Another question that would have lengthened the title is, is Islam a religion? In a discussion about whether the first amendment allows for the free exercise of Islam, one must consider the definition of free exercise and the definition of religion. It is a legitimate question to ask whether Islam itself should even be considered a religion. I don’t think that “some of the founding fathers thought it was one” is enough evidence that it is. They didn’t write enough about Islam to give me confidence that they knew what it was about. Islam wasn’t a threat to them either in the world in which they lived. It is now, for sure.
But for Muslims this word, religion, does not have the same connotation as the word religion has for Christians, or even had for medieval Christians. . . . For Muslims, Islam is not merely a system of belief and worship, a compartment of life, so to speak, distinct from other compartments which are the concern of nonreligious authorities administering nonreligious laws; it is the whole of life, and its rules include civil, criminal, and even what we would call constitutional law. . . the semisacred early history of the Islamic state, which constitutes the core of memory, of self-awareness, of Muslims everywhere, tell a story of swift and uninterrupted advance in which the leaders of false and superseded religions were overwhelmed and the way was prepared for the eventual triumph of the Muslim faith and of Muslim arms.
The literal meaning of the Arabic word “jihad” is striving, and its common use derives from the Koranic phrase “striving in the path of God.” Some Muslims, particularly in modern times, have interpreted the duty of jihad in a spiritual and moral sense. The more common interpretation, and that of the overwhelming majority of the classical jurists and commentators, presents jihad as armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates. Unlike “crusade,” it has retained its religious and military connotation into modern times. . . . In his declaration of 1998, Osama bin Laden specifically invokes this rule: “For more than seven years the United States is occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples.” In view of this, “to kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who can, in any country where this is possible, until the Aqsa mosque and the Haram mosque are freed from their grip, and until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam, incapable of threatening any Muslim.”
You can find this teaching in the Quran. It is the literal teaching of Islam. Freedom of religion cannot coexist with a professing “religion” that has its goal the elimination and subjugation of all other religions through violent, militant means. Some may interpret “jihad” in an allegorical or spiritualized fashion against the plain meaning of Islam, but that does not mean that anyone should assume their corruption of the literal and historic meaning. You can read the writings directly from the Quran about jihad that belie the modernistic or even postmodernistic Islamic interpretation. To support a decision, one must not take the most convenient understanding, but the correct one.
A mantra repeated again and again is about the minority of jihadists and the majority of peace-loving Moslems. A recent National Review Online article challenges that. The author uses statistics to prove that assertion wrong. It is wrong and anyone, who just refused to hear-no-evil and see-no-evil, knows it.
The “good Moslem,” the peace-loving Moslem, is more upset with Donald Trump for saying Muslims can’t visit the United States than he is over the murdering of the people in San Bernadino. In this sense, the “good Moslems” should not focus on whether new Muslims can pass through the borders of the United States, but on the frightening behavior of their fellow adherents to Muslim doctrine. People in their right mind can see the contrast, the greater offense with societal shunning than the terrorism of their co-belligerents.
What you read right now is that Moslems all over the world are upset that Trump doesn’t want to let them come to the United States. Is anyone surprised that Moslems are upset about someone opposing Moslems? Really? What about the following headline? Moslems are upset they can’t come in, so we let them, and one of them blows up a thousand people! Will Moslems all over the world be opposing that? Will Moslem opposition even be a headline? Not at all. Let’s get some perspective here. The media is manipulating this because of their twisted worldview, to oppose Donald Trump for their preferred leftist candidate, and to create controversy.
Again, it’s not that I don’t want to live with Muslims. I would want them all around me so I could preach the gospel to them, but you’ve probably read at this point that the targets in San Bernadino were people like me, who might refute Islam. If you go to Syria or Iran or Iraq, you would expect to be killed for preaching the gospel. There is a place called the United States where the practice of preaching against false doctrine is still not to be threatened.
Saying that Islam is not a religion and that a primary goal of Islam is the annihilation of all those who will not believe Islam does not constitute hatred of Moslems. You can continue to evangelize them out of love without believing that Islam should be protected by the first amendment. You can treat Moslems as well as possible without either believing their teachings or supporting their freedom to exercise Islam in the United States. Not everything that calls itself a religion is welcome in the United States.
I have to say, I’m ashamed of our country right now with its reaction to these recent killings. The sun doesn’t go down upon my wrath, but I’m angry at the response. At one time, if someone killed Americans like this, we would not let it go. When Muslims killed the American ambassador in Libya, we did nothing. The Boston bombers. We did nothing. The Fort Hood killings. We do nothing. The killings in San Bernadino. We do nothing. And then we say we won’t have a religious test for people entering the United States because that is being a Third World Thug. I’m embarrassed and ashamed.
I’m also outraged at the lack of discernment here that has come from moral relativism and political correctness, and unwillingness to call something what it is. This is a problem with Islam. Dick Cheney, the president, who is cozy with Saudia Arabia:
I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. . . . . I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they were Puritans.
What a totally ignorant statement. The pilgrims came here because of religious persecution. The Puritans came and started a state church, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which persecuted Bible believers, Baptists. Dick Cheney either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he wants to make nice with Saudia Arabia, because of his money ties with them. All of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudia Arabia.
Cheney says banning Muslims goes against everything we stand for and believe in. The new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, says:
This is not conservatism. What was proposed [by Donald Trump] is not what this party stands for and more importantly, it is not what this country stands for. . . . Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces dying for this country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House, working every day to uphold and defend the Constitution. Some of our best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical Islamic terror are Muslims. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful, who believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy, individual rights.
If you read about the Iraq War in 2003, there was sabotage by Muslims in the American military that killed many, leading up to that war in Kuwait during the staging period. The media was pretty much silent about that. It happened again and again. Then you had the Fort Hood killing. I think it tends toward low morale, because you’re not sure whether you can trust someone. I’m sure some will vouch for those who served with honor, but I believe that overall it is a negative to have Muslims serving in the military, and I don’t believe it is an argument for a Muslim test for entering the country at this juncture. It’s just smart.
Cheney and Ryan do not understand religious freedom. The do not understand the first amendment. I’m afraid they either don’t understand Islam or they are too manipulated by Muslim oil money.
I believe that Trump's comments indicated an openness to tyranny on his part. Islam is a evil religion, but if the government is able to discriminate on the basis of religion we are rejecting both biblical Baptist doctrine and the Constitution. Furthermore, while the National Review article indicates that many Muslims have a problem, it also points out that in places like Lebanon, a Muslim majority nation, 100% of respondents have a negative view of ISIS. The USA can encourage Muslims to become theologically liberal and reject what the Koran says, but Trump's comments are more appropriate for a Third World thug and dictator than for someone who wants to be the president of a free people. Hillary might be better than him. If he were to win the Republican nomination – God forbid – I would vote third party, despite being in a swing state.
Hi Thomas,
I forgot that you were a millennial, because this paragraph was very millennial, and that fact had been lost on me. Do you recognize that my position is stronger than Trump's. I'm saying something stronger than Trump, so I'll await the name-calling: the Third world thug, who says we should allow in Muslims until we figure out what is going on. You say, that is Third World Thug language. Meanwhile, Muslims shoot and kill, blow up and kill, about every week, multiple people. You seem to be more sympathetic to the perpetrators than the victims. What Trump is saying is 100% reasonable. I include a bunch of material and you cull through it to find the chart that says some Muslims are against ISIS. You do know, don't you, that doesn't mean that they aren't happy when ISIS kills people. They just don't like ISIS, probably because they don't want a feudalistic society. But you cherry pick through that article to find something that supports your assertion and ignore the rest. I'm not going to say exactly what I think of that.
And then you show support to Hillary Clinton. Wow. Wow. Wow. I'd like to hear the reason why for that. Please tell me. Her husband the rapist. She the total feminist of all time. Wow. I think Ted Cruz would be better as President, but you can't hear that what Donald Trump is saying is right. I get that you don't trust him. He's not saying endearing things. You think it's being a Thug not to allow Muslims in the country. What about Nazis during WW2? Seriously, I want an answer to that. Would you allow Nazis during WW2 into the United States?
If you vote for a third party, you will be voting for Hillary, so what you are saying is that you want Hillary over Trump. I'm looking forward to that argument with real substance behind it, not just ripping on Trump.
Anyway, this isn't about Trump. I quoted him, because he's the only one saying things that make sense. The next terrorist attack, look in the mirror. It was opposition to what Trump is saying that may have caused it. The San Bernadino killers, if not allowed in, would not have been there to kill. There is nothing that would have stopped them in a policy different than what Trump is saying.
I would like argument against what I'm actually writing. Thomas can argue here for Hillary against Trump, but I want some argument against or for what I'm writing about.
I agree with what you are writing Pastor Brandenburg. This country has a document that states we have God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our leadership is infringing on those three by letting Muslims in. Read how Thomas Jefferson dealt with them in the early 1800's. "Jefferson's War" is a good book. Our founding fathers wanted to crush the Muslim way then.
I can't speak for Mr. Ross but it's absurd to compare Muslims in general in the current conflict with Nazis during World War 2 considering many of our allies in the war against bodies such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS are also Muslim.
Additionally its evident Muslims are not responsible for an abnormally large percentage of murders in the United States. If you wanted to be safer from murder, you are better off deporting the blacks and the Scotch-Irish.
Horace,
This is not a crime issue. Blacks are killing blacks for the most part in gangs. There isn't a basis to compare the two, that is, blacks and Muslims. Muslims have a book you can read, and a long, long track record. You don't see that? No one here has made a good argument for anything but absorbing more attacks and then immediately celebrating the first amendment, because we gave them the freedom to be here to commit that crime. If it is committed, look in the mirror.
I might note here that most victims of Islamist terrorism are other Muslims as well. So what is the difference exactly? Going about my everyday life its far more likely I'll be shot by some psychotic NEET or a gangster or my spouse then by a would be jihadist and the latter half of what you said can literally be applied word for word for the Second Amendment. Its also evident jihadists form an incredibly small percentage of the American Muslim population or else we'd be seeing some sort of a low-level guerrilla movement (at the least). If we are going to start deporting populations for having a slightly above-average risk of committing ideological violence then perhaps we should start with the Confederate flag-wavers who have a far longer and distinguished history of violence within the borders of the United States.
Paul,
Thanks. That book sounds good. I actually mentioned the barbary pirates in an earlier comment on either part one or part two, and I got crickets in return. People only want to think about what they want to support their point of view, which doesn't actually support it. Here's a book length support for what we're saying. I expect crickets again.
I freely acknowledge that 1) the wars against the Barbary Coast Pirates did happen and 2) that they were almost certainly justified. I just don't see their particular relevancy here-if anything it reinforces my side of the argument considering the Founders were more then happy to wage war against actual enemies of the United States without declaring Islam as a whole an enemy of the Republic.
Horace,
Your arguments are superficial. So confederate flag waivers are killing people? Do you have some evidence for that? Wow. So you don't see Islam as a threat? You don't believe that their beliefs are violent? You don't need very many to do a lot of damage. Again, you go with your statistical analysis, until you become a statistic.
I see the pro-Islam as un-American. America is for freedom. Islam is not. If there were a majority or even a large minority of Moslems, we wouldn't have religious freedom. This is the case everywhere, everywhere this takes place. You support that, I get it. And the fact that they'll only kill a few. We used to take down anyone who killed an American. Now we stand by and watch it happen. It's sad, really. I guess it will take you getting killed or someone you know and love, and you'll go to a statistic at that time that says that as many people are killed by snake handling Charismatics or something like that.
Confederate flag waivers don't have in their handbook that they are going to do jihad, in their founding materials, which is part of their worship.
Since you are using Islam as a predictor of jihadist violence, I am simply using Confederate flag-waving as a predictor of white supremacist violence. I don't think Islam in and of itself, as opposed to its reactionary and militant intepretations, are violent.
As far as I can see, the fact that intolerant variants of Islam are prevalent has more to do with local cultures and interpretations. To provide an example of what I'm saying, about a century and a half ago it would have been seen that most majority Roman Catholic countries were religiously intolerant and by your reasoning this would have justified both banning Catholic immigration. Yet now it is clear that most Roman Catholic countries in both Europe and Latin America offer considerable religious freedom. It has to be kept that in mind that Indonesia, the most populous majority Muslim country on the planet allows for considerable religious freedom-in fact I personally know a family who lived openly as missionaries there. As I've kept saying, I support all military and law enforcement actions against actual Islamists so I don't get where you are getting your nonsense about us "standing by and watching it happen". Considering your emotional language, I might wonder what you'd say to me if (God forbid) one of my loved ones were to be gunned down by some random psycho and I demanded why America's lax gun laws permitted some of the highest murder rates in the developed world-and this is a far more likelier scenario than said loved one being murdered by an Islamist.
Horace,
I don't have to predict Muslim violence. It's happening every week now. We can talk about what happened in the last week. You haven't answered that it is the original intent of the Quran, the actual interpretation, and then what was lived out in history, versus an allegorical, essentially liberal interpretation. You can say that's what the Quran means, but you haven't said how. Sure, people don't obey their authoritative document, but many are, and like I said, it only takes one. You have to go back to the sister of Islam, the state church of Roman Catholicism, which in our colonies did have a kind of control, but we rejected that. Have you seen Roman Catholics blowing things up in protest? No. Because that is not their belief system.
The gun situation is entirely different, that is, how someone gets murdered. That is a ridiculous argument about the beliefs of someone, who doesn't need a gun. He can use a box cutter and an airplane or a pipe bomb too. Who says your relative will be killed by a gun? It could easily be a bomb. If you could prove that people were killed because of gun laws, I would believe you, but this is not the subject at hand. When terrorists kill in a gun free zone, that actually argues for my position. But if your relatives were killed because they didn't have guns, that would also play into my position as well on guns, but the subject here is whether Islam as a religion should be allowed or whether it could assimilate.
According to this study in 2013 (http://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_in_2013.pdf), 37 Americans since 9/11 were killed in Muslim terrorist attacks-even if we add the victims of the San Bernardino shootings and some other recent incidents its still well under a 100 victims over a 14-year period. I'm pretty sure the original intent of the Koran was for violent jihad, but the reality is that most Muslims in the United States are not practicing that anymore than most Christians are demanding the death penalty for sodomy (as you advocated) on this blog or else we'd be seeing far more instances of Muslim terrorist violence with bodycounts well into the hundreds or the thousands. And Catholics have been perfectly willing to engage in terroristic violence in certain circumstances-look at the IRA or the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
The basis of the gun control argument (which I agree is somewhat off-topic) isn't that gun control would prevent all murders but would reduce them vastly by taking away the easiest mechanism of killing. Considering the United States has considerably higher murder rates than any other developed country, I think that's a reasonable thesis. Similarly, you aren't claiming that committing a religious cleansing of all Muslims would end all murder and violence in the United States but simply significantly reduce them.
Horace,
I'm saying that Islam and the United States are incompatible. They cannot assimilate and we now cannot protect ourselves from them. Your position, it seems, is to absorb their murders because they are at a lower rate than other causes of death. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. I would be against an IRA like sect or the French Catholics who killed 100,000 Protestants in one day, of course. I'm saying let them have their own land and their own people, that as they stand, they can't function here, because we don't have what it takes to keep track of their murderous ways. You are saying that they aren't murdering at a fast enough rate for that to be a problem.
Any Baptist would be horrified by your suggestion, initially. That was my reaction, and to a large extent it still is. There is an old military adage that states you should adopt "best practices" from some folks who have dealt with your particular problem before.
What modern nation has been dealing with the threat from radical Islamic extremism for a sustained period of time? That nation is Israel. Have they halted all Islamic immigration? I don't believe they have. What measures HAVE they taken which we might want to adopt ourselves? Of course, the political will in Israel is considerably more honest than ours is – they're not kidding themselves about the threat they face. This administration, in this country, is.
I must dash, but before we begin considering whether to halt all Islamic immigration, perhaps we ought to cast around for some "best practices" from some other folks who have been around this particular block a few times before. The radical Islamic threat to Israel is more real and more acute than ours, and I don't believe they have halted Islamic immigration. Whether OUR politicians have the will and fortitude to implement and enact some sensible and necessary security measures, which specifically target Muslims, in this politically correct culture is probably the real crux of the matter.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Your linked National Review article indicated that, for example, in Lebanon 100% of Muslims, in Israel 97% of Muslims, and in Jordan 94% of Muslims have a negative view of ISIS, while in Pakistan only 28% have an unfavorable view. Should we put together the 100% of Muslims in Lebanon that are negative about ISIS with the 62% that are favorable to ISIS in Pakistan and treat them all the same? Would the immigration of 10,000 Lebanese Muslims and Pakistani Muslims really constitute the same type of threat? Are all the Muslims in Lebanon not really Muslims? Do we get to say that?
Your article affirmed:
The "good Moslem," the peace-loving Moslem, is more upset with Donald Trump for saying Muslims can't visit the United States than he is over the murdering of the people in San Bernadino.
Do you have any sources for this? I would be interested in seeing the proof of this assertion, that peace-loving Muslims are more upset by Trump than by terrorist killers. If this assertion is really the case, and the assertions in the post about the number of Muslims that favor terrorism being c. 1/3 of them, with approximately 2.6 million Muslims in the USA, why don't we have terrorist attacks daily or hourly?
Tthe large majority of Muslims, at least in America, don't care what the Quran says, just like the large majority of Catholics don't care what the Pope or the Bible say; they just want to make money and be comfortable. Neither group should be deported because Popes in the past have advocated the violent overthrow of governments and Mohammed did so also. We also should not let in Muslims, members of the Irish Republican Army, or anyone else in favor of terrorism, but Trump has changed it from "let's not let in people who favor terrorism" (mainstream view, common sense) to "let's not have any Muslims in the country" (anti-liberty, anti-First Amendment, non-Baptist view).
Your article stated:
The media is manipulating this because of their twisted worldview, to oppose Donald Trump for their preferred leftist candidate, and to create controversy.
The media are manipulating Trump's nonsense alright, but not to oppose Trump. It is because they would love for the Republican party to be considered the party of Trump. They love giving publicity to Trump. They would love nothing better than to be able to characterize all Republicans as rich, white, male, chauvinist, arrogant, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, etc. fools–like Trump. Trump is one of the best chances Hillary has for becoming president. The Republican party has great candidates this election cycle–Rubio, for example, would be very hard for Hillary to beat–so the media is hoping to smear Republicans as anti-liberty bigots like Trump. Trump is one of the best things Hillary has ever had going for her. If he runs third party, or if his people stay home and don't vote Republican on election day, he will hand the election to Hillary.
I would be interested in seeing quotes from any major Baptist figure denying religious liberty and freedom of conscience to Muslims.
If Trump would forbid American citizens who go on a trip from reentering the country because of their religion, then Hillary would be more in favor of religious liberty than Trump, and, in this area, would be a better president, although they both would be absolutely awful. They also both would appoint radical leftists to the Supreme Court, both support single-payer government health care, etc. Hillary would also be less likely to say or do something really dumb and land us in a nuclear war. She would just be a corrupt leftist who would erode liberty, but less than Trump would. If the government can do what Trump says based on religion, liberty is at an end in the USA and we have taken the next step to tyranny. In addition to opposing religious liberty and supporting government health care, Trump is also the most pro-sodomy of all the Repblican candidates (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-2016s-most-lgbt-friendly-republican) and it is highly likely that he is really pro-abortion (http://www.charismanews.com/politics/primaries/51296-donald-trumps-views-on-abortion-confusing) but has "changed" so that he can run as a Republican. If he and Hillary are essentially the same in these areas, but Trump opposes the First Amendment more than Hillary, then Hillary might be a better president–furthermore, a Trump victory would help turn the Republican party from being the pro-liberty, pro-marriage, pro-life, pro-religious freedom, etc. party into being the party of a Trump who is against these things but is in favor of moonshine ideas like forcing Mexico to pay for a fence on the US border or foolish and dangerous ones like plundering Middle Eastern countries for oil.
If the only thing that can be done to stop terrorism is denying the First Amendment to Muslims and adopting Trump's view, then is Israel in favor of terrorism? Would this statement, allegedly true of me, be true of Benjamin Netanyahu:
The next terrorist attack, look in the mirror. It was opposition to what Trump is saying that may have caused it. . . . There is nothing that would have stopped them in a policy different than what Trump is saying.
Since Netanyahu, Likud, and all Israeli governments have not adopted Trump's policy, are they all soft on terrorism? If not, am I soft on it because I believe freedom of conscience and the first Amendment applies to all American citizens?
Would I allow Nazis–as specific agents of a nation with which we were at war–into the USA during WWII? No, nor would I allow people who pledge allegiance to ISIS into the country. That would be a legitimate parallel; it would not be a legitimate parallel to deny First Amendment freedoms to Muslim-American citizens, especially to the majority of Muslims who don't care about the Quran or who "reinterpret" it, or at least those portions about jihad, to fit in with a theologically liberal view of their book. The broad-brush view of Trump would, for example, even kick out Ahmaddiyah Muslims, a sect that has specifically renounced jihad and that has never committed any terrorist act, as far as I am aware.
If Trump were part of the Hillary campaign, he would be doing a smashingly good job of it:
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/39385
Hi,
Anyone reading this should know that Thomas Ross and I are on the same page theologically, almost carbon copy. We see the Bible the same.
We are seeing, it seems, this political-government issue differently. This would be a disputable, non-separating matter, in other words, but I'll get back to it later, maybe tomorrow, as well as some of the other comments.
There are a lot of interesting articles being written on this subject, but I hadn't read this one before reading anything that I had written. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428201/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-policy-discussion
Tyler,
Your comment makes sense. Israel too, however, is a moral liberal country than the United States. They are less religious overall, more secular. I assume you know that. I know that what I'm proposing won't happen. I know it's easier for me to say because I'm not running for office. I still think that it's right. The position of Islam is at odds with the country. We're letting Islam off the hook because of its liberals with almost no means of distinguishing between those who will murder and who will not.
Thomas,
I am quoting Trump. This is not a Trump advocacy piece except for the smart things he is saying, that no one else is saying, that liberals oppose and you. Your comments are almost total attack of Trump, which doesn't really answer the points of my piece. I'm not relying on Trump for what I'm writing, just using his quotes. I understand that you like Hillary Clinton more than him, and would vote for her. I get that. I see your MSNBC and Charisma magazine quotes. I'll get to all that.
Thomas,
I'm not going to comment on any of your comments. I'll let them stand on their own and people can judge them for themselves. I don't think I need to say anything, now that I've read them. There are so many problems with them, that I don't have time to deal with them. People will get it, even if you don't.
Thanks.
Look at these before you read the new comments:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/san-bernardino-shooting-victims/
"Anyone reading this should know that Thomas Ross and I are on the same page theologically, almost carbon copy. We see the Bible the same."
Yes–Amen.
By the way, Rand Paul's proposal to limit immigration from countries that have a high support of terrorism is reasonable and consistent with the First Amendment, and would accomplish many of the positive things that Trump espouses except in a radical and unjustifiable way.
Also, when there are failures like terrorist attacks, the focus in the media ought to be on Obama and his failures, but instead it is on Trump and his weirdness.
Finally, I'm glad that Trump at least walked back on his statements about Muslim American citizens not being able to reenter the country. However, this sort of instability is not what you want in someone who controls the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal.
By the way, even though this is not a Trump advocacy piece as some might want to make it, which is totally ridiculous, I don't believe in this speculation that Trump is a liberal creation to help Hillary. The liberals are opposing Trump everywhere. When you read the editorials and columns, liberals are bashing Trump for what he says. It's a weird way of supporting him, so he'll win, so she'll win. Why are they bashing him? They call him a fascist. Why? Because what he is saying clashes with their view of civilization. That's why. So when someone agrees with them, what does that say? Why is there agreement between some and those liberals? That ought to get some's attention. The liberals are calling Trump a fool (as a strategy for him to win the Republican nomination) and others are agreeing. Strange bedfellows. Hollywood hates Trump and ________________ (others who agree with Hollywood). Interesting. How does this happen?
https://baptistnews.com/culture/politics/item/30743-franklin-graham-sides-with-trump
It's strange when Franklin Graham makes certain people look like flaming liberals.
Hi,
I thought I'd link to all the articles TODAY that would agree with Thomas on the Issue of Muslim immigration:
Frida Ghitis at CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/ghitis-world-views-on-trump/index.html
Suan King at NYDN: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-win-lose-trump-energized-white-supremacists-article-1.2461160?cid=bitly
E. J. Dionne, Washington Post: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/10/the_slippery_slope_of_trumpism_128988.html
Kareem Abdul Jabbar at Time: http://time.com/4143003/kareem-abdul-jabbar-donald-trump-isis/
Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/azerbaijan-hotel-vanishes-from-donald-trumps-website
Martin O'Malley and Jorge Ramos: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/09/martin_omalley_to_jorge_ramos_donald_trump_is_a_racist_fascist.html
Of course, President Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/09/obama_us_must_push_back_against_bigotry.html
Don't believe them though. All this opposition to what Trump said is just a strategy by them to get him elected, sort of a reverse psychology, because their opposition to Trump will make him more popular and therefore result in his winning, running against Hillary, and losing.
PJB saying it too.
"The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime."
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/12/an-establishment-unhinged/#qPb2xEfaj5vqqGl1.99
More to Look At:
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sb-shooting-20151211-story.html
This is Islam at work.
I would like to know if you think that Trump's original plan of forbidding Muslim American citizens who have committed no crimes from reentering the country if they travel abroad is a good idea (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262348-trump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us), or of such gross violation of the First Amendment of the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process before being punished by the government is a worse violation of liberty than any benefit from having fewer Muslims in the country. I would also be interested why Trump's explicit discrimination against Muslims is better than simply reducing immigration from countries that supports terrorism, something that is common sense and has been proposed by the Constitution loving Rand Paul. Also, if you think that Trump's original proposal is an extremely dangerous expansion of government power, I would like to know if somebody who could even propose such a thing, as well as being pro-government healthcare even more extreme than Obamacare, pro-sodomy, pro-judicial activism, a lifelong Democrat, nationally unelectable and polling by far the worst of any Republican candidate, etc. is someone who ought to receive the nomination for presidency, not from the Know Nothing party or the socialists, but the Republicans.
Finally, the media do despise Trump, but that does not make him good. Republicans with a college degree are also unfavorable to him, while he gets a lot of ground from the uneducated. The media despised David Duke also, but that did not make him good. While the media despise him, he is still by far the best chance Hillary has to become president.
Thomas,
I gave you rope to make this about Trump. I quote Trump, because he is the one saying things on this issue that make sense. That doesn't mean I'll vote for Trump in the primary. I'll vote for someone else, I'm sure, but your opinion of Trump, I believe, is so wrong that it is way off. I'm not going to try to persuade you, because I'll be playing into the hands or idea that this is about Trump, these posts. They are not. I wasn't thinking much about Trump when I wrote them, but I have to quote Trump because he's the one saying the smart things. Other people since he said them have agreed. I have heard many agree with him.
To the actual idea I wrote about that other then trolled into a Trump column, which it wasn't, and they are unapologetic about it, is now to which I turn. The fourteenth amendment has been twisted all over the place. It dealt with freed slaves, and it is a favorite to find information that isn't there, and especially a favorite of liberals to do so. You continue in that postmodern tradition, turning original intent to a gumby doll.
So you've got a Muslim who leaves the country and takes, you know, an idyllic trip to Saudia Arabia, picks up a terrorist wife, while getting some training there, and you think he should come back into the country. The Boston Bombers were good boys. They were not terrorists. I actually don't think you are telling the truth about Trump, but again, I didn't write a Trump column. You turned it into that, unapologetically, and did not, I repeat, did not deal with the actual post, did not, I repeat. I would feel bad about not dealing with the post. In so doing, you come across as a Moslem apologist.
As long as a Moslem says he's liberal, he's welcome to you. I like the statement that Islam is a death cult. What it teaches is not the free exercise of religion. You have never dealt with that. It's founding document is death language with no freedom. The history is the same. You are not dealing in truth. You are dealing in fantasy. Someone comes from "liberal Islam" and joins a mosque and changes. How do you stop that with your view of religious freedom? You don't. You are mistakingly calling that liberty. Liberty is allowing for such a thing. It is the modern evangelical view of liberty that is lawless. You are saying, wait for them to kill us. Once they kill us, then they're wrong. Once we're dead, it's too late. We've got to deal with this according to what's true, not what we hope will happen.
Your parallel with David Duke is preposterous. It's how a liberal argues. You argue like a liberal here. I'm dealing with your theory that the liberals are for Trump so he'll win and take on Hillary. I deal with that and you say, the media isn't for him. You can't have it both ways. Is the media for him or not? They are not writing like they are for him. You are also saying that Trump is a racist. That is a media creation. He says that illegal immigrants should be shipped out, and since most are Hispanic, he's anti Hispanic. You play right into liberal hands. You use the liberal argument against him.
I have no doubt that Trump is not where we're at. He's not as strong on the cultural issues. That's all true. You don't think his supporters don't know that. You say he's lying about his position on abortion. I think he will support pro-life. I think Trump will defend Christians who don't want to make the cake. Those are red herrings though too as it relates to this post. Red herrings. Red herrings. Red herrings.
Supporting something Trump says is not saying he is the best candidate. Maybe you could understand that bit of nuance. I'm glad he's saying it, and you attack him for everything. That is not nuanced. It isn't intelligent.