Western values are confused

[OldSchool2]

from the American Spectator:

"The White House’s decision to avoid the Paris rally against last week’s jihadist killings conforms to its relaxed attitude toward radical Islam ... Eric Holder, who was in Paris at the time, didn’t even show up for it, which is also fitting, since he has never been able to bring himself to consider radical Islam a motive for terrorism.

"The West is clearly not marching as one against the jihadists. Its 'values' are as confused as ever. Contrary to their defiant rhetoric in the wake of the attacks, many Western leaders are willing to compromise free speech in order to appease radical Islam. The same pols who now identify with the editors of Charlie Hebdo have long favored suppressing criticism of Islam far tamer than anything found in its pages...."

http://spectator.org/articles/61470/divided-west

"The divided West reserves its protective feelings not for its own historic religion but for that of its traditional adversary. The mark of enlightenment is to forbid truth-telling about Islam while celebrating fashionable lies about Christianity. Many of the leaders who showed up at the Paris rally have no hesitation in calling for the 'reform' of 'fundamentalist' Christianity but wouldn’t dare make a similar call for reforming Islam....

"The total silence from the Western intellectual class about Islam’s obvious dangers explains why its jihadists are targeting cartoonists. They are the only ones left still telling the truth about those dangers. The slain editor of Charlie Hebdo said that he would rather die on his feet than live on his knees. His sudden champions quote this line approvingly but have no intention of following it. They won’t fall to their knees before Jesus Christ but they will fall to them before the jihadists of Islam. Out of a fear they rename enlightenment, they are determined to practice self-censorship, thereby delaying any hope of real change in the Islamic world."

[Tinky]

Until our government can call Islam what it is, a terrorist ideology, we can never hope to win against it. 

[Qnts2]

Anyone in a 'leadership' position or anyone who has a soapbox to speak from which influences people, is responsible for what they instigate.  

 

When Obama was demonizing conservatives, I thought he was absolutely wrong. Not that he needed to be more conservative (which I think he does), but because, as a President, to speak against lawfull American citizens is wrong and dangerous. A President can disagree with an opinion, but not villify a group of people. If he does villify a people, his supporters feel a license to act negatively in some way against that people. That is probably why the Dept of Taxes had no real qualms about withholding the non-profit status of Christian right organizations. If Obama can villify them, then others can act.  

 

If you believe that all Islamics are terrorists, I have to disagree. We are now talking people and in any group of people which is large enough, there will be those who are law abiding citizens and some others who are crooks or violent. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If Islam is labeled a terrorist religion, those Muslims who are not terrorists will be treated poorly by those who will react to the label. Innocent Muslims are already feeling persecution in the U.S. because some people who are upset with the terrorist jihad are taking it out on innocent Muslims. So, any President has to be careful of his words, so they do not incite people to persecute innocent people who happen to be a part of the villified group.

 

If you want examples of this in action, when Israel was defending itself against the Palestinian attacks, people were villifying Israel, and the number of attacks on Jewish people in various countries around the world went up.

[OldSchool2]

If you believe that all Islamics are terrorists, I have to disagree. We are now talking people and in any group of people which is large enough, there will be those who are law abiding citizens and some others who are crooks or violent. Not all Muslims are terrorists....

Not all Muslims are jihadists; only able-bodied males are required to wage (the lesser) jihad, which has been defined as the constant state of tension between Islam and the rest of the non-Islamic world.

Not all Muslims are jihadists, but many can financially contribute to their cause via bogus charities, e.g., the Holy Land Foundation, or support their now fatherless families.

And without this support, jihad would be practically impossible.

[OakWood]

Anyone in a 'leadership' position or anyone who has a soapbox to speak from which influences people, is responsible for what they instigate.  

 

When Obama was demonizing conservatives, I thought he was absolutely wrong. Not that he needed to be more conservative (which I think he does), but because, as a President, to speak against lawfull American citizens is wrong and dangerous. A President can disagree with an opinion, but not villify a group of people. If he does villify a people, his supporters feel a license to act negatively in some way against that people. That is probably why the Dept of Taxes had no real qualms about withholding the non-profit status of Christian right organizations. If Obama can villify them, then others can act.  

 

If you believe that all Islamics are terrorists, I have to disagree. We are now talking people and in any group of people which is large enough, there will be those who are law abiding citizens and some others who are crooks or violent. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If Islam is labeled a terrorist religion, those Muslims who are not terrorists will be treated poorly by those who will react to the label. Innocent Muslims are already feeling persecution in the U.S. because some people who are upset with the terrorist jihad are taking it out on innocent Muslims. So, any President has to be careful of his words, so they do not incite people to persecute innocent people who happen to be a part of the villified group.

 

If you want examples of this in action, when Israel was defending itself against the Palestinian attacks, people were villifying Israel, and the number of attacks on Jewish people in various countries around the world went up.

 

So are you saying that we should lie about Islam just to protect innocent Muslims? Did we lie about Nazism to protect innocent Germans? I'm sorry but it's that line of thinking that is going to make slaves of us all.

Perhaps if these so-called 'innocent' Muslims stood up and spoke out against jihadists then you might have a point but all they seem to do is mumble a few words of disapproval then skulk off back to their mosques and do nothing.

By the way, can you give me ONE incident where people have taken it out on innocent Muslims? I've heard of a few but they all turned out be hoaxes where Muslims had actually faked acts of persecution. There was an incident where a mosque was burned down and the Muslims claimed that they were the victims of a hate campaign. It turned out that they committed the arson themselves. There was another incident in Britain where a Muslim girl was murdered and the family faked 'hate mail' which they gave to the police. It turned out that the girl was murdered by her own father in a honour killing.

If Muslims really want to escape any future persecution then they can always abandon their false faith and turn to Christ. It's in their own interests to do so anyway because the gift of salvation is the most important thing there is. If they renounce their religion (and mean it) then nobody will touch them (apart from other crazed Muslim fanatics). Islam is just pure evil and the sooner Muslims turn their back on it forever, the better.

[Qnts2]

 

Anyone in a 'leadership' position or anyone who has a soapbox to speak from which influences people, is responsible for what they instigate.  

 

When Obama was demonizing conservatives, I thought he was absolutely wrong. Not that he needed to be more conservative (which I think he does), but because, as a President, to speak against lawfull American citizens is wrong and dangerous. A President can disagree with an opinion, but not villify a group of people. If he does villify a people, his supporters feel a license to act negatively in some way against that people. That is probably why the Dept of Taxes had no real qualms about withholding the non-profit status of Christian right organizations. If Obama can villify them, then others can act.  

 

If you believe that all Islamics are terrorists, I have to disagree. We are now talking people and in any group of people which is large enough, there will be those who are law abiding citizens and some others who are crooks or violent. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If Islam is labeled a terrorist religion, those Muslims who are not terrorists will be treated poorly by those who will react to the label. Innocent Muslims are already feeling persecution in the U.S. because some people who are upset with the terrorist jihad are taking it out on innocent Muslims. So, any President has to be careful of his words, so they do not incite people to persecute innocent people who happen to be a part of the villified group.

 

If you want examples of this in action, when Israel was defending itself against the Palestinian attacks, people were villifying Israel, and the number of attacks on Jewish people in various countries around the world went up.

 

So are you saying that we should lie about Islam just to protect innocent Muslims? Did we lie about Nazism to protect innocent Germans? I'm sorry but it's that line of thinking that is going to make slaves of us all.

Perhaps if these so-called 'innocent' Muslims stood up and spoke out against jihadists then you might have a point but all they seem to do is mumble a few words of disapproval then skulk off back to their mosques and do nothing.

By the way, can you give me ONE incident where people have taken it out on innocent Muslims? I've heard of a few but they all turned out be hoaxes where Muslims had actually faked acts of persecution. There was an incident where a mosque was burned down and the Muslims claimed that they were the victims of a hate campaign. It turned out that they committed the arson themselves. There was another incident in Britain where a Muslim girl was murdered and the family faked 'hate mail' which they gave to the police. It turned out that the girl was murdered by her own father in a honour killing.

If Muslims really want to escape any future persecution then they can always abandon their false faith and turn to Christ. It's in their own interests to do so anyway because the gift of salvation is the most important thing there is. If they renounce their religion (and mean it) then nobody will touch them (apart from other crazed Muslim fanatics). Islam is just pure evil and the sooner Muslims turn their back on it forever, the better.

 

 

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#United_States_of_America

 

Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian American Muslim owner of a nail salon in Locust Valley, New York, was robbed, beaten, and called a "terrorist" in September 2007 in what authorities call a bias crime.^[214] Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpetrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the salon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to "get out of town" and that her kind were not "welcomed" in the area. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which she was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said.^[214]

On August 25, 2010, a New York taxi driver was stabbed after a passenger asked if he was Muslim.^[215]

 

 

In the U.S., people have a right to practice any religion, as long as their practice does not violate the laws. We have an amendment in the constitution which says that the government can not establish a religion.

 

No person should ever have to abandon their religion to avoid persecution. In the Middle ages, Jewish people were forced to convert to Catholicism or be forced out of the homes and jobs. They had to convert to avoid persecution. It didn't work so well. A lot of Jewish people ended up dead in the follow on inquisitions. Forced conversions are simply a ugly type of persecution.  

 

If a Muslim is innocent, there should be no persecution. If they are not innocent, they have violated the laws of the country, they should be prosecuted.

 

As far as Germans, Germans who lived in the U.S. during the war with the Nazis were persecuted. People who were Japanese during the war with Japan were rounded up and put in camps. So, yes, people who were innocent have been persecuted.

 

If the leaders condemn all of Islam as terrorist, they risk the lives of Muslims who are not terrorists. If there are Muslims who are not terrorists, then you can not make a blanket statement. The President has a duty to protect the citizens of the U.S. Obama hasn't done very good at that but ideally, that protection includes not inciting persecution or riots. That means words must be carefully spoken. The general public includes all kinds of people, and some can and will react badly.

[OakWood]

 

 

Anyone in a 'leadership' position or anyone who has a soapbox to speak from which influences people, is responsible for what they instigate.  

 

When Obama was demonizing conservatives, I thought he was absolutely wrong. Not that he needed to be more conservative (which I think he does), but because, as a President, to speak against lawfull American citizens is wrong and dangerous. A President can disagree with an opinion, but not villify a group of people. If he does villify a people, his supporters feel a license to act negatively in some way against that people. That is probably why the Dept of Taxes had no real qualms about withholding the non-profit status of Christian right organizations. If Obama can villify them, then others can act.  

 

If you believe that all Islamics are terrorists, I have to disagree. We are now talking people and in any group of people which is large enough, there will be those who are law abiding citizens and some others who are crooks or violent. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If Islam is labeled a terrorist religion, those Muslims who are not terrorists will be treated poorly by those who will react to the label. Innocent Muslims are already feeling persecution in the U.S. because some people who are upset with the terrorist jihad are taking it out on innocent Muslims. So, any President has to be careful of his words, so they do not incite people to persecute innocent people who happen to be a part of the villified group.

 

If you want examples of this in action, when Israel was defending itself against the Palestinian attacks, people were villifying Israel, and the number of attacks on Jewish people in various countries around the world went up.

 

So are you saying that we should lie about Islam just to protect innocent Muslims? Did we lie about Nazism to protect innocent Germans? I'm sorry but it's that line of thinking that is going to make slaves of us all.

Perhaps if these so-called 'innocent' Muslims stood up and spoke out against jihadists then you might have a point but all they seem to do is mumble a few words of disapproval then skulk off back to their mosques and do nothing.

By the way, can you give me ONE incident where people have taken it out on innocent Muslims? I've heard of a few but they all turned out be hoaxes where Muslims had actually faked acts of persecution. There was an incident where a mosque was burned down and the Muslims claimed that they were the victims of a hate campaign. It turned out that they committed the arson themselves. There was another incident in Britain where a Muslim girl was murdered and the family faked 'hate mail' which they gave to the police. It turned out that the girl was murdered by her own father in a honour killing.

If Muslims really want to escape any future persecution then they can always abandon their false faith and turn to Christ. It's in their own interests to do so anyway because the gift of salvation is the most important thing there is. If they renounce their religion (and mean it) then nobody will touch them (apart from other crazed Muslim fanatics). Islam is just pure evil and the sooner Muslims turn their back on it forever, the better.

 

 

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#United_States_of_America

 

Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian American Muslim owner of a nail salon in Locust Valley, New York, was robbed, beaten, and called a "terrorist" in September 2007 in what authorities call a bias crime.^[214] Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpetrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the salon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to "get out of town" and that her kind were not "welcomed" in the area. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which she was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said.^[214]

On August 25, 2010, a New York taxi driver was stabbed after a passenger asked if he was Muslim.^[215]

 

 

In the U.S., people have a right to practice any religion, as long as their practice does not violate the laws. We have an amendment in the constitution which says that the government can not establish a religion.

 

No person should ever have to abandon their religion to avoid persecution. In the Middle ages, Jewish people were forced to convert to Catholicism or be forced out of the homes and jobs. They had to convert to avoid persecution. It didn't work so well. A lot of Jewish people ended up dead in the follow on inquisitions. Forced conversions are simply a ugly type of persecution.  

 

If a Muslim is innocent, there should be no persecution. If they are not innocent, they have violated the laws of the country, they should be prosecuted.

 

As far as Germans, Germans who lived in the U.S. during the war with the Nazis were persecuted. People who were Japanese during the war with Japan were rounded up and put in camps. So, yes, people who were innocent have been persecuted.

 

If the leaders condemn all of Islam as terrorist, they risk the lives of Muslims who are not terrorists. If there are Muslims who are not terrorists, then you can not make a blanket statement. The President has a duty to protect the citizens of the U.S. Obama hasn't done very good at that but ideally, that protection includes not inciting persecution or riots. That means words must be carefully spoken. The general public includes all kinds of people, and some can and will react badly.

 

 

Nobody has to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because for starters they are not, but they do have to declare that Islam is a violent religion.

Now you say that nobody should be persecuted for their religion. I agree, but tell that to all the Christians in Iraq and Syria who are being persecuted as we speak.

 

So now we have a moral dilemma. We can either:

Pretend that Islam is peaceful thus protecting innocent Muslims from possible victimisation, but eventually sending everything we cherish straight into totalitarianism, misery and slavery, as we are all persecuted under Sharia Law.

or we can:

Tell the truth about Islam and start to fight back against it and protect the lives of ourselves, the lives of others around the World, and protect the freedom of future generations.

The moral thing to do is the latter. No good ever comes from lying and pretending, even with the best of intentions.

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#United_States_of_America

 

Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian American Muslim owner of a nail salon in Locust Valley, New York, was robbed, beaten, and called a "terrorist" in September 2007 in what authorities call a bias crime.^[214] Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpetrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the salon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to "get out of town" and that her kind were not "welcomed" in the area. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which she was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said.^[214]

On August 25, 2010, a New York taxi driver was stabbed after a passenger asked if he was Muslim.^[215]

 

 

In the U.S., people have a right to practice any religion, as long as their practice does not violate the laws. We have an amendment in the constitution which says that the government can not establish a religion.

 

No person should ever have to abandon their religion to avoid persecution. In the Middle ages, Jewish people were forced to convert to Catholicism or be forced out of the homes and jobs. They had to convert to avoid persecution. It didn't work so well. A lot of Jewish people ended up dead in the follow on inquisitions. Forced conversions are simply a ugly type of persecution.  

 

If a Muslim is innocent, there should be no persecution. If they are not innocent, they have violated the laws of the country, they should be prosecuted.

 

As far as Germans, Germans who lived in the U.S. during the war with the Nazis were persecuted. People who were Japanese during the war with Japan were rounded up and put in camps. So, yes, people who were innocent have been persecuted.

 

If the leaders condemn all of Islam as terrorist, they risk the lives of Muslims who are not terrorists. If there are Muslims who are not terrorists, then you can not make a blanket statement. The President has a duty to protect the citizens of the U.S. Obama hasn't done very good at that but ideally, that protection includes not inciting persecution or riots. That means words must be carefully spoken. The general public includes all kinds of people, and some can and will react badly.

 

 

Nobody has to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because for starters they are not, but they do have to declare that Islam is a violent religion.

Now you say that nobody should be persecuted for their religion. I agree, but tell that to all the Christians in Iraq and Syria who are being persecuted as we speak.

 

So now we have a moral dilemma. We can either:

Pretend that Islam is peaceful thus protecting innocent Muslims from possible victimisation, but eventually sending everything we cherish straight into totalitarianism, misery and slavery, as we are all persecuted under Sharia Law.

or we can:

Tell the truth about Islam and start to fight back against it and protect the lives of ourselves, the lives of others around the World, and protect the freedom of future generations.

The moral thing to do is the latter. No good ever comes from lying and pretending, even with the best of intentions.

 

 

It is just as much an obligation morally, to protect innocent Muslims as it is to protect innocent Christians and to protect future generations. 

 

If Jews and Christians are being persecuted in Iraq and Syria, then Iraq and Syria have bad laws. Oh wait. Iraq and Syria are fighting ISIS. We should be ready to get the Jews and Christians out of Iraq. (Most Jewish people have already left Iraq). And while we are at it, get any Muslims who are being persecuted by ISIS out of Iraq too. Or we can fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

 

The truth is, there are too many fights to fight around the world. No country is capable of fighting them all. Just as no individual or group or even country can solve the problem of people lacking food. These types of things will exist, until Jesus returns.

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

 

From wiki:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims#United_States_of_America

 

Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian American Muslim owner of a nail salon in Locust Valley, New York, was robbed, beaten, and called a "terrorist" in September 2007 in what authorities call a bias crime.^[214] Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpetrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the salon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to "get out of town" and that her kind were not "welcomed" in the area. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which she was called a "terrorist" and told to "get out of town," friends and family said.^[214]

On August 25, 2010, a New York taxi driver was stabbed after a passenger asked if he was Muslim.^[215]

 

 

In the U.S., people have a right to practice any religion, as long as their practice does not violate the laws. We have an amendment in the constitution which says that the government can not establish a religion.

 

No person should ever have to abandon their religion to avoid persecution. In the Middle ages, Jewish people were forced to convert to Catholicism or be forced out of the homes and jobs. They had to convert to avoid persecution. It didn't work so well. A lot of Jewish people ended up dead in the follow on inquisitions. Forced conversions are simply a ugly type of persecution.  

 

If a Muslim is innocent, there should be no persecution. If they are not innocent, they have violated the laws of the country, they should be prosecuted.

 

As far as Germans, Germans who lived in the U.S. during the war with the Nazis were persecuted. People who were Japanese during the war with Japan were rounded up and put in camps. So, yes, people who were innocent have been persecuted.

 

If the leaders condemn all of Islam as terrorist, they risk the lives of Muslims who are not terrorists. If there are Muslims who are not terrorists, then you can not make a blanket statement. The President has a duty to protect the citizens of the U.S. Obama hasn't done very good at that but ideally, that protection includes not inciting persecution or riots. That means words must be carefully spoken. The general public includes all kinds of people, and some can and will react badly.

 

 

Nobody has to claim that all Muslims are terrorists because for starters they are not, but they do have to declare that Islam is a violent religion.

Now you say that nobody should be persecuted for their religion. I agree, but tell that to all the Christians in Iraq and Syria who are being persecuted as we speak.

 

So now we have a moral dilemma. We can either:

Pretend that Islam is peaceful thus protecting innocent Muslims from possible victimisation, but eventually sending everything we cherish straight into totalitarianism, misery and slavery, as we are all persecuted under Sharia Law.

or we can:

Tell the truth about Islam and start to fight back against it and protect the lives of ourselves, the lives of others around the World, and protect the freedom of future generations.

The moral thing to do is the latter. No good ever comes from lying and pretending, even with the best of intentions.

 

 

It is just as much an obligation morally, to protect innocent Muslims as it is to protect innocent Christians and to protect future generations. 

 

If Jews and Christians are being persecuted in Iraq and Syria, then Iraq and Syria have bad laws. Oh wait. Iraq and Syria are fighting ISIS. We should be ready to get the Jews and Christians out of Iraq. (Most Jewish people have already left Iraq). And while we are at it, get any Muslims who are being persecuted by ISIS out of Iraq too. Or we can fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

 

The truth is, there are too many fights to fight around the world. No country is capable of fighting them all. Just as no individual or group or even country can solve the problem of people lacking food. These types of things will exist, until Jesus returns.

 

 

It's not about protecting or not protecting Muslims. If we can't get the truth out because we're worried about a few Muslims then the enemy has won. That's like being in World War 2 and saying we mustn't speak ill of Nazism in case somebody takes it out on a few Germans, or saying Hitler might take it out on more Jews if we start telling the truth about the Nazis.

What's better? To protect a few or protect the many?

So we're meant to remain silent about Islam, pretend that it's not a violent religion at all, let them take over the World, let them persecute more people, just because one or two Muslims might get picked on by a few idiots. That's just not the right thing to do at all. It's like allowing a hundred innocent children to die in order to protect one child!

That's the argument that those who enable terrorism use. "Keep silent about Islam and don't do anything to offend them in case they take it out on a few innocent people."

That's what Muslims are trying to do, they're trying to silence free speech - and they're winning because cowardly politicians are allowing them to do so.

It's the same with the people who are blaming Charlie Hebdo for criticising Islam. They want people to stop criticising Islam so that there are no more terrorist attacks. They're blaming the violence on the victims and not the perpetrators.That's the ideological equivalent of saying "her skirt was too short."

It's time we spoke out against Islam because if we don't there will come a time when we can't speak out ever again. I know that God's going to put this mess right but that might be sometime in the distant future and it's still a Christian duty to speak out against evil. If we can't do that then I don't believe that we deserve God to come and help us.

[OldSchool2]

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,166 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-biased offenses showed:

◾59.7 percent were anti-Jewish.

◾12.8 percent were anti-Islamic.

◾7.6 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.

◾6.8 percent were anti-Catholic.

◾2.9 percent were anti-Protestant.

◾1.0 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

◾9.2 percent were anti-other (unspecified) religion.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/incidentsandoffenses_final