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.
Despite the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, the police, who studiously ignored the mob violence, asked the sign-holders to leave saying they were "endangering the public." No police action was taken against the mob.
Despite losing two similar Freedom of Speech lawsuits in the past (one of which cost the City of Dearborn $100,000), the city refused to protect the sign-holders' constitutional rights, claiming lack of manpower. According to the police chief, two police officers would have been needed to protect the Christians. The chief said this would be impossible, since there was a big crowd to watch. Ironically, there was no violence or threat of violence (hence no need for police presence or protection) at any other location at the festival except where the Christians were holding their signs.
www.clarionproject.org...#
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
I am glad that we can find humor among-st the negativity.
I think satire is a better weapon against ignorance than anger.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: bastion
??? What are you on about? The thought never entered. The immigration issue did. The Isis flags of some of the immigrants did.
The no go zones did. The building of fences to prevent over-immigration did. The cost of it did. The not wearing of uniforms by the U.K. military in public for fear of offending did.
I would not have that occurring here, if at all possible. I would err on the side of caution to prevent that.
Don't agree? Oh well.....
Hinduism and Budhism don't believe in killing non believers do they? Because now I'm confused.......NOT
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
[
Do you know how much I invest in jerking my knee..
.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
Please. Don't be deliberately obtuse.
It's the application that's the issue I refer to and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned the tenets...
originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: enlightenedservant
A disbeliever AKA Kaffir by Quranic definition is someone who encounters the truth(the Quran), recognises it as the truth and then covers the truth up. So no, every non-Muslims isn't a disbeliever/Kaffir. What sectarianism has done like always(this time Islam) is hijack revelation(the Quran), the term muslim( opposite of a mujrin/criminal by Quranic definition) and the term islam(a state of mind) make their own religious books(hadith books) and boom! You've got a religion called Islam(note capital I) and its followers who call themselves Muslims(note capital M).
Truth be told, there would not be a religion called Islam without the books authored by Bukhari & Co. Majority of the religous laws and teachings are derived from them.
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Just more Muslim hate from ATS'ers. Now start the same thread replacing Muslim with Jew and all the sudden you're a anti Semite.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: grandmakdw
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: grandmakdw
But hey, since I'm a nice guy here's a link.
Iran in the 1970s before the Islamic Revolution
Before the revolution, Iran was a monarchy and was not theocratic.
The new Iran is operating under theocracy basically.
Naturally, I knew you weren't going to admit you were wrong. Gotta move them goal posts.
Question. What does the country being a theocracy have to do with anything? Didn't I just prove that there can be a Muslim dominated country that ISN'T ran by militants?