The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, A Podsnap For the Present Age April 30, 2017 2:43 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/hugh-fitzgerald-derek-holloway-a-podsnap-for-the-present-age

(Page 2 of 2)
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, etc. In reply to
Hi Chris.

Quoting the Christian Bible does not support your belief that the Christian God is the deity of a True Religion.

You write:

<<In as much as such teachings do not conflict with what Jesus taught they are TRUE religion. Only in aspects which violate his teaching by advocating or excusing inhumane treatment of others would those teachings be FALSE religion. >>

This sort of thinking only makes it convenient for you to declare one true and another false. It does not make it so.

You write:

<< Neither are they the ones who TRULY represent Islam, any more that Christianity is TRULY represented by the KKK.>>

Actually, they represent Islam much more devoutly than do moderate Muslims. The base of their belief is held by most Muslims, although not acted upon. Caliphate, Sharia Law, Armageddon, enslave or kill the infidel, death to apostates and deviants, submission to Allah, follow Mohammed's teachings and allow nothing to change from his example of how to behave.

The KKK only represented the Establishment Democrat Party, as it was their military arm, which quoted Biblical sources for their excuse to rampage, burn and murder. How many Christians agreed with their ravings and tactics? 60%? 80%? I doubt it. How many of the Establishment Democrats? Probably most.

You write in response to this statement " Islamists consider ONLY their brand of Islam to be The True Religion" the following:

<<Just as Atheists consider ONLY their philosophical position to be correct. How very human! >>

Islam is a deity belief with a religion that supports it. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism only means one has no deity belief and therefore no religion to support a deity belief.

There is NO atheist philosophical position. Atheists are a totally random and fairly disconnected bunch and may once have been influenced by Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. We cannot consider our philosophical position to be the only one or the correct one, because we each have our own.

If you mean to say a Humanist philosophical position, then that is different. You can find it within the Humanist Manifesto at the Secular Humanist website and it used to read a a very positive and benign document that could be adopted by any theist who loves human life and enlightenment.

As for the saving of knowledge by non-Christians during the Dark Ages, I agree with you it was fortuitous that intelligent and enlightened people of various faiths and no faith disagreed with the ignorant and evil Christians who sought to obliterate the concept of human intelligence from the known world. It was not the faith, but their intelligence that saved much knowledge. Just as it was not the faith, but the arrogant stupidity of the Christians who destroyed much of it and the people along with it.

The Christian Church behaved just as the Islamists who seek to obliterate all knowledge and people they oppose in our time.

And I, Chris, am only here to explain to you why you or your belief or your scripture does not support for those of other deity beliefs any reason for them to consider your statement on the trueness or falseness of their deity belief.

Which then of all these deity beliefs of unproven veracity should be taught in public schools? The powers-that-be must accept that not each can be true and that each may not be true. It should be left up to the believer to decide what is taught to their children.

Any teaching about deity beliefs must be kept shallow and in subjects that keep it so. And...parents must always be allowed to opt out of any teachings they believe may inculcate their children. Plus...either all deity beliefs must be taught about, or none.

Choosing a couple of major ones to teach about in public schools smacks of State-sponsored religions. So the best choice is to include a comparative religion class that starts from the very beginning and covers all in a cursory manner...because there are a lot of deity beliefs that have been of importance to humanity.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, etc. In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

Quoting the Christian Bible does not support your belief that the Christian God is the deity of a True Religion.

I know that. It merely indicates only one of my reasons for believing it to be true. Throughout this discussion I have avoided claiming Christianity to be The True Religion” or even A True Religion”. There is no religion devised by man that is in fact “A True Religion”. So you and I are probably in agreement on that point at least, though you might apply a different emphasis. I have referred simply to "True Religion” and defined what I believe it to be. I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ to be “TRUE Religion”, but not necessarily the worldwide faith and entire dogmatic system that has grown up around His teachings and is now labelled “Christianity”.

I have also avoided including any of the metaphysical beliefs that followers of various religious leaders associate with their religions in my definition of TRUE religion.

The reason I took that approach was because I genuinely believe that TRUE religion has nothing to do with metaphysical speculations but everything to do with actual ethical behaviour towards ones neighbour. This was where Jesus Christ chose to focus absolute priority in his teaching and therefore so do I.

This sort of thinking only makes it convenient for you to declare one true and another false. It does not make it so.

As I explained above, you are wrong to accuse me of declaring one true and another false, I have not. My contention is that there is TRUTH and FALSEHOOD in most, if not all, religions, and Atheism as well. The way I have decided TRUTH or FALSEHOOD can be exposed is by comparing the teaching with the teaching of Jesus Christ. You would use some other standard of behaviour and teaching as a yardstick. Unfortunately there is no universally recognized human yardstick, epitome or example for both deists or atheists but at least most deists agree that their particular God, (whomever that may be), is the ultimate authority. What ultimate authority do atheists recognize? None but themselves? The State, (if it is atheistic), or none whatever ? Where do atheists get their moral standard from? Clearly you have moral and ethical standards Jeanne. From whence do they issue? Where is their source? Or are they entirely your own ideas and judgments?

Being a Christian, mine is Jesus of Nazareth, as presented in The Canonical Gospels. If a moral precept contradicts Him and his teaching, I believe it is FALSE, if it agrees I believe it is TRUE religion. I realize that many atheist's natural love for the teachings of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche might preclude them from agreement with my previous statement. But that just proves my point.



Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was Hitlers atheist übermensch hero, though the Nazis did actually misrepresent some of what Friedrich wrote, using and twisting it for their own nefarious purposes. Although Nietzsche was not renowned for compassion toward the weak and under-trodden, it took Hitler and his fellow Nazi henchmen to spin Neitzsche's atheist philosophies into a scheme to subjugate the world and devise policies to exterminate the weak, the disabled and anyone who opposed their inhuman regime.

Actually, they represent Islam much more devoutly than do moderate Muslims. Here you go, an Atheist, defining TRUE religion for Muslims by adopting the same fundamentalist principles of interpretation as The Taliban or ISIS and then condemning your and their literal interpretation of their texts as if authentic and more truly representative of Islam than any other school of thought in the Islamic faith. A typically straw man attack dog attitude, I would say.

The KKK only represented the Establishment Democrat Party, as it was their military arm, which quoted Biblical sources for their excuse to rampage, burn and murder. How many Christians agreed with their ravings and tactics? 60%? 80%? I doubt it. How many of the Establishment Democrats? Probably most.

I know little about the murkier cesspools of your nations clandestine political and ‘religious’ movements but I doubt very much that the KKK has very many Democrats in its membership. White sheets, burning crosses and Southern Gentlemen lynch mobs in pointy hatted Roman Catholic fancy dress would seem NOT to be ‘Democratic’ recreational activities. They strike me as being more a “Republican” sort of thing, like the instigators of "The Great Terror" following the French Revolution. They were I believe, Republicans, but I may be wrong.

There is NO atheist philosophical position. Atheists are a totally random and fairly disconnected bunch and may once have been influenced by Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. We cannot consider our philosophical position to be the only one or the correct one, because we each have our own.

Not true. Atheists are united in a common disbelief in the reality or existence of God or gods. That is a philosophical position, by virtue of the fact that the belief has been arrived at by philosophical means. All other diverse ADDITIONAL things atheists believe, they believe as individuals. Some agreeing with one another and some not.

It was not the faith, but their intelligence that saved much knowledge. Just as it was not the faith, but the arrogant stupidity of the Christians who destroyed much of it and the people along with it.

Not entirely true actually, Islam, their faith, actually inspired a spirit of inquiry and a thirst for knowledge. They had preserved much ancient Greek knowledge and from there it fed to The West. Intelligent people with Islamic faith were responsible for adding much knowledge to the world. Without the stimulus of their faith they would probably have remained ignorant, warring, tribal, desert, nomads.

Actually, in Christendom, it was The Monasteries that preserved the meager knowledge there was during the Dark Ages in Europe and elsewhere. They didn't only preserve and produce 'religious' books you know. The Pagan Jutes, Saxons and Danes, before becoming ‘Christian’ were primarily responsible for most of the destruction and the plunge into dark ages benighted ignorance of the common population. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Crusades were sanctioned by The Pope along with spurious promises of indulgences and free entry to paradise for his ignorant followers, more interested in plunder and butchery than in following the teachings of Jesus Christ. More FALSE religion. Perhaps you are referring to the later Roman Catholic Inquisition where arrogant stupidity was so destructive. That was not driven by TRUE religion either, or are you trying to convince us they were truly acting in accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Which then of all these deity beliefs of unproven veracity should be taught in public schools? The powers-that-be must accept that not each can be true and that each may not be true. It should be left up to the believer to decide what is taught to their children.

Again I am forced to state that deity beliefs are not taught in schools. Comparative religion is not about inculcating or instilling ‘deity beliefs’. That might be true of certain states in your country, but not in the UK. Here it is about broadening the student’s knowledge of other cultures and beliefs to better equip them to function in a multicultural society. Of course each religion may not be true, but then again Atheism may also not be TRUE but that is still treated in the curriculum as a legitimate subject of study in spite of that fact.

Choosing a couple of major ones to teach about in public schools smacks of State-sponsored religions. So the best choice is to include a comparative religion class that starts from the very beginning and covers all in a cursory manner...because there are a lot of deity beliefs that have been of importance to humanity.

I thought I had made that principle clear previously. Did you read through the official UK Gov. Guide lines on how RE should be taught in schools over here? I gave you the link. There is no State Sponsored Religion in the UK. The Church of England is the Established Church but receives no state sponsorship, even for the upkeep of its historic buildings, let alone for evangelistic activities.

The choice of which two religions they are examined on is left to the student, (of course that depends also on the courses available). The Options year is the final two years in a student’s education, the groundwork from Primary upwards is from very general to specific in the final years, and then ONLY if the student opts to take RE in the GCSE exams in Year 11.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 5, 2017, 3:41 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, A Podsnap For the Present Age April 30, 2017 2:43 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/hugh-fitzgerald-derek-holloway-a-podsnap-for-the-present-age In reply to
Hello Jeanne,
How is life these days my friend? Good, I hope.

Nobody is taking away your right to worship as you choose. Public school children have legal rights to pray, read their scripture and speak about their beliefs to each other...no matter what some think is the case; this is their legal right.

I agree with you. This is our right in the USA but, there are many countries where it is not true. Check the group Voice of the Martyrs sometimes and you will be surprised at what you find many Christians suffer for their faith in Christ.

The proper place for teaching about any deity is within the family and within the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Public school and public institutions are not the place for teaching about that. But that doesn't mean that religious beliefs must be checked at the door, either...just the teaching and preaching of them.

Would you allow for a Comparative Religion course in the public schools? If not, What about a Philosophy class that dealt with religion as a form of philosophy? It appears to me that a degree in the Liberal Arts might best be served if all points of view were taken into consideration and that the purpose of education is actually to train students to think for themselves (think logically and decide what they believe).

I taught my children from the Bible at home and took them to church. I also took a course in high school where we studied various books with the idea of discovering what the author was trying to tell us about his/her concept of life. For the most part this was limited to the classic works of the centuries but, rebel that I was, I read other works for a more up to date view.

Blessings to you,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway,etc. In reply to
Alan: Hi

You make some very valid points here which I want to enlarge upon.


Jeanne wrote:
The proper place for teaching about any deity is within the family and within the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Public school and public institutions are not the place for teaching about that. But that doesn't mean that religious beliefs must be checked at the door, either...just the teaching and preaching of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

How would Literature classics or World Literature be taught without including Fyodor Dostoyevsky or Leo Tolstoy. Or would an atheist censor both of them and drop them from the curriculum? That is what the Soviet Union did, even though the authors were Russian.

Atheist Communism was just as keen to promote, teach and inculcate Atheism in its schools as it was to suppress and eradicate belief in deities, by which it included Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Some Bible Belt States in the USA tried to suppress anything other than 'traditional' creationist theories of human origins so they attempted censorship of Darwin's and other evolutionists works and ideas.

Jeanne, I agree with you that the teaching of Creation young earth ‘Science’ as if ‘entirely factual’ in State funded schools would be inappropriate. As would the Islamist interpretation of Islam or Catholicism, Judaism, Quakerism or Atheism. In fact any attempt at proselytizing or catechizing by any specific religion or sect while censoring alternative views, should be forbidden. Though catechisms could be studied comparatively and the subjects of Creation 'Science' and Atheism should still be objectively and honestly dealt with, not just censored into oblivion, so as to provide students with the intellectual equipment needed to make reasoned choices over what they believe to be true. Atheism, like Religion, should not be taught in schools as if it is the only logical alternative to superstition, ignorance and fable as most atheists avowedly believe it to be.

How else are we to train young people to be discerning and critical in the formation of their personal beliefs. The alternative becomes some form of indoctrination, the content of which is decided by The State or The Religious. Atheist States would push an atheist agenda, The Religious would push their religion. Others, like North Korea would push their own peculiar forms of leader worship. In fact whatever is seen by The State or Religion to be beneficial to itself.

This is what makes education such an important field of activity and why it must be as free of sectarian interest and influence as possible. Including the sectarian interests of Atheism.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 7, 2017, 2:18 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, A Podsnap For the Present Age April 30, 2017 2:43 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/hugh-fitzgerald-derek-holloway-a-podsnap-for-the-present-age In reply to
Hi guys.

Haven't I already written about Comparative Religion courses, literature and history and even current events as obvious places that would involve religious discussions?

My problem with the notion that some religions are false and some true is that the truth of a deity belief and religion and scripture that support it lies with the individual.

A deity that accepts blood sacrifices and a religion that supports such concepts and activities is just as true to that body of believers as any other.

If public schools choose to allow only so-called "benign" and "loving" religions in, then they are selecting through the government which deity beliefs are supported with tax dollars and that is State-sponsored religion.

If some deity beliefs are banned from public schools, then that denies some students and their families their Constitutional Rights.

This is in the US.

And...Allen, I am well and often so busy that the days seem long and the weeks seem short and sleep-time is never long enough. I hope you and yours are doing well.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, etc. In reply to
Jeanne

If public schools choose to allow only so-called "benign" and "loving" religions in, then they are selecting through the government which deity beliefs are supported with tax dollars and that is State-sponsored religion.

As a true disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche might well say. As if the atheistic Fuhrer worship that the Third Reich encouraged in their schools was not state sponsored or based squarely upon the teachings of an arch atheist genius who ended his days in a lunatic asylum.

And all ostensibly to provide fair treatment and even handed democratic freedom to all I suppose? Then the high priesthood of humanistic atheism dispenses its demagogic dogma declaring all religion equally anathema and atheism the only ‘truth’.

The Nazis and the Communists had state sponsored atheism in schools, yet secular humanists and atheists still try to claim that Religion is the ‘bogey man’, and particularly the Christian Religion which was so repugnant to Friedrich Neitzsche. Here was indeed a ‘useful idiot’ if ever there was one in the causes of both Communism AND National Socialism, the two great 'evils' of the 20th century.

Quote:
Awkwardly, Nietzsche pointed out that liberal values derive from Jewish and Christian monotheism, and rejected these values for that very reason. There is no basis – whether in logic or history – for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together. Illustrating this fact, Nietzsche can only be an embarrassment for atheists today. Worse, they can’t help dimly suspecting they embody precisely the kind of pious freethinker that Nietzsche despised and mocked: loud in their mawkish reverence for humanity, and stridently censorious of any criticism of liberal hopes. http://www.newstatesman.com/...right-about-religion


I think that even in the most RELIGIOUS schools in the USA Bible belt there is less actual indoctrination with Christian values than there was indoctrination with atheistic propaganda under Communist and Nazi rule. Even then though I would estimate less actual damage resulted from 'State sponsored Religion', than under the regimes of Communism or National Socialism which enforced State Sponsored Atheism.

As I have previously said, it is very important that education is not allowed to be used to ‘indoctrinate’ the youthful citizenry. It requires constant vigilance to ensure that the learning process is not dominated or usurped by any religions, sectarian interests or lobbying groups, including secular humanists.

The Soviet Union States, the Third Reich and the likes of North Korea should serve as examples of what happens when only the ‘false religion’ of State and Nation 'Worship' is permitted.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 8, 2017, 9:19 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway,etc. In reply to
Greetings,
I always enjoy the diverse views when so beautifully articulated by opposing points of view on Praize.
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway,etc. In reply to
Especially when we behave ourselves, have an open, honest conversation and don't flame each other? SmileAngelic
God bless,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, etc. In reply to
Hi Chris.

I am not advocating for the "teaching of atheism" whatever you think that may be...

May I just state that my local public schools have been and still are OVERTLY CHRISTIAN...and you are right, I am shouting that.

Students that are non-Christian have small tokens of acknowledgment ONLY if they believe in one of the three major monotheisms.

Islam is, of course, a must anymore....because, well you know, we here in the US are Islamaphobic and are the reason for terrorism. It is of course NOT about Islam at all...and only rural hicks who drink themselves silly then shoot up the neighborhood believe it is about Islam. And...yes, this is me being sarcastic.

There may well be at current times evil and insane tyrants who do what they do because they are atheists. Maybe you can point them out to me.

I am concerned about what is going on now in Europe and the Middle East and who is crossing into our borders with terroristic intent. I do not want America to be overwhelmed with Islamists who seek to have us submit to Sharia Law.

I do not want my grandkids taught that Islam as it is being practiced by Islamists and supported by most of today's Muslims is a good religion and just another type of deity belief. No...I will not accept that and I will teach my grandchildren differently.

Especially when at the same time in my country, children of all ages have been indoctrinated with the idea that Christianity as it is practiced today throughout the world is just as bad as the worst of Islam. Just as oppressive to women and children, just as destructive to society.

All of this fits in with the agenda to destroy America and "progressively" replace it with Communism.

Oh no...wait; I just made that up. I haven't been reading history or listening to history and how it relates to current events and I haven't been thinking about the future of my nation or reading the opinions of Leftists/Statist/Progressive/Communists in my country that have been planning this for over a century.

So sorry, I know nothing....must have been a bad dream. Hope I wake up soon... When will Europe wake up?

And...sorry for the rant. Now..to the chores.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Hugh Fitzgerald: Derek Holloway, etc. In reply to
Jeanne: Hi.

I am not advocating for the "teaching of atheism" whatever you think that may be...

I’m relieved to be told that. Nevertheless it is important that students at some point in their learning years are informed of the atheist alternative world view, at least as a school of thought, because it does offer logically valid reasons for not unquestioningly accepting the many and various deity ‘beliefs’. How else are they to learn discernment and rational judgment. Surely it is better for the parents of Christian children to risk that their children know what atheism is and what it means, yet may still choose a Christian ethical lifestyle, (along hopefully with a Christian Spirituality), than to conspire with school authorities to keep their children ignorant of other alternatives, risking that they may someday discover that information had been deliberately withheld from them that might have caused them to choose differently. The latter might raise issues of ‘trust’ which could have a very negative effect on the child’s latter spiritual development.

It is, according to the teachings of Jesus, ‘the truth’ which sets one free, not ignorance resulting from censorship during education. That would be a form of intellectual enslavement.

I am in favor of a balanced curriculum which is aimed to enable students to make informed judgments by presenting facts and theories truthfully and objectively without bias. That, when effectively delivered, in turn should enable students to form better subjective opinions and make better personally responsible decisions.

May I just state that my local public schools have been and still are OVERTLY CHRISTIAN...and you are right, I am shouting that.

If your local State Funded Schools are indoctrinating the pupils under their care, then they are violating, albeit misguidedly, a basic tenet of the teachings of Jesus Christ, by curtailing their freedom to reason. If however they are ‘Training children up in the way that they should go’ Prov. 22:6. without selectively attempting to ‘program’ them with ‘beliefs’ disguised as ‘concrete facts’, then they are enhancing the child’s ability to discern, gain insight and CHOOSE for themselves, the path they decide in life.

Students that are non-Christian have small tokens of acknowledgment ONLY if they believe in one of the three major monotheisms.

It would be unjustly demanding to expect a child to be able to make an informed choice on complicated issues such as Religion, Ethics or Philosophy. How do they KNOW yet, what they actually ARE? The reason they are at school is to provide them with a foundation of knowledge to eventually enable them decide what they actually believe. For a school to set out with the divisive policy you hint at, singling out supposedly non-Christians, and subjecting them to different treatment, would be unethical and should therefore rightly be challenged.

There may well be at current times evil and insane tyrants who do what they do because they are atheists. Maybe you can point them out to me.

There are, have been and will be in the future, tyrants who are either Religious, Atheist or undecided. False Religion and Atheism are both equally, potentially the ‘nursery food’ and 'staple diet' of tyrants. Down through the ages tyrants have often claimed themselves to be ‘Gods’. This was merely a convenient way of staying in business as a tyrant. They USED ‘false’ religion to control the subjected masses. In the 20th century Atheism came of age under Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. It was seen by Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. as a useful philosophy, (particularly with its polemic against the liberality of Christianity and Judaism), with which to encourage fanatical loyalty to the State or the Head of State AND to suppress individual conscience and human compassion. Replacing those human characteristics with zealous, cruelty towards whoever was dubbed by The Leader or The State as, ‘an enemy of the people’. Hitler actually murdered very few people personally. Same for the others I have named. It was nationwide Atheism, moral bankruptcy associated with it and fear that enabled these tyrants to impose their will on their hapless, enthralled and indoctrinated subjects. In Germany this state of affairs came about after a decade of intensive brainwashing of children in schools and the youth of the Hitler Youth movement with notions of Social Darwinism, Atheism and Supremacist Imperialism.

There is no inherent connection between morality and atheism which makes atheism less prone to being used by tyrants as a tool of control than has been religion. Atheism as a mass phenomenon is only a recent innovation in world history yet the second world war in Europe in the 20th century started as a result of atheism being adopted officially by The State in Germany and Soviet Socialist Republics as a means of perverting and combating the liberal morality and values to be found at the heart of Judaism and Christianity. The irony was that in Europe they ended primarily fighting each other; National Socialist atheist tyrant's 'pawns' against Communist atheist tyrant's 'pawns'.

So Atheism and Religion have both been used as tools of repression by unscrupulous national leaders. Just because religion has been subject to such abuse in world history for millennia by no means means that atheism in recent centuries has not proved to be equally prone to such abuse, to the considerable detriment of the human race. So the eradication of Religion will not bring a promised peaceful, 'religion free', Shangri-La that ardent atheists falsely promise as a materialist substitute for ‘heaven’. Quite the opposite in fact.

I am concerned about what is going on now in Europe and the Middle East and who is crossing into our borders with terroristic intent. I do not want America to be overwhelmed with Islamists who seek to have us submit to Sharia Law.

So am I, but the question remains, what might be the most effective way to reveal Islamism for the abomination that it is, while not alienating millions of sincere and constitutionally law abiding followers of the Islamic faith in the western world. Or would you prefer clarity, declare war, and so intern all Muslims in the USA, as were all US nationalized Japanese in WW2, just to be ‘on the safe side’ ? I would remind you we are not at war with Islam. We are resisting attacks from criminal Islamists and their sympathizers.

Especially when at the same time in my country, children of all ages have been indoctrinated with the idea that Christianity as it is practiced today throughout the world is just as bad as the worst of Islam. Just as oppressive to women and children, just as destructive to society.

I am trying to work out if you are complaining about the ‘indoctrination’, (by whom?), the ‘perverted view of Christianity’, (declared by whom?), or the idea that Christianity is oppressive and destructive, while Islam is claimed not to be? I think I should not express an opinion until I fully understand your point.

I do not want America to be overwhelmed with Islamists who seek to have us submit to Sharia Law.

I also feel that dire prospect unacceptable. Any ‘Law’ which conflicts with the Constitution and Laws of The USA should have no force on any USA citizen, even if they are Muslim. Most Muslims would find that quite understandable and some would probably find it refreshingly liberating, particularly if they are independently minded women or 'slaves'.

All of this fits in with the agenda to destroy America and "progressively" replace it with Communism.

Oh no...wait; I just made that up. I haven't been reading history or listening to history and how it relates to current events and I haven't been thinking about the future of my nation or reading the opinions of Leftists/Statist/Progressive/Communists in my country that have been planning this for over a century.


Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance, if you want to preserve freedom. Paranoia, paranoia, paranoia, if you want freedom destroyed. Every civilization contains the seeds of its own destruction. Every stable nation has its ‘enemies within’ and ‘enemies outside’. However; cool, calm, resolute action under the rule of law is always better than mindless, reflex reaction, like headless chickens running in circles round the yard.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 14, 2017, 4:11 PM