| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 May 2007 07:07:35 AM |
| Object: |
Singular privilege applied only to Muslims? |
[conservative pundit asks:]
Flying Imams revisited: Part of greater Islamic strategy?
renewamerica.us - Washington,DC,USA
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/070430
Sher Zieve
April 30, 2007
Were the antics of the six Flying Imams merely additional tactics in the
Islamic overall strategy of installing Shari'a law in the USA? It would
appear so, according to some self-avowed moderate Muslims and the results
of
other recently exhibited actions by US Islamists and their followers. Let's
take a look.
With regards to Minneapolis Airport's Muslim cab drivers, in 2006 the
Muslim
American Society of Minneapolis (MAS) issued a "fatwa" (religious edict) to
the Minneapolis Airport Commission (MAC). The fatwa advised MAC that
Islamic
law prohibits Muslims from being around the sin of alcohol and Muslim
cabbies refused to transport any passenger fares who had packed sealed
alcoholic products in their luggage. Other Muslim taxi drivers at the
airport also refused to transport passengers with dogs - including guide
dogs. Muslims consider not only pork to be unclean but, dogs also. After a
great deal of foot-dragging and stalling, MAC finally voted on the Muslim
cabbies' demands, in April. With a unanimous 11-0 vote, Minneapolis Airport
commissioners agreed to suspend airport taxi drivers who refuse fares. The
first offense will carry a 30-day suspension and repeat offenses will
result
in 2-year taxi license revocations. Note: This is highly unusual, as lately
all too many Muslim demands have been met with submission to them.
One of these recent submissions to Islam involves a Minneapolis Target
store. Muslim Target checkers refuse to scan any pork products. Due to the
recent Muslim cab driver flap, one can only assume this
refusal-to-touch-or-scan also applies to any products containing alcohol.
Instead of advising the Target Muslim checkers that scanning pork is part
of
their jobs, Target accommodated their demands. The retail giant has either
transferred the Muslims to other duties or a non-Muslim employee is called
to scan the items. Question: Are Jewish Target employees afforded the same
treatment, when they must handle pork? The answer is, of course, no.
Singular privilege applies only to Muslims.
Another surrender to Muslims' demands was recently announced by Minneapolis
Community & Technical College. In what appears to be a direct violation of
the US Supreme Court's Justice Black 1947 interpretation of "separation of
church and state," the college has allocated tax-payer funds to build on
campus foot washing basins for Muslims preparing for prayer. The school is
also said to be involved in negotiations with Minneapolis' Muslim leaders
to, also, establish an on-campus Muslim prayer room. Of note is that
Christian symbols and celebrations are banned on this campus but, the
Islamic Muslim religion is now embraced and given - yet again - "special
privileges." Separation of "mosque and state" does not apply.
Questions: Does anyone see a developed pattern of capitulation to Islam in
the state of Minnesota? Will Minnesota cities, as have already been
implemented in Michigan cities, soon have calls to Islamic prayer broadcast
to their citizens?
---end of exerpt---
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Singular privilege applied only to Muslims? |
01 May 2007 09:16:53 AM |
|
|
On May 1, 7:07 am, wrote:
[conservative pundit asks:]
Flying Imams revisited: Part of greater Islamic strategy?
renewamerica.us - Washington,DC,USAhttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/070430
Sher Zieve
April 30, 2007
Were the antics of the six Flying Imams merely additional tactics in the
Islamic overall strategy of installing Shari'a law in the USA? It would
appear so, according to some self-avowed moderate Muslims and the results
of
other recently exhibited actions by US Islamists and their followers. Let's
take a look.
With regards to Minneapolis Airport's Muslim cab drivers, in 2006 the
Muslim
American Society of Minneapolis (MAS) issued a "fatwa" (religious edict) to
the Minneapolis Airport Commission (MAC). The fatwa advised MAC that
Islamic
law prohibits Muslims from being around the sin of alcohol and Muslim
cabbies refused to transport any passenger fares who had packed sealed
alcoholic products in their luggage. Other Muslim taxi drivers at the
airport also refused to transport passengers with dogs - including guide
dogs. Muslims consider not only pork to be unclean but, dogs also. After a
great deal of foot-dragging and stalling, MAC finally voted on the Muslim
cabbies' demands, in April. With a unanimous 11-0 vote, Minneapolis Airport
commissioners agreed to suspend airport taxi drivers who refuse fares. The
first offense will carry a 30-day suspension and repeat offenses will
result
in 2-year taxi license revocations. Note: This is highly unusual, as lately
all too many Muslim demands have been met with submission to them.
One of these recent submissions to Islam involves a Minneapolis Target
store. Muslim Target checkers refuse to scan any pork products. Due to the
recent Muslim cab driver flap, one can only assume this
refusal-to-touch-or-scan also applies to any products containing alcohol.
Instead of advising the Target Muslim checkers that scanning pork is part
of
their jobs, Target accommodated their demands. The retail giant has either
transferred the Muslims to other duties or a non-Muslim employee is called
to scan the items. Question: Are Jewish Target employees afforded the same
treatment, when they must handle pork? The answer is, of course, no.
Singular privilege applies only to Muslims.
Another surrender to Muslims' demands was recently announced by Minneapolis
Community & Technical College. In what appears to be a direct violation of
the US Supreme Court's Justice Black 1947 interpretation of "separation of
church and state," the college has allocated tax-payer funds to build on
campus foot washing basins for Muslims preparing for prayer. The school is
also said to be involved in negotiations with Minneapolis' Muslim leaders
to, also, establish an on-campus Muslim prayer room. Of note is that
Christian symbols and celebrations are banned on this campus but, the
Islamic Muslim religion is now embraced and given - yet again - "special
privileges." Separation of "mosque and state" does not apply.
Questions: Does anyone see a developed pattern of capitulation to Islam in
the state of Minnesota? Will Minnesota cities, as have already been
implemented in Michigan cities, soon have calls to Islamic prayer broadcast
to their citizens?
---end of exerpt---
What religion is in majority there?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
after God.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
****************************************************************
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Singular privilege applied only to Muslims? |
08 May 2007 04:50:02 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|
:|What religion is in majority there?
:|
:|***************************************************************
:|You are invited to check out the following:
:|
:|Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
:|one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
:|after God.
:|
:|Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
:|
:|Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
:|eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
:|
:|****************************************************************
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
The above is from the same guy who brought you this
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On May 4, 5:31 am, wrote:
:|> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >:|On May 1, 7:13 am, wrote:
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a corpo
:|> >:|> Message #9272 of 9293
:|> >:|> 1888
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Bancroft on the Constitution
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality
:|> >:|> and individuality. It knows nothing of differences by descent, or
:|> >:|> opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political
:|> >:|> power of property. It leaves the individual alongside of the
:|> >:|> individual. No nationality of character could take form, except on the
:|> >:|> principle of individuality, so that the mind might be free, and every
:|> >:|> faculty have the unlimited opportunity for its development and culture
:|> >:|> . . . .
:|> >:|> "The rule of individuality was extended as never before . . . .
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a
:|> >:|> corporation. In the earliest states known to history, government and
:|> >:|> religion were one and indivisible. Each state had its special deity,
:|> >:|> and of these protectors one after another might be overthrown in
:|> >:|> battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian War grew out of a
:|> >:|> strife about an oracle. Rome, as it adopted into citizenship those
:|> >:|> whom it vanquished, sometimes introduced, and with good logic for that
:|> >:|> day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating liberty
:|> >:|> of religion for the conscience of the individual till a voice in
:|> >:|> Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity by
:|> >:|> establishing for all mankind a pure, spiritual, and universal
:|> >:|> religion, enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's.
:|> >:|> The rule was upheld during the infancy of this gospel for all men. No
:|> >:|> sooner was the religion of freedom adopted by the chief of the Roman
:|> >:|> Empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality and
:|> >:|> enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy state; and so it
:|> >:|> continued till the new nation-the least defiled with the barren
:|> >:|> scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most sincere believer in
:|> >:|> Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the
:|> >:|> Reformation in its purest form-when it came to establish a government
:|> >:|> for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be
:|> >:|> regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a
:|> >:|> state.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in
:|> >:|> religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of
:|> >:|> accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely
:|> >:|> ordained in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the
:|> >:|> temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the
:|> >:|> people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the
:|> >:|> power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the
:|> >:|> sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the
:|> >:|> infinite spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity
:|> >:|> and power. "
:|> >:|> (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Bancroft, George, "History of the United
:|> >:|> States" (1888), Vol. VI, pp. 443, 444. American State Papers on
:|> >:|> Freedom in Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The
:|> >:|> Religious Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and
:|> >:|> Herald. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
:|> >:|> Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on
:|> >:|> Sunday Legislation. pp 140-141)
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation (1779):
:|> >:|"...too few have been sufficiently awakened to a sense of their guilt,
:|> >:|or warmed our Bosoms with gratitude, or taught to amend their lives
:|> >:|and turn from their sins, that so He might turn from His wrath."
:|>
:|> Duh.
:|>
:|> When was the Constitution framed?
:|> When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
:|> When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
:|> actually begin operation?
:|>
:|> Your example above is irrelevant since the answers to the above questions are
:|> all AFTER 1779.
:|>
:|> Better luck next time
:|>
:|
:|DUH! Your post was about the Constitution, and this is from the
:|Constitutional Convention. Pay attention next time.
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
More accurately
Christian Idiot and internet troll
Duh and double DUH
Had you bothered to have answered the questions I posed to you above, even
if only silently in your own mind, you would have realized your mistake
and not provided further evidence that you are an idiot who doesn't know
what you are talking about.
Answers to the questions
Q. When was the Constitution framed?
A. 1787
Q. When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
A. In the period of late 1787 - 1788
Q. When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
actually begin operation?
A. March 1789
Dude anythign that happned in 1779 is totally irrelevant and was not in any
way shape or form part of the Constitutional Convention which took place
thought the summer of 1787
A mind is a powereful thing to waste.
My condescendence on your wasted mind
(grin)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|