NationStates Jolt Archive

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302169.html

This guy incited people to commit terrorist acts, helped train terrorists, and claims he doesn't recognize secular law. Then he reads the preamble to the constitution as part of his defense.

Sorry pal, secular law doesn't recognize any right to incite terrorism.

Life imprisonment for something he said? There really is no gradation for sentencing over there, is there?

Life imprisonment for something he said? There really is no gradation for sentencing over there, is there?
He tried to train terrorists and incite them to attack US civilians. In this day and age that's a serious threat.

Welcome to the FASCIST STATES OF AMERIKA.

Welcome to the FASCIST STATES OF AMERIKA.
Come on now, can you really defend his actions? He commited a pretty serious crime.

Come on, can you really defend his punishment? All he did was move his lips and tongue while exhaling air.

Come on, can you really defend his punishment? All he did was move his lips and tongue while exhaling air.



Following that logic, I suppose you could allow anyone to yell "FIRE!!" randomly in a crowded building :rolleyes:

I am guessing that the administration wants to make an example out of him.

Surely the remaining scholars would pause to think of what nonsense they are spouting in their next sermon.

Come on, can you really defend his punishment? All he did was move his lips and tongue while exhaling air.
But in doing so he placed hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives at risk. There may still be people out there who have been incited to violence and trained to commit terrorism because of his actions.

Ther right to free expression is fine as long as it doesn't endanger the right to live. Would you want to live next door to someone who threatened your life and was constantly training with weapons? I think you'd try to get him locked up.

Wierd. I guess that under the old Sedition Acts and the Smith Act he can be held accountable for preaching the violent overthrow of the United States. Wether or not he recognizes secular law is a moot point, he is in the U.S. and will be judged according to U.S. laws. The Free Excersize clause of the First Amendment is non-applicable in this case, because no one is telling him that he cannot practice a fundamental tenet of his religion, i.e. preaching death and destruction is not a path to Paradise in Islam.

Come on, can you really defend his punishment? All he did was move his lips and tongue while exhaling air.

So the bastard thinks he can get away with exhaling my air does he? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!

According to the judge that was the minimal sentence available for the charges, although she clearly is of the opinion it's unmerited.

This goes beyond free speech, since he incited violence and his intent was clearly to distabilize the US. Still, the punishment seems too harsh and could backfire.

Come on, can you really defend his punishment? All he did was move his lips and tongue while exhaling air.
You know, technically the same type of argument could be applied to Hitler. Or for the pope who started the first Crusade.

According to the judge that was the minimal sentence available for the charges, although she clearly is of the opinion it's unmerited.

This goes beyond free speech, since he incited violence and his intent was clearly to distabilize the US. Still, the punishment seems too harsh and could backfire.

That's what I was aiming at. I didn't mean that he should go unpunished - I'm saying that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the action committed.

Ther right to free expression is fine as long as it doesn't endanger the right to live. Would you want to live next door to someone who threatened your life and was constantly training with weapons? I think you'd try to get him locked up.

And I think the right-wing gun nut lobby would pillory you for hassling his right to bear arms.

Total hypocracy.

1) The aticle doesn't really even say what he did specifically, jsut gnerealizations
2) minimum sentence laws are bullshit because they are for the most part designed to make politicians look like somethnig other than the lazy fatcat idiots they are
3) freedom of speech is pretty damn touchy, with the generalizations presented in thsi article it is impossible to defend him or support the actino against him

That's what I was aiming at. I didn't mean that he should go unpunished - I'm saying that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the action committed.

My point precisely, Fass.

And I think the right-wing gun nut lobby would pillory you for hassling his right to bear arms.

Total hypocracy.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms provided the person bearing them isn't threatening to unlawfully kill people. No hypocrisy, just common sense.

And I think the right-wing gun nut lobby would pillory you for hassling his right to bear arms.

Total hypocracy.
He did not say that the people in question were just training themselves on a lot of different weaponry, he said they were also advocating violence and the slaughter of innocents. Biiiig difference.

i find this case very disturbing

a native born american citizen is given a life sentence because he exhorted his followers to go to other countries and fight for islam

neither he nor any of his followers actually fought against american troops. some did go to terrorist training camps.

he heart of the government's evidence against Timimi was a meeting he attended in Fairfax on Sept. 16, 2001, five days after the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Timimi told his followers that "the time had come for them to go abroad and join the mujaheddin engaged in violent jihad in Afghanistan," according to court papers.

Many who attended that meeting practiced for jihad by playing paintball in the Virginia countryside, and some left the United States for terrorist training camps, though none went to Afghanistan and fought against U.S. troops.

now im not fond of allowing foreign clerics to come to the US to spout anti american hatred but this guy is an american and we DO have that right.

I'm afraid you can not chose who deserves to be protected under the American Constitution and who doesn't - all american citizens do, by definition.

And you can't chose who deserves to be applied human rights and who doesn't, either: all human beings do, by definition.

i find this case very disturbing

a native born american citizen is given a life sentence because he exhorted his followers to go to other countries and fight for islam

neither he nor any of his followers actually fought against american troops. some did go to terrorist training camps.


now im not fond of allowing foreign clerics to come to the US to spout anti american hatred but this guy is an american and we DO have that right.

To be fair, the article said he was found guilty of 10 charges - but it didn't list them all. The sentences were mandatory so the judge had no leeway.

Since he is a such a fan of Socrates, I would have no problem with him being offered a cup of Hemlock as an alternative sentence.

Here's a prediction - we'll see a lot more of this kind of sentencing in the US, and Europe will become much stricter too. Those who aid or promote terrorism will be judged as harshly as those who physically attempt murder.

And I think the right-wing gun nut lobby would pillory you for hassling his right to bear arms.

Total hypocracy.



And I thought the people who try to ban guns so women like me can't protect themselves from massive rapists would be the nuts :p

To be fair, the article said he was found guilty of 10 charges - but it didn't list them all. The sentences were mandatory so the judge had no leeway.

Since he is a such a fan of Socrates, I would have no problem with him being offered a cup of Hemlock as an alternative sentence.

Here's a prediction - we'll see a lot more of this kind of sentencing in the US, and Europe will become much stricter too. Those who aid or promote terrorism will be judged as harshly as those who physically attempt murder.
ill feel better about it when it includes our radical fundamentalist ministers and our militant white supremacists. some of them do the exact same thing.

ill feel better about it when it includes our radical fundamentalist ministers and our militant white supremacists. some of them do the exact same thing.

If the acts are the same, the charges should be the same - regardless of race or religion. I say that as a white Christian.

There are some, perhaps yourself, who think that we're 'soft' on local bigots and religious people. I don't think we should be, but I suspect that there may be some legal issues regarding charges, i.e. the fine points of whether KKK or Fred Phelps (a huge embarrassment and liability to 99.99% of Christians) can have terrorism/treason charges placed against them.

I'm not lawyer enough to know, but I suspect that this may be the specific issue rather than being 'soft' on them. Personally, I have no bias.

If the acts are the same, the charges should be the same - regardless of race or religion. I say that as a white Christian.

There are some, perhaps yourself, who think that we're 'soft' on local bigots and religious people. I don't think we should be, but I suspect that there may be some legal issues regarding charges, i.e. the fine points of whether KKK or Fred Phelps (a huge embarrassment and liability to 99.99% of Christians) can have terrorism/treason charges placed against them.

I'm not lawyer enough to know, but I suspect that this may be the specific issue rather than being 'soft' on them. Personally, I have no bias.
KKK, probably. They've been known to incite violence. I don't know if Fred Phelps has actually told anyone to go out and kill gays. If he has he should clearly face the same punishment as any extremist muslim who incites terrorism.

KKK, probably. They've been known to incite violence. I don't know if Fred Phelps has actually told anyone to go out and kill gays. If he has he should clearly face the same punishment as any extremist muslim who incites terrorism.

What I'm wondering is this - and we're getting into legal definitions I have no knowledge of - can we charge the KKK with whatever this Moslem dude did, basically charges of inciting, aiding, abetting terrorism with treasonous intent?

I suspect it's the terrorist connection that brings the heavy time and a high rate of jury conviction. The First Amendment angle is interesting. I support the right of those guys to say what's on their mind, but I hate what they mean. Somewhere there's a magic legal line that gets crossed and you can convict them.

Constitutionally, he could have been nailed for Treason as he was giving "Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war". If we use the Constitution as a guide, he should be facing the Hangman's noose, not Life in the lockup.

The post mentioning other (Domestic) groups, was right-we're not nearly hard enough on groups like the KKK, American Nazi Party, or Communist Party USA.

What surprises me, is that his Defense doesn't appear to be recieving ACLU help-which indicates maybe there is more to the case against him than the article supplies, as this is right up the ACLU's alley.

Constitutionally, he could have been nailed for Treason as he was giving "Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war". If we use the Constitution as a guide, he should be facing the Hangman's noose, not Life in the lockup.
Except that, constitutionally, the US is not at war. Congress has not declared war, they only gave the president power to carry out actions against hostile governments, but there has been no war declaration.

What surprises me, is that his Defense doesn't appear to be recieving ACLU help-which indicates maybe there is more to the case against him than the article supplies, as this is right up the ACLU's alley.
The ACLU intervenes when they think Civil Liberties are being abused. This is not the case here and has never been. No surprises.

Constitutionally, he could have been nailed for Treason as he was giving "Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war". If we use the Constitution as a guide, he should be facing the Hangman's noose, not Life in the lockup.

The post mentioning other (Domestic) groups, was right-we're not nearly hard enough on groups like the KKK, American Nazi Party, or Communist Party USA.

What surprises me, is that his Defense doesn't appear to be recieving ACLU help-which indicates maybe there is more to the case against him than the article supplies, as this is right up the ACLU's alley.
of course we werent at war with anyone on september 16th. nor did any of his followers end up in afghanistan fighting against US troops.

sure he's an asshole. so many people are. but with no harm done why is he in prison for life?

And I think the right-wing gun nut lobby would pillory you for hassling his right to bear arms.

Total hypocracy.


Can you name one specific instance when the gun lobby supported someone who openly threatened violence against his or her neighbor?

Except that, constitutionally, the US is not at war. Congress has not declared war, they only gave the president power to carry out actions against hostile governments, but there has been no war declaration.

Which is why Jane Fonda isn't in prison, nor John Kerry. (No declaration of war in Vietnam either) Does that mean we're any less in a state of war? Or are Iraq and Afghanistan gigantic training excercises with complicated MILES gear?


The ACLU intervenes when they think Civil Liberties are being abused. This is not the case here and has never been. No surprises.

If he's being locked up for merely speaking, then his civil Liberties are most definitely being infringed. If he's being locked up for providing aid-and-comfort, (as in, we're in a state of war whether Congressionally declared or not), then they are not being infringed as he is an enemy operative.

Whether declared or not, we're at war whether we wanted to be or not. Certainly the muslim extreme-fringe is at war with us, even if we haven't formally declared war.

He tried to train terrorists and incite them to attack US civilians. In this day and age that's a serious threat.

If I'm not mistaken that is called treason and life is a very light sentence for treason. Darn right that's a serious threat. And if you don't want to call it treason for any "techinical reason" it is sedition, and that is also a very serious crime.

If I'm not mistaken that is called treason and life is a very light sentence for treason. Darn right that's a serious threat. And if you don't want to call it treason for any "techinical reason" it is sedition, and that is also a very serious crime.
incitement is not treason. I wish you nuts would stop declaring anything like this treason, treason is very specifically defined and incitement is not treason, even incitement to treason is not treason. But agian, this article does NOT give enough information for this topic to be one great big argument, some one get a better article or peice of information that outlines exactly what happens

of course we werent at war with anyone on september 16th. nor did any of his followers end up in afghanistan fighting against US troops.

sure he's an asshole. so many people are. but with no harm done why is he in prison for life?

Because he violated laws, was convicted by a jury, there are mandatory sentences for these charges.

I have no sympathy. There are people out there who mean us grave harm, and if they violate laws we punish them. Gets tiresome cleaning up the mess from terrorist acts.

I am guessing that the administration wants to make an example out of him.

Surely the remaining scholars would pause to think of what nonsense they are spouting in their next sermon.

Don't blame the administration, they don't make the laws. Don't blame the administration, they did not find the man guilty and impose the sentence.

According to the judge that was the minimal sentence available for the charges, although she clearly is of the opinion it's unmerited.

This goes beyond free speech, since he incited violence and his intent was clearly to distabilize the US. Still, the punishment seems too harsh and could backfire.

What sentence would you propose?

What sentence would you propose?

Good question. What sentence do you normally hand out to Christian fundamentalists inticing others to shoot doctors who perform abortions?

Good question. What sentence do you normally hand out to Christian fundamentalists inticing others to shoot doctors who perform abortions?

Death, unless there is a plea bargain, or the jury, or judge decides on a life without parole sentence.

Death, unless there is a plea bargain, or the jury, or judge decides on a life without parole sentence.

Not the guy who fired the shot. The preacher who told him in a firey sermon how much god hates abortionists and that they all should be executed and will burn in hell.

Good question. What sentence do you normally hand out to Christian fundamentalists inticing others to shoot doctors who perform abortions?

Am I correct in assuming you meaning that there is a double-standard in the US, that violence is institutionally tolerated if it is committed by favored races or religions?

I do not believe that to be true, except in rare cases where cultural bias exists in either the judge or jury, as can said to have existed in the deep south in the 1960's. There is no collusion between the government and judges/juries to treat one religion differently than another, certainly not when it comes to serious crimes. The laws are not written to favor anyone, but if they were they should be changed.

Can you cite a preacher who specifically told his congregation to shoot abortion doctors?

Am I correct in assuming you meaning that there is a double-standard in the US, that violence is institutionally tolerated if it is committed by favored races or religions?

I do not believe that to be true, except in rare cases where cultural bias exists in either the judge or jury, as can said to have existed in the deep south in the 1960's. There is no collusion between the government and judges/juries to treat one religion differently than another, certainly not when it comes to serious crimes. The laws are not written to favor anyone, but if they were they should be changed.

I'm saying that in the current political and social climate, we are more easily inclined to turn against a Muslim who is teaching radical thought than we are against any other conviction or faith.
I took the abortion as an example, no I can't quote a preacher. I could most likely, however, quote a few Nazi-pages from the US spreading the same hatred and inciting to just as much violence as this one Muslim did (it's hard to say from the article what EXACTLY his teachings were)

If he trained terrorists in martial arts or in the fabrication of explosives and the like, then the sentence is absolutely justified.
If, however (and that's what I understand from the article) he taught them a radical interpretation of Islamic faith and told them that they would go to heaven for killing Americans, then no, it's not justified, as this, in my eyes, would mean restricting his right to freedom of speach.

What I'm wondering is this - and we're getting into legal definitions I have no knowledge of - can we charge the KKK with whatever this Moslem dude did, basically charges of inciting, aiding, abetting terrorism with treasonous intent?

I suspect it's the terrorist connection that brings the heavy time and a high rate of jury conviction. The First Amendment angle is interesting. I support the right of those guys to say what's on their mind, but I hate what they mean. Somewhere there's a magic legal line that gets crossed and you can convict them.
If not the KKK then we can at least go after the various militia groups, some of them white supremacist, that are training to fight against the US government.

Not the guy who fired the shot. The preacher who told him in a firey sermon how much god hates abortionists and that they all should be executed and will burn in hell.

Sorry, I miss-read your question. If the preacher actually advocated the killing of abortion clinic workers and doctors, and encouraged his congregation to take training to kill them then yes he should be given a very stiff sentence. In addition, if he advocated the violence to overthrow the US government because "they are an evil bunch of abortionists" he is committing sedition and should receive an even stiffer sentence, including a possible life sentence.

If not the KKK then we can at least go after the various militia groups, some of them white supremacist, that are training to fight against the US government.

Yes. But the devil is in the details. We have to work within existing law, write new ones to reflect new conditions, or prosecute more aggressively. The latter is the most practical - do you agree?

If we react with emotion we're likely to discriminate, and I think most people want that. Just in this thread there are people who think this Moslem dude is being discriminated against despite a jury conviction.

Bottom line, we're talking about getting a lot more serious about people who advocate the use of force or violence to overthrow the US govt - basically anarchy. Below is an example of that kind of charge.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:7r0zGwOWuWIJ:www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gitlow.html+advocate+the+overthrow+using+force+or+violence&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Please keep in mind that almost always, a fiery rhetorical sermon by a preacher at the madrassa / mosque is the starting point of a muslim becoming a jihadi. Disturbed by the sermon, the impressionable mind becomes volatile and then the recruiters and then the training and then the bomb..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439982/posts
"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said," Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet. "I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no compromise. I found that appealing.

PS: Celtlund, thanks for the info. IMO, unsubstantiated ofcourse, in cases like these there will be interference from the administration.

What a laugh!
He urges people to attack a country, and then asks the same for protection under its laws, and the left wonder why we dont take their soft views on here seriously, not that we ever did.
This man should have any rights stripped from him, he should be considered non persona grata, have all benefits taken from him, and any identity.
Rights should not just belong to you, because your a citizen, they should be above all, earned.

Kick the bastard out.

Please keep in mind that almost always, a fiery rhetorical sermon by a preacher at the madrassa / mosque is the starting point of a muslim becoming a jihadi. Disturbed by the sermon, the impressionable mind becomes volatile and then the recruiters and then the training and then the bomb..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439982/posts


PS: Celtlund, thanks for the info. IMO, unsubstantiated ofcourse, in cases like these there will be interference from the administration.
There people are already impressionable nutjobs otherwise a good many christians would be killing gays and bombing abortion clinics and the offices of those who support abortions and homsoexuality daily. Extremists mulsims must be far more impressionable than the average extremist christian, especially those muslims who were normal functioning members of the US society to start with. You can't really blame anyway for people already predisposed to manipulation and violence just happening to be manipulated

What a laugh!
Rights should not just belong to you, because your a citizen, they should be above all, earned.


Circa Pre-Enlightenment Europe

Hey, it worked for Ollie North.

Circa Pre-Enlightenment Europe

You call letting someone stay in your country, who preaces violence against it as being more enlightened?
How high was the tree you fell out of?

You call letting someone stay in your country, who preaces violence against it as being more enlightened?
How high was the tree you fell out of?

Evidently high enough to shock sufficient sense into his head to stop walking on his knuckles. One wishes you'd fallen from a tree at least as high.

I don't think I'll stay around and debate this issue, because it's a matter of personal belief, not anything you can quanify or prove, so it's pointless.

That being said, I believe that you should have the right to say or advocate anything you damn well please. Accully organizing or masterminding spacific attacks, or saying "attack this building on this day" in another thing, but if you want to say "The US governemt should be violently overthrown," there should be no penalty.

In fact, I will say it right now:

The US government should be violently overthrown.

Now, should I go to jail for the rest of my life for that? Of course not. Because I would never do anything about it. I am Christain, and therefor completly non-violent. I'd never take part in or urge someone to do it. But it's my choice what to believe and advocate.

Mouthings (or lack therefor of) made at gunpoint are not truths, nor real beliefs.

That being said, I'm out. Go ahead and say what you want about me, I won't see it. This is my opinion, nothing more and nothing less. Anything you say in responce will be simply your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

I am Christain, and therefor completly non-violent
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Ihatevacations']There people are already impressionable nutjobs otherwise a good many christians would be killing gays and bombing abortion clinics and the offices of those who support abortions and homsoexuality daily. Extremists mulsims must be far more impressionable than the average extremist christian, especially those muslims who were normal functioning members of the US society to start with. You can't really blame anyway for people already predisposed to manipulation and violence just happening to be manipulated

Could you please explain why you think the average Muslim extremist is more easy to manipulate than the average extremist Christian? You state that as if it was a fact, but I have my doubts there...

Ihatevacations']:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I wasn't saying that all Christians are non-violent, but that, because I am a christain, that I am

I wasn't saying that all Christians are non-violent, but that, because I am a christain, that I am
which is why I did the headbangs

Why do I have the feeling that just about any terrorist these days is a Muslim fanatic? There used to be fascists, communists etc. as terrorists back in 20th century, now all there is left is this Jihad-mongering crowd.

Yet still there is a war on terror [in general] or as michael moore put it: war on the american people. The war on terror has come to europe too. I mean, this is exactly what they want: destabilize democracies into fascistoid regimes. Democracy, according to these people, is the most evil form of government, the ideal is islamic theocracy but this is the next best thing.

Maybe "War on Islam" would be more interesting for both economical and political reasons (black gold/texas tea)?

they don't hate democracy, they hate western influence in the middle east.

they don't hate democracy, they hate western influence in the middle east.

The most extreme ones hat the concept of democracy as a western, secular idea that they cannot combin with their interpretation of the Quran at all.

you know that old saying..... the one ive seen many many times here on the NS general forum

"i may disagree with what you say but ill defend to the death your right to say it"?

well?

you know that old saying..... the one ive seen many many times here on the NS general forum

"i may disagree with what you say but ill defend to the death your right to say it"?

well?i guess in a democratic country like US people are equal-the only problem is that some are more equal then the others ?

i guess in a democratic country like US people are equal-the only problem is that some are more equal then the others ?
so it seems

sigh

i wonder who the next "less equal" group will be

usa is ruled by a bunch of rich jews -dont be suprised.......

Evidently high enough to shock sufficient sense into his head to stop walking on his knuckles. One wishes you'd fallen from a tree at least as high.

Hey dont knock us knuckle draggers, we get along quite well paddling up the street with our hands. :p
And I still think your soft ideals suck, give me a safer country for me and my relatives any day.

usa is ruled by a bunch of rich jews -dont be suprised.......

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why we did next to nothing to prevent Hitler from murdering 6 million of them, because "rich joos control America."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's why we did next to nothing to prevent Hitler from murdering 6 million of them, because "rich joos control America."
they didnt control it yet in 40-s.usa was ruled by rich europeans[germans] until then..

Could you please explain why you think the average Muslim extremist is more easy to manipulate than the average extremist Christian? You state that as if it was a fact, but I have my doubts there...

Could it be because we have more Muslim extremists than Christian extremests going around blowing up innocent people?

Could it be because we have more Muslim extremists than Christian extremests going around blowing up innocent people?

Do we really? Or are they just more impressive and more successful in their actions?
I don't know, I don't have numberson that. But I seem to remember a large number of incidents where Christian extremist killed other, be that because the leader of their sect commanded it or because they were brainwashed anti-abortionists.
Right now, the Muslims seem to be more active, that's true.

Muslims are an Islamic nation and the USA is a Christian nation. What secularist nation's Constitution would you be referring to?

A SECULARIST CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE 2 COUNTRIES!

Praise be to GOD allmighty! GOD bless and protect America! Halleluiah to the lamb of GOD! Jesus is the savior of the world! The Holy word of GOD is the law of this great USA!

You call letting someone stay in your country, who preaces violence against it as being more enlightened?
How high was the tree you fell out of?

...

Do you know anything about relativily recent Europeon history?

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302169.html

This guy incited people to commit terrorist acts, helped train terrorists, and claims he doesn't recognize secular law. Then he reads the preamble to the constitution as part of his defense.

Sorry pal, secular law doesn't recognize any right to incite terrorism.

If he's foriegn, our Constitution doesn't grant him the same rights as a natural born citizen as Jose Padilla has.

Muslims are an Islamic nation and the USA is a Christian nation. What secularist nation's Constitution would you be referring to?

A SECULARIST CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE 2 COUNTRIES!

Praise be to GOD allmighty! GOD bless and protect America! Halleluiah to the lamb of GOD! Jesus is the savior of the world! The Holy word of GOD is the law of this great USA!

Learn some American history for the love of god. Your embarrassing us with your utter idiocy.

The first four American presidents were deists and many leading minds that created the Constitution or Declaration of Independence were like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison.

Deists. NOT christians. In fact, they created a treaty called the Treaty of Tripoli that declares America to NOT be a christian nation. The document the created was secular FOR A REASON. A lot of the places in colonial America that were puritanical segregated people of similar yet different religions such as Catholics and Angelicans.

Muslims are an Islamic nation and the USA is a Christian nation. What secularist nation's Constitution would you be referring to?

A SECULARIST CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE 2 COUNTRIES!
Praise be to GOD allmighty! GOD bless and protect America! Halleluiah to the lamb of GOD! Jesus is the savior of the world! The Holy word of GOD is the law of this great USA!

Wow. That is an ignorant statement. 68% of the world would disagree on that one.

The United States is a secular nation; read our Constitution and learn our history. We do not use the Bible for law, nor do we enforce any religious creed on our citizens.

This man should have any rights stripped from him, he should be considered non persona grata, have all benefits taken from him, and any identity.
Rights should not just belong to you, because your a citizen, they should be above all, earned.

Kick the bastard out.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That they are enfowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. that among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."

I know those words by heart.
Rights are unalienable when they can never be split asunder from you. You can't lose them.
They always belong to you.
Self-evident means they are truth by themselves alone.
No need to earn Liberty, Life, Or Pursuit of Happiness rights.

usa is ruled by a bunch of rich jews -dont be suprised.......

After seeing your moon landing topic, I am so not surprised to see you saying this.

Constitutionally, he could have been nailed for Treason as he was giving "Aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war". If we use the Constitution as a guide, he should be facing the Hangman's noose, not Life in the lockup.

The post mentioning other (Domestic) groups, was right-we're not nearly hard enough on groups like the KKK, American Nazi Party, or Communist Party USA.
What are the Nazis or Communists doing that warrants sentencing?

You should be the one's reading, re-reading and understanding the U.S. Constitution, not I. The founding fathers were Christians, as were most of the U.S. Presidents. And the US was founded on Christianity. You must dig for the truth, and forget what the current secularist/humanist public school system is brainwashing you all with.

Do your homework and research (hint: look up U.S. Presidents, and find out what each one's religion was). That is your homework assignment for today.

The USA is a Christian nation..... I repeat, the USA is a Christian nation. And if you are still to ignorent to understand this, there is not much I can do for you. You interpret the US Constitution your way, as I will mine. End of story! GOD bless and may He help all you little lost sheep. Good day!

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

In other words:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL

GOD bless and may He help all you little lost sheep.
Speak for yourself, sheep. I have my own relationship with God. One that doesn't require arbiters, shepherds, or any of the usual suspects who try inserting themselves between humanity and Godhead.

But you go back to eating grass and being led around by the nose all you like. It's scary out here, after all.

You should be the one's reading, re-reading and understanding the U.S. Constitution, not I. The founding fathers were Christians, as were most of the U.S. Presidents. And the US was founded on Christianity. You must dig for the truth, and forget what the current secularist/humanist public school system is brainwashing you all with.

Do your homework and research (hint: look up U.S. Presidents, and find out what each one's religion was). That is your homework assignment for today.

The USA is a Christian nation..... I repeat, the USA is a Christian nation. And if you are still to ignorent to understand this, there is not much I can do for you. You interpret the US Constitution your way, as I will mine. End of story! GOD bless and may He help all you little lost sheep. Good day!

What type of Christian? For example, JFK was a Catholic, so i believe. Nixon was raised as a Quaker. Carter was a Baptist. And, of course. Reagan was an Idiot. There are many differing types of Christianity, and i would assume - without looking into the specific details - that America's "Christian" presidents have probably covered the whole gamut of Christianity.

All well and good, you could claim some sort of common ground between them all (despite the facts Catholics have killed many more Protestants than Muslims have). But you still ignore the basic fact:-

The founders of the USA SEPERATED Church and State. Freedom of religion belonged to all. In fact, as i recall, some of the early colonies allowed anyone who believed in *a* god in - so this included Muslims and Jews. Only Atheists were banned, in those distant puritan times.

Study your history of Puritan thought a little more, my dear inbred bible-basher - you'll find that after Calvin, the trend was very much for religious tolerance, even in countries with State Churches.

Which, of course, as the original poster pointed out...the USA never had.

Like I said: May GOD bless and help all you lost sheep! Seek and accept GOD, and only then will you find the true meaning of life.

Any post that I see threatening GOD while on-line I will defend. Count on it.

The only ones being led around by the nose would be those that have not found and accepted GOD.

Like I said: May GOD bless and help all you lost sheep! Seek and accept GOD, and only then will you find the true meaning of life.

Any post that I see threatening GOD while on-line I will defend. Count on it.

The only ones being led aroun by the would be those that have not found and accepted GOD.

Who is GOD? I know God, but God doesn't insist on all-caps when writing. Defend GOD all you want, it's not like God needs to be defended. All-powerful, all-knowing, remember? Creator of the Universe and all that jazz.

It's a sad day when some tunnel-visioned pillock is called upon to be God's lone soldier. Which rather undescores for me the fact that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

But what more could I expect from a sheep?

[QUOTE=Fischerspooner]What type of Christian? For example, JFK was a Catholic, Nixon was raised as a Quaker, Carter was a Baptist and of course, Reagan was a great Christian. There are many differing types of Christianity, and i would assume - without looking into the specific details - that America's "Christian" presidents have probably covered the whole gamut of Christianity.

You got this part right! Now you need to study up on all the rest of your misguided statements and lies you have been taught.

GOD bless!

[QUOTE=Fischerspooner]What type of Christian? For example, JFK was a Catholic, Nixon was raised as a Quaker, Carter was a Baptist and of course, Reagan was a great Christian. There are many differing types of Christianity, and i would assume - without looking into the specific details - that America's "Christian" presidents have probably covered the whole gamut of Christianity.

You got this part right! Now you need to study up on all the rest of your misguided statements and lies you have been taught.

GOD bless!

I didn't like the way you changed Reagan's denominaton from "idiot" to "great christian", given it was the most accurate part of my post. However, i have no need to study the subject, having a masters degree in history, and far more knowledge of the history of religion than you will ever have kidda. Listen, i read books on the Council of Trent FOR FUN. And, when it comes down to it, you missed the point. The point was...seperation of church and state. Freedom of religion. The USA is not a child of "Christianity" but a child of the Enlightenment.

Who is GOD? I know God, but God doesn't insist on all-caps when writing. Defend GOD all you want, it's not like God needs to be defended. All-powerful, all-knowing, remember? Creator of the Universe and all that jazz.

It's a sad day when some tunnel-visioned pillock is called upon to be God's lone soldier. Which rather undescores for me the fact that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

But what more could I expect from a sheep?


I am a sheep, and Jesus is my Shepard. Only through him can you ever know GOD the father. How about you?

And GOD has many prophets and followers that assist in his work, as He has requested from all his children. What have you done for Him lately? It's a glorious day to see all us humble and devoted followers serve him. As it should be!

GOD bless my dear brother/sister!

After seeing your moon landing topic, I am so not surprised to see you saying this.
:D

I am a sheep, and Jesus is my Shepard. Only through him can you ever know GOD the father. How about you?

And GOD has many prophets and followers that assist in his work, as He has requested from all his children. What have you done for Him lately? It's a glorious day to see all us humble and devoted followers serve him. As it should be!

GOD bless my dear brother/sister!man people are not sheep .,people invented religion and god to explain unknown fenomena...the rich opressed poore and invented religion to calm people down..u know final justice after death and so on...pfff theirs no true justice...

Do we really? Or are they just more impressive and more successful in their actions?

Yeah, that "more successful" part is what matters. They are killing more people. Christian terrorists don't really exist outside Uganda and Nigeria.

I don't know, I don't have numberson that. But I seem to remember a large number of incidents where Christian extremist killed other, be that because the leader of their sect commanded it or because they were brainwashed anti-abortionists.
Sources? "I seem to remember" does not count. As for the famed abortion clinic bombings in America, that only happened once. (Keep in mind that this is not apologising; I am pro-choice.)

[QUOTE=Arnburg]

Listen, i read the distorted books on the Council of Trent for fun. And, when it comes down to it, I totally agree with you. The point was... The US was founded on Christian beliefs. The USA is a child of "Christianity".


Well now, I'm so happy that you agree and have found the truth. Now, if we could only get many others to find the truth as well. Thank you for your marvelous post. Good day!

I am a sheep, and Jesus is my Shepard. Only through him can you ever know GOD the father. How about you?

And GOD has many prophets and followers that assist in his work, as He has requested from all his children. What have you done for Him lately? It's a glorious day to see all us humble and devoted followers serve him. As it should be!

GOD bless my dear brother/sister!

I am a human being. Only through direct experience of God's creation will I understand God. All humanity are God's "children", and no one human is any closer to God than any other. We are all equidistant.

My relationship with God is direct, deeply personal, and as valid, if not more so, than any franchise of "organized religion" ever will be.

Why?

Because there's more of God to be found in the living world and the Universe than will ever be found in some old book written by people hoping to fleece humanity by interposing themselves between people and Godhead.

If anyone in this continuum is to be damned, it is the Clergy - of all "organized religions". Damned by their own presumption. Damned by their either/or sensibilities. Damned for breeding ignorance and blessing it as a virtue.

I won't deign to respond to the question of 'What have I done for Him lately'. God knows what I have done. I know what I have done. And God doesn't need, or want, for anything - other than the knowledge that those for whom this Universe was created are joyful in the time we spend here. God doesn't want people on their knees in drafty old churches, or reading a lot of farcical hooey designed to keep the lower classes in their proper place, or any of the hundreds of bits and pieces of BS presented to adherents of "organized religions" as the end-all and be-all of what God supposedly wants.

Want to know what God wants? Ask. Don't ask a member of the Clergy, though; they have their own materialistic agenda. Who cares what a bunch of fawning sychophants have to say in any event?

man people are not sheep .,people invented religion and god to explain unknown fenomena...the rich opressed poore and invented religion to calm people down..u know final justice after death and so on...pfff theirs no true justice...


And you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. Right? Bye bye!

[QUOTE=Fischerspooner]


Well now, I'm so happy that you agree and have found the truth. Now, if we could only get many others to find the truth as well. Thank you for your marvelous post. Good day!
You're a talentless, manipulative hack with all the charm and grace of an exploding septic tank at a bridal shower.

And you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. Right? Bye bye!

Though apparently Fischerspooner isn't entitled to his. You hypocritical charlatan.

I am a human being. Only through direct experience of God's creation will I understand God. All humanity are God's "children", and no one human is any closer to God than any other. We are all equidistant.

My relationship with God is direct, deeply personal, and as valid, if not more so, than any franchise of "organized religion" ever will be.

Why?

Because there's more of God to be found in the living world and the Universe than will ever be found in some old book written by people hoping to fleece humanity by interposing themselves between people and Godhead.

If anyone in this continuum is to be damned, it is the Clergy - of all "organized religions". Damned by their own presumption. Damned by their either/or sensibilities. Damned for breeding ignorance and blessing it as a virtue.

I won't deign to respond to the question of 'What have I done for Him lately'. God knows what I have done. I know what I have done. And God doesn't need, or want, for anything - other than the knowledge that those for whom this Universe was created are joyful in the time we spend here. God doesn't want people on their knees in drafty old churches, or reading a lot of farcical hooey designed to keep the lower classes in their proper place, or any of the hundreds of bits and pieces of BS presented to adherents of "organized religions" as the end-all and be-all of what God supposedly wants.

Want to know what God wants? Ask. Don't ask a member of the Clergy, though; they have their own materialistic agenda. Who cares what a bunch of fawning sychophants have to say in any event?


As I just responded to Serbijanac, I will do so with you as well: You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. Agreed?

As I just responded to Serbijanac, I will do so with you as well: You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. Agreed?

You aren't entitled to refer to me as a 'lost little sheep'. And if you and I are to be entitled to our own opinions, then apologize to Fischerspooner for summarily negating his opinions.

Or you'll still be nothing more than a hypocrite in God's eyes.

I see that you believe in a Christian Theocracy in the USA as well Dobbsworld. Good for you!

I see that you believe in a Christian Theocracy in the USA as well Dobbsworld. Good for you!
Who said anything about Christianity?

Who said anything about legislated anti-secularism?

I was talking about a deeply personal and direct relationship with God.

More of your hypocricy?

I think so.

I see that you believe in a Christian Theocracy in the USA as well Dobbsworld. Good for you!

No amount of unclever manipulation of my, or anyone elses' words, are going to bring about the right conditions for foisting your spiritual beliefs on the American people.

No amount of unclever manipulation of my, or anyone elses' words, are going to bring about the right conditions for foisting your spiritual beliefs on the American people.
1. Stop feeding the troll. This guy isn't even the funny type of troll.

2. You're not American.

1. Stop feeding the troll. This guy isn't even the funny type of troll.

2. You're not American.

Big deal I'm not American. I'm a human. Sometimes that's all that's needed.

Though apparently Fischerspooner isn't entitled to his. You hypocritical charlatan.

Point being, i wasn't allowed to have knowledge and quote facts, because, of course, facts + faith do not mix :)

No amount of unclever manipulation of mine, or anyone elses words, are going to bring about the right conditions for forcing your spiritual beliefs on the American people.


But yet secularists want to impose there beliefs and ideals on me while destroying faith and morality..... Ha, never going to happen! I will never accept homosexual marriage, abortion, legalized drugs, prostitution, bestiality or so many other sick, perverted, repulsive and repugnent ideals as law. And if all of you don't like it, too bad. You start the war, and we will finish it. Guarenteed!

You all like attacking us, and get all bent out of shape when us true Christians defend ourselves. We never attack, but always defend. However, you always try to find ways of playing the victim. Take your lies, hypocrocies and double-standards to someone else, they will never work on me. GOD will prevail in the end.

I never create threads attacking anyone, yet I see an abundance of threads attacking Christians. What Hypocrecy! Any one that attacks me or my faith is free to do so, but don't start complaining when I respond defending my opinions, ideals and beliefs. It goes both ways for your information.

I'm done for today, but I'll be back later. And I will not be silenced by anyone, understood? End of discussion!

Praise GOD allmighty, King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Oh please, you arn't being persecuted when you control the country, you been hittin the peppermint schnopps?

Ihatevacations']Oh please, you arn't being persecuted when you control the country, you been hittin the peppermint schnopps?


The fight is about holding on to them, and stop any further deterioration of my country. What is so hard to comprehend?