It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newt Gingrich Says We Should ‘Test Every Person’ Of Muslim Descent

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Even more amazing is that there are those who consider words like "I don't believe in anthro-Global Warming" to be criminal speech that should result in prison time, yet demand acceptance of a religion whose own holiest books call for killing and raping time after time. Hypocrisy at its finest.




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't say they were fake women, but an anecdote is still an anecdote. It will NEVER give you an accurate representation of the total. It's just the opinion of the person talking. That's it. Stop giving more weight to anecdotes then they deserve.


Providing articles profiling Muslim women's legal preferences is not anecdotal, it is the opinions of the people directly affected, therefore not anecdotal, but rather insightful for those who want to know the truth.

Opinion = anecdote. There is no way to get around that. You are arguing with reality but it won't work against me I'm well versed in identifying propaganda techniques.


Reality = Reality, no way around that.
edit on 15-7-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Attacking terrorism just creates new terrorists. If we want to reduce the causes of radicalization, we need to come up better solutions than to just attack everything in sight.

What are you talking about.

Radical Islam has been at war for 1400 years. It shows an incredibly poor understanding of the situation to suggest attacking terrorists creates new terrorists. It's the Sharia belief system which creates terrorism vs the West as Sharia labels us the enemy, as history proves.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

agreed.

but that's part a. very easy to come up with,
what about part b c d and e.

most of us (with half a brain) realize what you said. but it gets more and more difficult when you need a plan layed out to fight a religion. yes, radical terrorism is very much intertwined with this religion since it governs most of their state laws.
so how do you fight and army when their laws are governed by a religion, you're left with no choice but to go against an entire religion. because it dictates most of their politics and diplomacy and way of life.
edit on 15-7-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Gryphon66

I need to understand Islam about as much as my grandfather needed to understand Germans or Japanese in 1942


Those were conventional wars, the issue with radical Islam is one of ideology not territory.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Bad things happen. It's a way of life. I could walk down the street and get mugged and murdered FAR easier than walking down the street and getting killed by a terrorist, but I'm not scared of leaving my house every day lest I get mugged and murdered. We can't get rid of all terrorism, but we can CERTAINLY stop entertaining it and giving it the power it is craving. Giving into fear like America is doing is letting the terrorists win. We are changing our way of life for them. THAT'S what they want.


Some of us fear for the lives of others, and not just our own. Forgetting about it, using pc words, and refusing to entertain the world's problems do not make them go away. What they want has been explicitly stated by the ones committing these atrocities. We're changing our lives for us, not them.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Would their "laws" supercede our country's laws though? All religions have a set of punishments and chastisements for going outside their boundaries, but they do not supercede the laws of our nation.


Religious courts in the US are set up for civil not criminal matters. Every group has them and it's called arbitration. The courts actually encourage it opposed to putting the matter in the real courts too because it lowers their burden and the results tend to be more equitable since everyone involved is working under the same moral system. They're not allowed to cut a persons hand off for stealing but in some cases the arbitration punishment can be heavier than a regular court systems (with fines and such)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Do those systems include death penalties, polygamy, forced marriage, etc?


Death penalty, no, the others, yes.




edit on 15-7-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Can we test every politician to see if they have sold out to the oligarchy? I would love to see that one instituted and I doubt anyone would pass it.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
Do those systems include death penalties, polygamy, forced marriage, etc?


Death penalty, no, the others, yes.





That's odd because the Bible does not permit polygamy (adultery). Is this another self-serving interpretation made by men?

rcg.org...
edit on 15-7-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Are you suggesting that a man having multiple wives is the same as adultery in the Bible? If so, you're mistaken.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: InTheLight

Are you suggesting that a man having multiple wives is the same as adultery in the Bible? If so, you're mistaken.



The link I posted above explains it that way, or am I misinterpreting the meaning?




Here is what Jesus taught in the New Testament: “Moses [not God!] because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away does commit adultery” (Matt. 19:8-9). Take careful note that Jesus’ instruction declares God’s will about marriage has been “from the beginning.” In other words, nothing has changed in the mind of God.

edit on 15-7-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

This LINK says otherwise.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: InTheLight

This LINK says otherwise.

No, it says it was always God's intent (as with Adam and Eve) that they should cleave unto each other. Then later we have mortal man changing it up.
edit on 15-7-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This a thread about religious tests. You're the one insisting that the majority of terrorism comes from Muslims. I disagree. The Gulf War, and its Christian justification is my evidence.


The Gulf War, the US and its American imperialism agenda meddling over there are what led up to it. That had nothing to do with Christianity, except some of the propaganda to help whip up fervor.

We need to eradicate this kind of thinking from our neurosphere, not import even more radical forms of it to help mix things up and cause even more Social Group Warfare (SGW).



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, sorry. Jesus is like the bridegroom, who was expecting 10 virgins to marry that day. Alas, 5 of them were too immature to understand about oil and lamps, and so were left behind.

If polygamy was so off message, Jesus wouldn't have compared himself to a polygamous husband. But, he did, didn't he?


edit on 15-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

" Muslims in favor of Sharia law want it for the purpose of self governing within their own community, much the same way Jewish courts govern those willing to submit and native American courts as well. "

So , you Condone the Decisions put forth by Sharia Law concerning Muslims Living in the United States ? You Sir , are Not an American for Believing that , but merely a Tool Used by those who would , if given the Chance , undermind the Very Freedom you have living in this Great Country . Newt was Right , it is Not Compatible with a Free Society and should be Fought Against by the People who Believe otherwise until it Disappears .
edit on 15-7-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

SO, I guess that you also believe that Beth Din is also un-American?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, sorry. Jesus is like the bridegroom, who was expecting 10 virgins to marry that day. Alas, 5 of them were too immature to understand about oil and lamps, and so were left behind.

If polygamy was so off message, Jesus wouldn't have compared himself to a polygamous husband. But, he did, didn't he?



Jesus was not God.

tellmeaboutislam.com...
edit on 15-7-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
SHALL MAKE NO LAW



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join