I don't like the sounds of this AT ALL - Muslim Ramadan

[jimnyc]

NO NO NO NO NO! No way in hell this should happen. This is simply an opening for them. You can't have a tree. You can't have a bible. You can't have a picture. You can't have a monument. You can't have ANYTHING that remotely resembles christianity while in public school.

So if someone now thinks it may be ok to teach the teachers to address students in a particular manner during Ramadan?? No way no how! Why is it that only muslims can push push push and get mostly whatever they want? And we're supposed to be nice and cater to them. This is insane. :rolleyes:

---

Seattle School District Urges Teachers to Follow CAIR Guidelines on Blessing Muslim Students During Ramadan

Dieringer School District in Seattle, Washington, is calling on its teachers to follow CAIR-issued guidelines regarding adherence to Islam. The school district is urging its teachers to bless Muslim students by reciting Arabic to them during Ramadan.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued an “Informative Letter on Upcoming Islamic Holidays and Religious Accommodations,” pressing school district officials to have their teachers recite “Ramadan Mubarak!” or “Ramadan Kareem” when welcoming Muslim students during Ramadan, according to the religious liberty advocacy group Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF).

The letter also instructs teachers to monitor Muslim students’ Ramadan fasting, as well as to refrain from scheduling tests during the Islamic holidays Eid Al-Fitr and Eid, adds FCDF.

One school district has reportedly reacted to the letter by urging its teachers to follow the CAIR-issued guidelines. FCDF says that Dieringer School District superintendent Judy Martinson enacted the CAIR letter as official District policy by distributing the guidelines to principals, who then distributed it to all teachers and staff.

“By urging teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic, the District is running roughshod over the First Amendment’s mandate of government neutrality toward religion,” said FCDF executive director Daniel Piedra.

“A school district would never order teachers to ‘welcome’ Catholic students during Easter with ‘He is risen, alleluia!'” added Piedra, “Singling out Muslim students for special treatment is blatantly unconstitutional.”

FCDF sent a legal memo to Martinson on Monday, warning the superintendent that the school district is likely violating the United States Constitution by favoring Muslim students, and that the advocacy group may take legal action if the district does not “rescind the Ramadan Policy within a reasonable time.”

“To be clear, nothing in the Constitution prohibits public schools from accommodating students’ religious exercise to the extent it would not interfere with educational interests,” states the memo, “‘But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors’ religious practice.”

“Here, by issuing the CAIR Letter to District employees, you acted under color of state law to create an official policy that has a primary effect of advancing religion,” adds the advocacy group, “The Ramadan Policy, in both adoption and implementation, plainly imposes liability on the District under the United States and Washington Constitutions.”

The letter also warns Martinson about CAIR’s anti-Semitic advocacy, as well as its ties to Islamist supremacists.

“CAIR is notorious in public policy and national security circles for its ties to Islamic supremacism, including its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas,” affirms the legal memo.

“These facts are not anti-Muslim conspiracy theories,” adds the letter, “Federal prosecutors have acknowledged that Muslim Brotherhood leaders founded CAIR and that it has conspired with Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to support terrorists.”

“CAIR is also noted for its anti-Semitic activism,” continued FCDF, citing a the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had published a “Profile” two years ago regarding CAIR and its chapters partnering “with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State.”

FCDF says that the CAIR-issued Ramadan guidelines are “yet another attempt by CAIR to infiltrate uninformed school districts so it can advance its subversive agenda.”

“CAIR must not be allowed to indoctrinate impressionable schoolchildren under the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘cultural awareness,'” states the advocacy group, “FCDF is committed to keeping CAIR out of our America’s public schools.”

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/08/seattle-school-district-urges-teachers-to-follow-cair-guidelines-on-blessing-muslim-students-during-ramadan/

[Elessar]

This insane.

Schools nationwide have been vilified for promoting Christian values and / or Hebrew values,
yet this district is promoting Muslim values? How about atheist values?

How about equal time given to all religions?

[STTAB]

NO NO NO NO NO! No way in hell this should happen. This is simply an opening for them. You can't have a tree. You can't have a bible. You can't have a picture. You can't have a monument. You can't have ANYTHING that remotely resembles christianity while in public school.

So if someone now thinks it may be ok to teach the teachers to address students in a particular manner during Ramadan?? No way no how! Why is it that only muslims can push push push and get mostly whatever they want? And we're supposed to be nice and cater to them. This is insane. :rolleyes:

---

Seattle School District Urges Teachers to Follow CAIR Guidelines on Blessing Muslim Students During Ramadan

Dieringer School District in Seattle, Washington, is calling on its teachers to follow CAIR-issued guidelines regarding adherence to Islam. The school district is urging its teachers to bless Muslim students by reciting Arabic to them during Ramadan.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued an “Informative Letter on Upcoming Islamic Holidays and Religious Accommodations,” pressing school district officials to have their teachers recite “Ramadan Mubarak!” or “Ramadan Kareem” when welcoming Muslim students during Ramadan, according to the religious liberty advocacy group Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF).

The letter also instructs teachers to monitor Muslim students’ Ramadan fasting, as well as to refrain from scheduling tests during the Islamic holidays Eid Al-Fitr and Eid, adds FCDF.

One school district has reportedly reacted to the letter by urging its teachers to follow the CAIR-issued guidelines. FCDF says that Dieringer School District superintendent Judy Martinson enacted the CAIR letter as official District policy by distributing the guidelines to principals, who then distributed it to all teachers and staff.

“By urging teachers to bless Muslim students in Arabic, the District is running roughshod over the First Amendment’s mandate of government neutrality toward religion,” said FCDF executive director Daniel Piedra.

“A school district would never order teachers to ‘welcome’ Catholic students during Easter with ‘He is risen, alleluia!'” added Piedra, “Singling out Muslim students for special treatment is blatantly unconstitutional.”

FCDF sent a legal memo to Martinson on Monday, warning the superintendent that the school district is likely violating the United States Constitution by favoring Muslim students, and that the advocacy group may take legal action if the district does not “rescind the Ramadan Policy within a reasonable time.”

“To be clear, nothing in the Constitution prohibits public schools from accommodating students’ religious exercise to the extent it would not interfere with educational interests,” states the memo, “‘But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors’ religious practice.”

“Here, by issuing the CAIR Letter to District employees, you acted under color of state law to create an official policy that has a primary effect of advancing religion,” adds the advocacy group, “The Ramadan Policy, in both adoption and implementation, plainly imposes liability on the District under the United States and Washington Constitutions.”

The letter also warns Martinson about CAIR’s anti-Semitic advocacy, as well as its ties to Islamist supremacists.

“CAIR is notorious in public policy and national security circles for its ties to Islamic supremacism, including its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas,” affirms the legal memo.

“These facts are not anti-Muslim conspiracy theories,” adds the letter, “Federal prosecutors have acknowledged that Muslim Brotherhood leaders founded CAIR and that it has conspired with Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to support terrorists.”

“CAIR is also noted for its anti-Semitic activism,” continued FCDF, citing a the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had published a “Profile” two years ago regarding CAIR and its chapters partnering “with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish State.”

FCDF says that the CAIR-issued Ramadan guidelines are “yet another attempt by CAIR to infiltrate uninformed school districts so it can advance its subversive agenda.”

“CAIR must not be allowed to indoctrinate impressionable schoolchildren under the guise of ‘diversity’ and ‘cultural awareness,'” states the advocacy group, “FCDF is committed to keeping CAIR out of our America’s public schools.”

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/08/seattle-school-district-urges-teachers-to-follow-cair-guidelines-on-blessing-muslim-students-during-ramadan/

THIS is an example of why me must be consistent, and why you will see several posts of mine in the past telling Christians they need to keep their religion at home. You can't logically defend Christian prayer at home and then condemn Muslim prayer, or as the Muzzies are trying here to defend Muslim prayer at school while being against other religions at school.

As for these recommendations, Engel vs Vitale so shut up CAIR.

[Drummond]

THIS is an example of why me must be consistent, and why you will see several posts of mine in the past telling Christians they need to keep their religion at home. You can't logically defend Christian prayer at home and then condemn Muslim prayer, or as the Muzzies are trying here to defend Muslim prayer at school while being against other religions at school.

As for these recommendations, Engel vs Vitale so shut up CAIR.

... seriously ?

My understanding has been that the USA was founded upon - therefore, identifies with ? - Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean that equal weight must be given to other religions, surely. Rather, that the religion America is meant to reflect, in terms of its dominant beliefs and values, should be the one favoured, over and above others ?

Does anybody still remember (and I'm quite sure you do !!) the horrors of 9/11. STTAB, what was the religion this was done in the name of ?? In the face of that, to say nothing of all the very many terrorist outrages seen since, ALL done in the name of Islam ... for the life of me, I fail to see any justification for why anyone 'must' confer parity of treatment, or respect, to Islam !!!!

There are times when I wonder why America tolerates Islam at all. If you shouldn't tolerate enemies of America .. why tolerate an enemy religion, when practitioners of it happily use Islam as a foundling basis for maiming and murdering your innocent citizens !!

I see absolutely no basis for any need for 'consistency', STTAB. I'm failing to see why you do, or why it's even an issue for you. Not where Islam's concerned, certainly.

What Jim describes is something needing to be stamped out. It's that simple. I see no argument relating that to Christian teaching, how it's done, where and when it's done, as being relevant.

There's the prospect of Muslims being 'unhappy' .. ? Who cares, that's what I say.

[STTAB]

... seriously ?

My understanding has been that the USA was founded upon - therefore, identifies with ? - Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean that equal weight must be given to other religions, surely. Rather, that the religion America is meant to reflect, in terms of its dominant beliefs and values, should be the one favoured, over and above others ?

Does anybody still remember (and I'm quite sure you do !!) the horrors of 9/11. STTAB, what was the religion this was done in the name of ?? In the face of that, to say nothing of all the very many terrorist outrages seen since, ALL done in the name of Islam ... for the life of me, I fail to see any justification for why anyone 'must' confer parity of treatment, or respect, to Islam !!!!

There are times when I wonder why America tolerates Islam at all. If you shouldn't tolerate enemies of America .. why tolerate an enemy religion, when practitioners of it happily use Islam as a foundling basis for maiming and murdering your innocent citizens !!

I see absolutely no basis for any need for 'consistency', STTAB. I'm failing to see why you do, or why it's even an issue for you. Not where Islam's concerned, certainly.

What Jim describes is something needing to be stamped out. It's that simple. I see no argument relating that to Christian teaching, how it's done, where and when it's done, as being relevant.

There's the prospect of Muslims being 'unhappy' .. ? Who cares, that's what I say.

I couldn't give two shits about unhappy Muslims. But Democrats support a two tiered system of what is allowed and what is not, I do NOT.

Pray at home.

[Drummond]

I couldn't give two shits about unhappy Muslims. But Democrats support a two tiered system of what is allowed and what is not, I do NOT.

Pray at home.

Just another example, then, of why the Dems should be fought against. There should be a preference shown to the faith your country is meant to identify with, and it seems to me that this doesn't even earn debate. Islam doesn't at all reflect what America is all about. If it's shown tolerance, its practitioners should be grateful for that (and not bombing them !!).

IS America a country loyal to its foundling principles, or not ?

How much tolerance is Christianity afforded, in the Middle East ?

I'm not following why prayers have to be confined to 'home'. Why ? Is America proud of what it should stand for, or not ?

[Drummond]

This insane.

Schools nationwide have been vilified for promoting Christian values and / or Hebrew values,
yet this district is promoting Muslim values? How about atheist values?

How about equal time given to all religions?

One could argue that the 'equal time' principle is a fair one. However .. in applying that principle, isn't that also an equivalent of saying that, officially, all religions carry equal weight ?

I don't accept that Islam has done anything to merit that. Unless bombing the hell out of innocent people is a way of earning that equality ?

No. Part of the insanity in this is, to me, even considering the 'rights' of a religion that wouldn't see its adherents respect the rights of others.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One could argue that the 'equal time' principle is a fair one. However .. in applying that principle, isn't that also an equivalent of saying that, officially, all religions carry equal weight ?

I don't accept that Islam has done anything to merit that. Unless bombing the hell out of innocent people is a way of earning that equality ?

No. Part of the insanity in this is, to me, even considering the 'rights' of a religion that wouldn't see its adherents respect the rights of others.
The lie is that Islam is anything other that a totalitarian entity that seeks a total and unbreakable dictatorship over the entire world.
That this great lie stands boggles the mind , in that Islam itself proudly champions and proclaims its superiority and goal of establishing that dictatorship by way of terrorism, murder, death, pillaging, raping. enslaving, torturing, burning, hanging, beheading, stoning, shooting , bombing, other forms of destruction and any other unmerciful acts necessary to gain that total victory!
With google and all that so easily found, seen and easily proven to be a reality. one must wonder what dark spiritual force uphold this worldwide blindness.
Cold hard and naked Truth is a terrible thing to face, especially when our children are brainwashed and taught to be cowards in our liberal indoctrination camps= our public school system.... --Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

One could argue that the 'equal time' principle is a fair one. However .. in applying that principle, isn't that also an equivalent of saying that, officially, all religions carry equal weight ?

I don't accept that Islam has done anything to merit that. Unless bombing the hell out of innocent people is a way of earning that equality ?

No. Part of the insanity in this is, to me, even considering the 'rights' of a religion that wouldn't see its adherents respect the rights of others.

You have a point. Would we bless Nazi students, to be fair?

I do do think it’s easiest to stay away from recognizing any religion or sect in school and just leave it at that. I know a lot of Christians disagree, but I’d rather teach my child only at home and at church, than risk scenarios like the one in the OP.

[Kathianne]

You have a point. Would we bless Nazi students to be fair?

I do do think it’s easiest to stay away from recognizing any religion or sect in school and just leave it at that. I know a lot of Christians disagree, but I’d rather teach my child only at home and at church, than risk scenarios like the one in the OP.

I agree for the most part. I don't have an issue with teaching the basic facts of major religions: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. I think it's important to know what the religions are supposed to be about. I draw the line though at speaking other languages-such as Arabic. I also do not agree with spending more time on one over another. No prayers from a religion-though no problem in saying that Christians, regardless of denomination say the Lord's Prayer; The Jews, the Talmud and Old Testament; etc. Which are monotheistic, polytheistic, those with deities that are not so much 'God' as 'spirits or nature.' You get the idea.

[Elessar]

I agree for the most part. I don't have an issue with teaching the basic facts of major religions: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. I think it's important to know what the religions are supposed to be about. I draw the line though at speaking other languages-such as Arabic. I also do not agree with spending more time on one over another. No prayers from a religion-though no problem in saying that Christians, regardless of denomination say the Lord's Prayer; The Jews, the Talmud and Old Testament; etc. Which are monotheistic, polytheistic, those with deities that are not so much 'God' as 'spirits or nature.' You get the idea.

That is something I argued at my son's elementary school. Nothing Judeo-Christian was allowed , but insisted on teaching Islamic history.
Then to top it off, would celebrate Kwanza as a religion, ignoring Christmas (not allowing decorations, either) and Hebrew holidays.

[Kathianne]

That is something I argued at my son's elementary school. Nothing Judeo-Christian was allowed , but insisted on teaching Islamic history.
Then to top it off, would celebrate Kwanza as a religion, ignoring Christmas (not allowing decorations, either) and Hebrew holidays.

I've got to say, I've not been in a public school in IL or AZ that did not have lots of Christmas decorations-though non-religious for the most part. (Nativity scenes were evident on hanging displays, not a creche per se.) Christmas trees in front offices and in many rooms.

Now the rest of your post, regarding Islamic emphasis, it seems to be a trend and I think lawsuits will be coming.

[Elessar]

I've got to say, I've not been in a public school in IL or AZ that did not have lots of Christmas decorations-though non-religious for the most part. (Nativity scenes were evident on hanging displays, not a creche per se.) Christmas trees in front offices and in many rooms.

Now the rest of your post, regarding Islamic emphasis, it seems to be a trend and I think lawsuits will be coming.

I hope so. It stinks that the majority have to yield to the minority. The minority has no tolerance at all
for others that do not follow the beat of their drum.

[STTAB]

There should be a preference shown to the faith your country is meant to identify with

Not in this country, that is the ENTIRE point of our first amendment.

And besides,using your argument, why couldn't a school that was predominantly Muslim students in say Detroit show preference for THEIR religion? See this is here faux conservatives like yourselves ALWAYS get tripped up.. You argue for freedom, but only for yourself. Your child most certainly should not be forced to participate in Islamic rituals at school, but neither should the little pagan child be forced to participate in Christian rituals while at school. The fact that I myself identify as a Christian does not negate my obligation to provide the same freedom for those who disagree with me as I expect them to provide for me..

Plus there is the practical to consider, schools are for LEARNING , and it's pretty tough to learn in an environment where everyone is arguing over which religions should be allowed in school and which shouldn't, particularly when the answer is none.

I find it sad that you can't recognized that what you propose in regards to allowing Christians to have their religion in school is fundamentally no different than allowing Muslims to have their religion in school.

[Drummond]

I agree for the most part. I don't have an issue with teaching the basic facts of major religions: Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. I think it's important to know what the religions are supposed to be about. I draw the line though at speaking other languages-such as Arabic. I also do not agree with spending more time on one over another. No prayers from a religion-though no problem in saying that Christians, regardless of denomination say the Lord's Prayer; The Jews, the Talmud and Old Testament; etc. Which are monotheistic, polytheistic, those with deities that are not so much 'God' as 'spirits or nature.' You get the idea.

From the way Islamists behave, I think it's pretty clear that they see their conflicting beliefs as a basis for forms of warfare .. be it in the form of terrorism, indoctrination, setting up their own schools in countries whose 'dominant faith' is different to theirs, trying to push for the dominance of Sharia Law ... in all these ways. Contrast that with the beliefs, values, which Western countries such as America are SUPPOSED to proudly represent !

I've nothing against teaching about other religions, so long as the whole truth is explained, and is unrestrained by political correctness imperatives, for fear of 'offending Muslims' (!!!). And, surely, the fact of sticking up for your own country's foundling religious base should count for SOMETHING ?

While our side politely weighs up how to give equal time to all religions out of a sense (realistically speaking, a misguided one) of fairness ... Muslims happily set up their own faith-based schools and indoctrinate their children in them. Those kids then grow up and seek to indoctrinate others (at best), or maybe go down the terrorist route (at worst).

The UK likes to pride itself on its tolerance and even deference towards so-called 'minority' groupings. Here's a mere taste of where our intended even-handedness led ....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594119/Twelve-schools-investigated-amid-claims-hard-line-Muslims-trying-indoctrinate-pupils.html


Extremist Muslims are trying to indoctrinate pupils at a dozen state schools in Birmingham, it has been claimed.

Local MP Khalid Mahmood warned of the risk posed by religious radicals as it emerged that education authorities had widened their investigation into the allegations to include more than 12 different schools.

In some schools non-Muslim teachers are reported to have been sidelined by Islamic extremists, who have allegedly imposed halal food in canteens and abolished sex education classes.

The claims first came to light last month, when a letter referring to a 'Trojan Horse' plot to take over Birmingham schools was leaked to the Press, although its authenticity is unclear.

Park View Academy was downgraded from 'outstanding' to 'inadequate' after allegedly being infiltrated by extremists, while the non-Muslim headmaster of Saltley School claims he was forced out of his job.

Education Secretary Michael Gove is believed to have taken a personal interest in the investigation, which includes both faith schools and secular establishments.

A source told the Sunday Times: 'Michael Gove has ordered an all-embracing investigation and has asked a number of department officials to drop everything and just focus on this.

This is a case of 'give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'. [Oh, and in the British press, any Muslim straying from the official line of 'Islam is a religion of peace' automatically gets categorised as an 'extremist', to help reinforce that lie]

Muslims might like your efforts at even-handedness and 'equality', but only because they can exploit it to fix the scales in their own favour.

So, in America ... WILL Americans stand up for their beliefs, or will they still want excuses for opting out ? Muslims see it as a fight they're determined to win. So ... will they ?

[Drummond]

Not in this country, that is the ENTIRE point of our first amendment.

And besides,using your argument, why couldn't a school that was predominantly Muslim students in say Detroit show preference for THEIR religion? See this is here faux conservatives like yourselves ALWAYS get tripped up.. You argue for freedom, but only for yourself. Your child most certainly should not be forced to participate in Islamic rituals at school, but neither should the little pagan child be forced to participate in Christian rituals while at school. The fact that I myself identify as a Christian does not negate my obligation to provide the same freedom for those who disagree with me as I expect them to provide for me..

Plus there is the practical to consider, schools are for LEARNING , and it's pretty tough to learn in an environment where everyone is arguing over which religions should be allowed in school and which shouldn't, particularly when the answer is none.

I find it sad that you can't recognized that what you propose in regards to allowing Christians to have their religion in school is fundamentally no different than allowing Muslims to have their religion in school.

Thanks very much for that 'faux Conservatives' jibe, STTAB. It was uncalled for ... of course.

You're missing the point, and indeed the reality, at work here.

Historically, Christians have fought for their beliefs .. 'the Crusades', for example, DID happen, and that was a case of Christians having to fight Muslims to wrest territory from Muslim rule. Those crusaders understood that it wasn't just enough to say they were Christians, and let just their arguments represent them. They knew that the world's realities demanded much more.

Fast-forward to today. What do we see ? We see a Leftie creed which bends over backwards to fight for MUSLIM rights, forever pushing the 'defer to minorities ... nothing else is fair' message. So, Muslims are happy, because they can go to the lands where that message is dominant, set up their communities, their versions of churches, their schools, all to ... what ? PUSH A PRO-MUSLIM AGENDA TO THE HILT.

Theirs is not a passive effort ... indoctrinations, terrorist actions, these speak for themselves, STTAB. You get the likes of one Anjem Choudary, who spoke of ...

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/september/uk-islamist-leader-islam-will-dominate-america


Anjem Choudary has been called the face of radical Islam in Great Britain. He holds frequent rallies calling for sharia law to be imposed on the United Kingdom.

CBN News first interviewed him in 2010, right after the British government banned his group, Sharia4UK.

On a recent visit to London, we found the ban has failed to stop Choudary from spreading his message that Islam will soon dominate Britain and the world.

"So you believe America, Great Britain, all of Europe, will be Islamic states living under sharia?" CBN News' Stakelbeck asked Choudary.

"I am convinced," he replied. "I am 100 percent certain that the sharia will be implemented in America and in Britain one day. The question is, 'when?' and how it will come to fruition."

He's unapologetic about what a society ruled by sharia would mean ....

Getting the picture ?

Islamists are working towards an eventual victory, of their faith, versus ours. Yet, if I argue anything suggesting a measure of actual opposition, of recognition of the true status quo and an appropriate response to it, I get the jibe 'faux Conservative' .. ???

That's just not acceptable.

No, STTAB. Think again. Have yourself a little dose of the REALITY in play, and see all this for what it is, no matter how uncomfortable that reality might be for you.

P.S .... if you're still unconvinced, STTAB, and you don't think an actual war is going on ... one where passivity equates to surrender, meaning you need to stand up and fight for your right to win out and retain your own rights and your very identity .... here's another snippet from the link I've posted ....


Choudary's vision is catching on among some Western Muslims. The group Sharia4UK has spawned at least two offshoots: Sharia4Holland and Sharia4Belgium.

There's also Sharia4America, which Choudary said is active on U.S. soil, mainly in New York City.

"The seeds for the call for sharia in America have been there for many decades," he told CBN News. "We have the Sharia4America project, where we present what we consider to be an alternative to democracy and freedom and the kind of life that people lead in America."

Sharia4America is not alone. Its pro-sharia, pro-caliphate message has been echoed in recent years by a Chicago-area group called Hizb Ut-Tahrir America.

"Ultimately, the Americans are going to be defeated," Choudary predicted. "They're going to be defeated back home .....

Declaring 'First Amendment Rights' as your way of not addressing what's really going on, just won't do -- sorry. Not in the real world. There's an aggressive effort being made to wrest the freedoms you would say you hold dear, from you. Those doing it see themselves as being on a perpetual war-footing, because, after all, theirs is - and always has been - a war for dominion.

Do you sit back and just watch it happen, still declaring your 'inviolable rights', when there's a battle going on to defeat those rights, and to restructure your society in a manner totally and utterly alien to the vision your Foundling Fathers worked to achieve ??

You should note Tyr's post above (post number 8). He speaks the truth. It may not be a truth you want to acknowledge, but nonetheless, it needs to be heeded.

[STTAB]

Thanks very much for that 'faux Conservatives' jibe, STTAB. It was uncalled for ... of course.

You're missing the point, and indeed the reality, at work here.

Historically, Christians have fought for their beliefs .. 'the Crusades', for example, DID happen, and that was a case of Christians having to fight Muslims to wrest territory from Muslim rule. Those crusaders understood that it wasn't just enough to say they were Christians, and let just their arguments represent them. They knew that the world's realities demanded much more.

Fast-forward to today. What do we see ? We see a Leftie creed which bends over backwards to fight for MUSLIM rights, forever pushing the 'defer to minorities ... nothing else is fair' message. So, Muslims are happy, because they can go to the lands where that message is dominant, set up their communities, their versions of churches, their schools, all to ... what ? PUSH A PRO-MUSLIM AGENDA TO THE HILT.

Theirs is not a passive effort ... indoctrinations, terrorist actions, these speak for themselves, STTAB. You get the likes of one Anjem Choudary, who spoke of ...

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2016/september/uk-islamist-leader-islam-will-dominate-america



Getting the picture ?

Islamists are working towards an eventual victory, of their faith, versus ours. Yet, if I argue anything suggesting a measure of actual opposition, of recognition of the true status quo and an appropriate response to it, I get the jibe 'faux Conservative' .. ???

That's just not acceptable.

No, STTAB. Think again. Have yourself a little dose of the REALITY in play, and see all this for what it is, no matter how uncomfortable that reality might be for you.

P.S .... if you're still unconvinced, STTAB, and you don't think an actual war is going on ... one where passivity equates to surrender, meaning you need to stand up and fight for your right to win out and retain your own rights and your very identity .... here's another snippet from the link I've posted ....



Declaring 'First Amendment Rights' as your way of not addressing what's really going on, just won't do -- sorry. Not in the real world. There's an aggressive effort being made to wrest the freedoms you would say you hold dear, from you. Do you sit back and just watch it happen, still declaring your 'inviolable rights', when there's a battle going on to defeat them ?

You should note Tyr's post above (post number 8). He speaks the truth. It may not be a truth you want to acknowledge, but nonetheless, it needs to be heeded.

You are a faux conservative Drummond. But never fear, you are not alone. Millions of people who want Christianity taught in schools, and to ban gay marriage , and a host of other things believe they are conservaatives as well.

You're far too authoritarian for my tastes. I see you wanting schools to force students who are not Christians to participate in Christian activities no differently than those want schools to do so for Muslim teachings.

The Crusades have literally nothing to do with this. You can fight Muslims being allowed to teach THEIR crap in schools while recognizing that to some Christian teachings are crap and they don't want to be forced to learn them in their schools either, and recognizing that they shouldn't be.

It's a simple concept that is the VERY bedrock of our nation, far moreso than "Judeo Christian principles" that is that EVERYONE is treated fairly by the government in terms of religious freedom . Which means if you don't want THEIR religion being taught in school you best not push for YOUR religion to be taught in school.

Put more simply, pray at home.

[Drummond]

You are a faux conservative Drummond. But never fear, you are not alone. Millions of people who want Christianity taught in schools, and to ban gay marriage , and a host of other things believe they are conservaatives as well.

You're far too authoritarian for my tastes. I see you wanting schools to force students who are not Christians to participate in Christian activities no differently than those want schools to do so for Muslim teachings.

The Crusades have literally nothing to do with this. You can fight Muslims being allowed to teach THEIR crap in schools while recognizing that to some Christian teachings are crap and they don't want to be forced to learn them in their schools either, and recognizing that they shouldn't be.

It's a simple concept that is the VERY bedrock of our nation, far moreso than "Judeo Christian principles" that is that EVERYONE is treated fairly by the government in terms of religious freedom . Which means if you don't want THEIR religion being taught in school you best not push for YOUR religion to be taught in school.

Put more simply, pray at home.

You insist on your 'faux conservative' jibe, STTAB. Not acceptable, as I've said, and is it perhaps the case that your true colours are emerging ? But, 'never mind' ... it's not the first time I've been libelled on this forum.

There are two distinct features of the line you're taking. One is a complete refusal to accept reality when you prefer not to. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you get evidence given to you on a plate which shows you a need to think again ... you just ignore it as you see fit.

The second is, following from the first, a rather disturbing 'dinosaur' trait. Namely that, just as the dinosaurs died out because they couldn't adapt to a change in their environment, so you refuse to adapt to an environment which I've shown you exists, needing the necessary adaptation to it. You not only choose your version of 'reality', meaning you shut your eyes to evidence disproving it, but more disturbingly, you want others to follow you in that effort.

'Faux Conservative' is a jibe you insist on that couldn't be LESS true of me. Why ? I'll tell you. It's perfectly simple. Because one key feature distinguishing Conservatives from others is our realism. The Left dreams up its idea of how the world should be, then works exhaustively to make the world fit their vision of it, and will say and do whatever it takes to achieve that agenda. They hate any reality not fitting their vision, so, their vision is 'all'. But Conservatives are the polar opposite of that, we see reality, and we address it ... as reality demands.

But you're not doing that, STTAB.

Why not ?

What should be concluded from this ?

I've shown you a taste of the realities involved. Note them. Learn from them. Adapt to them. I doubt you'll even consider doing it. But, try.

That's my - realistic - suggestion.

That, for now, is all I'll say.

[STTAB]

You insist on your 'faux conservative' jibe, STTAB. Not acceptable, as I've said, and is it perhaps the case that your true colours are emerging ? But, 'never mind' ... it's not the first time I've been libelled on this forum.

There are two distinct features of the line you're taking. One is a complete refusal to accept reality when you prefer not to. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you get evidence given to you on a plate which shows you a need to think again ... you just ignore it as you see fit.

The second is, following from the first, a rather disturbing 'dinosaur' trait. Namely that, just as the dinosaurs died out because they couldn't adapt to a change in their environment, so you refuse to adapt to an environment which I've shown you exists, needing the necessary adaptation to it. You not only choose your version of 'reality', meaning you shut your eyes to evidence disproving it, but more disturbingly, you want others to follow you in that effort.

'Faux Conservative' is a jibe you insist on that couldn't be LESS true of me. Why ? I'll tell you. It's perfectly simple. Because one key feature distinguishing Conservatives from others is our realism. The Left dreams up its idea of how the world should be, then works exhaustively to make the world fit their vision of it, and will say and do whatever it takes to achieve that agenda. They hate any reality not fitting their vision, so, their vision is 'all'. But Conservatives are the polar opposite of that, we see reality, and we address it ... as reality demands.

But you're not doing that, STTAB.

Why not ?

What should be concluded from this ?

I've shown you a taste of the realities involved. Note them. Learn from them. Adapt to them. I doubt you'll even consider doing it. But, try.

That's my - realistic - suggestion.

That, for now, is all I'll say.

I truly don't understand what you are babbling about here.

A true conservative is a person who wants the smallest , least intrusive government possible and the most freedoms for EVERYONE , not just themselves.

A true conservative would NEVER argue that one religion or another should be favored in public schools (not in this country anyway) a true conservative would NEVER support the government defining marriage. Etc, etc.

For one thing , you are actually arguing that local school districts should not have dominion over their schools in regards to which religions they favor, so that right there tells me that you are a faux conservative because a true conservative favors local school's being ran locally as they see fit, and I'm relatively certain you would oppose any local school teaching Islamic teachings.

As would I, with the difference being that I dont think Muslims, or atheists, or Jews, or Daoists, or anyone should be subjected to Christian teachings at public school either.

To reiterate being against any religion being favored in a public school is not in anyway suggesting that we should let Muslims do whatever they want in this country. Hell, myself I believe Islam is a cult, not a religon and thus is not to be afforded any first amendment rights in this country at all, but that doesn't negate the REALITY that our first amendment directly says "the government shall favor no religion" and since incorporation of our COTUS that applies to state and local governments as well, including public schools.

You are flat out wrong on this one friend, our first amendment means either local schools can decide which religions they will teach, or none shall be taught. And this is backed up by legal precedent.

Let me give you a quick example. In Arkansas a few years ago, the state was sued because they had a religious statue on public grounds, but when another religion tried to put a statue on the same grounds they were denied.

The state should have simply removed the statue, but they refused and went to court. Now there is a Satanic worship statue on the Capitol ground in Little Rock because the Arkansas Supreme Court said "if you're going to allow one religion, you must allow all"

Same principle here, I don't want Islam being taught in school, so I want NO religion taught in school

And that is for sure one of thousands of examples of people being bitten in the ass because they wouldn't hold to principle.

[Drummond]

I truly don't understand what you are babbling about here.

A true conservative is a person who wants the smallest , least intrusive government possible and the most freedoms for EVERYONE , not just themselves.

Consistency isn't your strong point, is it ?

I like what you SAY is the nature of Conservatism. But haven't you argued against yourself, elsewhere ?

Let me refresh your memory.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48527-Choose-To-Vaccinate&p=932725#post932725


In this particular case we have plenty of independent data to conclude that mandatory vaccinations are a good thing in the overall.

You just, very recently, argued for a mandatory vaccination program, STTAB. What ELSE is that, but a large scale, ultra-intrusive Government measure, one DENYING people any FREEDOM OF CHOICE in that matter !!

Either you mean what you say, or you don't. Either you truly want a 'least' intrusive Government, or, you argue for the exact opposite. ONE OR THE OTHER.

Make up your mind as to what you genuinely believe in, then we can debate on a more honest footing.


A true conservative would NEVER argue that one religion or another should be favored in public schools (not in this country anyway) a true conservative would NEVER support the government defining marriage. Etc, etc.

In my country, our Conservatives were happy to redefine what marriage was. Gay marriages are now possible.

But that's a diversionary point. You're still seeing reality as you want to see it, not as it IS. I've shown you what reality is, but you're not interested in adapting to it. Does it not occur to you that tunnel vision is eminently exploitable, by your adversaries ?

Since you're fond of diversion, here's one of my own.

Consider the GWB Presidency.

George W Bush had his vision of his Presidency. He wanted his Administration to be one concentrating on domestic matters. That was his direction, until a certain something happened. I refer, of course, to the 9/11 events.

You were fortunate. GWB was a Conservative President, so, he was a realist. The rest of his Presidency was dominated by his anti-terrorist effort on the world stage. You see, he did his job REALISTICALLY, meeting a REAL situation, as reality demanded.

The rest, as they say, is history, and it marked a laudable chapter in American political history.

So. DON'T TELL ME THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T REALIGN THEIR PREFERRED IMPERATIVES TO MEET REALITY, and in so doing, don't do exactly the right thing. History defies you on that.


For one thing , you are actually arguing that local school districts should not have dominion over their schools in regards to which religions they favor, so that right there tells me that you are a faux conservative because a true conservative favors local school's being ran locally as they see fit, and I'm relatively certain you would oppose any local school teaching Islamic teachings.

You're trying to have it both ways. Can I point out something ? You say ...


I'm relatively certain you would oppose any local school teaching Islamic teachings.

You accept that reality ? Good. In which case ... you're cherrypicking again. If you think that (a) this happens, but (b) doesn't require an approach that recognises what that intent signifies ... you're cherrypicking your approach in a manner other than what the reality of it demands.

I say that America is meant to be a Christian country. Not an Islamic one. This of itself says you should stand up for what you believe in. Not do the very opposite and sit back while others follow their aggressive agendas.

I've argued that from the beginning. I prefer to be consistent, you see.

Is America proud of its values .. these defined by CHRISTIAN teachings ?? Yes or no ??

Then it shouldn't force Christian teaching, and Christian worship, to skulk around in the shadows, AWAY from the more public arena of your schools !!!

Islamists aren't shy about that. Why are you ?

America needs to stand up for what it is founded on .. and that is not Islam. Therefore, let it represent what it's really all about, publicly and proudly.

A Conservative can say that, rather than argue a case against it. I do not argue for parity and any deference for what, after all, is an ENEMY religion.

I'm 'odd' like that, you see. :rolleyes:

'Sorry' if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

Hopefully you won't respond with more name-calling. We'll see.

[STTAB]

Consistency isn't your strong point, is it ?

I like what you SAY is the nature of Conservatism. But haven't you argued against yourself, elsewhere ?

Let me refresh your memory.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48527-Choose-To-Vaccinate&p=932725#post932725



You just, very recently, argued for a mandatory vaccination program, STTAB. What ELSE is that, but a large scale, ultra-intrusive Government measure, one DENYING people any FREEDOM OF CHOICE in that matter !!

Either you mean what you say, or you don't. Either you truly want a 'least' intrusive Government, or, you argue for the exact opposite. ONE OR THE OTHER.

Make up your mind as to what you genuinely believe in, then we can debate on a more honest footing.



In my country, our Conservatives were happy to redefine what marriage was. Gay marriages are now possible.

But that's a diversionary point. You're still seeing reality as you want to see it, not as it IS. I've shown you what reality is, but you're not interested in adapting to it. Does it not occur to you that tunnel vision is eminently exploitable, by your adversaries ?

Since you're fond of diversion, here's one of my own.

Consider the GWB Presidency.

George W Bush had his vision of his Presidency. He wanted his Administration to be one concentrating on domestic matters. That was his direction, until a certain something happened. I refer, of course, to the 9/11 events.

You were fortunate. GWB was a Conservative President, so, he was a realist. The rest of his Presidency was dominated by his anti-terrorist effort on the world stage. You see, he did his job REALISTICALLY, meeting a REAL situation, as reality demanded.

The rest, as they say, is history, and it marked a laudable chapter in American political history.

So. DON'T TELL ME THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T REALIGN THEIR PREFERRED IMPERATIVES TO MEET REALITY, and in so doing, don't do exactly the right thing. History defies you on that.



You're trying to have it both ways. Can I point out something ? You say ...



You accept that reality ? Good. In which case ... you're cherrypicking again. If you think that (a) this happens, but (b) doesn't require an approach that recognises what that intent signifies ... you're cherrypicking your approach in a manner other than what the reality of it demands.

I say that America is meant to be a Christian country. Not an Islamic one. This of itself says you should stand up for what you believe in. Not do the very opposite and sit back while others follow their aggressive agendas.

I've argued that from the beginning. I prefer to be consistent, you see.

Is America proud of its values .. these defined by CHRISTIAN teachings ?? Yes or no ??

Then it shouldn't force Christian teaching, and Christian worship, to skulk around in the shadows, AWAY from the more public arena of your schools !!!

Islamists aren't shy about that. Why are you ?

America needs to stand up for what it is founded on .. and that is not Islam. Therefore, let it represent what it's really all about, publicly and proudly.

A Conservative can say that, rather than argue a case against it. I do not argue for parity and any deference for what, after all, is an ENEMY religion.

I'm 'odd' like that, you see. :rolleyes:

'Sorry' if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

Hopefully you won't respond with more name-calling. We'll see.

Oh you got me Drummond when scientific evidence supports it I am pro the governent forcing people to do something even if they don't like it. Oh wait, I've said that right from the beginning , and that is the key difference between a true conservative such as myself and a libertarian who would say "I don't care if scientific evidence proves vaccinations are best for society as a whole the government can't force people to get them" See I've never advertised that I'm a libertarian, because I am not one. You should stop claiming you are a conservative, because you are not one.

And you further betray yourself when you make judgements about religion in public schools based on what YOU believe is a good religion, and what you believe is an enemy religion. Compulsory religion of ANY variety is an enemy of the United States, or rather it is an enemy to our Constitution. Whether the religion being forced is Christianity or Islam is immaterial to thinking people who have actually read the COTUS.

This stance has ZERO to do with "not recognizing the dangers of Islam" anyone who has read my postings over the last 8 or 9 years knows exactly what I think of that backwards religion, but I will not let my feelings about a religion - good or bad - sway my belief in the COTUS. That is what liberals do, that's EXACTLY what they do Drummond "this language is bad therefor it should banned, and those people who use it should be forced to listen to our good language " is the exact same argument Drummond.

Principles man, without them we are no better than the liberals. Let me them argue based on feelings . We use logic and facts, and logically it follows that if you do not want THEIR religion taught in your schools you must also ensure that YOUR religion isn't being taught in their schools.

[STTAB]

Is America proud of its values .. these defined by CHRISTIAN teachings ?? Yes or no ??

Then it shouldn't force Christian teaching, and Christian worship, to skulk around in the shadows, AWAY from the more public arena of your schools !!!

Islamists aren't shy about that. Why are you ?



^ I also wanted to address this very stupid paragraph in it's own post.

Drumond, you are actually saying "Hey the Muslims want to violate the COTUS, so why don't Christians also want to?" That is the exact OPPOSITE of having principles.

NEITHER side should be violating the COTUS.


Of course this line of thinking explains why so many Trump supporters totally ignore his lies and such all the while screaming that Democrats are liars, and definately underscores why liberals act as if Trump is the devil himself all the while ignoring the pile of shit Democrats who violate laws and lie to the American people on a daily basis, but it's to be expected from the very stupid people who vote Democrat. It shouldn't be tolerated from conservatives. PRINCIPLES should demand that we don't accept poor behavior from someone just because we like that person or that we act as if a person we don't like is some how worse when they do the same things as someone we do like.

[Drummond]

Oh you got me Drummond when scientific evidence supports it I am pro the governent forcing people to do something even if they don't like it. Oh wait, I've said that right from the beginning , and that is the key difference between a true conservative such as myself and a libertarian who would say "I don't care if scientific evidence proves vaccinations are best for society as a whole the government can't force people to get them" See I've never advertised that I'm a libertarian, because I am not one. You should stop claiming you are a conservative, because you are not one.

I'm not a Conservative because I point out that you lack consistency ?

The POINT is, you say you want small, unobtrusive Government ... EXCEPT ... when you've a reason to argue for the exact opposite.

So, what's that amount to ? A bending of a stance to meet what you see as being a reality, needing to be addressed ? Yes ?

Yet, I've shown you a reality about Islam, and its agenda. Yet ... here, suddenly, you - er'm - can't make the necessary jump towards a stance based on realism.

As I said, you cherrypick. Except, on this occasion .. to defend America's Christian values, to agree the freedom of a form of worship for Christians that's free and proud enough to be taken out of homes and into schools ... this is a leap you 'can't' make. Apparently.

Cherrypicking has its disadvantages, wouldn't you say ?


And you further betray yourself when you make judgements about religion in public schools based on what YOU believe is a good religion, and what you believe is an enemy religion. Compulsory religion of ANY variety is an enemy of the United States, or rather it is an enemy to our Constitution. Whether the religion being forced is Christianity or Islam is immaterial to thinking people who have actually read the COTUS.

Was that my point ? You're the one who believes parity involves taking religion out of school and restricting it (effectively an authoritarian stance, right there). But I come back to this: is America a Christian country, or not ?

I thought it was. But you're arguing otherwise ?

Since when were your laws based on Islamic values ? At least, not Christian ones ? What sense does it make to buy into Christian values, but restrict the religion they're based on ?

You see no contradiction in that ?


This stance has ZERO to do with "not recognizing the dangers of Islam" anyone who has read my postings over the last 8 or 9 years knows exactly what I think of that backwards religion ..

Excellent, so, I'll invite you to take a consistent stance, while you still can !!

You therefore know, and recognise:

1. Islam, being a danger, IS an enemy religion, something deserving of opposition.

2. Islam therefore does NOT deserve parity of treatment with Christianity !!

3. The existence of Islam as an opposing creed does not, just because it exists, mean you then restrict the venues of Christian worship!

4. Authoritarian pronouncements, such as yours, where you believe restrictions should apply because of that 'need' for parity, break your stance of being anti- the Governments who'd like to be authoritarian !!

But perhaps Governments, whom you don't want to trust, therefore by definition may be untrustworthy, in being supportable (sometimes but not in other times, according to your preference at the time) ... exhibit the same untrustworthiness in being authoritarian (sometimes) as you yourself wish to be (sometimes). Because, make no mistake about it: you cherrypick what you think deserves authoritarianism. This extends to measles ... but not to curbing Islamic practices, without doing exactly the same to Christianity.

Except that, America was founded on Christian values. Not Islamic ones. But, you still insist that they must earn and expect equal regard and treatment !!

So, intentionally or not, you end up favouring Islam.

Do you not see that ?

WHY ?


but I will not let my feelings about a religion - good or bad - sway my belief in the COTUS. That is what liberals do, that's EXACTLY what they do Drummond "this language is bad therefor it should banned, and those people who use it should be forced to listen to our good language " is the exact same argument Drummond.

Have Islamists, and on the basis of their faith, citing it as their justification, not committed the actions of a proven enemy ? Was 9/11 a 'friendly' occurrence ?? So tell me, why bend over backwards to offer equivocation between those enemies, and Christians ?

It isn't 'pro-liberal' to make the point I've made; in fact, liberals are very likely to AVOID that. I do not. Far from it: I want you to recognise the true nature of the religion you seek to see in the same terms as Christianity !! In doing so, understand the great need there is to recognise an enemy religion for what it is, deserving only the 'regard' you'd give to something irremediably hostile to you, and all you are, and all you cherish.


Principles man, without them we are no better than the liberals. Let me them argue based on feelings . We use logic and facts, and logically it follows that if you do not want THEIR religion taught in your schools you must also ensure that YOUR religion isn't being taught in their schools.

Then use the clear FACT of Islam's many instances of its practitioners acting as your enemies. Use a logic which says it isn't logical to in any way favour your enemies. Employ a principle of supporting that which is friendly to you, and the very opposite towards that which sees you as its enemy.

Do try.

It's a better pursuit than name-calling.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One could argue that the 'equal time' principle is a fair one. However .. in applying that principle, isn't that also an equivalent of saying that, officially, all religions carry equal weight ?

I don't accept that Islam has done anything to merit that. Unless bombing the hell out of innocent people is a way of earning that equality ?

No. Part of the insanity in this is, to me, even considering the 'rights' of a religion that wouldn't see its adherents respect the rights of others.

Here is the problem in USA. Our government started out immediately after 911 declaring it was not Islam!
And that was nothing but a damn lie! It was Islam-- Islam was the reason for the attack, not some belief in the tooth fairy, the purple people eater, Casper the friendly ghost!
And get this these filthy animals shout out their reason- Allah Akbar!
Yet for 2 decades we are getting it drilled into us to give a pass to Islam- while we half-hearted play at chasing its myriad number of tails to cut off,(know they are so damn easily regrown) and thus we are actually protecting the head-the main body-- insuring its survival.

Imagine if we had used this sick twisted , cowardly and insane strategy when facing the Nazi's and the horrors of WW2!!!
My friend, we are almost certainly going to lose if we keep on protecting Islam , insuring its lie that it is a peaceful religion, that it should be treated as an equal to CHRISTIANITY!
AN EQUAL!! When it operates by the sword, by murder, terror, pillaging, raping, hanging, burning, stoning, beheading, dehumanization, enslaving, etc, etc, etc !
No sir! The many millions of non-muslims that defend it are actually blinded, gullible, ignorant morons!!
A great many doing that defending because they are cowards not wanting to face it head on!
Such almost insures that Islam will end up winning, IMHO.
How can one save a ship that they refuse to ever see or believe is sinking?
You see that strategy of tricking your enemy into believing that all is just fine gains time to use wisely-- as in infiltrating it more/deeper, weakening it more, etc, etc.
The Dem party is allied with Islam-- which makes every dem an ally to Islam and its ultimate goal of destroying/conquering this nation.
A TRAGIC, SAD AND EVIL TRUTH. Despite what any blinded person does or says otherwise about,--Tyr

[Drummond]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
Here is the problem in USA. Our government started out immediately after 911 declaring it was not Islam!
And that was nothing but a damn lie! It was Islam-- Islam was the reason for the attack, not some belief in the tooth fairy, the purple people eater, Casper the friendly ghost!
And get this these filthy animals shout out their reason- Allah Akbar!
Yet for 2 decades we are getting it drilled into us to give a pass to Islam- while we half-hearted play at chasing its myriad number of tails to cut off,(know they are so damn easily regrown) and thus we are actually protecting the head-the main body-- insuring its survival.

Imagine if we had used this sick twisted , cowardly and insane strategy when facing the Nazi's and the horrors of WW2!!!
My friend, we are almost certainly going to lose if we keep on protecting Islam , insuring its lie that it is a peaceful religion, that it should be treated as an equal to CHRISTIANITY!
AN EQUAL!! When it operates by the sword, by murder, terror, pillaging, raping, hanging, burning, stoning, beheading, dehumanization, enslaving, etc, etc, etc !
No sir! The many millions of non-muslims that defend it are actually blinded, gullible, ignorant morons!!
A great many doing that defending because they are cowards not wanting to face it head on!
Such almost insures that Islam will end up winning, IMHO.
How can one save a ship that they refuse to ever see or believe is sinking?
You see that strategy of tricking your enemy into believing that all is just fine gains time to use wisely-- as in infiltrating it more/deeper, weakening it more, etc, etc.
The Dem party is allied with Islam-- which makes every dem an ally to Islam and its ultimate goal of destroying/conquering this nation.
A TRAGIC, SAD AND EVIL TRUTH. Despite what any blinded person does or says otherwise about,--Tyr :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

An excellent post, Tyr. I agree with every word.

I expect the same deceptive, propagandist trick employed on my side of the Pond is also true of yours ... whenever a terrorist outrage is committed, our media, and if 'necessary' also our Government, waste no time in distancing the terrorists from what they call 'mainstream' Islam. Describe a terrorist as a terrorist (... and our BBC hates to even do that ! Those responsible get called 'bombers', or 'attackers', basically anything that'll avoid the 'T' word) ... and that terrorist is automatically 'an extremist'. In fact, these days they'll go even further, and hold back from initial judgment of what the so-called 'attacker's' motives were ... did he (or she) have a history of mental illness ? Was it all a mistake, or working off a grudge of some kind ?

No. If our media have to use the word 'terrorist', that terrorist is an 'extremist'. This is always the approach taken. No exceptions to that, none at all. Never, but NEVER, will our people associate those terrorists with a clear and uncompromised link to Islam.

It's truly disgusting.

The terrorists are uniformly agreed on what they're fighting on behalf of, many are happy to clearly proclaim it, but, our authorities never want anyone to listen to them and heed their clear message. So it is that our Muslims continue on, and the potential for further attacks remains, never being addressed.

Our 'friend' STTAB is seemingly more content to draw his own equivalence with more decent society than recognise the nature of a clear enemy, one deserving only to be treated as such. No, rights of worship, these must be equal between Islamists and Christianity ! No exceptions, nor recognition of any need or requirement to regard the religions any differently. It's just, in effect, another manifestation of the same escapist phenomenon I've just described.

An enemy is an ENEMY. Giving equal rights and freedoms to those who mean you great harm, and are working to destroy everything you hold dear (including those freedoms that'd be happily conferred on those aggressors !) ... this is an act of madness.

None of that stops the Left from trying to facilitate all that, though. But happily ... true Conservatives are realists. We meet reality as we must.

[KarlMarx]

Jim’s opening pretty much says it all.

Rule of thumb is never listen to the advice of CAIR, an organization run by America’s enemy, Hamas.

One more thing.... this is America, learn to speak English ... just as I had to when I was just five

If a five year old can do it, so can you.

If you want to speak Arabic ... go to Arabia

[Drummond]

Jim’s opening pretty much says it all.

Rule of thumb is never listen to the advice of CAIR, an organization run by America’s enemy, Hamas.

One more thing.... this is America, learn to speak English ... just as I had to when I was just five

If a five year old can do it, so can you.

If you want to speak Arabic ... go to Arabia

All well and good as far as that goes, but there's more involved.

Do people living in America support and agree with the freedoms and values America stands for ? Or, are there those who work to subvert it all, with the goal of replacing all that with a tyranny of their own preference, to which they maintain unshakeable loyalty ?

Some are so blind as to want to equate honest patriots, whose motivations are decent, benign and upstanding, with those who couldn't be more different, holding malignant intentions. To them, enemy and friend alike should be granted equal freedoms.

At best it's delusional. What it isn't, in realistic terms, is anything coming within a light year of being meritorious.

[Noir]

As a bottom-up event? Sure
but as top-down policy? Awful idea.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

All well and good as far as that goes, but there's more involved.

Do people living in America support and agree with the freedoms and values America stands for ? Or, are there those who work to subvert it all, with the goal of replacing all that with a tyranny of their own preference, to which they maintain unshakeable loyalty ?

Some are so blind as to want to equate honest patriots, whose motivations are decent, benign and upstanding, with those who couldn't be more different, holding malignant intentions. To them, enemy and friend alike should be granted equal freedoms.

At best it's delusional. What it isn't, in realistic terms, is anything coming within a light year of being meritorious.

My friend, reality says, kill the wolves that are eating the flock-- not coddle/feed the wolves during a cold brutal winter so they survived and multiply in the Spring to eat even more of the flock!
If the wolves have found a way to use your wrongheaded sympathies against you--one must be pragmatic, wise and courageous enough to adapt and if need be fight fire with fire..
Those that cry out with --- never to that are wrong! There is no --never-- to that sad and tragic necessity.
Reality has a lot of harsh demands that one must make in life.
Reality also shows that millions refuse(often doing so for silliest of reasons) not only at their own costs/peril but also at the costs/perils they inflict upon those that are wiser and see the abject folly in that erroneous method/way of thinking, acting and ARROGANCE, IMHO....-Tyr

[Drummond]

As a bottom-up event? Sure
but as top-down policy? Awful idea.

I'm not following, sorry. This talk of 'tops' and 'bottoms' is confusing.

I'm sure you know what you meant, but use terminology that's clearer, please (to say nothing about clarity of context).

[jimnyc]

CAIR - Hamas = terrorism

It's been argued since forever. And no matter how long the arguments last, Hamas and palestinians continue their terror ways. Only a fool would argue in support of them anymore.

And NO WAY IN HELL is doing ANYTHING for ramadan a good thing. Folks, including yourself, Noir, have argued against things as slight as a picture of Jesus, and how it shouldn't be in school. No praying, no bibles - nothing. Even against saying the pledge of allegiance!! And that was you against that as well I believe.

But somehow we should see banning all of that, but allowing anything from a terror cult and their religion - is good in ANY way?

[Drummond]

My friend, reality says, kill the wolves that are eating the flock-- not coddle/feed the wolves during a cold brutal winter so they survived and multiply in the Spring to eat even more of the flock!
If the wolves have found a way to use your wrongheaded sympathies against you--one must be pragmatic, wise and courageous enough to adapt and if need be fight fire with fire..
Those that cry out with --- never to that are wrong! There is no --never-- to that sad and tragic necessity.
Reality has a lot of harsh demands that one must make in life.
Reality also shows that millions refuse(often doing so for silliest of reasons) not only at their own costs/peril but also at the costs/perils they inflict upon those that are wiser and see the abject folly in that erroneous method/way of thinking, acting and ARROGANCE, IMHO....-Tyr

Well put, as ever. Yet another example of us both being on exactly the same page.

I'll put this more simply (if rather less poetically), for STTAB's benefit, if I may.

REALITY, AND WHAT IT DEMANDS.

That's what it comes down to.

You can't mess around when you deal with enemies, even to the point of refusing to see them for what they are ! Recognition of the Islamist intentions, understanding of the nature of your enemy and what must be done to tackle the great threat they pose.

Didn't 9/11 give you an inkling, STTAB, the merest hint, of the truth of all that ? Have there been no examples since of terrorist atrocities, ALL of which have their roots in Islam, from which you should learn a highly necessary lesson ?

YOU may not think you're at war with them, but you've no way of concluding the same about THEM !! 9/11 was not a friendly act !! Anjem Choudary, who I've posted before about, at length, has the one 'good' quality of being utterly candid about Islam's goals. No messing about, where he's concerned. He says, very clearly, that Sharia Law should be worldwide, that all faiths and systems opposing Islam and its laws must be defeated. He wants the overthrow of every freedom that America holds dear to itself ... and he's not exactly fussy about how it's achieved.

But still, STTAB, you want to 'play nice' with them ... this, against a barbaric enemy, very possibly the most brutal and subhuman enemy the modern world has seen, one which sees YOU as its ENEMY.

Incredible !!

Here, STTAB. Let me make this even simpler for you, in mere conceptual terms .....

Imagine: standing before you are two individuals. One is a Christian priest ... upstanding, a loyal and devout practitioner of his faith. The other is a Satanist, equally devout in his 'beliefs' and in his malignancy.

Tell me, STTAB, what on earth would justify regarding and treating both of them with equal deference !!!!

Because that's seemingly your approach to Christianity v Islam, and those who side with each faith.

Do you now, finally, GET IT ????

[jimnyc]

I myself see Islam as a cult. I see a few other religions as not very appeasing to myself. I DO think our country was mostly found on christianity, but also with freedoms in mind. And they wrote the best document ever in human history, IMO. That document does support individual freedoms, including religions, and for the government to keep it's greedy little mitts out of. Imagine if down the road some scumbags got into office and decided to completely ignore the COTUS and make changes? One of them doing just this - making Islam the forefront and eliminating others? Or another religion? I don't see it ever happening, but that's what some would want I bet! And I believe that's one of the reasons they designed it as such, to keep them from doing things like that, and allowing the freedoms to the people.

IMO, I say we eliminate the roaches, call it a day and move forward. Some don't agree with my approach. :dunno:

But since we can't do that, the next best thing is to prevent things like Islam from ever being in our schools like this article points out. NO WAY that should ever be happening in any public school. But ensuring that never happens in the future is by standing behind our constitution in matters of religion, and what the government can do regarding supporting one over another. The people can more or less do just that, but the government in no way should be allowed to step in and demand one or any being allowed or that one is preferred over another, as much as we would like to see that happen.

Why?

Look who made office this year in Ilahn Omar & Tlaib, and crazy supporters like Ocasio Cortez. Imagine 40 years from now, and due to immigration and simple increases in religion as it's going... imagine the government having a huge increase in muslim representation. Yeah, I know, me neither, but the left is nuts in what they support or may allow. So they do that, and then imagine THEM making changes, based on prior changes, and now do just those horrid things I reference. It cannot happen now due to our constitution, but once that is changed, it will then make precedent and change available in the future. I don't even think we should have a muslim in American politics, but that's just me.

So I think my stance on Islam is clear. My stance on christianity and my support for it are also extremely clear. I am 100% for Christianity and 100% dead against Islam and all it represents. ---- but on top of all that is our US constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I myself see Islam as a cult. I see a few other religions as not very appeasing to myself. I DO think our country was mostly found on christianity, but also with freedoms in mind. And they wrote the best document ever in human history, IMO. That document does support individual freedoms, including religions, and for the government to keep it's greedy little mitts out of. Imagine if down the road some scumbags got into office and decided to completely ignore the COTUS and make changes? One of them doing just this - making Islam the forefront and eliminating others? Or another religion? I don't see it ever happening, but that's what some would want I bet! And I believe that's one of the reasons they designed it as such, to keep them from doing things like that, and allowing the freedoms to the people.

IMO, I say we eliminate the roaches, call it a day and move forward. Some don't agree with my approach. :dunno:

But since we can't do that, the next best thing is to prevent things like Islam from ever being in our schools like this article points out. NO WAY that should ever be happening in any public school. But ensuring that never happens in the future is by standing behind our constitution in matters of religion, and what the government can do regarding supporting one over another. The people can more or less do just that, but the government in no way should be allowed to step in and demand one or any being allowed or that one is preferred over another, as much as we would like to see that happen.

Why?

Look who made office this year in Ilahn Omar & Tlaib, and crazy supporters like Ocasio Cortez. Imagine 40 years from now, and due to immigration and simple increases in religion as it's going... imagine the government having a huge increase in muslim representation. Yeah, I know, me neither, but the left is nuts in what they support or may allow. So they do that, and then imagine THEM making changes, based on prior changes, and now do just those horrid things I reference. It cannot happen now due to our constitution, but once that is changed, it will then make precedent and change available in the future. I don't even think we should have a muslim in American politics, but that's just me.

So I think my stance on Islam is clear. My stance on christianity and my support for it are also extremely clear. I am 100% for Christianity and 100% dead against Islam and all it represents. ---- but on top of all that is our US constitution.

Islam is a religious form of Nazism. Both are totalitarianism regimes, only Islam takes it even deeper in its unmerciful ways, ideas , goals, actions and agenda. Islam is completely incompatible with our nation, our culture, its freedoms and its founding document- our Constitution!!
Any that deny that fact- that truth are either blind,deceived, being stupid, disingenuous lying or a moron, IMHO..
And sadly in our nation , with its promoted blindness, dem party treason, mainstream media treason/deceptions, and ruined public education system- many millions are!! -Tyr

[Noir]

I'm not following, sorry. This talk of 'tops' and 'bottoms' is confusing.

I'm sure you know what you meant, but use terminology that's clearer, please (to say nothing about clarity of context).

Bottom-up: The decision to use such terminology is made at the student-to-teacher level
Top-down: The decision to use such terminology is made at the Government/State/District-to-teacher level.

[Drummond]

Bottom-up: The decision to use such terminology is made at the student-to-teacher level
Top-down: The decision to use such terminology is made at the Government/State/District-to-teacher level.

Thank you (?).

[Drummond]

Islam is a religious form of Nazism. Both are totalitarianism regimes, only Islam takes it even deeper in its unmerciful ways, ideas , goals, actions and agenda. Islam is completely incompatible with our nation, our culture, its freedoms and its founding document- our Constitution!!
Any that deny that fact- that truth are either blind,deceived, being stupid, disingenuous lying or a moron, IMHO..
And sadly in our nation , with its promoted blindness, dem party treason, mainstream media treason/deceptions, and ruined public education system- many millions are!! -Tyr

Never were truer words spoken ... on all counts.

[Drummond]

I myself see Islam as a cult. I see a few other religions as not very appeasing to myself. I DO think our country was mostly found on christianity, but also with freedoms in mind. And they wrote the best document ever in human history, IMO. That document does support individual freedoms, including religions, and for the government to keep it's greedy little mitts out of. Imagine if down the road some scumbags got into office and decided to completely ignore the COTUS and make changes? One of them doing just this - making Islam the forefront and eliminating others? Or another religion? I don't see it ever happening, but that's what some would want I bet! And I believe that's one of the reasons they designed it as such, to keep them from doing things like that, and allowing the freedoms to the people.

IMO, I say we eliminate the roaches, call it a day and move forward. Some don't agree with my approach. :dunno:

But since we can't do that, the next best thing is to prevent things like Islam from ever being in our schools like this article points out. NO WAY that should ever be happening in any public school. But ensuring that never happens in the future is by standing behind our constitution in matters of religion, and what the government can do regarding supporting one over another. The people can more or less do just that, but the government in no way should be allowed to step in and demand one or any being allowed or that one is preferred over another, as much as we would like to see that happen.

Why?

Look who made office this year in Ilahn Omar & Tlaib, and crazy supporters like Ocasio Cortez. Imagine 40 years from now, and due to immigration and simple increases in religion as it's going... imagine the government having a huge increase in muslim representation. Yeah, I know, me neither, but the left is nuts in what they support or may allow. So they do that, and then imagine THEM making changes, based on prior changes, and now do just those horrid things I reference. It cannot happen now due to our constitution, but once that is changed, it will then make precedent and change available in the future. I don't even think we should have a muslim in American politics, but that's just me.

So I think my stance on Islam is clear. My stance on christianity and my support for it are also extremely clear. I am 100% for Christianity and 100% dead against Islam and all it represents. ---- but on top of all that is our US constitution.

I definitely agree with your 'eliminate the roaches' suggestion. Get the problem (rather, the evil !) they represent, dealt with once and for all.

On the immigration front: over a decade ago, we in the UK had Socialists governing us. They were fine about mass immigration .. this certainly including Muslims. They crafted a social climate so toxic that to even question that immigration left the questioner open to charges of racism, bigotry and worse. There's absolutely no question that a Left-wing authority, given the power and acceptance to do it, WILL facilitate anything the Islamists settling here want of them, if they possibly can.

This is why resistance to Islamic ambitions must include Left-wingers as part of it, because they are unashamed facilitators.

Such a climate rebounds in other ways. We had cases of devout Islamists edging out bona fide education authorities so that they could take over schools and push their Islamist agendas, this including acceptance of Islamic practices and pro-Islamic teaching.

The problem is that any judicial and authoritative status quo is theoretically open to subversion. The question is whether that subversion is acted against, or if there's a lack of will to act. If rules and precedents are in effect which permit that malign process, then the malignancy succeeds, or at least, has a clear path permitting success.

It's in the nature of Islam that it's a freedom-crushing cult. Given full rein to act, and it acts against any opposing belief system, insisting on its own dominance. This is what people such as STTAB don't seemingly get .. Islam and Christianity cannot merit any parity of treatment, because Islam is at war with all faiths not its own. Allowing Islam and Christianity equality of status and treatment is the equivalent of setting out a battlefield, making sure that each side is equally represented, armed equally, then letting them both slug it out until a victor emerges.

Islam won't hesitate to fight, and to crush its adversary, by any means available. I'm not so sure Christianity has any equal willingness to fight, though, not in a climate of politically-correct equivocation, of the type that - it seems - STTAB is OK with.

Public education, including freedom to worship, should absolutely include Christian teachings and worship in schools ... that's what I say. Deferring to an alternative where the mere PRESENCE (!!) of an Islamic alternative erodes that basic freedom ... isn't that an actual outrage ?

More ... doesn't it translate to an Islamic victory, and one with great exploitation potential ?