let him fall.
9And my soul shall rejoice in the LORD;
It shall exult in His salvation.
just the low fruit from the google vine.
Christians ain't pure as the driven snow, either.
-
Psalm 35:1-9
just the low fruit from the google vine.
Christians ain't pure as the driven snow, either.
This is why we have a NEW Testament in Christianity. To most Christian sects, the Old Testament is revered, but the New Testament is definitive. There is nothing that approaches the New Testament perspective in the Koran.
-
This is why we have a NEW Testament in Christianity. To most Christian sects, the Old Testament is revered, but the New Testament is definitive. There is nothing that approaches the New Testament perspective in the Koran.
So there are two Gods then? The one from the Old Testament, and His distant cousin, twice removed, in the New Testament?
-
So there are two Gods then? The one from the Old Testament, and His distant cousin, twice removed, in the New Testament?
Corinthians 11:25
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
-
So there are two Gods then? The one from the Old Testament, and His distant cousin, twice removed, in the New Testament?
Being agnostic myself, I am the last person to explain Christianity. But, I was raised in Catholic schools, so I am fairly familiar with the liturgy, so I'll give it a go.
As I understand it, God did not change but the original sin of man was washed away as a result of Christ's sacrifice. The prayers of the Old Testament are prayers of people scorned by God. The prayers of the New Testament are prayers of people forgiven by God. They don't reflect a different God, but a different kind of man. The New Testament man prays thus: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
-
Being agnostic myself, I am the last person to explain Christianity. But, I was raised in Catholic schools, so I am fairly familiar with the liturgy, so I'll give it a go.
As I understand it, God did not change but the original sin of man was washed away as a result of Christ's sacrifice. The prayers of the Old Testament are prayers of people scorned by God. The prayers of the New Testament are prayers of people forgiven by God. They don't reflect a different God, but a different kind of man. The New Testament man prays thus: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
You got to love this.
We just had an agnostic and a pantheist explain the New Covenant to a _________________.
Oceander, want to fill that in?
-
We just had an agnostic and a pantheist explain the New Covenant to _________________.
an attorney!
-
an attorney!
We may have bitten off more than we can chew.
-
The problem is not the zealotry of Muslims (95% of whom are peaceful adherents who have nothing to do with the radicals), but the lack of faithfulness of Christians and Jews.
In other words, the answer is not to outlaw Islam, but to strengthen the practice of Christians and Jews.
:amen:
-
You got to love this.
We just had an agnostic and a pantheist explain the New Covenant to a _________________.
Oceander, want to fill that in?
I'll fill it in if/when I get an explanation, as such.
-
Corinthians 11:25
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Changing the covenant does not change the essential nature of the covenanteer, and the new covenant does not appear to have foresworn the use of divine vengeance in the service of a believer, nor prohibited absolutely pleas and prayers for the exercise thereof.
Then again, I suppose that beating the merchants and money-changers in the entryway of the temple - because they were despoiling the Father's House - doesn't really count as doing violence against those who would defile the Truth; or does it? Identify some divine attribute or thing being infringed upon, identify the infringers, and you have license to go after them. Sounds suspiciously close to some of what the Koran supposedly licenses.
-
Changing the covenant does not change the essential nature of the covenanteer, and the new covenant does not appear to have foresworn the use of divine vengeance in the service of a believer, nor prohibited absolutely pleas and prayers for the exercise thereof.
Then again, I suppose that beating the merchants and money-changers in the entryway of the temple - because they were despoiling the Father's House - doesn't really count as doing violence against those who would defile the Truth; or does it? Identify some divine attribute or thing being infringed upon, identify the infringers, and you have license to go after them. Sounds suspiciously close to some of what the Koran supposedly licenses.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the New Testament, counselor.
-
This is a gross misrepresentation of the New Testament, counselor.
I must admit, in all my reading of the Bible I have never seen a passage that forbade our Savior to have a bit of a temper on him at times. Rather the opposite, in fact. He is the word made flesh - that includes the various down sides.
-
Changing the covenant does not change the essential nature of the covenanteer, and the new covenant does not appear to have foresworn the use of divine vengeance in the service of a believer, nor prohibited absolutely pleas and prayers for the exercise thereof.
Then again, I suppose that beating the merchants and money-changers in the entryway of the temple - because they were despoiling the Father's House - doesn't really count as doing violence against those who would defile the Truth; or does it? Identify some divine attribute or thing being infringed upon, identify the infringers, and you have license to go after them. Sounds suspiciously close to some of what the Koran supposedly licenses.
You're not in a courtroom Oceander
-
You're not in a courtroom Oceander
Duh
-
This is a gross misrepresentation of the New Testament, counselor.
to start with, which part? to follow on, how so?
-
to start with, which part? to follow on, how so?
It's not a textbook.
There is a reason why it's called "faith".
Open it anywhere, read, and go where your heart takes you.
-
to start with, which part? to follow on, how so?
It is not accurate to say that Christ "beat" the money changers. He drove them from the temple and overturned their tables. Furthermore, this is the only instance in the New Testament in which Christ did anything violent. It was an intentional act calculated to facilitate his crucifixion. He certainly didn't kill anyone, or even advocate killing anyone. The entire rest of the New Testament is dedicated to forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc. Show me any parallels with that thinking in the Koran.
It is naive to think the two texts are comparable, or that the two religions are comparable.
-
So does a "peaceful adherent" of Catholicism translate into "passive-agressive supporter" of abortion-clinic bombings?
I'm not really sure what you expect a Muslim guy who goes to Mosque, prays every day, and goes to work every day just like you and I to do about radical Islam.
I'm far from a fan of Islam, but milquetoast Christians calling for second-class citizenship for Muslims is kinda funny.
You are speaking to us like we are anti-Islam, when what we really are is anti-Islamic. There is a distinction. I think I speak for most of us, that we don't care if our neighbor or newest immigrant claims there are twenty gods or no God, as long as the man neither picks our pocket or breaks our bones. Fundamentalist Islam, however picks our pockets and breaks our bones, and has been doing the same since Thomas Jefferson, and we have been trying, and with not great success to stop them from doing so ever since. The majority of Muslims in America are moderate and peaceful, and want to live in harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors. But they are constantly drowned out by the violent Islamist who are more media savvy, better organized, and considerably better funded. And these same violent Islamist are creating a specialized victim status for themselves whereby discussion of their motives for Islamic supremacism, is quickly becoming no-go topics. Playing upon Americans natural distaste for racism and applying a new word to our vocabulary, Islamophobia. You come on here and say us "milquetoast Christians" want Muslims to be second-class citizens, NO WE DON'T. What we would love to see happen is for the moderate Muslims to reform Islam and have them join us in the 21st centaury. But instead what we do see is the World ceding ground to Islamist at a speed never seen before in human history.
-
goopo
Well said, Navy! :patriot:
-
You are speaking to us like we are anti-Islam, when what we really are is anti-Islamic. There is a distinction. I think I speak for most of us, that we don't care if our neighbor or newest immigrant claims there are twenty gods or no God, as long as the man neither picks our pocket or breaks our bones. Fundamentalist Islam, however picks our pockets and breaks our bones, and has been doing the same since Thomas Jefferson, and we have been trying, and with not great success to stop them from doing so ever since. The majority of Muslims in America are moderate and peaceful, and want to live in harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors. But they are constantly drowned out by the violent Islamist who are more media savvy, better organized, and considerably better funded. And these same violent Islamist are creating a specialized victim status for themselves whereby discussion of their motives for Islamic supremacism, is quickly becoming no-go topics. Playing upon Americans natural distaste for racism and applying a new word to our vocabulary, Islamophobia. You come on here and say us "milquetoast Christians" want Muslims to be second-class citizens, NO WE DON'T. What we would love to see happen is for the moderate Muslims to reform Islam and have them join us in the 21st centaury. But instead what we do see is the World ceding ground to Islamist at a speed never seen before in human history.
Could not agree more Navy. Well said!!!
Oh, and have a nice Memorial Day - thank you for your service!
:amen: :beer: :patriot:
-
The majority of Muslims in America are moderate and peaceful, and want to live in harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors.
Ay, there's the rub.
Moderate, peaceful Muslims are Muslims in name only because Islam doesn't condone the idea of peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.
Moderate, peaceful Muslims are in fact passive aggressive enablers of Islamic fundamentalists who live their lives in accordance to the teachings of the Koran. Should tomorrow the US be mired in the sort of daily violence we have become accustomed to reading about outside the US, US Muslims will no more rise in protest here than they do there.
In fact, the ONLY times that Muslims protest terrorist violence is when that Muslims are the victims of it.
-
Ay, there's the rub.
Moderate, peaceful Muslims are Muslims in name only because Islam doesn't condone the idea of peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.
Moderate, peaceful Muslims are in fact passive aggressive enablers of Islamic fundamentalists who live their lives in accordance to the teachings of the Koran. Should tomorrow the US be mired in the sort of daily violence we have become accustomed to reading about outside the US, US Muslims will no more rise in protest here than they do there.
In fact, the ONLY times that Muslims protest terrorist violence is when that Muslims are the victims of it.
You've cut to the core of it. There was an article posted here recently (and not the first time that I've seen the message being brought forth) that I believe was written by a former muslim (an apostate) that quite clearly explained how this notion of "moderate muslims" versus "islamists" is a fictitious creation of the West as an attempt to rationalize the conflict between our dedication to freedom of religion and self preservation. This fallacy and false hope was perhaps best illustrated by GW Bush's proclamation of islam being a "religion of peace." And the absurdity of that claim is spelled out clearly in what you wrote above: "because Islam doesn't condone the idea of peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims."
Those are the facts of the matter and a great deal of effort is being exerted by the muslims, and their enablers within the West, to propagate that fictional notion. I suggest that anyone that wants to really get an understanding of what has been going on and is happening now on this front, read Lee Harris' The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the Enlightenment (http://www.lee-harris.org/books/the-suicide-of-reason). Well worth the few bucks for a Kindle download.
From a "startlingly original and visionary" writer, a disturbing and far-ranging look at the West's vulnerability to fanaticism.
Whether by choice or not, the West finds itself in a low-grade yet bitter war with Islamic fanaticism. It is a war the West is singularly ill equipped to fight. The foe is resistant to any of the normal methods of conflict resolution such as negotiation, economic sanctions, or conventional armed confrontation.
The Suicide of Reason shows how modern liberal societies, whose political theories are born of the Enlightenment, are unfamiliar with the nature of mass fanaticism. The West can only think of fanaticism as a social pathology, a failure to modernize, rather than as what it is: a variety of social order that is not only fully viable in the modern world but also willing to use weapons to which the West is uniquely vulnerable. A governing philosophy based on reason, tolerance, and consensus cannot defend itself against a strategy of ruthless violence without being radically transformed--or destroyed.
Extraordinarily original and thought-provoking, The Suicide of Reason explains the logic of fanatical movements from the Crusades through Nazism to radical Islam; describes how the Enlightenment overcame fanatical thinking in the West; shows why most Western attempts to address the problem are doomed to fail; and offers strategies by which liberal internationalism can defend itself without becoming a mirror of the tribal forces it is trying to defeat.
-
I suggest that anyone that wants to really get an understanding of what has been going on and is happening now on this front, read Lee Harris' The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the Enlightenment (http://www.lee-harris.org/books/the-suicide-of-reason). Well worth the few bucks for a Kindle download.
Or as an alternative, read "Eternal Sunshine of the Intolerant Mind" (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-intolerant-mind/) by some guy whose name escapes me right now.
-
Or as an alternative, read "Eternal Sunshine of the Intolerant Mind" (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-intolerant-mind/) by some guy whose name escapes me right now.
Thanks! I looked that up and never heard of that guy, do you know much about him??
:silly:
-
Thanks! I looked that up and never heard of that guy, do you know much about him??
:silly:
Not as much as I used to.
-
Not as much as I used to.
Same, same.
-
The "radiacal Islam" vs. "moderate Islam" canard is a classic 'good cop/bad cop' role play exercise.
They each play their parts, but in the end they are both on the same team with the same goal.
-
You are speaking to us like we are anti-Islam, when what we really are is anti-Islamic. There is a distinction. I think I speak for most of us, that we don't care if our neighbor or newest immigrant claims there are twenty gods or no God, as long as the man neither picks our pocket or breaks our bones. Fundamentalist Islam, however picks our pockets and breaks our bones, and has been doing the same since Thomas Jefferson, and we have been trying, and with not great success to stop them from doing so ever since. The majority of Muslims in America are moderate and peaceful, and want to live in harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors. But they are constantly drowned out by the violent Islamist who are more media savvy, better organized, and considerably better funded. And these same violent Islamist are creating a specialized victim status for themselves whereby discussion of their motives for Islamic supremacism, is quickly becoming no-go topics. Playing upon Americans natural distaste for racism and applying a new word to our vocabulary, Islamophobia. You come on here and say us "milquetoast Christians" want Muslims to be second-class citizens, NO WE DON'T. What we would love to see happen is for the moderate Muslims to reform Islam and have them join us in the 21st centaury. But instead what we do see is the World ceding ground to Islamist at a speed never seen before in human history.
That is well put. I, for my sake, wish that people would make that crucial distinction more often. It is for the same reason that I would have issues with a Christian-based theocracy despite being a catholic myself.