Suicide in the name of Religion

[Resigned]

Again the black sack ... I shall treat that in the same way I treated Bobx's referal to me as a "lump in a bag" with utter disdain. It is designed to be offensive so don't be surprised when I am offended by it.

A black sack is something designed to put garbage into, I may be many dreadful things but rubbish is not one of them.

Oh dear I am oppressed again

The description (a black sack), is accurate. If you choose to take offense, that is up to you. The fact is, whether you choose to dress as such or are compelled by politico-religious doctrine, the choice of dress is not an option for vast numbers of women in the islamist Middle East. For them, threat of bodily harm or imprisonment is the only option for not succumbing to the party line doctrine.

I have no right to demand any such thing for two reasons:

1) I am visiting a foreign land and in such it is only polite and proper to follow the old saying when in rome do as the romans do. My alternative choice is not to visit there. If I smuggle drugs to Thailand I should expect to be shot and if I walk in the streets of KSA half naked I should expect to be removed from the public domain.

That is quite a revealing admission, although it’s obvious you qualify it. We’ll get to that later, though. In the meantime, you may wish to email the ummah and advise moslem’s regarding their bellicose demands that Western nations are entitled to retreat from their long held notions of secular institutions and equal rights. What we do see are moslems’ one sided claims to entitlements and demands for special treatment. We see demands for the allowance of religious symbols in secular school systems. We see moslems segregating themselves in communities to be isolated from the host nation so as to minimize exposure to the host nations “corruptive influences”. We see moslems importing the societal norms of their nations of origin which are totally contrary to Western standards of equality, tolerance, personal freedoms and rule of law. Yet, we are barraged with charges of bigotry and racism™ when we reject such conditions as “honor” killings, misogynistic treatment of women and an all-consuming politico-religious ideology that Moslems believe must be imposed on all.

Why is it that moslems believe that the conditions that propelled Western civilization to the top of the heap should be scrapped and the conditions that cause poverty, ignorance and ethnic and religious hatreds be put in place?

We continue to tolerate brazen moslem claims to entitlement, one-sided criticism of our policies, moslem apathy and inaction regarding Islamic terror and totalitarianism around the world, and arrogant refusal to conform to democratic norms.

And why would you want to walk in the streets of the KSA half naked? That would just get you arrested.

2) My faith requires me to dress as I do, I therefore have no right or desire to demand to dress otherwise.

Well actually, there’s a lot of debate about that. Whether or not being covered with only a slit for the eyes being a religious invocation is not universally accepted. Unless of course you live in one of those islamist paradises such as those ruled by the Taliban where it is a requirement.

It’s a shame that the gods are such inept communicators and can’t clearly define their message.

Now go there and sit with Muslim women and tell them they have the right to remove their outer clothing .. see how long it takes them to tell you where to go with your daft western ideas.

I wouldn’t do that. In many locations, that would be disastrous for the women. Although it is interesting to ponder how many women in such locales as the KSA would choose not to wear their protective gear if given the choice. In third world backwaters such as Pakistan’s tribal areas, North Africa, the Sudan and many parts of the Middle East, stonings, FGM, female infanticide, slavery and subjugation of women is the norm. Women are often treated as little more than human chattel in these locations.

We could get into the utterly chilling lack of ethics and morality that is evoked by the treatment of women in the Middle East and Asia- considering those bastions of enlightenment such as the Pakistani tribal areas - but that’s a thread unto itself.

This is one problem with western beliefs about Islamic society, people in the west believe Muslim women are forced to dress that way by men and are secretly just dying to rip off their clothes, don a bikini, let their hair flow in the breeze and get a sun tan .... sorry to be the bearer of bad news but they are not and no amount of western posturing about "womens lib" is going to change that.

Actually, no one I know has ever suggested that women in an Islamic society are secretly dying to behave as you claim. That’s more melodrama than reality.

What I believe is reality is that the sack is a symbol of gender apartheid and oppression imposed upon women within a male dominated and controlled society. Beyond the terror and segregation factors of the burqa, I firmly believe that forcing a woman into making herself look like an amorphous, black mound of cloth is misogynistic and degrading. Also, I find myself able to look upon a beautiful woman with appreciation, and yes attraction, without worrying about Satan getting into my pants and forcing me to act like a Neanderthal. Can that not be done by moslem men?

Ah yes, western liberal democracy .. leading the UK to recently outlaw Catholic adoption agencies refusing homosexual couples adoption of Catholic children. We also now see in the UK convicted criminals suing their victims and winning. Brilliant idea, be so liberal that your moral standards or beliefs and personal safety have to be compromised and your so called freedom suddenly doesn't include freedom of choice, thought or act.

Is this also the western liberal democracy that is banning in many countries the wearing of a strip of cloth on a womans head .. in a democratic society should we not have the right to dress as we please?

Well, hold on a minute, A short while ago, you were lecturing us regarding: “when in rome do as the romans do”.You demand an entitlement to dress as you wish while at the same time you demand an entitlement to flaunt the laws of the host nation. How about a little consistency in your argumentation?

I’m actually perfectly fine with the banning of overt religious symbols in schools, for example.Several years ago, the French were vilified by moslems for daring to defend their long held traditions of secular school systems[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]There were expressions by moslems of indignation and shocked surprise as the West was slammed with accusatory epithets of racism™ and discrimination for infringing on moslems’ “rights”. Afterall, we all know that islam is a “race”.

The hypocrisy is both colossal and laughable.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

It was also liberal western democracy that decided to import Islamic extremism into the UK. In the early 80's Arab countries were rounding up radicals when in galloped the fluffy UK to protect their human rights and offer them safe haven and a place to teach their vile hatred. I often wonder how many deaths could have been prevented if the UK had just minded it's own business and the US in it's greed for oil removed it's support for the Saudi regime that breeds this radical extremism. I think you can keep liberal western democracy thanks all the same.

It seems you demand perfection on the part of the U.S. yet you excuse the excesses of the totalitarian theocracies that are so pervasive in the islamist Middle East.

Of course there are aberrations in connection with the law. No system is perfect. Sadly, in the Arab/Moslem world, theocratic totalitarianism is thought to be the natural alternative to the secular institutions of Western liberal democracy. How do you reconcile the ascendancy of the West and liberal democracy, largely being shaped around the principles of equal rights, personal freedoms and personal responsibility vs. Islamic majority nations that are and based upon the principles of derision, learned hatreds for non-moslems and promotion of fear societies?

Speaking for myself only, I’ll accept the occasional eccentric abuse of law. I’ll let the justice system address those occasional inequities without the inequitable imposition of a religious fatwa issued by a mullah for life or the decree of a totalitarian Autocrat. What you are unwilling to address are the millions of cases adjudicated every year under the principles of equal justice in the west which do, overwhelmingly, render justice and equity.

And I would agree with you entirely (although my above comments make me wonder why you refer to it as the free world), there is no compulsion in religion according to the Quran. The idea of killing an apostate would never cross my mind and my belief is that the Prophet Mohamad (pbuh) only killed aspostates where treason against the Ummah was involved.

You do not understand what I was writing. Regarding the slogan that that “there is no compulsion in religion”, that’s utterly false. In the islamist world, there certainly is compulsion in religion. It’s demonstrated in laws that enforce religious affiliation (Islam is the State religion), and it’s manifested in the myriad inequities that are applied to non-moslems.

What you carefully and purposefully left out of your claim is that Islamic governments typically prohibit the free exercise of belief in a competing religious faith. You made every effort to avoid addressing that component of the overt restrictions that are placed on non-moslems in moslem lands™

It’s blatantly dishonest and manipulative at its core.

Unfortunately some things are hard to move on from, like the slave trade and racial segregation that went on in the US. How many years did the general population accept it's wrongs and yet your laws stood firm?

Bad idea. A few of the Koranic verses condoning slavery[FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The penalty for a broken oath is the feeding of ten needy men with such food as normally offer your own people; or the clothing of ten needy men; or the freeing of a slave. —Koran 5:89[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)... —Koran 23:5[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]As for those of of your slaves who wish to buy their liberty, free them if you find in them any promise and bestow on them a part of the riches God has given you [part of those riches being... slaves —ed.]. —Koran 24:33[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls who God has given you as booty... We well know the duties We have imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and slave-girls. [We grant you this privilege] so that none may blame you. God is forgiving and merciful. —Koran 33:50[/FONT]

Slavery was legal in the K.S.A. and Yemen as late as 1962. Do a search using the terms “slavery” and “Mauritania” – see what you find.

We have the same issue here and most Muslim countries deal with it by simply declaring the apostate insane, therefore no punishment is required.

That seems fair. As punishment for someone for making a considered choice about their religious belief, islamist governments declare them insane.

Lovely, lovely people. But as we know, There’s no compulsion in religion™

One of the things in this world that is most destructive to the mind and body is totalitarianism, in all its myriad forms and implementations, theocratic and otherwise. Democracy is the opposite of all-consuming totalitarian creeds, which is why moslems react so violently toward it. The fact that other totalitarian ideologies (Communism, Nazism, Stalinism), have failed and the fact that that much of the world reacts with disgust at the petty, tribal rivalries and ingrained hatreds that are such a part of islamist ideology, it’s not surprising that the islamist world is so reactive. There is absolutely no allowance for freedom of expression or an open electoral process that is not rigged in the totalitarian collective consciousness of a mullocratically controlled society. Anything that even remotely calls into question the validity or truth of the mullah-for-life’s sacred cows is an intolerable thoughtcrime

There are voices within Islamic scholarship that over the centuries have tried to challenge this belief, the Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti at Al Azhar Cairo, has said apostasy should be legal, leaving punishment to Allah in the aterlife.

As yet these voices have not won the day but I am hopeful they will one day.

Apostacy is mentioned in the Quran 20 times and not one time is the death penalty called for .. Inshallah one day we will catch up.

In the meantime can we just kill them?

 

[Resigned]

Certainly not a place I would like to go to other than for Hajj as most Muslim nations people just shake their heads when they read about the crazy goings on there.

It goes a long way to explaining your beliefs about Muslims though, particularly about women.

The only external of islam we have is moslems. I have every right to judge islam by the actions of moslems.

Islam is only 1300 years old, and behaves precisely like a 1300 year old religion has been known to behave. Christianity and Judaism were violent religious entities when they were 1300 years old too. Still too throttled by childish superstitions and “us vs. them” mentalities.

Islam is at that “Be As Us Or Die”, phase. If anything is painfully obvious about Islam, it is its clearly defined inferiority complex. As a cultural dynamic, it behaves like the unruly little brother, throwing temper tantrums to get attention. Christianity has mellowed on its, "we’re right, you die now", mentality about 300 years ago. Judaism, over 2000 years ago (but Judaism is far older than Christianity or Islam). Islam is just ramping up into that phase. All religions go through this, much to the pain and suffering of those innocents unlucky enough to be around them.

Of course it is unfair. Most of the current attacks are Muslims attacking other Muslims, so how can the teachings of the faith be blamed for that when it is strictly forbidden to kill another Muslim?

Beats me! Maybe blame the Jews?

I listen to the Friday teachings from the local mosque ever week. Last week was about treating your wife kindly, there has also been treating your mother kindly, your husband, poor people, etc. The only time I have heard vitriolic hatred was during the mass murder of civilians committed in Lebanon and then Gaza .. I can hardly blame them for that.

I’ve noticed that you have carefully avoided that fact that Arab newspapers frequently have run cartoons of, for example, Jews as vampires drinking the blood of children, or almost freakishly anti-Jewish cartoons that portray anyone of the faith as a murderer or criminal of the worst kind. It's distasteful, particularly because it's obviously sanctioned and approved by totalitarian arab/moslem governments. Let’s not pretend that the vacant young arab/moslem minds are not indoctrinated with the anti-American and anti-Western propaganda that is a part of the Friday clerical diatribes convincing you that your every pratfall and every ill that befalls the Arab/Moslem world is the fault of the Great Satan™.


You may also wish to do a search under the term “Undercover Mosque” for a bit of enlightenment as to what is taught in British mosques.

If I have a rabid dog I want to kill and the liberal west steps in as an animal loving nation to save him, is it my fault or the fault of my faith when he bites you?

As I said above had the Arab nations been left to deal with him and his minions the world would never have heard about him, let alone been victim to or infected by his hatred. The liberal west may see it as a human rights issue, we see it as you wanted him and by god you got him so don't complain to us now.

Of course. It’s always someone else’s fault.


The guardian.co.uk has published a really good article about the various goings-on in the U.K. and its increasingly contentious relations with Moslem clerics, Imams and other hate preachers.

This latest fiasco centers around a documentary produced by Channel 4 entitled “Undercover Mosque”. The program depicts the really vile promotion of hatred for infidels that is orchestrated by Islamic preachers. The inner workings of the Green Lane Mosque are showcased for the dangers that they present to the U.K.

Of course, the Green Lane Mosque and the clerics who come to the West to spread their poison is just one of any number of hateful viper pits that soil the U.K.

A state in denial needs reality checks

Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque | Media | guardian.co.uk


This is just one more examination of what should be a dose of bracing sobriety for anyone not yet acquainted with the Religion of Peace's struggle with freedom and modernity.

Can you tell me where these near daily occurrences are and don't mention Pakistan, Afghanistan or Wahabbists because they are targeting other Muslims in general.

Female suicide-bomber kills 40 pilgrims in Iraq

Female suicide-bomber kills 40 pilgrims in Iraq

(RTTNews) - In all, 40 women and children were killed and 60 others injured in Iraq Friday in the most fatal militant attack on Shiite pilgrims trekking to the holy city of Karbala marking the Arbaeen festival.

Reports said a female suicide-bomber blew herself up in a tent where the pilgrims were resting.

In large part it comes from the ultra conservative Wahhabi sect (based in the Arabian peninsula) .. pretty much the equivalent to the ultra right zionists that believe everyone but their gang is scum. They fund Osama and his cronies, fund the radical clerics that go to the west, the 9/11 attackers were largely Wahhabi, they controlled the Taliban take over of Afghanistan and their leaders are by and large a bunch of nutters.

Why are they a bunch of nutters? We can do away with the term moslem fanatics. They are only piously following islamic precepts from the koran and the hadith. The same as the ghoulish holy warriors™ sawing off the heads of kuffar caught on moslem lands. Read the book.

The holy warriors of al-Qaeda and all other jihad groups are simply pious Muslims who know their Qur'an and sunnah, and who are following the books to the letter. They are back in those, halcyon days of virtueless conquest and murder for God when these books were written—the days when they enjoyed so much success at fighting, killing, and crusading. As then, now.

How can you accept that it is everything to do with enforcing culture and opinions and calling it Islam and then say Islam is to blame for this?

Because it’s true.

Eyptians still practice the revolting mulitlation of girls genitals (FGM) which has been performed here since pharaonic times, there are religious men here that use one single hadith to support it as an Islamic necessity. It is now illegal unless it is a medical necessity and yet it still goes on ... however it is the only ME country that performs this barbarity .. not even the oppressive Wahabbi's do it and they think of women as little more than property. So does that make it Islamic, is Islam to blame for that too?

Odd don’t you think that these startling brutal acts that we’re told “have nothing to do with islam” occur with virtual exclusivity in Islamic nations.

It's simply... uncanny how these radicals™ and extremists™ always seem to appear whenever and wherever peaceful religionists achieve a critical mass.

You need not come to me making excuses for Islam’s adherents, Wahabbi or otherwise. I will say that the intolerance that moslems hold for themselves and others is appalling to those of us in the West after all we've been through trying to move forward in securing freedom and equality for all members of our societies. But freedom in Islam is a mockery. There are no elected leaders. There is the shari'ah law as interpreted by the ulema, imams, and sheikhs. Above them is the Khalifah (Caliph) who is "God's shadow" on Earth, ruling over all Moslems. There is no plurality. There is the unyielding insistence that all mankind accept Islam's supremacy. There isn't even the slightest pretense of that one, true hallmark of political freedom: the ability to vote the leader out of office. God is the leader, and an unelected one at that. This is Islam's greatest weakness and it is also what dooms it to failure. In the end, people want freedom and religion, which is, of course, a positive thing for humanity. And there's no better place on the planet to find the lawfully protected right to have both of these things than in the West.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I wonder if Islamophobia is a diagnosable psychiatric disorder...

 

[seattlegal]

I’ve noticed that you have carefully avoided that fact that Arab newspapers frequently have run cartoons of, for example, Jews as vampires drinking the blood of children, or almost freakishly anti-Jewish cartoons that portray anyone of the faith as a murderer or criminal of the worst kind. It's distasteful, particularly because it's obviously sanctioned and approved by totalitarian arab/moslem governments. Let’s not pretend that the vacant young arab/moslem minds are not indoctrinated with the anti-American and anti-Western propaganda that is a part of the Friday clerical diatribes convincing you that your every pratfall and every ill that befalls the Arab/Moslem world is the fault of the Great Satan™.

Aren't you getting dangerously close to doing the same thing highlighted in blue above with Muslims, instead of Jews?

 

[Resigned]

Aren't you getting dangerously close to doing the same thing highlighted in blue above with Muslims, instead of Jews?

No, I don’t. I’ve directed to comments (in large part to), to direct rebuttals aimed at specific comments from others. If you have a direct challenge to something I’ve offered, then post it.

What I have done is to acknowledge that there is an undeniable dynamic connecting one politico-religious ideology with continuing events of calculated mass murder. You shouldn’t confuse direct, sometimes blunt and uncompromising critical critique of your positions as 'insults'. They are observations.

For example, the 40 or so people splodid’ yesterday in Iraq are not the fault of the media, the U.S. or other unnamed conspirators. They are expired; no longer living as the direct result of the ideology expressed by the former, now expired, no longer living Al-Zarqawi. We were granted an audience to the acrid, indignant revulsion of the true believer who is outraged at the watered down depiction of his incontestable convictions.

On January 23, 2005, the former and now very dead jihad superstar, (drum roll please), Jordanian terrorist leader Al-Zarqawi released an audiotape regarding the upcoming elections in Iraq. Zarqawi was, of course, an islamic terrorist kingpin and the undeniable head of the jihadi insurgency against the Allawi Government in Iraq. That’s why his audiotape is of such significance.

Here is a major Islamic terrorist leader, telling us in his own words, directly, what he believes and what motivates his fight. And what does he say?

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it,” the speaker, who was identified as Zarqawi, said in the tape posted on Sunday. “Candidates in elections are seeking to become demigods while those who vote for them are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions).”

Let's examine some principles of democracy and which are absent in the islamist world:

1) Freedom of Religion: The most basic, most cherished of our freedoms is a gigantic affront to the pious moslem since there is only one God and only one religion: that which they say exists.

2) Rule of the People/Majority Rule: The basic tenet of Democracy, that the will of the majority carries sovereignty, is inherently offensive to the pious moslem. Only the "Rule of God" (meaning the rule of people like Khomeni, Zarqawi and Bin Ladin) will be allowed.

3) Freedom of Expression: The very freedom of our minds arouses murderous hatred in the mind of the pious moslem. Our ability to express ourselves, to debate, to argue, to agree, to disagree, is an affront to God in their eyes. Under their rule, no one will be allowed to express anything but Islamic thought.

4) Separation of Religion and State: There can be no secular state, since we are ordered by God to live under his laws. Thus, all secular states are inherently God-less and must be destroyed.

5) Formation of Political Parties: Our right to associate with like-minded individuals is nothing more than a sign of our decadence, our distance from God.

This is the world view directly from an Al-Queda leader. Notice the complete lack of the usual grievances about Israel, about Western colonialism, about the inequity of our bargaining position in the oil market. No, instead we are told directly that we are to be killed because of who and what we are, because of who and what we believe.

 

[seattlegal]

No, I don’t. I’ve directed to comments (in large part to), to direct rebuttals aimed at specific comments from others. If you have a direct challenge to something I’ve offered, then post it.

What I have done is to acknowledge that there is an undeniable dynamic connecting one politico-religious ideology with continuing events of calculated mass murder. You shouldn’t confuse direct, sometimes blunt and uncompromising critical critique of your positions as 'insults'. They are observations.

I still think you are making blanket statements without accounting for all of the data available:

For example, the 40 or so people splodid’ yesterday in Iraq are not the fault of the media, the U.S. or other unnamed conspirators. They are expired; no longer living as the direct result of the ideology expressed by the former, now expired, no longer living Al-Zarqawi. We were granted an audience to the acrid, indignant revulsion of the true believer who is outraged at the watered down depiction of his incontestable convictions.

On January 23, 2005, the former and now very dead jihad superstar, (drum roll please), Jordanian terrorist leader Al-Zarqawi released an audiotape regarding the upcoming elections in Iraq. Zarqawi was, of course, an islamic terrorist kingpin and the undeniable head of the jihadi insurgency against the Allawi Government in Iraq. That’s why his audiotape is of such significance.

Here is a major Islamic terrorist leader, telling us in his own words, directly, what he believes and what motivates his fight. And what does he say?

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it,” the speaker, who was identified as Zarqawi, said in the tape posted on Sunday. “Candidates in elections are seeking to become demigods while those who vote for them are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions).”

You have correctly identified a terrorist striving to impose his worldview on others through force and unrighteous acts. While there might be several examples of such terrorists calling themselves Muslims, it does not address the greater majority of non-violent Muslims who don't believe in unrighteous and heinous acts.

Let's examine some principles of democracy and which are absent in the islamist world:

1) Freedom of Religion: The most basic, most cherished of our freedoms is a gigantic affront to the pious moslem since there is only one God and only one religion: that which they say exists.

I agree with you regarding the importance of freedom of religion. Are you seeking to take this freedom away from non-radical Muslims?

2) Rule of the People/Majority Rule: The basic tenet of Democracy, that the will of the majority carries sovereignty, is inherently offensive to the pious moslem. Only the "Rule of God" (meaning the rule of people like Khomeni, Zarqawi and Bin Ladin) will be allowed.

And what if the majority chooses to oppress the minority? Does might make right? I would say that the more important feature of democracy is the protection of the rights of the individual and respect for minority views.

3) Freedom of Expression: The very freedom of our minds arouses murderous hatred in the mind of the pious moslem. Our ability to express ourselves, to debate, to argue, to agree, to disagree, is an affront to God in their eyes. Under their rule, no one will be allowed to express anything but Islamic thought.

I agree with you regarding the freedom of expression. However, those who seek to suppress freedom of expression are not always Muslim, nor do all Muslims seek to suppress freedom of expression.

4) Separation of Religion and State: There can be no secular state, since we are ordered by God to live under his laws. Thus, all secular states are inherently God-less and must be destroyed.

I would suggest that you look at the secular state of Turkey, which is a Muslim-majority country.

Also: there are militants in the West who wield this idea around like a club in order to suppress religious expression among individuals.

5) Formation of Political Parties: Our right to associate with like-minded individuals is nothing more than a sign of our decadence, our distance from God.

I agree with the concept of freedom of association. However, those who wish to stamp this out are not always Muslim, nor do all Muslims wish to stamp this out.

This is the world view directly from an Al-Queda leader. Notice the complete lack of the usual grievances about Israel, about Western colonialism, about the inequity of our bargaining position in the oil market. No, instead we are told directly that we are to be killed because of who and what we are, because of who and what we believe.

Again, you have correctly identified a radical. However, this does not prove that all Muslims are radicals.

 

[Resigned]

I still think you are making blanket statements without accounting for all of the data available:

You’re right. I neglected to include reports of the splodin’ in Iraq that occurred earlier this week.

You have correctly identified a terrorist striving to impose his worldview on others through force and unrighteous acts. While there might be several examples of such terrorists calling themselves Muslims, it does not address the greater majority of non-violent Muslims who don't believe in unrighteous and heinous acts.

It also doesn’t address the non-violent moslems who piously agree in principle to the doctrinal elements of Al-Zarqawi’s worldview.

Al-Qaeda is just a name. So are Islamic Jihad, Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas), Abu Sayyaf, Tanzim Qa'idat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaeda in Iraq), Hizbullah, Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon (the Muslim Brotherhood), and countless others. As much as we Westerners like our information and our lives to be neatly compartmentalized and labeled, jihad is amorphous, messy, and nameless. Whatever name you call it, it always means the same thing: Kill the infidels (and more often than not – moslems) who stand between Islam and its delusions of world supremacy.

These people are not "made" by others. The names they operate under are subordinate to the cause of their ideology. That ideology, of course, is jihad—warfare to expand the dominion of Allah's religion, as elucidated in the Qur'an. That's the root cause.

It is jihad, not exotic and menacing Arabic titles, that is the enemy of Western civilization—indeed of all non-Islamic civilizations. Jihad is an integral part of mainstream Islamic doctrine, and it always has been.

I agree with you regarding the importance of freedom of religion. Are you seeking to take this freedom away from non-radical Muslims?

Freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is
interesting to note that moslems in the West screech about their right to religious freedom while cynically supporting the suppression of competing religions in the Islamist Middle East

Please discuss for us the religious freedoms for non-moslems that do not exist in the islamist Middle East. Perhaps you could connect the doctrinal elements of islam that demand allahs religion to reign supreme.

Apparently, discrimination, when applied to favor your particular circumstance is somehow acceptable. Perhaps your professed indignation at the notion of moslems in the West bearing the scar of discrimination could be equally applied to those of competing faiths in Islamic nations. Will you now champion the cause of Christian churches being constructed in the KSA? Will you petition Iran to drop its retrograde practice of declaring Islam as the State religion? How about Egypt – freedom of religion?

And what if the majority chooses to oppress the minority? Does might make right? I would say that the more important feature of democracy is the protection of the rights of the individual and respect for minority views.

Odd that you would raise that argument when minority rights are protected by law in the U.S. and the West.

Please discuss for us the rights of non-moslems in the islamist Middle East.


Let’s briefly examine the framework of Western socio-political ideology, shall we?

Western civilization is derived largely as a result of the distillation of centuries of Judeo-Christian principles and convictions, ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, the Magna Carta, the work of Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine, et al.. into a codified framework of law that guarantees rights and liberties to all people.

The precursor to the U.S. Constitution was the Declaration of Independence. That document sets forth in part:
”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

Notice the language. There are no caveats defining hate and revulsion for the “out group”. The term “equal” is not exclusionary.

Now, contrast that with the admonitions in the koran:

1. Qur'an & Sunnah [I don’t see “equality” mentioned in these examples]:
   • Say: "You people! I am God's emissary to you all..." —Qur'an 7:158
   • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Qur'an 9:29
   • It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the True Faith that he may exalt it above all religions, though the idolaters abhor it. —Qur'an 9:33
   • We have sent you forth to all mankind, so that you may give them good news and forewarn them. But most men have no knowledge. —Qur'an 34:28
   • This is but an admonition: an eloquent Koran to exhort the living and to pass judgment on the unbelievers. —Qur'an 36:70
   • Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me." —Sahih Bukhari 84.59

This sort of unhinged hyperreligious ranting would be absolutely comical, except these idiots are serious. This is the voice of millions of Muslims in the world (by no means all Muslims, however) who feel robbed of the seventh century promise of supremacy over the infidel that was left as a legacy by their religion's inventor.

I agree with you regarding the freedom of expression. However, those who seek to suppress freedom of expression are not always Muslim, nor do all Muslims seek to suppress freedom of expression.

You may wish to spend some time in the islamist Middle Eastern paradise of your choice. Go there and report back to us what you find.

I would suggest that you look at the secular state of Turkey, which is a Muslim-majority country.

Also: there are militants in the West who wield this idea around like a club in order to suppress religious expression among individuals.

I would suggest that you are the one who should look at Turkey. Absent the secular minded military, Turkey might well be another islamist paradise of forced religion.

I agree with the concept of freedom of association. However, those who wish to stamp this out are not always Muslim, nor do all Muslims wish to stamp this out.

The facts as they exist in the islamist Middle East contradict that.

Again, you have correctly identified a radical. However, this does not prove that all Muslims are radicals.

And again, external demonstration of islam is only available via moslems. The bottom line is that there is far more latitude in our society for differences of opinion, conviction, religion, etc. We're quite used to that, and I suppose in our self-assuredness, we might like to believe that most other people in the world would find the merits in living this way to be self-evident. Why wouldn't they? We all live together here with effective legal and societal tools to work out our disagreements, and in the context of the great secular equalizer of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, our differences are far more of a benefit to all of us than a liability. If you take a look at the contributions made to mankind by Americans, you will find people from all ethnic, racial, national, and religious backgrounds. Most of us are proud of that, and rightly so.

That sense of equality, of cooperation, does not exist within an ideology that promotes the fascistic notion that moslems are deserving of rights not granted to non-moslems for no other reason than religious belief. This is fascism, pure and simple, unadulterated. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is little more than an unadulterated waste of time.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is little more than an unadulterated waste of time.

Moroever, it would have no relevance here.

This thread is called "Suicide in the name of Religion." I would stil be interested in an example of someone who suicided in the name of religion.

 

[seattlegal]

I agree with you regarding the importance of freedom of religion. Are you seeking to take this freedom away from non-radical Muslims?

Freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is
interesting to note that moslems in the West screech about their right to religious freedom while cynically supporting the suppression of competing religions in the Islamist Middle East.

The Muslims in the West who demand religious freedom here while crying out to deny it there are hypocrites who deserved to be exposed for what they are.

If you wish to remove the freedom of religion from Muslims in the West, then you are buying into the ideology of suppression of religious expression that you claim to hate, also making you a hypocrite.

Please discuss for us the religious freedoms for non-moslems that do not exist in the islamist Middle East. Perhaps you could connect the doctrinal elements of islam that demand allahs religion to reign supreme.

Apparently, discrimination, when applied to favor your particular circumstance is somehow acceptable. Perhaps your professed indignation at the notion of moslems in the West bearing the scar of discrimination could be equally applied to those of competing faiths in Islamic nations. Will you now champion the cause of Christian churches being constructed in the KSA? Will you petition Iran to drop its retrograde practice of declaring Islam as the State religion? How about Egypt – freedom of religion?

My greater priority is the preservation of freedom of religion here in the West. Westerners who call for religious suppression here in the West make the preservation of religious freedom all the more difficult.

Odd that you would raise that argument when minority rights are protected by law in the U.S. and the West.

I would like to retain minority rights here in the U.S. and the West, thank you very much.

Please discuss for us the rights of non-moslems in the islamist Middle East.

They are not like the rights that minorities enjoy here. Therefore, I will not buy into the suppression of religious expression here in the West, no matter how loud some may call for it.

Let’s briefly examine the framework of Western socio-political ideology, shall we?

Western civilization is derived largely as a result of the distillation of centuries of Judeo-Christian principles and convictions, ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, the Magna Carta, the work of Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine, et al.. into a codified framework of law that guarantees rights and liberties to all people.

The precursor to the U.S. Constitution was the Declaration of Independence. That document sets forth in part:
”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

Notice the language. There are no caveats defining hate and revulsion for the “out group”. The term “equal” is not exclusionary.

Now, contrast that with the admonitions in the koran:

1. Qur'an & Sunnah [I don’t see “equality” mentioned in these examples]:
   • Say: "You people! I am God's emissary to you all..." —Qur'an 7:158
   • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Qur'an 9:29
   • It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the True Faith that he may exalt it above all religions, though the idolaters abhor it. —Qur'an 9:33
   • We have sent you forth to all mankind, so that you may give them good news and forewarn them. But most men have no knowledge. —Qur'an 34:28
   • This is but an admonition: an eloquent Koran to exhort the living and to pass judgment on the unbelievers. —Qur'an 36:70
   • Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me." —Sahih Bukhari 84.59

This sort of unhinged hyperreligious ranting would be absolutely comical, except these idiots are serious. This is the voice of millions of Muslims in the world (by no means all Muslims, however) who feel robbed of the seventh century promise of supremacy over the infidel that was left as a legacy by their religion's inventor.

Hey, we agree on something.

You may wish to spend some time in the islamist Middle Eastern paradise of your choice. Go there and report back to us what you find.

No thank you. Like I said, my greater priority is to preserve freedom here.

I would suggest that you are the one who should look at Turkey. Absent the secular minded military, Turkey might well be another islamist paradise of forced religion.

So you admit that secularism can be just as oppressive as non-secularism? You'd better remove the promotion of secularism from your argument, then.

I agree with the concept of freedom of association. However, those who wish to stamp this out are not always Muslim, nor do all Muslims wish to stamp this out.

The facts as they exist in the islamist Middle East contradict that.

There are enough here in the West who promote the concept of freedom of association in theory out of one side of their mouth, while simultaneously calling for the practice of oppressing the freedom of association, here in the West, for targeted factions here in the West to provide ample empirical evidence for the truth of my above statement. {Thank you very much for providing it. }

And again, external demonstration of islam is only available via moslems. The bottom line is that there is far more latitude in our society for differences of opinion, conviction, religion, etc.

...and we must constantly be on guard for those within our own society who would like to end it.

We're quite used to that, and I suppose in our self-assuredness, we might like to believe that most other people in the world would find the merits in living this way to be self-evident. Why wouldn't they? We all live together here with effective legal and societal tools to work out our disagreements, and in the context of the great secular equalizer of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, our differences are far more of a benefit to all of us than a liability. If you take a look at the contributions made to mankind by Americans, you will find people from all ethnic, racial, national, and religious backgrounds. Most of us are proud of that, and rightly so.

My priority is to preserve that here.

That sense of equality, of cooperation, does not exist within an ideology that promotes the fascistic notion that moslems are deserving of rights not granted to non-moslems for no other reason than religious belief. This is fascism, pure and simple, unadulterated. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is little more than an unadulterated waste of time.

Are you buying into the notion of denying people within the West equal rights based soley upon their religion? If so, you have constructed your own self-refuting argument. Congratulations!

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Muslims in the West who demand religious freedom here while crying out to deny it there are hypocrites who deserved to be exposed for what they are.

If you wish to remove the freedom of religion from Muslims in the West, then you are buying into the ideology of suppression of religious expression that you claim to hate, also making you a hypocrite.


My greater priority is the preservation of freedom of religion here in the West. Westerners who call for religious suppression here in the West make the preservation of religious freedom all the more difficult.


I would like to retain minority rights here in the U.S. and the West, thank you very much.

They are not like the rights that minorities enjoy here. Therefore, I will not buy into the suppression of religious expression here in the West, no matter how loud some may call for it.

Hey, we agree on something.

No thank you. Like I said, my greater priority is to preserve freedom here.


So you admit that secularism can be just as oppressive as non-secularism? You'd better remove the promotion of secularism from your argument, then.


There are enough here in the West who promote the concept of freedom of association in theory out of one side of their mouth, while simultaneously calling for the practice of oppressing the freedom of association, here in the West, for targeted factions here in the West to provide ample empirical evidence for the truth of my above statement. {Thank you very much for providing it. }

...and we must constantly be on guard for those within our own society who would like to end it.
My priority is to preserve that here.

Are you buying into the notion of denying people within the West equal rights based soley upon their religion? If so, you have constructed your own self-refuting argument. Congratulations!

What does this have to do with suicide in the name of religion?

 

[seattlegal]

What does this have to do with suicide in the name of religion?

I'm refuting the claim that these suicides are tried to religion by showing that the underlying argument is really socio-political in nature, rather than religious in nature.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I'm refuting the claim that these suicides are tried to religion by showing that the underlying argument is really socio-political in nature, rather than religious in nature.

Maybe on logical grounds, but not on directly relevant evidentiary grounds.

All we need to do is limit the framework: the ideology espoused by persons who suicided - or attempted suicide - in the name of religion.

 

[c0de]

@ Resigned

A few of the Koranic verses condoning slavery[FONT="]:[/FONT]

• [FONT="]The penalty for a broken oath is the feeding of ten needy men with such food as normally offer your own people; or the clothing of ten needy men; or the freeing of a slave. —Koran 5:89[/FONT]
• [FONT="]Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)... —Koran 23:5[/FONT]
• [FONT="]As for those of of your slaves who wish to buy their liberty, free them if you find in them any promise and bestow on them a part of the riches God has given you [part of those riches being... slaves —ed.]. —Koran 24:33[/FONT]
• [FONT="]Prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls who God has given you as booty... We well know the duties We have imposed on the faithful concerning their wives and slave-girls. [We grant you this privilege] so that none may blame you. God is forgiving and merciful. —Koran 33:50[/FONT]

Read these verses again. None of them "condone" slavery. The first
verse you quoted actually encourages the freeing of slaves. Slavery has
been discouraged in the Quran and by the example of the Prophet and
his companions, who used to free slaves as a matter of the highest form
of charity. The Prophet himself adopted his only son who was sold into
slavery. Before Islam, slavery was rampant in Arabia. It started to die
after Islam, and because of it.

 

[seattlegal]

Maybe on logical grounds, but not on directly relevant evidentiary grounds.

All we need to do is limit the framework: the ideology espoused by persons who suicided - or attempted suicide - in the name of religion.

**pouts** But I want to expose the empty shell game for what it is! **folds arms acrossed chest, sticks out lower lip, and returns to pouting**

 

[Netti-Netti]

**pouts** But I want to expose the empty shell game for what it is!

Did anyone stop you from starting a new thread?

 

[seattlegal]

Did anyone stop you from starting a new thread?

Alright, here it is:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/empirical-evidence-for-religiously-motivated-10840.html#post182745

 

[Resigned]

The Muslims in the West who demand religious freedom here while crying out to deny it there are hypocrites who deserved to be exposed for what they are.

I’d suggest you consider writing a strongly worded email to CAIR and other Islamist stealth jihad organizations which enjoy the Western protection of liberty denied to minority religious groups wherever Islam predominates. They love to promulgate the spurious notion that criticism of Islam is tanamount to "hate speech."

That same dynamic operates on this board.

If you wish to remove the freedom of religion from Muslims in the West, then you are buying into the ideology of suppression of religious expression that you claim to hate, also making you a hypocrite.

I advised you earlier that the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom.

My greater priority is the preservation of freedom of religion here in the West. Westerners who call for religious suppression here in the West make the preservation of religious freedom all the more difficult.

See above.

I would like to retain minority rights here in the U.S. and the West, thank you very much.

No need to thank me. The principles of equal rights applying to all was a concept enshrined in the Bill of Rights and later set forth in the Constitution.

They are not like the rights that minorities enjoy here. Therefore, I will not buy into the suppression of religious expression here in the West, no matter how loud some may call for it.

This has been addressed repeatedly

Hey, we agree on something.

I can change that.

No thank you. Like I said, my greater priority is to preserve freedom here.

Our secular institutions and the precept of separation of church and State addresses that.


It's unfortunate that for many, their only experiences with islam have been the 'throttled down' version. In the West, the excesses of 'real' islam do not exist.

I'd just love to see the apologists on this board lecture a turbaned taliban carrying a stick about their 'rights'.

So you admit that secularism can be just as oppressive as non-secularism? You'd better remove the promotion of secularism from your argument, then.

No, I don’t admit that. The Turkish military is a bulwark against the establishment of a Turkish Mullocracy of Sheikdom.

There are enough here in the West who promote the concept of freedom of association in theory out of one side of their mouth, while simultaneously calling for the practice of oppressing the freedom of association, here in the West, for targeted factions here in the West to provide ample empirical evidence for the truth of my above statement. {Thank you very much for providing it. }

I didn’t provide it. Read above. The freedom of expression and association is guaranteed by law.

...and we must constantly be on guard for those within our own society who would like to end it.

…and we know who they are - those within our own society who would like to end it.

My priority is to preserve that here.

Read the Constitution. A vibrant court and judicial system is alive and well.

Are you buying into the notion of denying people within the West equal rights based soley upon their religion? If so, you have constructed your own self-refuting argument. Congratulations!

I’ll type this very slowly… Read the numerous times I have identified the genius of the U.S. Constitution.

Here, I’ll spell it out for you:

I'll preamble with a portion of the U.S Constitution -

Article VI Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What the above requires is that freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

In other words, one is free to believe and to practice the religion of their choosing without government mandate or interference.

We (in the U.S.) are by definition a secular nation -- there was considerable debate about the entire god issue-- and the constitution is quite secular. One can argue far better that having come from theocracies themselves The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of religious rule and even if they personally believed -- they purposely ratified a constitution that was totally secular in nature (and intent).

The bottom line is very common-sense related: if the government is free to exalt any one religion over another, then what do you do if someday that religion is not the one you believe in? What is the only way to ensure this does not happen? the only way I can see it is if the government is silent about all religious issues. That doesn't make the individuals in government atheists or irreligious -- they can believe whatever they wish. What it means is they are prevented from forcing their beliefs on me or you. Not so in islamist paradises.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity.

Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not neccessarily required. Clearly, some of the FF's were believers in Jesus Christ, though certainly others were not.

For example, Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philospher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.


What is ultimately being derived here is that once you are not allowed to interfere in favor of one religion, you must again be neutral across the board because any favoritism to one religion must by definition be done so at the expense of another religion, or no religion.



One last morsel of food for thought: How incredibly weak some gods are, that they need to be compelled on all and children must be coerced to commit murder for them.

 

[seattlegal]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT] I’d suggest you consider writing a strongly worded email to CAIR and other Islamist stealth jihad organizations which enjoy the Western protection of liberty denied to minority religious groups wherever Islam predominates. They love to promulgate the spurious notion that criticism of Islam is tanamount to "hate speech."

That same dynamic operates on this board.

Well, I don't consider criticism to be hate speech. I criticize on this board all the time, and it doesn't get called "hate speech."

I can change that.

As you demonstrate here:

I’ll type this very slowly… Read the numerous times I have identified the genius of the U.S. Constitution.Here, I’ll spell it out for you:
I'll preamble with a portion of the U.S Constitution -

Article VI Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What the above requires is that freedom of religion is default freedom from religion,

Nope. Freedom from religion constitutes a "religious test," and the Constitution emphatically states: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

I agree with you that non-compulsion regarding religion is the goal of their being "no religious test required." This freedom from religion idea is an Unconstitutional religious test. Freedom from religion is, in and of itself, a compulsion regarding religion.

In other words, one is free to believe and to practice the religion of their choosing without government mandate or interference.

Which would include no government mandate of freedom from religion.

We (in the U.S.) are by definition a secular nation

Actually, a more correct term would be "non-militant regarding religion." There are plenty of militant secularists out there who would try to argue otherwise, however.

-- there was considerable debate about the entire god issue-- and the constitution is quite secular. One can argue far better that having come from theocracies themselves The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of religious rule and even if they personally believed -- they purposely ratified a constitution that was totally secular in nature (and intent).

I look at the greater issue of non-militancy regarding religion (or non-religion) as being paramount in this regard. You can try to blame religion here, but it is really the militancy that is the problem that leads to oppression.

The bottom line is very common-sense related: if the government is free to exalt any one religion over another, then what do you do if someday that religion is not the one you believe in? What is the only way to ensure this does not happen? the only way I can see it is if the government is silent about all religious issues. That doesn't make the individuals in government atheists or irreligious -- they can believe whatever they wish. What it means is they are prevented from forcing their beliefs on me or you. Not so in islamist paradises.

Indeed, the First Amendment of the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

This would also include the prohibition of the establishment of any freedom from religion laws.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

Agreed. As it should be.

<..edited out miscellaneous promotion of a certain brand of religious belief...>

What is ultimately being derived here is that once you are not allowed to interfere in favor of one religion, you must again be neutral across the board because any favoritism to one religion must by definition be done so at the expense of another religion, or no religion.

Therefore, the militant enforcement of the freedom from religion idea is invalid.

One last morsel of food for thought: How incredibly weak some gods are, that they need to be compelled on all and children must be coerced to commit murder for them.

Such is the nature of those who are obsessed with power and control.

 

[Resigned]

Nope. Freedom from religion constitutes a "religious test," and the Constitution emphatically states: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I agree with you that non-compulsion regarding religion is the goal of their being "no religious test required." This freedom from religion idea is an Unconstitutional religious test. Freedom from religion is, in and of itself, a compulsion regarding religion.

This really doesn’t make any sense. You’re claiming that the governments mandate to provide freedom from compulsory religious belief is itself compulsory?

Say it ain’t so.


..........

 

[seattlegal]

This really doesn’t make any sense. You’re claiming that the governments mandate to provide freedom from compulsory religious belief is itself compulsory?

Say it ain’t so.


..........

The no religious test mandate covers that...compulsion for an individual to remain silent in the name of so-called freedom from religion infringes upon that person's First Amendment rights. If congress enacted a law abridging freedom of religion or freedom of speech, even of a government official, it would be Unconstitutional. (This would certainly include prohibiting a person taking the oath of office from mentioning God, as this would constitute a religious test, which would violate the 3rd clause of Article 6 of the Constitution, which you quoted earlier, but I will quote again

Article 6 of the US Constitution, in its entirety:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.​