Can Muslims be Good American Citizens?
Buon giorno. I received this in my e-mail a while ago, and have decided to use it now. You may have seen it, or even had it forwarded to you because it's been around for a few years.
I've seen it (and its writer) attacked by liberals, progressives, anti-theists and others that are politically correct, intellectually castrated; these types dodge important dialogue by labeling someone as a "hater" or "racist" (I railed on "racism" in my previous post). You know the type: Peace, touchie-feely love and grooviness for all — unless you believe differently than their nebulous blather requires. Then their idea of "tolerance" shows its true ugly self, that we have to tolerate all views except Judeo-Christian and/or Conservative values. But I digress. Again. Yes, I like to digress on occasion.
Here is a version of the piece that I received. Afterward, I will have some of my typically insightful comments for your enlightenment.
Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? Consider this:
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer 5 times a day.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34). Can you see a court case brewing here?
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called Love in the Quran's 99 excellent names. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Therefore after much study and deliberation perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country. Pass it on. The war is bigger than we know.
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer 5 times a day.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34). Can you see a court case brewing here?
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called Love in the Quran's 99 excellent names. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic. Therefore after much study and deliberation perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country. Pass it on. The war is bigger than we know.
The above was written before plans were made to build a monument to evil — oops, I mean, a mosque — near Ground Zero.
Some of the brain-dead feebs tried to make out that this criticism can apply to almost anyone if they change a few words around. Yes, there was some concern back when John F. Kennedy was running for president, that a Roman Catholic would be an agent of the Vatican, but most people did not take those concerns very seriously. Also, to use the same criticisms against Jews, Christians and others are laughable.
Concerns about Muslim loyalty are not laughable. In fact, the concerns are reinforced.
I do not need to go into detail on the catastrophe of September 11, 2001 that finally brought the United States and many other nations into the war on terror and Islamic fascism. Watching Fox News today, there are competing protests both for and against building a mosque in New York City near Ground Zero. B. Hussein Obama put himself firmly on the fence by saying that yes, they have the right to do so, as long as they follow applicable laws. He did not express any of the outrage of the majority of Americans, and especially New Yorkers, at such an insensitive concept. (But what do you expect? I joined the chorus almost two years ago that Obummer is probably a closet Muslim.)
By the way, I've heard uneducated, biased cafones pretend that the 9-11 attacks are a fault of religion itself. No, it's the fault of evil men hijacking a bad religion based on a tribal moon god for their own personal ends.
Proponents of the mosque are saying that it will help bring "peace and healing". Yeah, sure, Mohammed. It was not the Southern Baptist Convention, the Knights of Columbus, the Baha'i, the New Agers or what have you that attacked America. It was Muslim terrorists, capice? So putting a mosque there is a middle finger waved in the face of the 9-11 victims, America and all freedom-loving people. That's right, I said it! Many people are angry about this.
"But Uncle Bob, most Muslims are peace-loving people. The others are scumbags."
I keep hearing about the so-called religion of peace. What I do not hear about are groups of Muslims that protest the terrorists. Maybe a few here and there, but nothing widespread. Compare this to true Christians who do not tolerate evil done in the name of Christ. We speak out against the murders of abortionists, the Westboro Baptist Church stronzos, etc. Meanwhile, the goofball Muslim that is spearheading the building of the Mosque is a radical. "Peace and healing", my joyfully bouncing buttocks!
I've shown you that America is founded on Christian principles. (Comments that want to argue that point again will be deleted; I'm tired of leftists that want to rewrite history.) Our Judeo-Christian foundation is one reason that we are constantly offering help and support to other nations, even those that hate us, when they have a disaster. How often do Muslims do anything for anybody outside their own circles? Whatever they do, it's nowhere near as much as the good that Christians have been doing for centuries.
The differences between Christianity and Islam are huge. (So often, the disasters are brought on by Muslims; they kill their own. If I was a "moderate" Muslim, I'd be scared silly of the radicals who would want to kill me and mine because our religion does not meet their "standards"!) We offer the Gospel, they spread it by the sword: Convert or die. Remember the Crusades? Yes, people calling themselves Christian did some bad stuff, but guess what? One purpose was to stop the flood of Mohammedan "conversions", to liberate people from oppression. That's right, Islam had its own Crusade going centuries before the Christians got involved.
So back to my main points: Muslims have questionable loyalty at best, theirs is not a religion of peace, and building a
Addendum: Check this out!
Christians, keep on spreading the truth and doing good for people. Muslims, if you want to learn more about the differences between your religion and Christianity, and how to come out of Islam into a knowledge of the truth, click here.
Comments
With all due respect, has it occurred to you that your call to dehumanize and eradicate a religious minority bears a passing resemblance (to say the least) to the Nazi party you unfavorably compare them to?
Interesting; when I Googled "Muslims protesting terrorism", I found these links:
http://www.marcgopin.com/?p=864
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article924678.ece
http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/fullstories/June2007_NOterrorism.html
Also, Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who proposed the Not-Really-A-Mosque that's Not-Really-At-Ground-Zero has condemned the 9/11 attacks...perhaps not strongly enough for your taste?
So I'm not quite clear on what you want from these people who you don't know. Is there anything a Muslim could do to receive your approval (or even tolerance) short of converting to Christianity?
Muslims that oppose terrorism are not very outspoken in general. You got some hits on an Internet search. Good. Where are the leaders spearheading a movement? They would certainly make the news.
Did you visit any of my supporting links?
Do they? In the post above, you question the patriotic loyalty of all Muslims (most of whom have never killed anyone) and call a community center being built by and for people who have never killed anyone a "monument to evil". This strikes me as an odd sort of "tolerance".
Muslims that oppose terrorism are not very outspoken in general. You got some hits on an Internet search. Good. Where are the leaders spearheading a movement? They would certainly make the news.
Would they? News channels in general are pretty biased in the stories they cover: they lean towards the most eye-catching, scandalous, or sexy stories available, not what stories would be most informative to the viewer. Muslims actively opposing terrorism is interesting and informative, but it's not eye-catching news; not when there are politician sex scandals or celebrity feuds to cover. And if cable news channels are actively encouraging anti-Muslim sentiment in order to build momentum for a political party or agenda, they would actively avoid such stories.
So the question is, is your problem with Muslims for insufficiently opposing terrorism, or with the news, for giving insufficient coverage to Muslims who oppose terrorism? It seems silly to blame the former for the latter.
Did you visit any of my supporting links?
Briefly. But, just as I base my opinion on Christianity on Christians, rather than on anti-theistic atheists' opinions of Christianity, I feel the best source for information about Islam is Muslims, not Christians with a noticeable anti-Muslim bias.
You and I both know that atheists can misunderstand or twist scriptures and doctrines in order to make a Strawman version of Christianity that few, if any, Christians will recognize. So I'm skeptical of views of Islam coming from those who oppose it.
Seventy percent of the American public are offended. Their feelings don't matter, do they? We have to perpetuate the "Muslims are victims" view and be politically correct.
No, I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that I am skeptical of arguments coming from people with obvious biases, because I know from experience how misleading they should be.
And your displeasure with your links being given only a "cursory glance" seems odd, given the swiftness with which you brushed of the links I posted in response to your question about Muslims protesting terrorism.
So, you won't be interested in this one, either.
That seems to be an opinion piece. The writer's race makes it no more interesting or credible to me than any other such essay.
Seventy percent of the American public are offended. Their feelings don't matter, do they?
What does that even mean? Their feelings "matter" to them, and I'm not here to say that those feelings are necessarily wrong or invalid. However, I do question whether those feelings are reasonable, properly informed, and free of bias. And, most of all, what those feelings have to do with what a private organization builds on its privately owned property.
I am as opposed to fundamentalism and violence against innocents as anyone else. But I do not see the sense in blaming members of a religion for the acts committed by extremists of that religion, or in demanding that members of a religion self-censor themselves in an implicit admission of responsibility for the acts of extremists.
We have to perpetuate the "Muslims are victims" view and be politically correct.
I'm not interested in making anyone a "victim". If you'll recall, I'm the one arguing that these Muslims should exercise their freedoms in building this thing, rather than let themselves be bullied out of it.
It seems to me that the only one trying to perpetuate a view of anyone as a victim are those arguing that ordinary Americans are somehow being harmed or insulted by a building being put up by people who follow a religion that some evil men twisted and misused to justify a horrible act. I think that Americans are noble enough, and true enough to their national values, to allow their fellow citizens to go about their business, regardless of what evils may have been committed by those who claim to share their faith.
Sorry if I was unclear earlier, Nicky, but I don't like Islam. Just like I don't like Christianity or Judaism. I don't like the major theistic religions, I see them as silly and potentially dangerous.
However, that dislike does not translate into a dislike of any individuals who follow that religion. And it certainly does not lead me to endorse people being singled out for discrimination or abuse based on their adherence to any of these religions.
I dislike bigotry. I dislike violence against the innocent. I dislike attempts to limit the freedoms of private citizens. I will object to anyone trying to do any of the above, even if they are acting on religious conviction. However, I will not blame someone for doing any of these things unless they have actually done them, regardless of whether such an act is implied by their religion or its holy text. So what is written in the Koran, or what Islam allegedly preaches, is not nearly as important to me in judging Muslims as what those individuals say and do and believe. A line of text in a "holy" book does not reveal what is in someone's heart or mind, and I will not act as if it does.