Separate Church and State?

By -


Many liberals are terrified at the slightest incroachment of government into religion, such as placing a Christmas tree at City Hall, or printing "In God We Trust" on the back of a dollar.

Such liberals should examine the history of Islam. Islam has no tolerance for the idea that church and state should be separate. Islam assumes that the Church and state should be one and that all citizens should be governed by Islamic law, or Sharia.

If Moslems get their way, the separation of church and state will become a thing of the past.

The one thing that can sometimes bring groups in conflict together is their mutual perception of a shared threat. Why is it that liberals remain oblivious of the danger of radical political Islam to their cherished liberal ideals?

Freedom of speech does not exist under Sharia law. Criticizing Mohammad is a death penalty offense. Nor does freedom of religion exist under Sharia law. In fact, infidels are tolerated; allowed to live only as second class citizens if they pay a "poll tax."

Once you convert to Islam, you're freedom of religion ends. Changing your mind to believe in any other kind of religion besides Islam, or atheism, is called Apostasy. The crime of apostasy is a capital offense under Sharia law.

Rights for minorities such as homosexuals are not respected by Islam. Islam has sanctioned the murder of homosexuals and also sanctioned stoning women (but rarely men) for adultery.

Sharia is the ultimate Anti-Liberal set of laws.

So why are liberals so unconcerned? Why do they feel that Bush and Cheney are the problem, not Islam? Perhaps liberals has suffered some damage to their instinct for survival?

It is a complete mystery to me.

Bob Clasen

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How About Kids Accounts?

By -
posted by Bob Clasen Mr. President, Let's Share the Wealth By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 8, 2005 President Bush said he was open to other people's ideas on how to fix Social Security, so I hope he'll listen to mine. My idea starts with a blunt political observation. Personal accounts - as they are currently envisioned - are going to be hard to pass. Every important Democrat opposes them. Jim McCrery, the Republican who is chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, says the president's plan will have to fundamentally change if it is to have a chance. So my idea is this: If the president's current version of personal accounts stalls, he should consider another version - one that is more likely to win broad support, and that achieves all the goals of an "ownership society." The personal accounts I'm thinking of would be inspired by a proposal called KidSave, which was floating around in the late 1990's. KidSave wa...
Read more

Democrat Party: "Dependency-Bureaucracy Complex"

By -
by George Will ____________________________ If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush. He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor. John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now arous...
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis...
Read more