Pickering Post: The Left’s first response to a terrorist incident is, “It’s more likely a domestic disturbance, or an out of control vehicular incident”. Once established that the perpetrator was screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ it’s, “Other good Muslims must not be blamed”. When these ‘other good Muslims’ refuse to condemn the perpetrators, it’s a case of, “More people die in swimming pools than from terrorism”.Then it’s, “It must be a lone wolf thing”. Or, “Some poor little Muslim kid has been radicalised”. Finally, when all excuses for Islamic terrorism are exhausted it’s time to call concerned Conservatives, “Islamophobes, racists and bigots”.
If the Left wants a reason why terrorism exists they need look no further than the nearest mosque. Ban the mosques and their firebrand preachers and terrorism can’t exist, it has no starting point, no instructions on how to kill compassionate hosts. No Saudi inspired and financed path to an Islamic caliphate.
Stop the spread of Islamic mosques in the West and confine them to the decadent Middle East and North Africa and we will be free from terrorism.
We should have no respect for Islam.
Um, banning mosques in the U.S. might just run into a slight problem; one which would require a very fundamental change:
“Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
I’m a fan of of conservative fantastic small nipples too….
He’s going on about New Zealand in regards to the banning.
We’re already screwed here. All we can do is keep arresting the terrorists and close down any mosque used as a terror connection.
Small nipples? Wow dude, that’s like a founding principle of communism. Look it up.
I said “fantastic” Brad…..
Should the 1st Amendment apply to Islam? Although Jefferson mentioned in some of his private writings that America could accommodate Musselmen (as moslems were known at that time) to some degree, this was before the Barbary Wars (which was also before Jefferson became fully informed on the true nature of islam). But in the vast majority or writings by all of the founding fathers, it is clear that the term “religion” was considered as being synonymous with “Christianity” (accounting for the broad variety of denominations within it that were based on the Judeo / Christian canon).
The author at the following link has some pertinent observations and questions that should be considered before anyone blindly accepts that Islam should be protected by the Establishment Clause.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263739/does-first-amendment-protect-warrior-religions-william-kilpatrick
From the link:
One of the questions is this: does a religion that doesn’t believe in religious freedom for others qualify for First Amendment protection? Another, related question might be framed as follows: Is a religion that calls for the subjugation of other religions entitled to the “free exercise” of that mandate? The underlying issue, of course, is whether or not Islam really qualifies as a religion. As any number of authorities have pointed out, Islam is a hybrid — part religion and part a geo-political movement bent on world domination.
Does this [the 1st Amendment] make the exercise of religion an absolute right to do anything in the name of religion? Should the free-exercise clause be extended to protect suicide cults or virgin sacrifice? The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but one of the main purpose of Islam is to establish itself as the state religion. It can be argued that Islam’s raison d’etre is to be the established religion in every nation. Hence, another question must be asked: does the First Amendment protect its own abolishment?
Actually I think you said fantastic small. Which is contradictory. Lol
As long as we maintain a strong 2nd amendment
and lots of magazines on hand, let them pray
on the stoopid. It’s not like they don’t stand
out in a crowd.
There are no mosques, only madrassas.
is islam a religion or a “religious government”?
It is past time to define Religion. Religion does not spread its doctrines by killing or enslaving those who do not practice the “religion”. It does not promote lying to any person not enslaved. Etc.
We’ve curtailed unacceptable aspects of religions before without issue. Left to their own, Mormons espoused plural marriage; it’s no longer a component of (mainstream) Mormon belief because it’s illegal.
We need to spy on these mosques and when we get tape of them preaching the destruction of America: Close it down, deport the Imam to Gitmo and raze the ground and build a Gallows.
Poor Lazlo is a fan of Lord Napier from Colonial India.
They can practice their religion, but we shall enforce our laws.
Where they err, we should hang them.
http://www.yesimright.com/must-see-one-country-bans-islam-and-orders-all-mosques-to-be-destroyed-omg/
.
Bubbas Brother is exactly right. “Religion” did mean the different denominations of Christianity. Giving Islam a status as a religion is no different than giving Nazism status as a religion.
Just because something says it’s a religion doesn’t mean it is.
“Stop the spread of Islamic mosques in the West and confine them to the decadent Middle East and North Africa and we will be free from terrorism.”
So it is the guns that kill people! Naughty, backward guns! Best confine them to appropriate spaces.
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
It’s Satanic type of worship.Actually It’s worse than the church of satan .
Is their beloved Mohammed Satan himself ? I’d believe it.