I am sorry but as long as they are killing and trying to kill, they deserve NOTHING but to be killed in response.

I did read the link above. Of course its written by someone who is trying to protect islam. Not to say its wrong, but I have seen passages that refer to killing the non believers, so at this point I would have to research it further.

If the muslims are so peace loving, why do the huge majority of them not come down hard on the terrorists, but seem to just sit by while the terrorism goes on. Makes me think that they are OK with the terrorism as long as some other muslim does it.

Also, as I understand it, muslims themselves are often killed by terrorist actions. That should really upset living muslims. Why is there so little outcry.

You shoudn't offend any religion unless you fully understand that religion. Tiy can, but you seem ignorant. That being said people offend and insult followers of Islam every day ... radical Islamists are not all of Islam and Jihad is incorrectly defined by many radical Islamists and non Islamic people : http://www.justaskislam.com/50/could-...

virgin raisins ;) Nice!

Yup. See https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

option 3

actually you are incorrect and the comment "kill the infidels" is taken out of context : http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-i...

"defining god in their own image to suit the vices they covet" --
Thor, this is brilliant, IMHO. . I saw this as a kid when I was
rebelling from the church which my parents took me to, and
called it by name. . they thought that I needed to see a shrink. -- j
.

there were two minuses -- I could guess.

Thanks! -- j
.

but we're being forced by the government to bend over
backwards to avoid offending muslims -- with the military
compelled to remove words like jihad and radical muslim
from all documents, for example ... it's rampant! -- j
.

As an atheist, while I enjoy having debates with theists, I would never attempt to make their beliefs or religions illegal. Even if I were an anti-theist, I would be hard pressed to do that. My objective in my debates is to come to a better understanding for the parties present. Either one side or the other puts forth convincing arguments to change belief or we agree to disagree. However, now we are both better informed on what the other side believes. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty 'I want to believe as many true things and disbelieve as many false things as possible'. Because only then can I make the best choices in my life.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. I think many Christian theists are afraid if the atheists were somehow able to become the majority, that they would attempt to do what the Christians are guilty of doing by insinuating their religious beliefs into lawmaking. That atheists would start a purge all of religions from the country. I will concede that I would attempt to remove it from government by abolishing any laws that have a religious basis for their enactment, but what you believe as long as it doesn'the infringe on any one else's safety and wellbeing is fine by me.

The numbers don't matter, but court decisions do. Atheists have set the bar relatively low, succeeding at easily having many Christian symbols removed from public property and barring the use of terms like "Merry Christmas." Oddly, not too many Atheists seem to get upset at a Menorah on public grounds, but that's for another time.

Why were these articles removed? Because the Atheists were offended, feeling they constituted a message that the government demands you become Christian, disrespecting their choice to be faithless.

Radical Muslims will likely see the path laid before them by Atheist court victories, and will follow it to have anything they feel disrespects their religion banned. Before you say "so what," think for a minute. Besides the symbols of other faiths, there a lot of publicly displayed items they can argue are offensive. Extreme Islam considers the depiction of the human form (not just of Muhammad) as a form of idolatry, which has resulted in the destruction of many works of art in countries in which they have control. Would they be successful demanding the destruction of many of the nation's statues and art, as offensive to Islam?

There's a long list of things that a progressive, activist court could grant radical Muslims based on the principle those things are offensive to their faith. It would start with public properties, but could, if made law, extend to even private commercial venues.

Many would say the institution of Islamic "blue laws" like many Christian-imposed laws now off the books is unlikely. I, for one, am not so sure, as progressives see Islam as a weapon to bludgeon those who don't fear the power of the state, planning unashamedly to use them as a means to an end as they have the LGBT community.

An atheist cannot be radicalized like a Muslim because should he be martyred "for the cause" he with his belief system has no place to go save for a permanent dirt nap.
No 72 virgin raisins for him! (See a previous post about the virgin mistranslation if you don't get that)
Now should atheists ever receive the same honor as a peaceful Muslim, libtards would be fawning all over them and calling critics of atheism bigots and be trampling on their rights to free speech. .

The real question is why is the government promoting such an idiocy? Even if you hate Trump, you've got to believe he wouldn't foist such insanity upon the nation, and you couldn't say the same for Mrs. Clinkton.

I hope so. Great question!
The bleeding hearts can't see their way through the cloud of conveinent religion they often participate in, redefining god in their own image to suit the vices they covet. They haven't the clarity requisite for atheism or other solid, logical positions. Therefore they support religion of conveinice as well as under-dog diversity. Does a self-sufficient redneck get the same privlege of expression without question as an inner city person on welfare?

thank you...posted to facebook...

Voted you back up.

I agree with the author in that Sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. I fully support requiring any potential immigrant to sign a statement where they agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land - period. Those who aren't willing to sign aren't welcome to enter.

political correctness be damned !! Speak your mind. If you are wrong about something, that is the way to check your thought process.

I agree with you basically, EXCEPT that when a religion says "kill the infidels", all the adherents to that religion have two choices:

1) Silently agree with it and either do the killing themselves OR allow others to do it for them

OR
2) Disavow that part of the religion.

I think the majority of muslims fall into the first category. If they want me to accept them, they need to be in category 2.

I am the one who will get blasted for being politically incorrect !!!

They won't for long - if they even do now - unless we stop Obama's plans to keep importing them. And that includes tightening our Southern border with Mexico.

all muslims are "RADICAL" so the answer is no!

actually you could "try".... atheists many times were attempting to force their "non-religion" beliefs onto religious people .... I see no Government endorsement of Islam over any other religion or "non-religion", only the freedom to believe as you wih without Government intervention.

I was not addressing our government's treatment of
atheists, though I could. . atheists have been ridiculed
rather roundly since I was a kid and chose that route.
from Madalyn Murray O'Hair to the freedom-from-
religion taunts which adorn the airwaves these days,
there have been references upon references which
routinely diminish the stature of atheists here. . my
point is simply that muslims are getting a free ride,
these days, in not having to "push" their religion 'cuz
our government is doing it for them. -- j
.

I am not sure where you believe the govt is hurting the ability of an atheist to practice their non-religion? I also don't see where Christians or Jews are not able to practice their religion. In fact if yu attempted to forbid a synagogue from being built. the government would protect the Jewish rights as well. Similar to the current situation, many in the founding colonies wanted to treat Catholics ( and Mahamedan) second class citizens without the ability to vote etc. Fortunately, the founding fathers were intelligent enough to understand that freedom of religion meant they ability to practice religions that the majority may not agree with.

"[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
— Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776
"

I would argue that we treat people sneaking over our borders "preferentially". We mistreat Australians, Eastern Europeans and numerous other nationalities.

An Australian muslim would have a very difficult time in our immigration process because they are Australian. The preferential treatment seems to be to people from areas "at risk" economically and politically.

however, the first amendment requires that the u.s.
government NOT use its power to help or hurt anyone's
practice of any religion -- and they sure are doing just
that with the preferential protection and importation
of muslims and the shoving of others aside. -- j
.