posted by gwhint
. . Obama [is] considered [a] Muslim, right, because of his birthright, passed down from his ancestral roots, no one is disputing this, right.
I think this is considered “public knowledge” and is not disputed. I think he is now a converted Protestant, a Methodist I think.
I think Sharia law states once you are Muslim there is no turning back and if you do try to convert then a price of DEATH will be placed on your
I know ONLY what I hear about Muslims, Islam, Sharia and so on. My take on religions is this: Judaism was violent and bloody, see Joshua and Judges
and the 2 Kings. Christianity has been violent and bloody, especially when orthodoxy was hunting down the un-orthodox who they labeled as heretics. It
is hard to estimate how many people Christian killed in the Name of God - read the diary of a fellow conquistador of Cortez who describes stacking
live Aztecs bound hand and foot, on top of each other, as high as they could reach, then setting them alight, burring them to death, so the Dominican
priests could pray their “liberated” souls into Heaven.
The English put the French Joan of Arc to a similar death. It is generally agreed the Wars of Religion in Europe ended with the 1648 Peace Treaty of
Westphalia which is on the internet and makes for interesting reading. Aside: The longest period of peace and tranquility ever enjoyed by Jews
outside of Palestine was under the Muslims in Spain. From 711 AD to 1492 AD. When the last Moors were expelled from Spain, the Catholic Spanish
immediately instituted anti-Jewish pogroms, ordered the wearing of yellow cloth and finally, forced conversions on very real threat of death. Today
there are FEW Jews in Spain or Portugal.
So what’s to be gained by accusing Muslims of violence? As if Jewish persons (Israelis) are not engaged in ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West
Bank as we write? I prefer to think of violence as the weapon of last resort. You push anyone far enough and he (or she) will respond with any weapon
at hand. As they say, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.” It depends on your perspective more than on any fixed values.
And we Christian-types are killing unarmed civilians* by the hundreds if not thousands in Iraq and Afghan on the premise that someone from Arabia
harmed us 7 years ago. WE claim a right to go on killing for years as an act of simple vengeance and as a warning to any others - we’ll kill you
too! We ignore civilian casualties. We count our dead GIs which is closing in on 4,000. The UN estimates 80,000 Iraqis have been killed since
3/18/03. We ignore also our killing of 800,000 (our number) civilians in Vietnam (3,000,000 they say). All that human slaughter of men, women and
children, is called “collateral damage.” You'd think we'd have enough respect to at least label them as "people" or "humans?" see Orwell's
Now it seems as though nothing is being said by any Muslim group anywhere in the world about this key issue, why???? Maybe the Islamic rulers see a
way of getting a Muslim into the Oval office and a strong Christian out . .
Mark 12: 28 “Again, a scribe came to Him and asked Him a question, "Which is the first commandment of all?" It was a question that the teachers of
the church disputed about. The Lord answered, "Hear, 0 Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
Maybe George W missed Sunday School that day?
. . because as I said once you become Muslim there is no turning back and so all Muslims in the world are just hoping Obama gets elected and then he
will announce his true roots after in power, the Muslims seem to be holding back from speaking about this important issue, don’t you think . .
First, I do not believe Obama will get the Dems nomination. Second, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his conversion. Third, if you love the
Constitution of the United States, then I refer you to Article 6, Clause 3, which says in part: “. . but no religious test shall ever be required
as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
*I don’t like the term “innocent” as it is used all too frequently. It evokes a value judgment whereas the term “unarmed” is both factual
[edit on 1/1/2008 by donwhite]