A clear and true statement regarding the Organization for Islamic Cooperation by the brave and admirable Deborah Weiss of www.vigilancenow.org.
See her quick video and share:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka4CFacEe1A
Read her book here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf
And, most importantly, do something about it. Get involved with an organization in an effort to confront the monster that is political Islam. It is not just America, the West, or Christians and Jews who must wake up and become informed. It is all who do not want to live exactly as Mohammed did. The Islamic doctrine is "The Curse that Keeps on Taking." Generation after generation. There are hundreds of millions of people who subscribe to a clear and simple interpretation of the Islamic text who want the barbaric Sharia and Islam imposed on the world. Sharia has a thousand camel's noses that it can stick into the tents of pluralism and freedom of speech. It is happening all around you today.
Though this is a battle of ideas, eventually violence will be required to deal with the proponents of Sharia because violence and lies are divinely sanctioned throughout Islam's doctrine. For true Islam, the end of advancing Islam justifies any means. It must be seen for what it is. It must be stopped.
Ban Islam.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Religious Discrimination at the Supreme Court
Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are now five Roman Catholics (63%) currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (37%) (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). Antonin Scalia was a Roman Catholic.
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Islam: A Matter of Interpretation?
What possible "interpretation" of Muhammad's barbaric and violent religious supremacist bigotry is going to lead his followers to ...as advocates of pluralism say... coexist? For Muslims, to coexist means to compromise one's faith and Muhammad's vision. That may seem unimportant at first, but as a Muslim's faith evolves, delving further into the Islamic doctrine, a cognitive dissonance erupts between the wonderful messiness of our world's pluralism and the purity of Muhammad's vision.
Muhammad's examples and edicts commanding believers to imitate him and engage in eternal jihad against the unbelievers create the elephant in the room. They must not be brushed aside because they are so prevalent throughout the Sunnah and clear in their instruction. The simplest interpretation holds the moral high ground in the long run, thus the durability of the Wahabist approach. When times get tough, we all go back to our hitching posts for guidance. In these moments, followers of Jesus, Confucious, Buddha and others will search their text and find something akin to the Golden Rule. Followers of Muhammad will find not pluralism, but dualism (two classes of people: believers and unbelievers) implemented through a most barbaric means.
At some point after absorbing this truth, many Muslims will snap. All people are fallible, prone to oppress those different from themselves. The last thing the world needs is a prophet, a perfect example of man, telling people to follow those base urges, sanctioning bigoted religious violence against all who reject their holy and exclusive club; promoting a violent pursuit of "I'm righteous, you are not." Such a doctrine is eternal and evil.
All people are also wonderous and beautiful, capable of delivering gracious acts of kindness to a world filled with hurt, vulnerable and broken individuals, each of whom have their own great gifts to offer. Gifts waiting to be opened and offered to the world if only someone were to believe in them or point out that the gift is there, easily seen.
Our religious and civilizational/political doctrines can offer no acceptance for, or succor to, what is worst in mankind. People must be called, consistently, to rise above their petty instincts to destroy people different than themselves. Islam will never do this with any consistency. People must never be given an edict by a prophet to take up arms and slay anyone. Islam will forever do this.
And don't tell me about some of the good things said in the Islamic doctrine. Mein Kampf had some good things said in its pages. Hitler did some good things, as did Muhammad. "Some good things" is easy to accomplish and in no way defines a successful standard for what is divine or godly. Divinity or godliness is determined by what one does when in the breech. For Muhammad, a bad neighbor to all who disagreed with him, the example cannot be fixed through interpretation. A biography cannot be reformed.
The only solution is as obvious as it is nearly impossible: As an example of how to live, Muhammad's must be rejected as if he were Hitler, but worse due to his violent supremacy directed at absolutely everyone who disagrees and his claim that he has God in his pocket. Because the Quran's commands that followers must imitate Muhammad, the world must put Islam aside.
Muhammad's examples and edicts commanding believers to imitate him and engage in eternal jihad against the unbelievers create the elephant in the room. They must not be brushed aside because they are so prevalent throughout the Sunnah and clear in their instruction. The simplest interpretation holds the moral high ground in the long run, thus the durability of the Wahabist approach. When times get tough, we all go back to our hitching posts for guidance. In these moments, followers of Jesus, Confucious, Buddha and others will search their text and find something akin to the Golden Rule. Followers of Muhammad will find not pluralism, but dualism (two classes of people: believers and unbelievers) implemented through a most barbaric means.
At some point after absorbing this truth, many Muslims will snap. All people are fallible, prone to oppress those different from themselves. The last thing the world needs is a prophet, a perfect example of man, telling people to follow those base urges, sanctioning bigoted religious violence against all who reject their holy and exclusive club; promoting a violent pursuit of "I'm righteous, you are not." Such a doctrine is eternal and evil.
All people are also wonderous and beautiful, capable of delivering gracious acts of kindness to a world filled with hurt, vulnerable and broken individuals, each of whom have their own great gifts to offer. Gifts waiting to be opened and offered to the world if only someone were to believe in them or point out that the gift is there, easily seen.
Our religious and civilizational/political doctrines can offer no acceptance for, or succor to, what is worst in mankind. People must be called, consistently, to rise above their petty instincts to destroy people different than themselves. Islam will never do this with any consistency. People must never be given an edict by a prophet to take up arms and slay anyone. Islam will forever do this.
And don't tell me about some of the good things said in the Islamic doctrine. Mein Kampf had some good things said in its pages. Hitler did some good things, as did Muhammad. "Some good things" is easy to accomplish and in no way defines a successful standard for what is divine or godly. Divinity or godliness is determined by what one does when in the breech. For Muhammad, a bad neighbor to all who disagreed with him, the example cannot be fixed through interpretation. A biography cannot be reformed.
The only solution is as obvious as it is nearly impossible: As an example of how to live, Muhammad's must be rejected as if he were Hitler, but worse due to his violent supremacy directed at absolutely everyone who disagrees and his claim that he has God in his pocket. Because the Quran's commands that followers must imitate Muhammad, the world must put Islam aside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)