School has brutal reply after Muslim issues threat over daughters lunch

[Syriusly]

I'm not defending Islam. I'm defending the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. I'm also against the fucking Nazis, the fucking Russians and all other anti-American assholes regardless of religion or political persuasion. That would be you.

The 1st amendment does not apply .

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

I'm not defending Islam. I'm defending the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. I'm also against the fucking Nazis, the fucking Russians and all other anti-American assholes regardless of religion or political persuasion. That would be you.

The 1st amendment does not apply .

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.

Notice- doesn't say religion.

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[30][31] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence

So when you advocate violence against Muslim Americans- as you have repeatedly done- your speech is not protected.

But if you belong to a church that for example has a holy book that says adulterers should be stoned- your religious beliefs are still protected.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Islam is not protected speech.

Well go ahead and make that argument in court- I look forward to the Court laughing your attempt to piss on the Constitution out of court.

 

[Syriusly]

Just curious, if we're fascists, what are ISIS?

Victims of US Imperialism dontcha know? These people love Islamism, dead westerners and raped children gets them off, they are comrades in arms which is why these traitors to Western Civilization will join them on the fucking gallows.

You people love to piss on the American Constitution- and promote hate- and violence against any Americans you deem 'suspect'.

The constitution doesn't say that I have to love Islam. Please try again.

The Constitution doesn't say that you have to love any Islam- but our Constitution does say that you can't send the police after people because of their religion- much to the chagrin to you fascists.

Nobody is 'going after anybody because of their religion'

Really?

Mudda applauds the deaths of Muslims- because of their religion.
Chaos Boy wants to deport- or kill all Muslims in America- because of their religion.

Haven't you even read this thread?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

The 1st amendment does not apply .

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

The 1st amendment does not apply .

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.

Notice- doesn't say religion.

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[30][31] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence

So when you advocate violence against Muslim Americans- as you have repeatedly done- your speech is not protected.

But if you belong to a church that for example has a holy book that says adulterers should be stoned- your religious beliefs are still protected.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Islam is not protected speech.

Well go ahead and make that argument in court- I look forward to the Court laughing your attempt to piss on the Constitution out of court.

From Brandenburg V Ohio:

…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

If the Koran and Hadiths do not incite and produce likely violent action then nothing does and if the Koran and Hadiths are not protected speech then Islam is not a protected religion.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

You want to declare all Muslims guilty- because of their religion- which violates the First Amendment.

You want to pretend that there is a 'clear and present' danger by all Muslims- but that doesn't pass the smell test- or the Brandenburg test.

You just want to piss on the Constitution in order to impose religious discrimination.

Not only do the Koran and Hadiths mandate imminent lawless action as a religious edict they are likely to produce such actions and have done so tens of thousands of times in every corner of the world. Islam is not protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

The First Amendment always applies to Americans- to the dismay of you Fascists.

No it doesn't it's called the clear and probable danger test you ignorant fuck.

Clear and present danger - Wikipedia

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.

Notice- doesn't say religion.

In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[30][31] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence

So when you advocate violence against Muslim Americans- as you have repeatedly done- your speech is not protected.

But if you belong to a church that for example has a holy book that says adulterers should be stoned- your religious beliefs are still protected.

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Islam is not protected speech.

Well go ahead and make that argument in court- I look forward to the Court laughing your attempt to piss on the Constitution out of court.

From Brandenburg V Ohio:

…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

If the Koran and Hadiths do not incite and produce likely violent action then nothing does and if the Koran and Hadiths are not protected speech then Islam is not a protected religion.

Look at the Brandenburg test:
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

Does that Muslim have the intent to harm?
Is there an imminent likelihood that that Muslims will harm someone?

Now apply that to all Muslims.

Intent. Imminence. Likelihood.

There are some 3 million Muslims in America.

If there was the intent by all 3 million Muslims to harm you- and there was the imminent likelihood that they were going to do so- they would have done it by now.

 

[Syriusly]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

You want to declare all Muslims guilty- because of their religion- which violates the First Amendment.

You want to pretend that there is a 'clear and present' danger by all Muslims- but that doesn't pass the smell test- or the Brandenburg test.

You just want to piss on the Constitution in order to impose religious discrimination.

Islam is not protected by the 1st amendment.

The Courts disagree with you.

But as long as you merely continue to advocate your pissing on the Constitution- your speech is protected.

When you advocate the killing of Muslim Americans- with actual intent- then you are just a cowardly asshole whose speech is not protected.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Look at the Brandenburg test:
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

Does that Muslim have the intent to harm?

Yes the Koran and Hadiths are intended to call for harm against non-Muslims.

Is there an imminent likelihood that that Muslims will harm someone?

Absolutely! Not only are the teachings of the Koran and Hadiths likely to cause imminent harm but they already have tens of thousands of times in every corner of the world including the United States.

 

[Divine Wind]

That Muslim mother should be told not to push her daughter into a barbaric and misogynistic religion.

And then deported.

You fascists do like to advocate pissing on the American constitution.

Mental illness isn't protected by the constitution. The mother must be sick in the head to want her daughter to be part of sharia.

You fascists do like to advocate pissing on the American constitution.

When you bend down to kiss the carpet at the mosque, does it smell like dirty feet? Because Muslims weren't the ones who invented soap.

LOL.....I have never gone to a mosque. But hey interesting tidbit there- Muslims didn't invent soap.....of course neither did Christians or Jews......

LOL. Correct. The Babylonians are the inventors in the Western world. No, I didn't know this beforehand. The conversation piqued my curiosity and I looked it up.

Who Invented Soap - All about Soap Inventors
Legend says that soap was first discovered on Sappo Hill in Rome when a group of Roman women were washing their clothes in the River Tiber at the base of a hill, below which animal fats from the sacrifices ran down into the river and created soapy clay mixture. They soon found that using this same cleansing substance the clothes were coming clear easier. Since that time we know soap as soap.

However, the ancient Babylonians were the ones who invented soap and evidence for this are Babylonian clay containers dated at 2800 B.C. Inscriptions on the containers present the earliest known written soap recipe and they state that the product was made from fats combined with wood ash and water. These early references to soap and soap making were for the use of soap to wash wool and cotton in preparation for weaving into cloth, soap was not necessarily used to wash the body.

The Ebers papyrus (Egypt, 1550 BC) reveals that ancient Egyptians combined both animal and vegetable oils with alkaline salts to produce a soap-like substance. They used this mixture for treating sores, skin diseases as well as washing.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

You want to declare all Muslims guilty- because of their religion- which violates the First Amendment.

You want to pretend that there is a 'clear and present' danger by all Muslims- but that doesn't pass the smell test- or the Brandenburg test.

You just want to piss on the Constitution in order to impose religious discrimination.

Islam is not protected by the 1st amendment.

The Courts disagree with you.

But as long as you merely continue to advocate your pissing on the Constitution- your speech is protected.

When you advocate the killing of Muslim Americans- with actual intent- then you are just a cowardly asshole whose speech is not protected.

This speech is not protected,

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"(Translation is from the Noble Quran)

Not only does it call for imminent violence but the likelihood that the result will be imminent violence is proven conclusively by the tens of thousands of violent actions which it has inspired!

 

[Divine Wind]

What would you do with the American Muslims like myself?

there are no 'American' Muslims; Muslims are only loyal to the Umma and the future 'Caliphate'. They aren't Muslims if they aren't. Thomas Jefferson, the libertarian and the founder of what became of the Democratic Party, expressed the proper way to handle fake 'citizens', native or immigrants, didn't matter to him either way ...


Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

-Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

So, all real Democrats would be all for deporting fake 'citizens', and those who support Obama or Hillary and their criminal syndicate should be happy to leave on their own, if they truly had any principles of any kind.

Likewise, all Christians put Jesus before country, therefore, like Muslims, cannot be true Christians if they put being an American first.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of
forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in
government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800.

"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party
divisions and make them one people." --Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.

You have a point. However, christians grew with and helped shape this country. Christianity, (and to a lesser degree, catholicism), had a civilizational effect on the country and became recognized as it's major religion. Other religions and groups grew and coexisted with America. Mormons, Catholics, Amish etc. Some of these groups and religions were treated badly, such as the Japanese during ww2. But even then, after the war, the japanese took up where they left off before the war. They didn't try to get even. Islam is different. They come here with their 'our way or the highway' still stuck in the 7th century attitude, and Americans are saying assimilate or go somewhere else. We don't want to hear your call to prayer blasting several times a day, along with every now and then suffering massacres because you folks can't seem to accept the American way of life.

Eventually Christianity provided more positive than negative effects, but the barbarism of the 16th through 19th centuries was as brutal as anywhere else in the world at the time. Genocide of the indigenous population, "Manifest Destiny" and burning/hanging witches are just three examples.

Interesting that you mention Mormons because, of all the Christian religions, that's the one that resulted in the most violence. Mostly against them, but also by them.

Who Killed Joseph Smith?

Haun's Mill Massacre - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Sure, we got better and, as discussed with Syriusly, just because Christianity was barbaric for centuries several hundred years ago doesn't justify Islamic barbarism today.

So you think the christians were as barbaric as muslims? I don't, but even if they were, they've had their reformation and changed, unlike muslims, who are as barbaric as they were fourteen hundred years ago. Muslims cause problems where ever they go, and as soon as they approach being even a sizeable minority in any country, like they were in Lebanon, and they are now in Europe, then starts the jihad, blowing up subways etc. Rape, pillage, destroy, in the name of their god.

During and prior to the Spanish Inquisition? You bet your fucking ass they were barbaric. Weren't the vast majority of American slavers Christians? Those who committed genocide of Native Americans? The lynching of blacks in the 1950s? That's just in the past 200 years. The Spanish Inquisition goes back to the 15th Century. A history joke is "The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy or Roman nor an empire".

The fucking Atheists keep saying religion is bad because of the bad things people have done with it. Smart people keep pointing out to them that, like a gun, shovel or computer, religion is a tool. Whether or not it is evil depends upon the person using it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. -- Schenck v. United States

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

You want to declare all Muslims guilty- because of their religion- which violates the First Amendment.

You want to pretend that there is a 'clear and present' danger by all Muslims- but that doesn't pass the smell test- or the Brandenburg test.

You just want to piss on the Constitution in order to impose religious discrimination.

Islam is not protected by the 1st amendment.

The Courts disagree with you.

But as long as you merely continue to advocate your pissing on the Constitution- your speech is protected.

When you advocate the killing of Muslim Americans- with actual intent- then you are just a cowardly asshole whose speech is not protected.

This speech is not protected,

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"(Translation is from the Noble Quran)

Not only does it call for imminent violence but the likelihood that the result will be imminent violence is proven conclusively by the tens of thousands of violent actions which it has inspired!

$20 says I can find similar barbarisms in the Holy Bible. Are you a Christian? I know you're not a Jew because you love Nazis.

 

[Divine Wind]

Deport or kill members of the death cult and deprogram their children,...

How does this make you any better than the Jihadist terrorists beheading innocent people?

 

[jasonnfree]

there are no 'American' Muslims; Muslims are only loyal to the Umma and the future 'Caliphate'. They aren't Muslims if they aren't. Thomas Jefferson, the libertarian and the founder of what became of the Democratic Party, expressed the proper way to handle fake 'citizens', native or immigrants, didn't matter to him either way ...


Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.

-Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

So, all real Democrats would be all for deporting fake 'citizens', and those who support Obama or Hillary and their criminal syndicate should be happy to leave on their own, if they truly had any principles of any kind.

Likewise, all Christians put Jesus before country, therefore, like Muslims, cannot be true Christians if they put being an American first.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of
forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in
government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800.

"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party
divisions and make them one people." --Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.

You have a point. However, christians grew with and helped shape this country. Christianity, (and to a lesser degree, catholicism), had a civilizational effect on the country and became recognized as it's major religion. Other religions and groups grew and coexisted with America. Mormons, Catholics, Amish etc. Some of these groups and religions were treated badly, such as the Japanese during ww2. But even then, after the war, the japanese took up where they left off before the war. They didn't try to get even. Islam is different. They come here with their 'our way or the highway' still stuck in the 7th century attitude, and Americans are saying assimilate or go somewhere else. We don't want to hear your call to prayer blasting several times a day, along with every now and then suffering massacres because you folks can't seem to accept the American way of life.

Eventually Christianity provided more positive than negative effects, but the barbarism of the 16th through 19th centuries was as brutal as anywhere else in the world at the time. Genocide of the indigenous population, "Manifest Destiny" and burning/hanging witches are just three examples.

Interesting that you mention Mormons because, of all the Christian religions, that's the one that resulted in the most violence. Mostly against them, but also by them.

Who Killed Joseph Smith?

Haun's Mill Massacre - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Sure, we got better and, as discussed with Syriusly, just because Christianity was barbaric for centuries several hundred years ago doesn't justify Islamic barbarism today.

So you think the christians were as barbaric as muslims? I don't, but even if they were, they've had their reformation and changed, unlike muslims, who are as barbaric as they were fourteen hundred years ago. Muslims cause problems where ever they go, and as soon as they approach being even a sizeable minority in any country, like they were in Lebanon, and they are now in Europe, then starts the jihad, blowing up subways etc. Rape, pillage, destroy, in the name of their god.

During and prior to the Spanish Inquisition? You bet your fucking ass they were barbaric. Weren't the vast majority of American slavers Christians? Those who committed genocide of Native Americans? The lynching of blacks in the 1950s? That's just in the past 200 years. The Spanish Inquisition goes back to the 15th Century. A history joke is "The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy or Roman nor an empire".

The fucking Atheists keep saying religion is bad because of the bad things people have done with it. Smart people keep pointing out to them that, like a gun, shovel or computer, religion is a tool. Whether or not it is evil depends upon the person using it.

Hot damn, surprised you even want to live in the same country built by those evil christians.

 

[Divine Wind]

....you absolutely are supporting the invasion of western civilization by the Islamic Imperialists who promote not only virulent anti-Semitism but homophobia, misogyny, and theocracy as well (again we are talking about 90%+ of the worlds Muslims not radical fringe groups) you sir are an ardent supporter of the largest hate group in the history of the planet.

The fact you are resorting to lies and false accusations tells me you're either a liar, desperate and/or mentally deficient. Your hate will be your undoing. You'll either end up on TV or develop a serious physical illness harboring such evil in your body.

 

[BULLDOG]

So exercising her legal right to sue is considered a threat?

Yes, it is: I've sued two lawyers for threatening to sue me, and then didn't follow it up. And I won both cases.

No you didn't, except in your mind. Why do you altRight/teabagger/RWNJ types have to lie about everything?

Call one and ask.

I'm asking you.

Asking me what? Are you one those hicks who think lawyers are mysterious and powerful, and we're supposed to be all afraid of them or something? Too stupid to figure out how to find one yourself? Both is probably correct.

The question is pretty strait forward. Why do you altRight/teabagger/RWNJ types have to lie about everything? Your claim of suing multiple lawyers is obviously chest thumping by an impotent idiot who doesn't like being seen as an impotent idiot. I'm not sure why you think I should ask that of a lawyer, unless that particular lawyer was a altRight/teabagger/RWNJ type as well.

 

[Divine Wind]

Likewise, all Christians put Jesus before country, therefore, like Muslims, cannot be true Christians if they put being an American first.

"The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of
forwards for the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for what is most perfect in
government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and whose purposes it would answer. But it is not an idea which this country will endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800.

"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party
divisions and make them one people." --Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.

You have a point. However, christians grew with and helped shape this country. Christianity, (and to a lesser degree, catholicism), had a civilizational effect on the country and became recognized as it's major religion. Other religions and groups grew and coexisted with America. Mormons, Catholics, Amish etc. Some of these groups and religions were treated badly, such as the Japanese during ww2. But even then, after the war, the japanese took up where they left off before the war. They didn't try to get even. Islam is different. They come here with their 'our way or the highway' still stuck in the 7th century attitude, and Americans are saying assimilate or go somewhere else. We don't want to hear your call to prayer blasting several times a day, along with every now and then suffering massacres because you folks can't seem to accept the American way of life.

Eventually Christianity provided more positive than negative effects, but the barbarism of the 16th through 19th centuries was as brutal as anywhere else in the world at the time. Genocide of the indigenous population, "Manifest Destiny" and burning/hanging witches are just three examples.

Interesting that you mention Mormons because, of all the Christian religions, that's the one that resulted in the most violence. Mostly against them, but also by them.

Who Killed Joseph Smith?

Haun's Mill Massacre - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Sure, we got better and, as discussed with Syriusly, just because Christianity was barbaric for centuries several hundred years ago doesn't justify Islamic barbarism today.

So you think the christians were as barbaric as muslims? I don't, but even if they were, they've had their reformation and changed, unlike muslims, who are as barbaric as they were fourteen hundred years ago. Muslims cause problems where ever they go, and as soon as they approach being even a sizeable minority in any country, like they were in Lebanon, and they are now in Europe, then starts the jihad, blowing up subways etc. Rape, pillage, destroy, in the name of their god.

During and prior to the Spanish Inquisition? You bet your fucking ass they were barbaric. Weren't the vast majority of American slavers Christians? Those who committed genocide of Native Americans? The lynching of blacks in the 1950s? That's just in the past 200 years. The Spanish Inquisition goes back to the 15th Century. A history joke is "The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy or Roman nor an empire".

The fucking Atheists keep saying religion is bad because of the bad things people have done with it. Smart people keep pointing out to them that, like a gun, shovel or computer, religion is a tool. Whether or not it is evil depends upon the person using it.

Hot damn, surprised you even want to live in the same country built by those evil christians.

Interesting to see my point went over your head. Too bad.

Feel free to hate on because it's a free country. Many great Americans gave their all just so you could have the freedom to sit in air conditioned comfort and pound out hate on your keyboard.

 

[Syriusly]

Look at the Brandenburg test:
The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)Edit
The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood)

Does that Muslim have the intent to harm?

Yes the Koran and Hadiths are intended to call for harm against non-Muslims.
.

LOL and that is why you will be laughed out of court in your blatant attempt at religious bigotry.

Does that Muslim have the intent to harm?

If you can't prove that you- have no case.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, it is: I've sued two lawyers for threatening to sue me, and then didn't follow it up. And I won both cases.

No you didn't, except in your mind. Why do you altRight/teabagger/RWNJ types have to lie about everything?

Call one and ask.

I'm asking you.

Asking me what? Are you one those hicks who think lawyers are mysterious and powerful, and we're supposed to be all afraid of them or something? Too stupid to figure out how to find one yourself? Both is probably correct.

The question is pretty strait forward. Why do you altRight/teabagger/RWNJ types have to lie about everything? Your claim of suing multiple lawyers is obviously chest thumping by an impotent idiot who doesn't like being seen as an impotent idiot. I'm not sure why you think I should ask that of a lawyer, unless that particular lawyer was a altRight/teabagger/RWNJ type as well.

Some chest-thumping gimp is too afraid to admit it doesn't squat, and thinks by doubling down he can make people think he grew a penis back.

 

[jasonnfree]

You have a point. However, christians grew with and helped shape this country. Christianity, (and to a lesser degree, catholicism), had a civilizational effect on the country and became recognized as it's major religion. Other religions and groups grew and coexisted with America. Mormons, Catholics, Amish etc. Some of these groups and religions were treated badly, such as the Japanese during ww2. But even then, after the war, the japanese took up where they left off before the war. They didn't try to get even. Islam is different. They come here with their 'our way or the highway' still stuck in the 7th century attitude, and Americans are saying assimilate or go somewhere else. We don't want to hear your call to prayer blasting several times a day, along with every now and then suffering massacres because you folks can't seem to accept the American way of life.

Eventually Christianity provided more positive than negative effects, but the barbarism of the 16th through 19th centuries was as brutal as anywhere else in the world at the time. Genocide of the indigenous population, "Manifest Destiny" and burning/hanging witches are just three examples.

Interesting that you mention Mormons because, of all the Christian religions, that's the one that resulted in the most violence. Mostly against them, but also by them.

Who Killed Joseph Smith?

Haun's Mill Massacre - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Mountain Meadows Massacre

Sure, we got better and, as discussed with Syriusly, just because Christianity was barbaric for centuries several hundred years ago doesn't justify Islamic barbarism today.

So you think the christians were as barbaric as muslims? I don't, but even if they were, they've had their reformation and changed, unlike muslims, who are as barbaric as they were fourteen hundred years ago. Muslims cause problems where ever they go, and as soon as they approach being even a sizeable minority in any country, like they were in Lebanon, and they are now in Europe, then starts the jihad, blowing up subways etc. Rape, pillage, destroy, in the name of their god.

During and prior to the Spanish Inquisition? You bet your fucking ass they were barbaric. Weren't the vast majority of American slavers Christians? Those who committed genocide of Native Americans? The lynching of blacks in the 1950s? That's just in the past 200 years. The Spanish Inquisition goes back to the 15th Century. A history joke is "The Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy or Roman nor an empire".

The fucking Atheists keep saying religion is bad because of the bad things people have done with it. Smart people keep pointing out to them that, like a gun, shovel or computer, religion is a tool. Whether or not it is evil depends upon the person using it.

Hot damn, surprised you even want to live in the same country built by those evil christians.

Interesting to see my point went over your head. Too bad.

Feel free to hate on because it's a free country.

Your point is that the christians back then were just as bad as the muslims, and I disagreed. I was just discussing the issue and out comes the accusation I'm a hater. A warning to the wise - this may not always be a free country if we keep importing the world's poor, unskilled, and unassimilable. Of course, you probably believe that this incoming rabble is at least as good, or you probably think they're even better than the founding fathers, so on second thought, welcome and embrace them.

 

[Divine Wind]

Nobody is 'going after anybody because of their religion' except left wing gimps and deviants. You have to be literate to understand the difference, and that's why you and the rest of the tools are so helpless and moronic.

Sorry, dude, but you need to read more posts on this forum such as this gem:

Deport or kill members of the death cult and deprogram their children,...

It's not the first time he's posted the idea either.