How Shariah ?Blasphemy? Laws are Being Imposed On Us
Pretty good breakdown of what we are up against,
Quote:
Part 7 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy.
Shariah blasphemy doctrine matters to free societies because of followers who seek to impose that doctrine in civilized countries.
The United States and its allies are accustomed to confronting external threats. Democracies are generally uncomfortable about facing internal threats. The Muslim Brotherhood and others are exploiting our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to demand tolerance of its medieval religious practices and to repress free speech where it gives offense to them. In this sense, they are effectively imposing shariah blasphemy laws in America, Canada, Europe, Australia and elsewhere.
Shariah is fundamentally about power – the enforcement of a body of law, not faith. Therefore it is a political force, not a religious one. In the words of Muslim Brotherhood theoretician Sayyid Qutb, “Whenever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and control the political authority so that it may establish the divine system on earth. . . .”
Part 6 of this series examined how followers of shariah denounce as “slander” anything that offends them. Similarly, shariah proponents apply Islamic blasphemy laws as part of their civilization jihad to force those with whom they disagree to submit to their will.
For non-believers (including modern Muslims), the corollary to the Islamic rule against disclosing anything disadvantageous to Islam is shariah’s prohibition against blasphemy. This requires that infidels refrain from engaging in discussions about Islam that extend beyond what is permitted of them or would give offense to Muslims.
Such suppression of information is invaluable to the shariah enterprise because a straightforward reading of Islamic doctrine lends credence to claims by its adherents to be in the mainstream and orthodox. The current approach enshrined in U.S. national intelligence and security policy, which conforms to shariah blasphemy dictates, has the effect of removing these facts from discovery.
This submission to shariah is evident in the failure of US government agencies accurately to describe the enemy and his threat doctrine described elsewhere in the Team B report. It is also reflected in other, less obvious but highly insidious ways. These include gaps in the professional education of senior civilian and military personnel and in possible biases based on such failures inherent in the promotion process for federal employees across the governmental bureaucracy.
Such policies are systematically corroding the US government’s situational awareness by effectively imposing – via implicit or explicit gag orders – a system of self-censorship. The practical effect is that the truth about shariah and its adherents is suppressed, as is informed deliberation about the appropriate responses to the threats it poses. This amounts to a collective act of submission to shariah by the national leadership of the US that emboldens our enemies even as it disables our defenses against them.
By contrast to current US government policy about the shariah threat that avoids facts as unwanted disclosures, an effective analytic process could be tailored specifically to answer questions concerning the enemy’s doctrine by direct reference to those same facts. There can be no successful intelligence analysis – or appropriate national security strategy – where the underlying facts are barred.
We also see submission to shariah blasphemy dikitats in civil society, outside the government and military.
On campuses across the country, Muslim Brotherhood fronts like the Muslim Students Association (MSA) promotes aggressive political influence and intimidation operations – not merely to discredit Israel and promote the Muslim Palestinian cause as many MSA chapters do, but to serve as focal points for efforts to impose shariah blasphemy rules or otherwise control speech.
To this end, MSA members frequently engage in disruptive actions aimed at preventing speakers from exposing students to information about shariah Islam, jihad and their targets that would be deemed “offensive” or otherwise contrary to the ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It's amazing how christians see the danger in other people's religions being forced on them but see no problem with the christian religion being forced on others
Ok, I'll take your word for it.. What would John Adams, Ben Franklin or George Washington know about the founding of our country?
Quote:
Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.
Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer?s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.
Saying they were Christian at that time is like saying the breathed.
The fundamentals of Christianity are the basics for living your life in accordance with others, no special tribute should be given to them. Your quotes represent three people, one of which was as generalized as possible. They could have wrote God into everything, the didn't.
This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:
"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".
In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'
It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.
It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.
When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.
yup, your right.. pretty cut and dry.. (pardon the pun)
Shariah sounds much better than the Cristian principles that this country was founded upon..
I'm not a Cristian, fwiw..
Don't mistake the Christian religion for the freakin' lousy behavior of the Church over the centuries.
Also, you might consider cutting Christianity a little slack...it HAS reconciled itself with other religions in the last couple hundred years, after all.
Islam has yet to do that.
And if you think shari'a sounds good, you probably haven't read the koran too closely. Or do you think capitalism is an abomination, too?
Linear Mode
