Second American female convert to Islam arrested in plot to kill Motoonist

"A "suburban Philadelphia woman", and now, a suburban Denver mom—joining..."

What makes this one even worse is that Leadville really isn't a suburb of anywhere - it truly is out in the middle of nowhere. It is a city that was prosperous during the mining age but at this point is very very off the beaten path out in the middle of the mountains. Check out the wikipedia entry to get a sense of it and look at google maps in satellite view and pan out. A suburb it is not. Yet even out there, with nothing to bother her but the beautiful surroundings she joins the Jihad. Count me officially freaked out. Islam out of America NOW!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadville,_Colorado

> Islam is continually whitewashed in the media.

sure but in the same breath one needs to put firm blame on US political leadership.

President Bush: "Islam is peace."

Why does a president believe he can lie to the American people for political expediency.

Why do US administration pressure the EU to accept Turkey as member when this will accelerate the Islamification of Europe.

Jimmy Carter support for Hamas: "Hamas can be trusted"

Administration turning a blind eye to Pakistani support for Afghan Taliban.

Culture of political correctness (vilification of anyone criticizing islam) leading to FT Hood killing of 12 young people that foolishly trusted their country to protect them at home.

And that brings me to the incompetence of FBI and CIA that lead to 9/11

One can list 1000 more - and it's not the media but the America political system that is fundamentally at fault.

Happy to hear any counter arguments.

I agree with you, raven_

As I wrote above, "the refusal of our media and leaders to face up to the very real conflict between Islam ... and everyone else on the planet".

But it is not just U.S. political leadership at fault.
There is not ONE Western leader, apart from Geert Wilders, who will identify Islam as the problem.

"There is not ONE Western leader, apart from Geert Wilders, who will identify Islam as the problem."

SO "elephant in the room."

The enemy comes to kill steal and destroy, he is the father of all lies.

"Another loser attracted to the religion for losers ...Islam and losers. Made for each other. And this is one of many reasons why Islam will eventually fail."

Hear, hear.

But it is not just U.S. political leadership at fault.
There is not ONE Western leader, apart from Geert Wilders, who will identify Islam as the problem.

right, so what's going on?
I put it navel gazing due to collective guilt. For Europe it is Holocaust, Fascism and Colonialism (esp for the British and French), for the US slavery and Vietnam war.

This guilt has turned in a loss of confidence where everything western is to be invalidated (libertarianism, judeo-christian heritage etc).

In some way those that pushed the notion of collective guilt have kicked an own goal the fruits of which we are all reaping now.

Geert Wilders sees where the true danger lies.

Actually wrong,

Pope Benedict has Islam's number.

How the Hell do you think I came up with this screename?

That was an interesting post, Mr. Barcode.

About Islam in its history spreading violent or peaceful, that was discussed here and elsewhere many times and you would blasted out of the water with the many arguments FOR violent conversion.

But still, much was due to Jizya and career-ambition, too, as you say. But is that fair? You know that being a Muslim in a Kuffar-country does not mean paying extra taxes and being blockaded from high education and careerpossibilities (we even have Muslim Mayor!). But as you pointed out, that was what Kuffars were getting tired of generation after generation in Muslim countries! And still are getting tired of.

There are many incentives and motivations to conversion in and out of religions, and some are to be respected, like adult voluntary conversion. I grudgingly admit too that somehow "Islam is a powerful intoxication" apparently. So be it. All the more reason to compete will with it with other religions, ways of life and freedom-opportunities.

But not fair incentives for conversion are: Exemption of Violence, Jizya, career-blockading discrimination, and also really not coercion, with threathening of withholding love and support, by parents, communities, and deathpenalties in the case of converting OUT of Islam.

Jane Abraham wrote:

...Quran, Surah 5:Ayat: 82-83 “And thou wilt find the nearest of them... etc”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jane, I assume you are a Muslim. I am an ex-Muslim. Jane, you are being tragically selective when quoting verses from the Quran.

The “rosy, feel-good” verse you have posted does not represent the reality of Islam. I have walked the road you are on Jane. It leads to a very dark dead end. Please read through my website and articles.

Peace and best wishes, Saleem

http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org

Gravenimage, when I looked at that picture of Collen LaRose with the slit for her eyes, I couldn't help thinking that it could have been a still shot from a movie scene in which she was about to face off Sho Kosugi in hand-to-hand combat... I guess that's why in mahoundianism, as some folks have pointed out here before, everyday is Halloween.

That kind of garment has also another little advantage... When mahoundian countries are struck by a major natural disaster that might leave thousands homeless, the stream of such mahoundian half-males onto the streets makes it unnecessary to set up tent cities. If the "full" males not wearing A-rab rags decide to dress up like the waddling princes of the Arabian Peninsula, then no mahoundian of any gender would need any kind of additional temporary shelter...

Of course, not *all* online courses about Islam are bad...

There's the one that Mr Warner provides, over at 'Centre for the Study of Political Islam'.

There's Mr Ali Sina's course, at Faithfreedom.

And there is, of course, the Jihadwatch virtual hedge school for resisters of Jihad and Sharia, offering in-depth online instruction about all those many things that the da'wa artists carefully neglect to tell people.

The students begin with 'Islam 101' as handily linked on the jihadwatch homepage, at the top, and proceed from there. Self-studying at their own pace.

So, Raven, if the American political system is at fault, what are we to do?

Give ourselves over to some "rightly guided" Kufr Khalifa?

Declare someone the Mahdi and follow him blindly?

Back in 1644, a pious Scottish Christian named Samuel Rutherford wrote that absolute power is too great a burden for mortal shoulders--and he was the first to admit he was part of a large chorus of voices saying similar things.

Maybe you're the sort of person who agrees with John Adams that our US Constitution can work only for a moral and religious people; and with Sam Adams that it requires an educated and moral people and will collapse because of an ignorant and debauched one. If so, we're probably on the same page.

BUT, I'm also the kind of guy who thinks that giving ourselves over to a dictatorial merely human "Savior" is admitting defeat and giving in to everything ungodly and anti-human [before annyone accuses me of giving in to a savior, please note that I confess mine--Jesus--to be God Incarnate as well as Son of Man].

darcy,

I think of islam not as "the elephant in the room", but as the T-Rex in the room!

Women like Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, who voluntarily convert to islam, are the most baffling creatures. Has anyone written a book about this phenomenon? It would make fascinating reading.

"Women like Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, who voluntarily convert to islam, are the most baffling creatures."

I would say they have a pathological need for belittlement and oppression by males.

Yeah, I can't understand it.

Jane, I assume you are a Muslim. I am an ex-Muslim. Jane, you are being tragically selective when quoting verses from the Quran.

SaleemSmith replied to comment from janeabraham | March 13, 2010 1:23 AM |

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh SaleemSmith,

Did you ever pass up on an immortal line from Saturday Night Live!

Remember the epic "news reporting battles" between Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain? ...

where Dan starts in ...

"Jane! You ignorant slut!"

"After all here you people condemn Islam so much and still this woman chooses Islam.

Why ???"

She's an obvious nutcase, Banerjee. That's why.

And, oh please! Is the PC Idiot "Dustan" back?! Another nutcase.

No Debanjan. I don't think Islam will do to the US what Christianity "did to Rome". If anything I think people will become fed up with religion altogether and Islam and Christianity in particular will become relics of a bygone era.

"Maybe she had a weight problem and decided that it would be easier to just wear a trash bag all the time than eat a proper diet and engage in regular exercise."

LOL! Yeah - you gotta love that Black Hefty Bag look!

And if the oppressed Mohammedan females get ornery and refuse to dress as the males want - in trash bags with eye slits - the Mohammedan males throw acid on them. In fact, it doesn't take much of a "transgression" for a Mohammedan female to get acid thrown on her by a Mohammedan male.

A disgusting society, culture and "religion."

@Dustan

You lie like a muhammadan prayer rug!!!

Islam isn't a race!!

No one cares about a muhammadans's skin color

IT'S THE BLACK HEART INSIDE YOU MUHAMMADANS WE WORRY ABOUT.

The black heart that comes from worshiping satan's minion, muhammad.

Curtin,

Sorry about that, Jane.

Jane of SNL, not janeabraham, you moron.

Most Jews would tell you Christianity is evil as well. It is a lie based upon twisting the Judaic message over the past 2000 years.

But that's neither here nor there. At least Christianity does not endorse hate speech, rape, pedophilia, slavery, etc.

And to Debannjan and Phelan and others:

I don't see much hope for the world in militant godlessness. We were all taught in school that the Spanish Inquisition was a shocking, evil, horrible thing. Indeed, as a Protestant, I concur. But, between 1483 and 1804, when Napoleon forcible shut it down, the Spanish Inquisition killed roughly 4,000 heretics in Spain itself. That's roughly the body count racked up by the Spanish Left in its internecine quarrels during the 1930's.

Further, in less than a century, secular evolutionists (chiefly those in a hurry), did in roughly 169,000,000 people for having the wrong interpretation of Marx (or for non-Marxism). A political scientist named R.J. Rummel actually made his name by doing the math. If we totaled all the theistic persecutions between the conversion Constantine and 1811 (the year when the New York Supreme Court upheld the imprisonment of one Ruggles for blasphemy against Jesus Christ), these shrink before the body count of the single, enlightened 20th century. Debanjan, since someone of your name posts on Daniel Pipes, does that give you any pause for reflection at all? Your name seems to be Bengali, and I know something of the political choices in that state of the Indian union.

Debanjan, evolutionary materialism has been the "working faith" of most Western people for more than a century and a half. While you can openly and boldly take the stand of the scoffer against Abrahamic theism if you're a teacher in an American public school, and even get celebrated as a hero or heroine in Hollywood if someone spits at you, you need to be pretty circumspect if you want to be known as a traditional Jew or Christian.

That's why I'm curious about what beliefs these two Jihad Jane's had before they became Muslims.

The continued dominance of Christianity in the West is only a fiction that gets trotted out by Left-wing evolutionary materialists when something goes wrong. They'll blame Luther's _On the Jews and their Lies_ for the crimes of Hitler, who wedded nationalism and socialism and called Christianity a "Jewish poison"; they'll blame Stalin's background as an Orthodox seminarian for the failings of the Soviet Communism they once hailed as paradise come to earth; and, if they knew, they'd blame the hellhole of North Korea on the Presbyterianism of Kim Ilsung's parents. I guess it breaks down when you point out that the only traditional faith the ultra-destructive Mao Zedong had in youth was Mahayana Buddhism, or that Pol Pot was raised by a devoutly Theravada Buddhist older brother, but there you have it.

I think that the current exploration of spiritualities of all kinds in the modern West stems from dissatisfaction with a dominant evolutionary materialism. This dissatisfaction made a Christian of me. It made New Agers of many others. It may have made a Muslim of Jihad Jane.

Pig Farmer:

Let me start by thanking you for the bacon and sausage I had for breakfast.

I think you're on to something about the publicity blitz Islam has enjoyed since 9/11. And maybe it didn't need the honest but misinformed President Dubya calling Islam a religion of peace (although I sympathize with his probable intent of defusing possible hate crimes against Muslims--in which he was largely successful). People notice anything big, and that's that.

The surviving cynic in me (may God forgive me!) sometimes thinks that if some angry, scapegrace of a loon flew a plane with a nuclear device into the Ka'aba at the height of the Hajj and left the words "Christ is King!" as his last will and testament, Christianity would probably undergo a major revival--and this is from a guy utterly appalled at what has been going on in Northern Ireland and disgusted by the Identity cults.

"But that's neither here nor there. At least Christianity does not endorse hate speech, rape, pedophilia, slavery, etc."

Uh, yeah. And I seriously doubt that any Jew would call Christianity "evil."

"No Debanjan. I don't think Islam will do to the US what Christianity "did to Rome". If anything I think people will become fed up with religion altogether and Islam and Christianity in particular will become relics of a bygone era."

Ironically it is exactly that sort of thinking on the part of too many clueless secularists in the modern liberal West, the abject stupidity of not being able to clearly distinguish between Christianity upon which their civilization was literally built and Islam which is 180 degrees opposite, the eternal enemy of every major principle upon which their civilization was built, that more or less ensures that the West will be destroyed by Islam.

"But tell me one thing can you embrace Islam in USA from a white background in say Louisiana bible belt and not get killed by your family members ? I doubt it."

That is a vicious slander. Christians are not like Muslims - they do not kill their own or others just because they change their religion, even to Islam. It is only Islam that is evil enough to bring family to kill their own if they wise up enough and choose to leave Islam. Only Islam can make the heart of someone black enough to cause them to kill their own family member in order to try to satiate Allah, the evil ruler of Islam. No Christian would even be able to conceive of killing their own. They would pray for the person not kill them.

Just for the record, Franco's Nationalists didn't kill millions. The total number of deaths in the Spanish Civil War was about half a million. Combat deaths were fairly even, about 100,000 for each side, and the rest were due to atrocities committed by both sides, including when the Communists fought a civil war within the Civil War against the anarchists and other leftists starting in the Spring of 1937.

As for comparisons between the Spanish Inquisition and what went on in the Spanish Civil War, I'd be very careful here. The Inquisition did not seek death except as a very last resort, while during the Civil War there was a deliberate pogrom carried on against many priests and nuns and devout Catholics in general; some of these murders were barbarously done. I'm not whitewashing the Inquistion's actions, just trying to put things in perspective.

Finally, we kave no lynch mobs in the USA. Yes, there was the occasional KKK lynch mob generations ago which preyed upon innocent blacks, but those days are gone. Since you used the present tense when writing about lynch mobs in America, I felt compelled to correct the record. As Dennis Prager has observed, the number one reason why America is disliked or hated around the world is because lies are told about America. I'm sure you want to be as accurate as possible, which is why I have written all of the above.

"My Answer >>>> It is very easy for a western man to ...give comments on political situations in a developing country.

Well, well - some answer.

"Developing" is a relative concept. It can mean development of life, or development of cancer.

When applied to Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, communities it signifies growth of economic wealth, progress in science, medicine and education, freedom: individual, political and religious, health, democracy, tolerance.

It is development of life.

Whereas development of a mohammedan society, despite never ending gigantic western aid: rivers of money, materiel, technology, science...etc always means growth of poverty, tyrany, corruption, political religious and individual oppression, stupidity, bigotry, disease - in short, a growth of everything islamic. Development of cancer.

I'm sure you want to be as accurate as possible, which is why I have written all of the above.

I am sure he doesn't want "to be as accurate as possible".

Accuracy is pursued by those interested in truth.
He is a mohammedan and admitting an occasional, unsanctioned by islam, truth may lead him to a slippery slope ending with him having to admit that his prophet was a murdering, lying, child-raping ogre.

No need to get that deep Deban. But it is true that the watered down version of "Christianity" practiced by most in the West which is really little more than modern liberalism hiding behind the trappings of Christianity must bear a large part of the responsibility for the failure of the West to be able to acknowledge that Islam is 100% incompatible with the West and with democratic freedoms and freedom of religion. Christianity will be saved by Christians outside of the West. Eventually missionaries will need to be sent to the West to restore Christianity there. But that won't be possible if the West is Islamized which is sadly the most likely future unless the Christian church and the state of modern liberalism changes drastically and soon.

Your tiresome and silly response is really pathetic. Face it, Muslims kill those who try to leave Islam and even THEIR OWN FAMILY, THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD! It takes a truly depraved sick and evil heart to do that, something that only Islam can do. Christians just don't do that, sorry.

"My Answer >>>> What you say is rant without any substance. Christians have been killing their own for centuries for what they perceive of being heretics."

Stay current. Provide current headlines to back up this charge.

Jihad Watch provides current headlines regarding islam, so may I suggest that you do the same.

Your stats and arguments are outdated and in no way pertain to either this topic, or to any real threat that Christians pose -- uh, that's because they DON'T pose a current threat. No, but islam does.

Oh, and if you were to say put together your own website calling it Christian Watch, then it would be a dead bounce within hours, because you wouldn't have a single headline to support your site.

Others have tried your argument in the past and have failed. Your argument is a weak one at best.

"Your argument is a weak one at best."

I take that back.

You don't even have a weak argument.

Instead, you have NO argument.

Your reasoning is lame, too.

"Stay current. Provide current headlines to back up this charge."

Be careful with that wording, it suggests that Christianity was at some time in the past involved in rampant killing of others solely because they rejected Christianity. That is not true. The number of people burned at the stake or tortured in inquisition style is MINUSCULE. The exception does not make the rule. And while Christianity was involved in wars there were almost always political reasons for the wars, they would have been fought between various nation states even if they had not been Christian. And ironically much of the fighting done by Christendom was defensive fighting against the evil cult of Islam. We can see now in hindsight that they did not do enough to directly attack and destroy Islam. We wouldn't be in the position we are today had Christians of prior ages invaded and destroyed Islamic nations wherever they could find them. And if they had destroyed all the mosques and built churches the world would be a better place today.

My Answer >>>> What you say is rant without any substance. Christians have been killing their own for centuries for what they perceive of being heretics.

For centuries?

OK, go ahead an provide a list of cases of Christian children, sisters, brothers, cousins etc. slaughtered by family for abandoning Christianity, or heresy in the past two centuries-

Also, please indicate which of these cases were accepted, justified and endorsed by the Christian community and clergy.
Let's see if the number comes closely to a number of apostates from Izzlum murdered by their ex co-religionists, or living in hiding for fear of being killed in a past year.

Also, compare the number of muzzlem girls abducted and forcibly converted to christianity in the past three centuries to the number of christian girls kidnapped, raped or forcibly made muzzlima in the past month.

"Be careful with that wording, it suggests that Christianity was at some time in the past involved in rampant killing of others solely because they rejected Christianity. That is not true."

I completely agree, ThinkThrice. I was simply trying to address his overall charges against Christians from the past. But you are correct, and thank you for clarifying my comment.

ThinkThrice has the far better argument than you do. There are admittedly some wacko Christians across the world but they pale in sheer numbers and actions to Islamic terrorist groups and their evil deeds. There have been almost 15,000 Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide just since 9/11. How many Christian terrorist attacks have their been during this same time period? Really, if one ideology produces 98-99% of violent loons and another ideology produces 1-2% of violent adherents, comparing the two ideologies as roughly equally problematical is absurd.

But there's something even more important that you're missing and it's this: When Christians have killed in the name of their religion, they were violating the tenets of their faith. When Muslims kill in the name of their creed, they are invariably fulfilling a major doctrine of their religion------jihad. Big difference. Huge. Islam is the only religion whose theological blueprint calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever. No school of Islamic theology has ever repudiated this doctrine. Let's face it, Presbyterian suidice bombers are kinda' scarce; Methodists sawing off heads a pretty rare event; Catholics taking hostages in the name of Jesus and the Pope not an everyday affair. You have fallen into the tu quoque fallacy. Big time.

"Jihad Watch provides current headlines regarding Islam, so may I suggest that you do the same."

How amazing would a complete 1400 year day by day history of the evil actions of Islam and Muhammadans, as is being collected on Jihadwatch and also on thereligionofpeace.com, be?

It is a tragedy of stupendous proportions that the true blood drenched evil history of Islam has been whitewashed and that the mishmash and confusion in so much of the "documented" history really makes it nearly impossible for the average person to get to the truth.

The survival of the West is at stake. The false history is really hurting us.

That was a sarcastically written sentence, Thomas_h. I think this guy DB is determined not to let facts interfere with his theories.

"The best known was Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander the 6th...A spiritually bankrupt individual..."

This is where the Islamic apologist replies, Oh Yeah, well just because Muhammad raped and killed and lied and stole, broke each and every one of the Ten Commandments, that doesn't mean that Islam condones all those things... OOPS, well actually yes it does. Oh well, forget about it.

I wholly agree, ThinkThrice ..I really do. And I think that the efforts to rewrite history regarding Christians, along with minimizing islam's centuries-long bloodlust, is an evil attempt to level the playing field between Christians & islam -- and it should infuriate us all! Nevertheless, these false allegations are indeed an obsticle, which is why I think it important for poster(s) like D-Banerjee to stay current; and in doing so, he will be hard pressed to find anything against Christians in today's headlines. I mean he will find NADA.

Indeed, it is to be astonished... DB, you do not focus on the fact that this woman was going to be a murderess of someone, who the only sin he did was drawing some cartoons, but... you focus on that she converted to Islam. The fact that there could be a murder in the name of Islam (and for such a silly reason) did not annoy you at all. This fact is not enough to begin question yourself as to your human integrity?

You go to make comparisions between the Christians of the Roman empire era with... Muslims. My dear fellow human being, the Christians did not proceed by murdering the ones who hated them but by forgiving and sacrificing themselves in the name of saving even those who hated them. In the whole first 300 years of Christianity there has not been even a single mass rebel or a terrorism act initiated from tehm against the Romans, despite all the tyranny they suffered. They succeded to be accepted by persevering in their peacefulness.

But beyond whatever happened in history... Having a terrorist ideology being able to sanctify itself as God ordanained is not something any sane minded people may endure for long... Life itself can not suffer such a burden. Life has inherent in its very nature the tendency towards freedom. So it is surely much better people as you examine themselves as to their mind health than blaming others. Because it seems that this route will not have a so benign result... Especially for those who back such insanities as the one this poor woman became involved.

All we know what happened to Japan in WW2... They too were considering themselves a 'choosen people'...

Sanity's prevailing is the best solution, without the slightest doubt...

D-Banerjee states:

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".

"Aha .... now tell me whether you people have even heard about this saying of Jesus or not ? I doubt you have."

--------------------------------------------------------

Keep it in context, moron!

--------------------------------------------------------

Read the next five verses that follow verse 34:

Matthew 10:34-39 ....

"34: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35: For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36: a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. 37: Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38: and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39: Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

--------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a contradiction of Christian doctrine doesn’t it? In fact, as ironic as it may be, this seems to be one of the favorite verses for Muslims to use in accusing the Bible of having contradictions.

Nowhere on earth have I found this be be an truer than here in the Muslim world.

Let a young man accept Jesus Christ as his Savior and you’ll see how his own family threatens him by saying, "You deserve to be killed for leaving Islam. The Qur’an demands it. If I had a sword in my hand right now I’d take your head off myself."

There are thousands of cases of this happening all around the world each year. Why?

Because Jesus brings a sword. He does not command us to take the sword and force people to become Christians or die, like some religions have. His message is one of hope, joy, peace, and love. The sword comes from those who hate Him and resist Him as the one and only Savior of the world. We don’t fight with the sword, we accept the sword.

Those who claim that it’s a contradiction are usually the ones who are the first to actually prove how true the statement really is.

I just love irony.

Above essay from this link:
http://cfme.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/the-sword-that-jesus-brought/

...and I agree!

You're missing the big picture again. Any violence to be done according to Christian scripture is to be done by God, not man (Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord). According to Christians, Jesus is God personally present on earth for a third of a century, come to redeem his creation. Violence, therefore, is God's affair, not man's. Indeed, Christians are instructed to turn the other cheek. By contrast, the Koran instructs Muslims to commit violence in the name of Allah when many different conditions present themselves. The contrast is huge and again you have not seen it. My advice to you is to study up on a lot of subjects like the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish Inquisition, modern America, Christianity and sundry other topics. Then post comments. A little knowledge is a bad thing, you know, and reveals far more about the one deficient in knowledge than that person realizes.

Wellington,

You might want to take a look at an essay I wrote on this on my blog, which argues gently against the rather overly simplistic trope that "when Christians have done bad things in history they were acting in spite of their Christianity":

Croppers, Ego Quoque, Utraquism, Theocracy and Neutrocracy

Debanjan:

Tell me when the last lynch mob sanctioned by local or state authority operated in the USA. I have a good idea, but do you? I also know that when some yahoos tried to reinstitute the practice, they had law enforcement in jurisdictions that the Left loudly decries as recist on them.

And this is from someone who has some feel for the condition of non-white people in America!

Also, before you feel too secure in criticizing us Americans as violent, there was a rather swarthy Jewish man our family knew who was trying to do business in India on the eve of partition. When partition came, he was on a train that was boarded by a Hindu mob that pulled the lower trousers off all the male passengers, and killed everyone who was circumcised--including our family friend (yes, Virginia, Muslims can be victims of unjust violence, too). It's why I never ask myself how a mob in the country of Gandhi could burn an Australian missionary alive in more recent years. This is not to say that I believe that all Hindu Indians (or Muslims, Jains, Mar Thoma Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.) are barbarians--for I know that your country is full of people of extraordinary kindness and personal courtesy--but a recognition that there is plenty of HUMAN violence to go around.

I think your notions of the American Bible Belt have been formed by hostile propaganda of either a Leftist or Muslim variety--or, they represent a projection made on the basis of some traditionalist cocmmunities elsewhere. Most of the Bible Belt is far safer for ANYONE than the most solidly Democratic urban areas of our country--and the crime statistics prove it. I, a child of urban America, was shocked when I was in one "Bible Belt" community where people never bothered locking their doors at night or when they went out. And while these may have been "poor folks" by American standards, they still had things like televisions, electronic gear, and cash that might have tempted thieves had their neighbors been of that ilk.

Generally, the "Bible Belters" (and Book of Mormon Belters) I've known give a stranger the benefit of the doubt, and when employment or opportunity takes you out of the community, you'll probably leave on amicable terms. If you stay, you cold run a very high risk of assimilation. It happened to someone from Andhara Pradesh who was teaching in a state university in our heartland. True, he was a Christian to begin with, but he did end up marrying locally and having a large, well-liked family that looked like a bunch of Panjabis.

And, as for the Louisiana Bible Belters, they elected a man named Jindal to be their governor. That grandson of your country has been touted as a possible future presidential contender.

As for my comments on Spain, I do not excuse General Franco in the least. But I do not think that the technology of political/ideological murder makes that big a difference. In the unhappy incident during the partition of India mentioned above, a couple hundred bodies were left lying by the railroad--and it was all done with sticks, knives, hands, and farming incidents. Having dealt with survivors of the Cambodian disaster, I know that a lot of the mass killing there--roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of a country's population--was also done with shovels, picks, knives, etc. because the Democratic Kampuchea people charged with the task had run out of bullets. And, I was speaking strictly of how the Spanish Left (Stalinists, Trotskyites, Socialists, Anarchists) treated their own side in the Spanish Civil War. Of course had I counted the Spanish Left's treatment of its opponents, the numbers would have been far grislier.

What does this say of ideologies that feel they need to murder in the millions AFTER the guns of war are silent?

Hey, Dustan:

Your post is very funny! At the count of three, let's all laugh. One...two...hahahahaha. Couldn't hold it any longer!

Actually, I agree with ThinkThrice that Christianity was extremely important in the foundations of Western civilization. I said that evolutionary materialism has been dominant for the last century and a half or so. We Westerners may not have the depth of tradition that India or China have, but I'd date our break with classical antiquity at around 410-11 A.D. That gives us a good 1600 years. If someone wants to start us with Abraham, then we're just as old as India, and possibly older than China.

Also:

Matthew 10:34-39 ....

"34: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35: For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36: a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. 37: Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38: and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39: Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

If Jesus is God incarnate, he has every right to say it--and I note that some posters are aware of the context of the verses, and how they play out today. Indeed, I had some serious tension with my family members following conversion. However, if Jesus was ONLY a human being, these verses show him an utter madman who ought to be rejected.

Yet, do these verses involve a command to strike the necks of unbelievers? No. They are a warning of bad treatment from unbelievers that Christians will have to expect--and must meet with prayer, patience, and forgiveness.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." - Jesus

That's a metaphor, you jackass.

Jesus never touched a literal sword, unlike Warlord, WARLORD, Mohamet, who beheaded thousands of Jews and Christians. Jesus never harmed ANYONE.

Islam sucks. End of story. Begone with your "tripe," as champ said.

"Tell me when the last lynch mob sanctioned by local or state authority operated in the USA. I have a good idea, but do you?"

Muslims don't mess around with that chicken-sh*t, they just kill the whole family and burn the house down! They do that to whole neighborhoods of non-Muslims. Hanging one man here or there it would take them forever to finish the job. This still happens today. Only Islam can get a mob to act in such evil ways.

D-Banerjee, you are taking Jesus' own words out of context! Which is a typical muslim tactic.

Additionally ....

---------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 10:34:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

By James Arlandson:

At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change.

It is time to set the record straight about that verse.

The one key element in this passage is the word "sword", and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may 'split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6).

Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them, because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, but never violently, even if this divides the world in two.

Excerpt here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1715868/posts

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." - Jesus"

"That's a metaphor, you jackass."

Right, darcy ...on both counts, lol ....

Wellington,
Of course, I know that was sarcasm. But it provided me with a platform from which I could urinate on the Cult and its "prophet". I couldn't help but to seize the opportunity.
I am sure you will understand...
cheers,
Thomas

"Christianity is terrible, though. It may be the big religion of the west but we can do without it."

It is actually the big religion of the world, not just the West. It only is in decline where the Muslims are relentless persecuting Christians for going on 1400 years. But still some resolute Christians remain.

Thing is Jesus rose from the dead, that is some powerful mojo you have to admit. Put your money on Jesus. In the end he will be shown to be the real deal.

If you doubt the value of Christianity try reading Proverbs. It is a book that should strike you over and over again with down to earth common sense wisdom still entirely relevant to today.

"Mr Barcode" wrote:

Islam is one powerful intoxitation (sic) and a natural cover from being ogled at like they have been all thier (sic) life in a loveless West.
...................

It is Islam which is loveless—excepting "love" for the vicious Allah. You'll have to peddle this obvious Taqiyya elsewhere.

Think Thrice, I am somewhat familiar with Leadville, Colorodo—you're right, I should have referred to this woman as "a small-town mom" rather than "a suburban mom".

You wrote:

"Regarding the harsh comments about this woman as a pathetic loser etc. While that is true enough perhaps another reaction is more appropriate. Firstly pity that they were so utterly stupid as to convert to Islam."

I think it might have been different if she hadn't decided to become a violent Jihadist.

I know it would for me. I actually have a lot of sympathy for women born into misogynistic Islam. I also have a certain amount of sympathy for clueless women who convert because they are lonely and meet what they assume is a nice Muslim man—this was the case, for instance, with Betty Mahmoody (of "Not Without My Daughter" fame). Many wind up victims of oppression and domestic violence.

But Jamie Paulin-Ramirez wasn't merely a victim of Islam—she wanted to murder a non-violent Infidel in its name. I believe this is the main reason that posters here—including myself—are so repulsed by this new convert.

so, Raven, if the American political system is at fault, what are we to do?

you are right to pick me up on this - "American political system" was the wrong term to use as I certainly did not mean to imply that the constitution or bill of rights was the problem.

But there is nothing in those documents that says administration after administration has to pander to the fascist ideology of islam. So why then does a conservative president proclaim "Islam is peace" when he knows this to be a lie? Islam is not even compatible with the American political system since Islam is in itself a political system.

Some very wise words, ThinkThrice...No other historical figure has claimed to have risen from the dead. And if it wasn't true, then the unbelievers would have saved the body of Jesus, and proven to the world what a fraud he was...but, oh well! No body! Hmmmmmmmm....
BTW, the Islamic god, Allah is a real hero...yeah, the moon-god...he demands blood be shed FOR HIM, not the other way around. Allah is nothing but a high-ranking demon. The enemy always wants blood, preferably innocent blood shed for him.
Christ gave all so that humans can have a real choice...to choose Him and live, or to not choose Him. Totally our choice...Only Islam is blind obedience with no creative thought allowed.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone would give over their minds and wills to something else that will control them and dictate to them how to think, dress, act, and behave...I have a natural recoil to anything that would take away my personhood. It's beyond me.

Understand completely, Thomas_h.

The story's a bit more complex than that. It turns out that in this particular case there was already Islam in the family: the mother is not a Muslim (seemingly) but Jamie's daddy-o had converted to Islam - even before marrying and fathering his daughter.

So in becoming a Muslim she was following in her father's footsteps; but whereas he seems to have remained a dormant or inactive Muslim, a 'sleeper', she went straight into Active mode.

My further two cents: I suspect that some at least of the Western women who today convert to Islam are women who have been severely abused (sexually and/ or in other ways) in early childhood. If a person who has been abused does not managed to free him or herself from the abuse and become an intelligent survivor, that person may grow up without an ability to say NO; boundary-less, and programmed to seek out and attract abusers, prey for every abuser who happens along. And Islam is full of abusers.

Of course, in Jamie's case, well: given that her daddy was already a Muslim, can we be sure he didn't abuse her? It's possible - for Islam seems to promote a very, very high incidence of incestuous sexual abuse of girls by their fathers or by other male relatives.

I wrote the above comment before absorbing some extra information others had provided.

I had not realized that Mr Converted-to-Islam Mott was Jamie's stepdad, not her natural dad.

Do any of the news stories have any more detail on the family, like, how old Jamie was when her birth parents split up, and how old she was when her mother married a Muslim?

In any case - my speculation that she may have been abused in childhood, leaving her without boundaries (prey for abuse...and in this case, *identifying* with the Ueber-Abuser, Islam, such that she was all geared up to become a sadistic murderer herself; some victims of abuse react by choosing to become abusers themselves), remains relevant.

Had she not been sucked into Islam - due, perhaps, to the baleful influence of her stepfather - she might well have been sucked into some other cult, such as the Moonies; or found herself an abusive (though non-Muslim) boyfriend or husband.

The conservative president who uttered this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZoroJdVnA
- Was in Saudi pockets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUoycVXw9ew
- Let Bin-Ladens to safety when all US flights were grounded: http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm .
- Covered up for Saudis in 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/062904Chin/062904chin.html
- Doubled, yes, doubled Saudi students visas: http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/11/visas-for-saudi-students-to-double/

Not that Saddam should not have been stopped, but for lying about and attacking Iraq; NOT Saudi Arabia; for covering-up Al-Sauds, Bin Ladens and the murder of thousands of Americans, America can thank their 'war president' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU&feature=related
encouraging terror: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962

"But there is nothing in those documents that says administration after administration has to pander to the fascist ideology of islam. So why then does a conservative president proclaim "Islam is peace" when he knows this to be a lie? Islam is not even compatible with the American political system since Islam is in itself a political system."

Tragically and perhaps fatally the "discussion" in the West is almost totally controlled and framed by out of control liberals in the so-called mainstream media. Any politician who spoke the truth about Islam would be persecuted out of office. Look at Geert Wilders. Just imagine if Bush had really laid into Islam full bore after 9/11. He would have been attacked relentlessly, possibly driven out of office.

But in the end the truth must be stood up for and there is no excuse. If it is going to take hundreds of politicians who are willing to speak the truth about Islam and be attacked and be driven out of office then that is just what is going to have to happen.

The founding fathers risked their personal fortunes for the country. We need leaders today willing to do the same.

"This has to end, and history has demonstrated that it will take war to resolve."

We don't have to fight Islam to the death, though directly attacking Mecca and other so-called Islamic holy sites would be of use, our only concern at this point should be keeping Islam out of the West. As long as our own Western nations are free of Islam it will be thousands of times easier to protect ourselves. It is the internal threats from Islam that will make it impossible to defend ourselves from it forever. Especially if we allow Islam to integrate into all of our institutions and even the government, military and police forces! If we allow Islam into the West there is zero chance that the West will survive. If we keep Islam out of the West we can easily defeat whatever external Muslim forces cause us any trouble. Total and complete devastating destruction can be visited upon whatever Islamic regimes we need to destroy. And then we spend ZERO effort helping them rebuild as we are currently doing in the Age of the Moron.

ThinkThrice:

Don't bother with Hammer-and-Sickle. He's too ignorant to know that the cosmic optimism of his movement is impossible to justify without theism--as even Bertrand Russell recognized. Nor will he ever admit that his movement's linear view of history rests on Augustine of Hippo's _City of God_, and, through him, on the prophets of Israel.

Also, since he's so proud of his Communist identity, he's one of those people who so hates the culture that made him possible that he's out to destroy it, even if his granddaughters are forced to wear the burqa and, if raped at age seven, face the choice of either marrying their assailants or getting stoned at the city gates.

He's also of that species which curses everyone as "RACIST!", but when asked why his system didn't unleash those promised "unheard of productive forces" when it ruled everything from the Danube to the Taiwan Strait, will blame the stupid, backwards Slavic Uentermensch and Primitive Asiatic, and point out that most of Cuba's white people moved to Miami. And, it was his great-grandfather Karlchen who decided that non-white peoples were "historyless".

He'll also boast of the supposed "rigor" of his analysis, when all of Marxist analysis has been resolutely and willfully blind to the spiritual forces that shape history (even when his own movement has been a stunning example of such a thing); and also the only reason his movement is dominant in academia is because of the mob actions and physical intimidation of others that took place in the 1960's and '70's.

He cries out for women's liberation, when his heroes left trails of destitute single mothers and bastard children out of solicitude for the abolition of bourgeois marriage.

Further, he enjoys the freedoms and material well-being of semi-capitalist society rather than moving his keester to some socialist paradise like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, or North Korea.

His movement murdered 10's of millions for being "social parasites", along with 10's of millions more for simply wanting to keep the livestock they raised--while it itself was made, directed, and implemented by the worst social parasites in history.

We wouldn't be in the position we are today had Christians of prior ages invaded and destroyed Islamic nations wherever they could find them. And if they had destroyed all the mosques and built churches the world would be a better place today.

Hear! Hear! So true. They started the fight, we must finish it.

Moron. islam aint a race. May I point out to you that she is white and a muslim?

wotta twit you are...

Does your ass hurt? it should...every time you open your silly mouth, someone kicks your ass.
I'll say one thing for ya...you can take a punch. You should learn when to stay down though. Gettin' up only to be knocked back to the canvass over and over makes you look stupid.

I think you may have overthought this issue. There's theory and reality. What you call "essence" respecting a religion, I call a "theological blueprint." Nothing you wrote negates my basic premise which is that Christianity's theologoical blueprint is not a threat to freedom, democracy, equality under the law and other good stuff along these lines. Islam's theological blueprint, by contrast, is a threat to all this and much more.

A Christian theocracy is a repudiation of Jesus' own statements that his messiahship is not concerned with this immediate reality, e.g., "My kingdom is not of this world" or "Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God the things which are God's." A Christian theocracy is an oxymoron even though some Christians through the ages haven't understood this, e.g., the seventeenth-century Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony.

As you surely know by now, I am not a religious man, but Christianity's theological blueprint does not threaten what I hold dear. Islam's does. That's the bottom line. Hey, best to keep things simple. Over-analyzing is not a good route to ordinarily pursue. As ever, my best to you and yours.