Parents take note: the Islamization of the education system needs to be firmly rejected, but that is not happening. Instead, parents are continuing to entrust their children to a system that is untrustworthy.
“Public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.” This is the warning from the chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson. The warning stems from an alarming case in which the US Supreme Court “declined to take the case of a public school teacher who required her students to recite the Islamic ‘conversion prayer’ or receive a failing grade.” The school is La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland.
A student of that school, Caleigh Wood, who was in the 11th grade (i.e., around 16 years old) was placed under the extreme strain of having to challenge the authority of a teacher and defend herself by refusing “to deny her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer known as the shahada – ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.‘” Caleigh stood up to what amounted to efforts at a forced conversion in an American school, and the court saw no problem with it.
The Thomas More Law Center defended Caleigh, but the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the teacher “did not violate the Establishment Clause.”
There is more:
“Wood also had been forced to view a series of Islam-promoting PowerPoint slides, including one casting aspersions on Christians that said, Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
Thompson said he was “not aware of any public school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”
Parents need to be actively involved in their children’s education and know what their children are being taught in schools, since many are now being subjected to Islamic indoctrination which encompasses the rejection of their own faith; other children are being taught that Islam is inherently a religion of peace.
Author William Kilpatrick wrote in his article “Islamization in the Schools“:
While jihadists across the globe are busy slitting throats, American school children are taught that jihad is an “inner struggle” and Islam means “peace.” While Muslim rape gangs destroy the lives of teenage girls in England, American teenagers learn that Muhammad was a champion of women’s rights. And although American students are taught all the gruesome details of the Atlantic slave trade, they learn little if anything about the Arab slave trade which took many more lives.”
Western society is also being conditioned to believe that to challenge Islamization means that you are “Islamophobic” and/or bigoted, and that such discussions will only enrage Muslims. If the starting point of conversations about righteous anger over global abuses in the name of Islam is that Muslims will be enraged, then democracy is not in the interests of those who are enraged, and this is telling.
Six months ago, Jihad Watch also reported about a Washington school district that was promoting Islam “through a Ramadan policy that provides special privileges for Muslim students.” The Northshore School District in Bothell involved CAIR, which suggested “various changes in policy and practice that would benefit Muslim students,” but fortunately a legal team “dispatched a cease-and-desist letter” from the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.
This demonstrates more of what parents are up against: CAIR suggested that a new Ramadan policy direct teachers to “create ‘safe spaces’ for Muslims, plan with Muslim students to let them ‘quietly slip away’ from class for prayer, ‘privately offer information’ about nutrition during their Ramadan fast, give ‘a lesson’ on Ramadan and privately ask Muslim students what accommodations they want.” All that is coming to a public school near you.
“Supremes have no problem with teacher forcing Christian student to voice Islamic prayer,” World Net Daily, October 15, 2019:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take the case of a public school teacher who required her students to recite the Islamic “conversion prayer” or receive a failing grade.
The Thomas More Law Center is defending Caleigh Wood, a Christian student in 11th grade at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland.
Wood refused to deny her faith “by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer known as the shahada – ‘There is no god by allah and Muhammad is the messenger of allah,'” Thomas More said.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the teacher did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Wood also had been forced to view a series of Islam-promoting PowerPoint slides, including one casting aspersions on Christians that said, “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”
The teacher’s actions were condemned in court by the high school’s content specialist, Jack Tuttle.
Richard Thompson, Thomas More’s chief counsel, said he’s “not aware of any public school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'”
“Yet, under the pretext of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion,” he said. “It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to clarify the test which lower courts should use when ruling on establishment clause and free speech challenges to public school classes on religion.”
Thomas More contends the school violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Speech clauses when it ordered Wood to do an assignment that she could not complete without violating her Christian beliefs……
rubiconcrest says
As I understand it the student could not opt out of the lesson and therefore failed the assignment. Of course there are two issues here. The falsification of Islam; teaching the tenants of Islam that are not true and forcing a student to participate in religious indoctrination.
gravenimage says
True.
Infidel says
Essentially, the American implementation of ‘There is no compulsion in (Islamic) religion’ in the Quran
Lydia Church says
Ah, yes… the ‘forced conversions’ hall of fame… let me pull it up here…
1. Stephen in Acts was forced to convert back to the Pharisitical Judaism or face death so he caved. Oh, no… wait! Nevermind! He didn’t cave! He died as the martyr Stephen as the Jewish religious leaders stoned him to death. The first martyr and Jesus was standing at the right hand of the Father to receive him. I must have been confused… in that case it was….
2. Paul on his missionary journey as a pagan mob threatened to kill him if he did not deny Jesus. Oh, no, stop! That didn’t happen either. He died as a martyr and strong witness for Christ in Rome. Well in that case it must have been….
3. Peter in Rome when the pagans finally threatened to crucify him upside down and he compromised and denied Jesus. Ooops! No, actually, he learned from the last time and he did NOT deny Jesus again this time and he did die on a cross upside down as a martyr for his Lord Jesus. Well then, it must have been that fair, weak and meek female martyr named ….
4. Victoria… that I read about in Foxe’s Book of martyrs or some other such book who they thought would cave due to her delicate disposition. They came at her from every form of torture…. but NO! She also stood strong in the power of Jesus through the Holy Spirit and did not denounce her Christian faith and astonished her pagan torturers! So it must have been….
5. One of those many martyrs of the Protestant Reformation who recanted… oh but nope, it wasn’t them either… then maybe it was….
5. Leah Sharibu when the muslim gang kidnapped her in Nigeria. Oh, no, my mistake… she also did not deny Jesus as her Lord and died as a martyr and entered heaven in glory…
As did all the other countless martyrs throughout church history…
because no one, and I mean NO ONE can force you to deny your faith!
And if I have it right neither did this high school student, she just suffered the penalty for not denying her faith in Christ. Funny, that is what Jesus said would happen…. we have the choice to stand in Him and confess Him and suffer…. or deny Him and escape suffering and lose Him in the process. But the choice… is always ours to make.
And it’s really going to be hard in the future to have it both ways.
Lydia Church says
Last one should read ‘6’.
; )
gravenimage says
You seem to be upset that these high school kids were not tortured. Not only are they a vulnerable group, but I imagine few of them had the slightest idea what reciting the Shehada actually meant.
mortimer says
I want all children to recite the Apostles’ Creed, undergo baptism and recite the vows of confirmation as a ‘school assignment’. That would be a true EQUIVALENCE.
The Shahada is the equivalent in Islam of baptism and confirmation as well. As well, the Shahada is the credo of Islam. So to be equal, children must do the INITIATION RIGHTS OF ALL RELIGIONS.
This ruling shows how ignorant the judges are generally of religion. They cannot compare one rite with another nor understand the significance of them.
Perhaps they are learned in the law, but they are not even at the beginning in religious knowledge.
Christopher Watson says
Why not simply ask for a witness of Islam to attend the court as a witness i.e. Allah. It can’t be difficult for the most powerful being in the universe to attend court for one day. It would solve all the questions of religion, all religions, in one easy step.
Louis Mascitello says
Or maybe insist that all males, (mark of the covenant), and all females be “circumcised”, ( “” added to indicate the falsity of said practice among mohammedans). Recite the creed, (Nicene or Apostle’s, no matter), rad the Talmud, recite the Wiccan Rede, Wear “The Five K’s” and create a caste system based on the socio-economic standings of each student. Maybe take out an eye and hang from a tree? THEN we can see which are ARYAN, give each one “Little Red Book”…etc, etc, etc. Look, anyone who believes that there is no prayer in school has never taken the SAT’s. BE THAT as it MAY, BELIEF systems have NO place in schools. At least until college.
mortimer says
A Sikh buddy at college, who was good at mathematics, said to me, ‘If they teach children all the religions at school, there will be no time left for them to study anything else.’
Infidel says
There’s no reason to teach religion in schools: that should be left to home, to the discretion of parents
jensee says
In islam, there is no separation of church and state as there is in our country. This is how they get their way with demanding prayer rooms in schools, students being allowed to leave class to go use those prayer rooms in the middle of class, demands for halal foods in the school lunches, days out of the school calendar to celebrate their religious holidays, etc. Their religion is their life, and law and religion are not separate to them. This is why their ideology is not compatible with our constitution. Have you not seen the muslim electorates take their oaths of office on the qur’an?
gravenimage says
I would have no problem with teaching about religion in schools–it is a legitimate topic–if there was not this whitewash and worse of Islam. Under the circumstances, it would be better not to cover these subjects at all.
Infidel says
Fully agree. Just that given the divergence of religious creeds in any classroom, my above comments. Of course, if you had a religious based class based on followers of an identical faith – say Jevohah’s witnesses – it would be perfectly appropriate
The kids who were made to take that oath – let’s say down the line circumstances landed them in a Muslim country where someone who witnessed that ID’ed them and turned them in to the Shariah authorities, they’d be potential targets for apostasy punishments
gravenimage says
Yes–these kids will be considered apostates if they do not practice Islam, and can lawfully be killed under Shari’ah.
mortimer says
HOW IS THIS PRESUMPTUOUS STATEMENT MEASURED (?) : “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.” (note incorrect grammar)
15% of Muslims attend the mosque, 85% do not attend the mosque, and 35% of Muslims are non-believing cultural Muslims. Apparently, in most Muslim countries fewer are attending the mosque than ever. How does that express a ‘strong’ faith? It doesn’t.
The above claim is entirely subjective and wishful thinking. Every Muslim in the world at this stage knows a few apostates from Islam. Muslim apostates are now becoming emboldened to say they don’t believe. It seems that’s ok with many Muslims as long as the apostate doesn’t actually write it somewhere.
Those are the new watered-down rules of apostasy in Islam.
elee says
I dont know how new this attitude to private apostates actually is. Remember, in Milestones Sayyid Qutb said Islam is not a mere belief, its a deen, an encompassing way of life, so who cares if anyone believes it as long as they obey the scripture? So hey, if you live in a mud hut, beat your wife and wipe with your left hard, who cares if you actually believe scripture? But hey, saying stuff out loud, or opposing taharrush, well, thats kafir decadence that gets you killed. Oh and…….beware the children of moderate Muslims. Every one is a potential sleeper, and we dont know how many generations it takes to extinguish the sleeper programming. Gladstone was right: as long as that scripture exists in the world there will be no peace.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Why should Muslim children have superior rights in an egalitarian country? They shouldn’t or the country is not longer egalitarian.
Steve says
When an agent of the State, which a public school teacher is, forces ANY religion we have the State establishing a religion. You do not need to be a Constitutional Scholar or Judge to figure out that one. The brilliance of the Constitution is that it was written for the average person to understand it. Kind of reminds me of Martin Luther and the Protestant Movement challenging the Roman Catholic Church saying only a Priest can interrupt the Bible all the while it was written for the average person to understand.
Emilie Green says
It’s not quite accurate to state that the USSC upholds the teaching of Islam in the public schools. While the Court’s refusal to take the case means that the disgusting holding of the 4th Circuit holds, meaning that Islamization will continue for the foreseeable future, this was not a decision on the merits. I admit that this case was four-square in violation of the 1st Am. and the Court’s well-known Establishment Clause cases of the early 1960s. And for that reason it should have been taken up.
elee says
Thank you for explaining the procedural posture of the Supreme Courts denial of review. Oh and BTW, I agree, they should have granted review…..and a secular humanist bench would probably have been more likely to grant review for the issue preseted.
Terry Gain says
The U.S. 4th Circuit Court Appeals is not the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a federal court of appeal with jurisdiction over appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia. and North and South Carolina.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit
Someone more familiar with the Court could inform us whether it is conservative or clueless, but it appears that Obama loaded it up with corrupt liberals, having appointed 6 of the 15 judges by February 2014.;
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-liberal-shift-in-the-fourth-circuit-27839/
RichardL says
The Supreme Court refused to take the case, thereby upholding the lower court’s decision, I think.
somehistory says
When the SC does not take a case, it lets the lower court stand…but doesn’t mean it agrees. This issue can be considered later through another case. If enough of them seek the SC, sooner or later, the SC will have to accept a case and decide. That could undo all former cases left to lower courts.
James sang says
Does anyone have a link to the decision made by the 4 the circuit Court?
Terry Gain says
James Sang
http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isysquery/e13f3283-4080-47d3-814e-31eb1a055b96/2/doc/181430.p.pdf#xml=http://New-ISYS/isysquery/e13f3283-4080-47d3-814e-31eb1a055b96/2/hilite/
gravenimage says
Thank you, Terry.
revereridesagain says
Speaking of “education”, it appears that not everyone at Hah-vud has got the message that the Prophet (Plague Be Upon Him) rather forcefully declared music to be haram. (Of course, it is a matter of opinion as to whether hip-hop constitutes “music”.) However, Ms. Sackett may hold that striking her Walk-Like-An-Egyptian pose and re-educating “Islamophobic” infidels in the “natural” devotion of the Muslim female to music, dance, and (representational?) art is just as American as hot dogs and beer is her chosen jihad.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/10/dancer-amirah-sackett-brings-her-mash-up-style-to-harvard/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020191017%20(1)
Brian Hoff says
Not all practice of Islam are mantake that they are not bringing on believer. Listern to music or Danny ban isnot grinding on believer. In South Asia and Southeast Asia sing and make music and they dance when once awhile I than driven home by than Muslim there is music from the radio playing There is no music allow in the mosque .
gravenimage says
Is “Brian Hoff”–really, “DefenderofIslam”–denying these Islamic texts?
“On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
“Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
What about Muslims who ignore this and listen to music anyway?
Narrated Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash’ari: that he heard the Prophet saying, “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, ‘Return to us tomorrow.’ Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.”
–Sahih Bukhari 7:69:494v
Now, I don’t care if “DefenderofIlslam” listens to music or not–just as I don’t care if he snacks during Ramadan or enters the bathroom left-foot first..
What I *do* care about is his coreligionists who murder singers and those who listen to music–something he is pretending does not happen.
Save Europe says
I don’t know about you, but ‘Brian Hoff’s’ English made no sense to me whatsoever. Is he illiterate?
gravenimage says
He’s certainly semi literate. Sometimes his is more intelligible than others.
gravenimage says
he is more
Kilauea says
The teacher should be fired and so should the superintendent if he/she does not fire the teacher. Vote all the school board members out also. Better yet, let God deal with them.
Spiro says
Gods judgement is final no appeal
and applies to those who do nothing also
Book of Reveation
utis says
As I recall from a night school law course I took years ago, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear case is neither approval nor acceptance of a judgment by a lower court. I suppose it’a way of the Court not have to deal with every case a loser whines about. It does let the Court say “no comment” about political hot potatoes. Anyway, people should not act as if the Court’s refusal is an OK. Any lawyers out there willing to agree or explain?
elee says
I do note that, as long as appellate courts have been empowered to deny review, lawyers have cited denials-of-review as persuasive if not binding precedent.
somehistory says
Not a member of the bar, but I have studied law and my son is one.
You are right. The SC does not hear all cases that would like to be heard. It picks and chooses. But, to not take on a case at any particular time is not saying the Court “agrees” with the lower court. It does not say they disagree either. They just are basically delaying the issue until they are presented a case that they will take and make a decision.
The SC does not seem to like to hate certain kinds of cases until they absolutely have to.
somehistory says
Just a couple of points.
First, the Supreme Court did not…did not …say they are**fine** with this action by the school teacher.
The Court just refused to take up the case. The Court refusing to take a case that has a lot of hot buttons in it, is not so unusual. There have been several cases of a religious nature, and several dealing with the “women’s so-called “right” to kill her unborn baby, that the Court has refused to hear.
The Court didn’t take the cases of several persons who didn’t want to do something for homosexual ‘weddings’ ..but they finally did take the baker’s case. Even then, they didn’t fully settle the issue.
In my opinion..and knowing others will disagree doesn’t change my opinion…the Court is afraid of taking some of these cases.
After studying many, many Court decisions, it seems they like the easy-peasy kind of case; the kinds that deal with defendants’s rights, police procedure, etc. The Court, over time, has dealt with these same issues over and over, defining former decisions it made, refining decisions, changing the “Court’s” mind, etc.
But the Court doesn’t like those things that happen outside the courtroom nearly as much, esp those of a religious nature. I believe the justices are simply afraid of being severely criticized for being really, really, wrong. Or of being criticized for being really, really, right. So it is possible that another case such as this will be taken to the Court, and if it happens a number of times, sooner or later, the Court will have to take it up.
The other point: “The teacher’s actions were condemned in court by the high school’s content specialist, Jack Tuttle.”
Mr. Jack Tuttle should go back to the school and tell those over whom he has some authority, or go straight to the admin, principal, or whomever he can influence, and tell them straight away to make the teacher give the student a passing grade…or see a dismissal in her future. He “condemned” the teacher’s actions. Now he should take whatever steps he can to see that the student is treated fairly and “Constitutionally” or the teacher should no longer work for the school.
gravenimage says
The Supreme Court should *not* be afraid to protect American children from forced conversion to Islam.
Lauren Hermann says
Absolutely correct, graven.
Terry Gain says
After reading the case, I do not see much wrong with it. The student was not forced to recite the Shahada. As for the Muslim faith being stronger than the Christian faith, this seems to me inarguable. Stronger in this context does not mean better. It in fact might imply worse, which of course it is.
The main thing everyone should take from this case is that Terry Gain has been right all along when he has argued that Islam is not a religion. This case refers to the Lemon decision which in effect states that the government may not either advance nor inhibit religion. The horrifying consequences of this is that so long as Islam is regarded as a religion American children may not be taught the truth about Islam, for to do so would inhibit it.
This is a prescription for conquest. It is richly ironic that this conquest by an ideology that forbids freedom of conscience and religion is aided and abetted by the First Amendment which is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion rather than protect an evil ideology which denies freedom of religion. And of course after the conquest, there will be only one religion. Here is a relevant except from the case being discussed.
………….
To meet the second prong of Lemon, the challenged government action “must
have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” Moss, 683 F.3d at 608. This requirement sets an objective standard, which “measure[s] whether the principal effect of government action is to suggest government preference for a particular religious view or for religion in general.” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374 (citation omitted). We have “refine[d]” this analysis by incorporating the Supreme Court’s “endorsement test,” which asks whether a reasonable, informed observer would conclude that government, by its action, has endorsed a particular religion or religion generally. See id.; see also County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 592-94 (adopting the endorsement test in the Establishment Clause context). Thus, in this Circuit, the primary effect prong asks whether, “irrespective of government’s actual purpose,” a reasonable, informed observer would understand that
“the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” of a religion. Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374 (citation omitted). We presume that a “reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry” is “aware of the history and context of the . . . forum in which the religious speech takes place.” Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 119 (2001) (quoting Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-80 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring
somehistory says
“The main thing everyone should take from this case is that Terry Gain has been right all along when he has argued that Islam is not a religion.”
TG doesn’t think too much of himself, does he?
To your statement “the main thing everyone should…” I reply, b o l o g n a…or Baloney!!
somehistory says
“After reading the case, I do not see much wrong with it. The student was not forced to recite the Shahada.”
Well, Mr. Gain, perhaps you wouldn’t mind being forced to “write” that islam is a religion. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind having to write that in order for your comments to be posted.
Think about it, if you are able.
Terry Gain says
Somehistory
Perhaps you’ve just revealed yourself as a crypto fascist who is opposed to the freedom of speech – as well as a witless, humourless toad.
somehistory says
Sure, and it is not just possible that you are an arrogant know-it-all who expects others to agree with him and is opposed to the idea that anything he thinks could ever be, even slightly, wrong.
You have revealed yourself to be ignorant on American law many times.
You have made it totally apparent that you don’t know the definition of religion, worship or Truth.
You write as you wish to….say it over and over that islam is not a religion, but you will never be able to make that the Truth.
And, the fact that you make the claim that I am “opposed to the freedom of speech,” is proof that you are unable to put yourself in the student’s shoes as she didn’t want to say or write the untruth that goes against her religious beliefs.
Your are unable to “think about it.” To which I say, I’m not the least surprised.
ribbitt ribbitt
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:0
After reading the case, I do not see much wrong with it. The student was not forced to recite the Shahada.
……………………………
Terry, the teacher did indeed tell the students to recite the Shehada. Caleigh Wood had to directly refuse, and then seek legal council. Surely, most high school kids lack the knowledge, courage, and means to do anything like this.
More:
As for the Muslim faith being stronger than the Christian faith, this seems to me inarguable. Stronger in this context does not mean better. It in fact might imply worse, which of course it is.
……………………………
I think Calieigh Wood has pretty strong faith. One need not rape or murder in the name of their creed for their faith to be strong.
More:
The main thing everyone should take from this case is that Terry Gain has been right all along when he has argued that Islam is not a religion. This case refers to the Lemon decision which in effect states that the government may not either advance nor inhibit religion. The horrifying consequences of this is that so long as Islam is regarded as a religion American children may not be taught the truth about Islam, for to do so would inhibit it.
……………………………
Coercing students to recite the Shehada does indeed advance Islam. Just because this craven court ruled that it does not does not make it so.
And pretending that Islam is not a religion because this will supposedly make it easier to defeat makes no sense–this would not effect one way or another whether Islam is a religion or not.
Moreover, our pretending things about Islam which are not true is *part of the problem*. We need to expose the ugliness of Islam, not claim it is something it is not.
More:
This is a prescription for conquest. It is richly ironic that this conquest by an ideology that forbids freedom of conscience and religion is aided and abetted by the First Amendment which is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion rather than protect an evil ideology which denies freedom of religion. And of course after the conquest, there will be only one religion.
……………………………
You have claimed before that our problem is that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights–but this actually *protects* our freedoms.
Note that European nations lack both, and they are in much worse shape than we are overall re the advance of Islam–this would not be true if the only problem was the First Amewndment. Destroying one of the greatest guarantors of human freedom and prevaricating about the nature of Islam will *not* make us safer.
More:
Here is a relevant except from the case being discussed.
………….
To meet the second prong of Lemon, the challenged government action “must
have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” Moss, 683 F.3d at 608. This requirement sets an objective standard, which “measure[s] whether the principal effect of government action is to suggest government preference for a particular religious view or for religion in general…
……………………………
A teacher in a public school coercing children to convert to Islam does indeed advance Islam, and only Islam.
Terry Gain says
“You have claimed before that our problem is that we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights–but this actually *protects* our freedoms.”
GI
Good grief. I have never claimed that. Where on earth did you get that idea? I have simply pointed out the obvious. If Islam is a religion it has First Amendment protection so good luck resisting an Islamic conquest.
You have ignored the ruling in the Lemon case that the government may not inhibit a religion. Teaching the truth about Islam inhibits it and therefore violates this rule.
gravenimage says
Terry, you have railed against the First Amendment many times, including on this thread.
And no–for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment *does not* protect Muslims raping and murdering and conquering us. These things are actually illegal.
And what I know of the Lemon Case–also known as the “Lemon Test”–this seemed to be a narrow issue as to whether the salary of parochial school teachers should be paid by the public:
https://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I can see *nothing* in this case that prohibits telling the truth about Islam.
rubiconcrest says
Thoughtful comment.
When you say …”The horrifying consequences of this is that so long as Islam is regarded as a religion American children may not be taught the truth about Islam, for to do so would inhibit it.” I don’t understand.
Wouldn’t it be possible for a teacher to talk about the historical impact of Islam on slavery, the 9/11 attacks and enslaving Christian women in Africa and in addition facts such as capital punishment in Saudi Arabia carried out with the sword? One might mention pedofilia cases and the Catholic church in discussions of Catholicism. How would teaching facts be considered inhibiting a religion since we have a right to point out not just the positives but the negatives as well?
Terry Gain says
Sure, they could teach that on 9/11 some people (who hijacked a peaceful Abrahamic religion) did something. Or otherwise be prepared for law fare.
And IMHO teaching the truth about Muhammad would be impossible. Muslims are the world’s most skilled propagandists.
rubiconcrest says
Yes, you are probably right for all but the most courageous. Islam produces spokemen very skilled at word games. A tradition far too many underestimate.
gravenimage says
I took history courses at UC Berkeley in the 1980s that were quite accurate about Islam. This is not actually impossible–although it would, of course, he more difficult in this “politically correct” age.
James Lincoln says
Terry Gain,
I’m certainly not an attorney, but I did review the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. Much thanks for the link.
First and foremost, the way that Islam is generally being taught in public schools is a disgrace. High school students are getting watered down Islamic propaganda – courtesy of the Muslim brotherhood.
You are correct, the student was not actually forced to recite the Shahada. The students were asked to fill in some missing words to demonstrate knowledge of the Shahada.
Whether or not Muslims are stronger in their faith than Christians… The school’s content specialist, testified that use of the comparative faith statement was inappropriate. As you correctly pointed out, “stronger” faith in Islam is objectively worse than “stronger” faith in, say, Christianity.
The court is certainly treating Islam as a religion. As far as I know, the United States government always treats Islam as a religion. My view is that Islam is predominantly a political ideology with the ultimate goal of imposing sharia law worldwide. It does, however, have a very bad and evil religious cult component.
As I’ve stated in previous posts, it would be better if Islam was not categorized as a religion by the United States government. To me, Islam is more like a combination of the Mafia – with a religious cult component. If it could be recategorized as a non-religion through the courts, we could, for starters, use law enforcement to shut down mosques that preach the essential overthrow of the United States government – being replaced by sharia law…
And if it were recategorized as an very organized criminal enterprise/religious cult, the actual facts about Islam could be taught in public schools.
gravenimage says
There is no official categorization of Islam issued by the US Government, James. Islam fits the definition of a religion, and always has. Many great Anti-Jihadists through the ages have referred to Islam as a religion.
This *does not mean*, as so many appear to believe, that this means that Muslims can legally rape and murder Infidels, nor that they can impose Shari’ah law on us, These things are actually illegal here.
Infidel says
Yes & no. Islam has that ‘religion’ feel to it for having been around for 1400 years. But dissected properly, it’s more of a geopolitical cult than a religion: it has attributes found in Communism and Nazism, as well as others found in various cults, like Branch Davidian. In fact, I recall an essay in Ali Sina’s FaithFreedom.org website years ago that examined all attributes of a cult, and pointing out how Islam satisfies them all (as opposed to more famous cults that satisfied only a small subset of those).
The Shariah law part of the argument is something that has yet to be constitutionally tested. Since raping and murdering infidels is in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as is the imposition of Shariah law, any Muslim can legitimately claim that his or her rights are being violated if anyone else resists. Yeah, you then get into the realm of competing rights, and I do know that the constitution says that your rights end where mine begin. But there are a lot of things in Islam, like this shehada declaration in this story, that have yet to be constitutionally tested, which is why we can’t state that it’s actually illegal until it’s actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court.
Keep in mind that gay marriage too was illegal, until Justice Kennedy decreed otherwise. It never went through any congressional act or other constitutional process to get placed in the books. If that could happen, don’t assume that Islam would automatically lose when it tries to assert its supremacist privileges into law
gravenimage says
Infidel, here is the definition of religion.per the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary:
A particular system of faith and worship.
and:
Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances.
Islam is certainly a religion by these definitions.
Unless you want us to somehow outlaw our centuries-old use of the language, then there is no way to avoid acknowledging that Islam is a religion. Personally, I don’t want to see the government crushing freedom of speech for Islam.
Islam’s also having an ugly political side to it does not change this.
As for Islam being a cult instead of a religion, a cult is often a small faith or subset of a larger faith. Islam is actually quite large–the largest faith after Christianity. As for “cult” having a largely negative tinge to it, this is mostly a recent thing. Christianity in its early days in Rome was often described as a cult up until the mid-20th century, without any pejorative connotations. It was mostly due to small and coercive cults in the 1970s that the term attracted its negative connotations.
And while it is definitely a concern, Shari’ah is not a part of American law. Muslims have not been able to use the Shari’ah law as a defense for raping and murdering Infidels.
James Lincoln says
According to the IRS, mosques are considered to be a religious organization and categorized as a 501C(3) tax-exempt nonprofit.
At least that’s currently how the US government views mosques…
Infidel says
Gravenimage, I don’t deny that Islam is a religion, using that dictionary definition. I do however decline to equate it w/ something like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism. I prefer to equate it more w/ Communism on the ideological axis, and Branch Davidian on the cult axis.
Your description of cult as something associated w/ numbers is using a bandwagon argument to refute the idea of Islam as a cult. While the cults of the 70s may have given cults a bad name, Islam did the same thing that they did, except that since it did it in 600AD, when there were no legal authorities to crack down on them in the Arabia of the day, they quickly metastasized into an army that brought down 2 empires that were worn out fighting each other. Put another way, if Mohammed was born, instead of in 570AD, in 1970, and tried to pull off what he did back in the day, he’d have ended up in jail or dead: no way would he have ended up like, say, L. Ron Hubbard
As for rights, I would like to see Islam regulated like a cult, as opposed to being respected as a religion. Or treated the same way Janet Reno treated the Branch Davidians
gravenimage says
Infidel, I never said that Islam was a good or decent religion–it is, in fact, almost entirely evil.
The definition of a cult vs religion is vague–a cult is often just a belief system with a small following–by this definition Islam is not a cult at all.
The use of the term cult as a pejorative is fairly recent–mostly a result of the slew of stupid and sometimes ugly small creeds that popped up during and after the 1970s.
Lizzia Hasler says
For 2.000 Years Christianity has been at the base of strong societies, first of all in Europe and later then in those countries where Europeans migrated to, bringing with them the same Faith in peaceful and striving co-habitation.
Then in year approx. 600 AD in the desert of Saudi Arabia a wealthy merchant woman named Khadijah found a young prodigy named Mohammad to take over her trading dynasty. But he was illiterate, so she hired a Jew from Babylon to undertake his education.
Now the Jew taught the young man about the Jewish and the Christian Faith as well as he could. The young man already knew how to carry his weight in the business of trading – and robbing – the caravans. In fact this young man was very extraordinarily brutal compared to present ways of practice. But then it was normal to constantly be at each other’s throats among the Bedouin Clans.
When this Mohammad later in life ‘Saw The Light’ in a cave during illness he decided to become a preacher. But his earlier learnings about Christianity had stuck in his mind and he combined this with the Bedouin Tradition of Blood Feud and violent revenge whenever one’s Honour was dented. Thereby creating a conquering and unforgiving ideology,
Although Mohammad told his followers that the top deity was an ancient Demigod called Allah, he did make sure that it was he, Mohammad, and his way of living that would be the Big Example To Follow.
And his fanatical followers decide that NOTHING was ever to be changed after this man’s death in 632 AD.
So, the trouble we are facing today are hoards of people invading the well-functioning Western and Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu – etc., societies, demanding the Loot (Social Benefits) as in the good old Bedouin way. And because we are out of the Christian Culture, we make space among us and forgive, and forgive and forgive……
You see: The Golden Rule – Do unto Others what you want done to you – does not exist in Islam (Subjugation) because Mohammad simply didn’t know about such a wonderful way of creating a peaceful coexistence/society!
Lotus says
A link to an interesting new survey showing that Americans are becoming less religious.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/17/americans-less-christian-religion-survey-pew
Walter Sieruk says
The school teacher who is now allowed to force those young and impressionable students in her class to say the Islamic conversion prayer is despicable for many reasons As in wrong to put words in the months of other people ,regardless if that persons age This is also wrong because it’s the insidious planting the seeds of Islamic conversion in the minds of the youth. Think of the total outrage Muslim parents would have if their children were forced to say the Christian Lords payer in class.
This is also very wrong because this is part of what is known as the Stealth jihad otherwise called the Muslim method of Islamic Gradualism to enact Sharia law in America. In contrast to the way of the violent jihad or also called the militant jihad .This non-violent form of the jihad for Islam is a very sly, insidious, subtle and deceptive way of working for the advancement of Islam.
This Muslim scheme for achieving the goal of the Islamic agenda is as, many times, as subtly effective as it is demonically clever. Furthermore, this Islamic gradualism, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”
gravenimage says
+1
Terry Gain says
Somehistory
I’m often wrong. I used to think of you as an adult. Everyone is free to disagree with me. I have only the power of persuasion, which I developed in the course of practicing law for 42 years. And of course there is my ability to think logically.
No one has to agree with me that Islam is not a religion, but if I am wrong then no one can gainsay my argument that Islam has First Amendment protection and the truth about Islam can never be taught to America’s children for to do so is to inhibit religion. Did you not read the excerpt I pasted or did you not understand its implications?
You haven’t even attempted to rebut my argument. Instead you’ve engaged in childish insults. It’s not my fault that you feel overmatched.
somehistory says
HOho, You called me a ‘witless,humourless toad.” You called me ‘ crypto fascist who is opposed to the freedom of speech ” I didn’t realize you meant those as compliments!
You claim to have “the power of persuasion, which (you) developed in the course of practicing law for 42 years. ”
Who is there to back up your claims of being a practicer of “law for 42 years”? And just where were you “practicing” and “which laws” were these? Anyone can claim just about anything online where no one can see or have documents to prove otherwise. You don’t write like any of the attorneys I know and you have certainly shown your ignorance of American law on many discussion threads. Not all law is the same from country to country and even ‘o’ and his ‘wife’ were said to be “lawyers.” Your written claims mean, well, zilch.
According to all of the posts I have read over the course of your postings, I have been unaware that you have the “power of persuasion” you claim. I can’t recall a single time someone has agreed with you that islam is not a religion. Can you post one of those times you persuaded?
I read what you wrote. I understood what you wrote. Your problem is, you didn’t understand what I wrote to you about having to write that islam is a religion or not being allowed to post. Either you are willfully ignoring the meaning of it, or you are the one in ignorance.
And “over-matched”? No senior Gain, I feel pity for you as you will remain in your ignorance.
Jesus said children are special to Him. So, if you consider me childish, that is the real compliment, old man.
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
Somehistory
I’m often wrong. I used to think of you as an adult…
…………………
This is just really nasty sneering at an Anti-Jihadist, and is really uncalled for.
Terry Gain says
GI
He started it. His personal attack on me was completely unwarranted. This isn’t the first time, he’s done this. He has a problem, Being an anti-jihadist doesn’t give anyone the privilege to make an unprovoked ad hominem attack without getting push back.It’s not as if he’s a Muslim.
elee says
Quit bickering children. Oh IMHO and all. Some Muslim infamy may yet drag the courts into acknowledging that Islam has got a political agenda that free citizens should be able to debate. Again IMHO, if youre faulting each other for not endorsing each others view of this complex area of Constitutional law, youre both wrong. Our modern word zealot comes from a historic incident in which a people under siege spent their energies on internecine warfare. Needless to say it didnt work, and again IMHO it wont work as a strategy to combat jihad. ey to e
somehistory says
If you read the entire conversation….and Idk that you didn’t…you would see I just disagreed with his assessment of what the “main’ thing we should all take away from this Court thingy is.
I disagreed when he said that basically it was no big deal because the student “wasn’t forced” to say it.
Now that you have entered the discussion, you might try to understand that to say he should write the sentence of something he doesn’t believe….and he doesn’t believe it *religiously* is to him what the writing of the moslim thingy is to the student….whether or not she was “forced to recite it.”
No one is trying to force mr gain to write what he doesn’t want to. I just suggested that he “think about it.” You can too, if you wish…or not. I don’t give a tooty fruity.
Terry Gain says
Anyone who reads the entire conversation will note who was the first person to engage in ad hominens. And you made no attempt to rebut my argument.
Terry Gain says
Somehistory didn’t offer his opinion on this complicated area of Constitutional law. He made no attempt to rebut my argument. He just engaged in childish ad hominems, as if he has some axe to grind. I have no idea how I wounded him.
elee says
Walk away from it , let it go. If you like you can both vent your ire on me, or on libtards, or whatever. Meanwhile Id like to read the actual 4th Circuit aopinion but I cant get the above link to work, oh well, I can find it on my own.
somehistory says
You are as unthruthful as you are ignorant. Your “argument” that I replied to:
I said that your statement about your belief that islam is not a religion is the “main thing” that “everyone” should learn from this court case….is baloney.
Your belief is not the “main thing.” Why don’t you write to the Thomas More Law Center and tell them that? Perhaps you can “persuade” them to believe you know what should be done and why they lost and losing wasn’t all that important anyway because the student wasn’t “forced to recite.” Write to them.
I said that if you stood in the student’s shoes, you could “think about’ what it would be like if you were made to write “islam is a religion” in order to post your comments.
You accused me of being a fascist and wanting to take away your “freedom of speech.”
And then, you called me more names. Because you knew I was correct and just can’t face it. Well, gain, go back to your “praciticing mirror” and enthrall yourself some more with your faux intellect.
Jocelyn says
So, we can make the case for more homeschooling?
Terry Gain says
I said that your statement about your belief that islam is not a religion is the “main thing” that “everyone” should learn from this court case….is baloney.
…….
As I said, you made no attempt to rebut my argument that the truth about Islam cannot be taught so long as Islam has First Amendment protection as a religion.
gravenimage says
Thomas Jefferson was honest about Islam–and so was John Quincy Adams. Your idea that the First Amendment prevents telling the truth is quite mistaken–in fact, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech–it does not crush it.
Queen B says
Terry I’m late on this conversation and my question is in earnest so please make your argument clear for me. What do you mean by stating Islam is not a religion ? I suppose I should read the case in full as I was under the assumption the student had either been forced to recite or write the Shahada . I’m also having a hard time wrapping my mind around any religious teaching in a public school except for a glancing blow to the most common by geographic location passing the religious freedom test.
Queen B says
Terry, I apologize I misread your posts. I do agree wholeheartedly that the First Amendment does provide a very slippery slope for those religions we object to. The Courts have consistently backed away in horror at the thought of delving into cases simply because of the first amendment. Of course that’s the exact point of having a first amendment. Yet, I’m still confused how an emphasis { teaching to the exclusion of other great religions in a public school setting } is acceptable.
Dave says
The title is misleading. The US Supreme Court did NOT take the case, which is true of the vast majority of cases appealed from the lower court. That does leave the lower court ruling intact, but is not the same as a Supreme Court decision. It is misleading to state that. The Supreme Court could take a similar case another time.
David W Tate says
should have been a easy one
GreekEmpress says
Some History and Terry Gain,
You are two of my favorite posters here at JW and I hate to see you two going at it. You both present different viewpoints which are good for the rest of us to mull over.
I think everybody here could agree that the Court’s refusal to hear the case was disappointing. I know I was disappointed and surprised.
Anyway, best wishes to you both and look forward to your posts on other threads.
Lotus says
Nicely put. You are a diplomat. 🙂
Terry Gain says
elee says
Oct 17, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Walk away from it , let it go. If you like you can both vent your ire on me, or on libtards, or whatever. Meanwhile Id like to read the actual 4th Circuit aopinion but I cant get the above link to work, oh well, I can find it on my own….
……..
elee
My link at 11:21 am is working. I’m not about to attack you. You’ve never responded to one of my humorous substantive comments with a puerile ad hominem attack. Not even once, let alone twice.
Spiro says
All these post are most interesting but
Unless the school districts tax payers and parents don’t take action to clean up this stupidity it will get worse until
they are all sharia compliant
Wake up
Terry Gain says
gravenimage says
Oct 18, 2019 at 1:11 am
Terry, you have railed against the First Amendment many times, including on this thread.
And no–for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment *does not* protect Muslims raping and murdering and conquering us. These things are actually illegal.
And what I know of the Lemon Case–also known as the “Lemon Test”–this seemed to be a narrow issue as to whether the salary of parochial school teachers should be paid by the public:
https://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I can see *nothing* in this case that prohibits telling the truth about Islam
…………
GI
Well then you obviously missed the import of the Lemon case which holds that the government may not inhibit a religion. Telling the truth about a Islam – that it is a supremacist, totalitarian, conquest ideology whose goal is to rule the world inhibits Islam and is therefore not permissible IF ISLAM IS CONSIDERED A RELIGION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES.
The spread of Islam will not be stopped by counter-Jihad commentary. Counter-jihadism will stop most terrorist attacks, but it won’t stop the spread of Islam. Islam will be spread by migration, birth rates and propaganda, it won’t be spread by Jihad. In fact Jihad is counterproductive to the goal of spreading Islam. Sure, cowards will always be afraid of opposing Islam for fear of being killed, but this is not how Islam is being spread. It is being spread because it is being accepted as a legitimate religion rather than the evil, rights- denying ideology that it is.
America could be save if Muslim immigration is banned, but that will never happen so long as Islam is regarded as a religion rather than conquest ideology. We saw the opposition to Trump’s partial travel ban. Respect for religion is deeply embedded in the American psyche and so long as Islam is regarded as a religion there will never be public support for a ban on Muslim immigration. And so long as Islam has First Amendment protection American children will not be taught in sufficient numbers the truth about Islam’s doctrine and history of conquest. So long as Muslims refrain from jihad they will be successful in spreading Islam and eventually taking over.
I have put forward the only solution which I think will work. Deny that Islam is a legitimate religion and tell the truth about it. I have yet to see another idea which has any chance of working,
You make two statements about me which are completely untrue. You claim that I have railed against the First Amendment many times. This is untrue. I have never done so. Not even once. And I am baffled why an intelligent person like you would make such an absurd and false allegation I obviously believe in freedom of speech, religion and conscience
Disputing that Islam is entitled to First Amendment Protection is not to rail against the First Amendment. My argument supports the First Amendment. Islam is opposed to freedom of speech and religion and once Muslims gain power the First Amendment will be rescinded. So, in the long runconceding Islam First Amendment protection AS A RELIGION will result in the death of the First Amendment.
And I have never claimed that the First Amendment protects Muslims from being prosecuted for their crimes. Good grief. Where did you come up with the absurd idea i said that even once, let alone often enough to have to be told:
“And no–for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment *does not* protect Muslims raping and murdering and conquering us. These things are actually illegal.”
Actually, so long as the conquest is peaceful, it is perfectly legal.
You obviously don’t understand the threat. It is not Jihad. It is conquest by peaceful means.
James Lincoln says
Terry Gain,
Interesting points made by all on this long email string. Recommend that we keep the dialogue civil.
Again, from a non-attorney:
As far as I can tell, the United States government classifies Islam as a religion. The IRS affords mosques 501C(3) religious nonprofit status, which they would not do if they did not think that Islam qualified as a religion. I’m not saying that this is necessarily a correct classification….
Is, say, the IRS wrong in its understanding of Islam being a religion?
The bigger question is how much of a religious component of a political ideology has to exist for the branding of a “religion”? If the religious component is, say, 10%, does that still qualify? Specifically, since Islam is primarily, well over 90% in my opinion, a political ideology with its end goal of imposing sharia law worldwide, does that in and of itself justify removing its religious status?
Undoubtedly, Islam could be better fought by US law enforcement if it could be recategorized as an extreme political ideology with its goal of overthrowing the United States government and imposing sharia law.
Currently, the world at large is losing the war that Islam is waging against the free world.
somehistory says
The government does not decide what is a religion and what is not. People have made claims in the past to having a certain “belief” that was not “recognized” as a faith by a group, and were challenged as to whether or not their belief was, in fact, a religion. But challenging a person’s belief, even if he/she is the only one believing that particular way, is not the same as declaring that the belief is not valid. Only the practices can be challenged as to legality. Such as killing animals, handling snakes, withholding medical care from children, murder, etc.
Take a quick look at the Aryan Brotherhood. This is an organization that began in prison when Whites were being assaulted by gangs such as the Cripps and Bloods. The White prisoners stood by each other for protection from the brutal treatment from those gangs.
The AB has grown from the prison where it began to many other states, with each state “chapter” adding the name of the State to the AB label. Such as ABTexas.
This gang, whose members may engage in various crimes, such as drug dealing, trafficking, prostitution, theft, etc. also, unknown to many, has a ***religious*** aspect. They have their own “bible” and they have their own “church’ and have “meetings” that resemble Bible study.
They have a motto: Blood in/Blood out. This means that a person must commit a crime of murder to be allowed in and the only way out is their own death.
The government has not been able to get rid of the AB, but they arrest and charge and take to trial those members that commit crimes. RICO has been used successfully against the AB’s members.
The same could be done with moslims who engage in the same…and other…kinds of crimes that AB members commit. Some what like the prosecutors tried with the “doctor” in MI. Teeth need to be added to laws to get these ghouls and the “conspiracy” that she and the others engaged in should have been a part of that case. Conspiracy is already a crime and it’s part of RICO law.
Investigations into money-laundering, terror-funding, sex crimes, smuggling of people and drugs, etc. could take care of a lot of what is going on with moslims and islam…even if the government is unable to eradicate islam because of its religious element…however small that may be.
James Lincoln says
somehistory,
Much thanks for the detailed reply.
As always, I will carefully consider all points in you well written post.
Terry Gain says
James
It’s hard to be civil with someone who makes false claims about what you have said, but I have not been uncivil with GI. I don’t think her errors are intentional or malicious. As for that other person, he has a problem, instead of attempting to rebut my argument, he stupidly called me stupid. Obviously I am not stupid.
With respect to your substantive points I would like to reply as follows.
Q 1.Specifically, since Islam is primarily, well over 90% in my opinion, a political ideology with its end goal of imposing sharia law worldwide, does that in and of itself justify removing its religious status?
A. The removal of Islam as a religion is only justified if you don’t want to be conquered.
Q 2 Undoubtedly, Islam could be better fought by US law enforcement if it could be recategorized as an extreme political ideology with its goal of overthrowing the United States government and imposing sharia law.
A. I disagree. I oppose oppressive measures and they are not necessary or justified. Muslims in America are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Muslims outside America have no right to immigrate. Banning further Muslim immigration will be America’s salvation. Not banning further Muslim immigration will eventually lead to America’s demise as a free democratic nation.
Q3 Currently, the world at large is losing the war that Islam is waging against the free world.
A. Currently, only one side is at war. I believe that in the clash of civilizations China is the only country that will fight Islam.
somehistory says
Copy and paste where I wrote “stupid.” I wrote “ignorant.” But only after you called me names. Just in case you don’t know, there is a difference in the two words.
You could learn…just being ignorant… but you are too arrogant.
You made accusations against me that you cannot back up with facts. As a matter of “fact,” I generally ignore your posted comments. However, with your remark about what was the “main point” of this case, you used the word “everyone” and since that included me, I had every right to disagree and call it baloney. I didn’t have to post any “arguments” against it as I voiced my opinion of your statement, not of the Law and the Appeal’s Court decision.
You are willing to see this student’s right not to have to write, or “fill in the blanks” regarding something that is a lie…to the student and to many others… but you are not willing to allow yourself to even “think about” denial of your “right” to post as you please, but lie and say I’m trying to deny your “freedom of speech.”
You have written several lies about me. Saying those things doesn’t make them true. But, i don’t expect you to stop in your MO.
Just don’t expect me to reply any more as I find your comments boring. I’m going back to my usual habit of ignoring anything, and everything, you post.
James Lincoln says
Terry Gain,
Much thanks for your detailed reply.
Lots to consider…
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
GI
Well then you obviously missed the import of the Lemon case which holds that the government may not inhibit a religion. Telling the truth about a Islam – that it is a supremacist, totalitarian, conquest ideology whose goal is to rule the world inhibits Islam and is therefore not permissible IF ISLAM IS CONSIDERED A RELIGION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT PURPOSES.
…………………….
Terry–with all respect–I have never seen *anyone* interpret the Lemon case, which was about parochial teacher salaries–to mean that one cannot tell the truth about Islam. Were this the case, then surely there would be a long line of court cases citing the Lemon case as reason to legally prohibit anyone from telling the truth about Islam–and citing, fining, or even imprisoning people for doing same. I can find no such cases. Have I missed them?
More:
The spread of Islam will not be stopped by counter-Jihad commentary. Counter-jihadism will stop most terrorist attacks, but it won’t stop the spread of Islam. Islam will be spread by migration, birth rates and propaganda, it won’t be spread by Jihad. In fact Jihad is counterproductive to the goal of spreading Islam. Sure, cowards will always be afraid of opposing Islam for fear of being killed, but this is not how Islam is being spread. It is being spread because it is being accepted as a legitimate religion rather than the evil, rights- denying ideology that it is.
…………………….
Of course, violent Jihad is just one–albeit perhaps the most significant–tactic for spreading Islam, But there is also stealth Jihad, lawfare, Da’wa, and demographics.
I have said that we should stop Muslims flooding into the West. President Trump’s “Muslim ban” has led to a 90% reduction of Muslims coming into the US. I think that’s a good start.
But even if you were able to change the definition of religion–somehow, you never say how this would work–religions are not the only ideologies.
More:
America could be save if Muslim immigration is banned, but that will never happen so long as Islam is regarded as a religion rather than conquest ideology. We saw the opposition to Trump’s partial travel ban. Respect for religion is deeply embedded in the American psyche and so long as Islam is regarded as a religion there will never be public support for a ban on Muslim immigration. And so long as Islam has First Amendment protection American children will not be taught in sufficient numbers the truth about Islam’s doctrine and history of conquest. So long as Muslims refrain from jihad they will be successful in spreading Islam and eventually taking over.
…………………….
There are American lawmakers who are pushing for Shari’ah bans, and there are many others who are fighting the spread of Islam, such as the Thomas More law center, which is cited in the story above. Your constant claims that no one will day anything critical of Islam because it is a religion is not, in fact, born out by this very site. Robert Spencer, in fact, acknowledges that Islam is a religion, and this does not stop him from condemning its savagery.
More:
I have put forward the only solution which I think will work. Deny that Islam is a legitimate religion and tell the truth about it. I have yet to see another idea which has any chance of working,
…………………….
You have said this before–despite the fact that no nation has ever declared the Islam is not a religion. So how do you know that our pretending that the definition of religion is not what it is would magically defang Islam?
The fact is that Islam has been successfully pushed back many times, and this has never involved our pretending that words mean other than what they do.
More:
You make two statements about me which are completely untrue. You claim that I have railed against the First Amendment many times. This is untrue. I have never done so. Not even once. And I am baffled why an intelligent person like you would make such an absurd and false allegation I obviously believe in freedom of speech, religion and conscience
…………………….
I never said that you don’t believe in freedom of speech (except where it comes to the definition of religion, perhaps), religion, and conscience. But you have indeed inveighed against the First Amendment many times, including on this thread.
More:
Disputing that Islam is entitled to First Amendment Protection is not to rail against the First Amendment. My argument supports the First Amendment. Islam is opposed to freedom of speech and religion and once Muslims gain power the First Amendment will be rescinded. So, in the long runconceding Islam First Amendment protection AS A RELIGION will result in the death of the First Amendment.
…………………….
Yes–I very much agree that if ever Islam gains control here that Muslims with destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have said so myself–and so, disturbingly but not surprisingly, have Muslim surpremacists.
More:
And I have never claimed that the First Amendment protects Muslims from being prosecuted for their crimes. Good grief. Where did you come up with the absurd idea i said that even once, let alone often enough to have to be told:
“And no–for the umpteenth time, the First Amendment *does not* protect Muslims raping and murdering and conquering us. These things are actually illegal.”
Actually, so long as the conquest is peaceful, it is perfectly legal.
You obviously don’t understand the threat. It is not Jihad. It is conquest by peaceful means.
…………………….
Yes, Muslims can and have used our freedoms to further their agenda. I think we counter this by exposing the savagery of Islam, not by changing the definitions of our words for Muslims–however this would work.
And the First Amendment protects freedom of speech in general, not just for religions–so even if the government somehow changed the definitions of words in the English language, Muslims could still pretend that their creed is benign. I think exposing its being anything but is important.
P. Douglas says
So many parents have no idea what has been happening just outside their door!
Schools, High Schools, Colleges, have all been trying to brainwash our kids to LOVE allah! Whom we know as SATAN himself.
And these idiot liberal judges CAN’T CARE LESS!
THEY WILL BE KISSING UP TO THE MUSLIM INVADER RIGHT TO THE MOMENT THEIR HEAD IS CUT OFF!
While the rest of us; Intend to fight!
Terry Gain says
somehistory says
Oct 18, 2019 at 2:31 pm
Copy and paste where I wrote “stupid.” I wrote “ignorant.” But only after you called me names. Just in case you don’t know, there is a difference in the two words.
……
Sure Mr. Anonymous a lawyer who successfully practiced law fir 42 years doesn’t know the difference between stupid and ignorant. What a stupid statement.
You said “think if you are able”. It’s the same thing as calling someone stupid.
You also said I was untruthful. You even claimed I’m not a lawyer. You can look me up on Facebook. No one knows who somehistory is. He seems to have an axe to grind with Canadian lawyers.
When he doesn’t like an argument and doesn’t have the ability to forcefully challenge it, he engages in ad hominens.
Angemon says
The student is named while the teacher isn’t. ???
gravenimage says
Yes, Angemon–ugly stuff, especially given this student being a child. This puts her at risk.
Chuck Ness says
What four Judges voted not to hear the case?
fredoniahead says
The Christ hating ones. Think about it. Google a little and you can figure it out.
Vanessa says
Did the teacher forcing her Christian students to learn Moslem dogma also force Moslem students to learn the Ten Commandments? Was this part of an elective “religions of the world” course in which each religion’s dogma would be appropriately covered? If not she’s denied her students First Amendment rights and should be fired.
Students are familiar with barfing back information on tests. The Christian can parrot the demanded words adding “Of course the “Moslem prayer of commitment” is merely a scam invented by pedophile Mohammed to control his followers.
Providence [as George Washington termed GOD), Jehovah, Yahweh, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, GOD– is the ONLY deity. All else are fantasies by imaginative people longing for godly connection beyond their culture and/or geography.