Yeah but he is just one of many idiots that the idiot voters have elected to congress.

he's Cynthia McKinney lite...i will talk about this sometime this week on my show,,,

Jason, you are right Charlie sounds like an idiot.
But you have erred in your statement that islamists want to impose Islam onto others.

There is ample proof in history that Islam has been more tolerant and respectful than other religions. Take for instance an example that is easier to understand. The Passion of The Christ used the aramaic language. This language is still spoken in churches in Syria. These curches exist now and have existed for 2,000 of years. If the Islamist rulers have not been tolerant in the past, how do you explain their existence today? Or the fact Jerusalem has so many religions represented there?

I let my curiosity take the lead and with a simple Google search I found that spiritual life in that part of the world has flourished for thousands of years, uninterrupted. Here's one of the first finds which may be news for a lot of poeple. Church History

Currently Christians are feeling a pressure in the Middle East and many have decided to leave their home countries and establish elsewhere in light of recent events which is very sad.

John, I hope your peaceful, tolerant muslims are gentle when they stuff your genitals into your mouth and cut your throat.

John, with all due respect, you're simply wrong.

Islam teaches that all those who do not follow Islam are infidels. Islam also teaches that these infidels have but two choices under Islam. Either they submit to subjugation under the concepts of dhimmitude or they must be shown the sword (in other words, KILLED).

This is the position of Islam, and it's in the Koran. It's a part of their holy cannon to establish the worldwide caliphate and bring the world under the rule of Islam (that, in short, is imposing it's will on others). To equate the concept of "dhimmitude" to "tolerance" is to equate "slavery" to a "good job."

How do I explain the presence of so many religious groups in Jerusalem, it's simple, HISTORY explains this, various groups have lived there, settled there and established their churches there. Churches are notoriously hard to stamp out, they can go "underground" when times are tough, and emerge into the light when immediate danger has passed.

IF Islam is so "tolerant", please explain to me the rhetoric of Islam today that seeks to destroy the Jews. Explain to the me the destruction of Buddhist statues. Explain to me the beheading of young Christian girls in Indonesia merely because they attended a Christian school.

If you want to make the case that Islam is among the most "tolerant" of religions, you're going to have to show me some examples of Islam being "tolerant". You're going to have to show me more examples of true "tolerance" than I can show you of "intolerance". A church surviving under duress is not an example of tolerance, to suggest so is simply ludicrous.

Again, John, I appreciate you comment, and I strenuously disagree with it. As an atheist, I am very keenly aware of Islam's position towards me. As an atheist, I do not even rate the status of dhimmi, according to Islam, I can only be shown the sword. The Catholics once held this same position toward me and my kind, but they truly have become "tolerant" towards my beliefs and no long wish to burn me at the stake. Islam displays no such tolerance toward me. I don't even rate slavery to Islam, only the sword.

Hardly what I'd call "tolerance."

Finally I'll point out your last statement.

"Currently Christians are feeling a pressure in the Middle East and many have decided to leave their home countries and establish elsewhere in light of recent events which is very sad."

Can I take this to mean you feel that pressuring Christians to leave their homes is an example of "tolerance"? I think not!

--Jason

Jason, the fact remains that religion of any kind is not compatable with freedom of thought..the very nature of organized religion requires one to accept without question the tenets of tha religion. I am not an atheist..I do believe that there is a power higher than that of humans..or at least was a power higher than that of humans as humans are now. But I refuse to bow to any deity that I figure was created by man for the primary purpose of controling human thought.

GUYK,

I'm going to have to disagree with you in part and agree with you in part.

So lets get the disagreement out of the way first.

The Catholic Church, nor any Christian denom that I'm aware of, lops off heads of those merely practicing another faith. They did do some nasty things at one time, but there was a little thing called the Reformation which put the keys to the kingdoms into the hands of those who were just a tad bit more responsible and which allowed Western civilization to flourish. If the Reformation never happened, I'd be agreeing with you wholeheartedly, but since it did, and the world and Christian religions are changed evermore for it, I can't.

Further, Christianity doesn't wage wars any more, in fact, I don't think there are any "Christian Nations" left, although I could be wrong.

Chritianity does have a conversion mechanism, and does require that one maintain a certain level of allegiance to the cannons of the faith, but it's not out there waging wars of religious conquest anymore, nor will it probably anytime in the foreseeable future.

Before I move on to where I agree, I'll point out that there are a number of religions that do embrace free thought, the Episcopalians and Buddhists come to mind first, and if you want to press further, I'd suggest that the Lutheran and Shinto faiths also place a premium on human free thought.

Where I will agree with you is in the way that people perceive religion. As an atheist, I've searched high and low for a religion that could fit my worldview and which I could say "Hey, now that makes sense." However, I've never found a denom that fits the bill for me, and I've never found a God-construct I can agree with. So I resign myself to being an atheist and try not to associate myself with those who have taken atheism as a religion in and of itself. I make my own way in the world, examining it for myself.

Personally I believe that religions are the root of most of the evils mankind faces today and even more of the evils we've faced in the past. One day I'm confident that God-constructs will largely fall by the wayside and that we'll be able to move forward as a species in relative harmony, but I'm not holding my breath.

I will add in closing that I'm very proud to be on the same team with the Christians, even if they don't necessarily want me. I'm also proud to be on the same team with all the other infidels (Hindus, Shintos, Buddhists and others) who are not Muslim and who are not bound to a Dark Ages mindset.

I would be an equal opportunity religion basher if religions acted equally, right now however, there's one that's out there trying to bring about chaos in order to hasten their next messiah figure and generally acting like complete asses to their constituents and everyone else out there in the world.

In short, I really hate those f*ckers for what they are doing and hope we can force a reformation upon them sooner rather than later.

--Jason

Rangel is such an a-hole. WTF was he thinking?

What do terrorists chant as they are blowing something up, flying a plane in to buildings, or decapitating someone? "Allahuakbar! Allahuackbar!" (God is great! God is great!) All of their language is about the will of the most merciful Allah, etc. etc. It's all about Islam for them. Their goals and motivation is completely religiously based.

Did Hitler scream "God is great! God is great!" before attacking people? Was his campaign centered around pleasing God? Not to mention the fact that we know he was a big fan of Darwin's work that helped support his goals and actions.

The following is a quote from Andrew Brown in the currrent American Thinker. Any Muslim that supports Sharia Law is by definition intolerent. Statements of moderation and peaceful ring hallow. for those that argued that most Muslims are moderate, how does this square with your belief?

Quote..
Ignoring the expected outpouring of complaints from apologists for jihad terror who cynically decried (for example here and here), any“Islamic” references, or other less pressing semantic concerns ( “Islamism” versus “Islamic fascism”), the Washington Times editorial, indirectly, raises this critical question: just what comprises “mainstream” Islam (“of course”), as opposed to “corruption of the faith”?
These pressing corollary questions arise as well: What is the origin of “chauvinistic” concepts such as the treatment of non-Muslims as “contemptible dhimmis and infidels” who are rightfully placed under “severe social and economic restrictions”? Is it accurate to maintain that such discriminatory beliefs and practices merely derive from the very recent Taliban movement in (Pakistan and) Afghanistan, are unrelated to “mainstream” Islam, and further, represent a “corruption” of Islam? Is it really out of bounds to even consider that the heinous practice of suicide-homicide bombings may have profound Islamic religious justification?
In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt”—guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples.
Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims-Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists] – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.
It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’ a. The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari’a:
...the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
The practical consequences of such a discriminatory system were summarized in both A.S. Tritton’s 1930 book The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, and Antoine Fattal’s 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays’ d’Islam, pioneering treatises on the status of the dhimmis:
…[C]aliphs destroyed churches

EnD quote

And for the homicide boomers, outside normative Islam??

Quote same article

Professor Franz Rosenthal, the great American scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:
While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act….On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term. [Emphasis added.] 1
These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003).
Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death…In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise…While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah
For the past decade, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as

Unquote

Please note that this latter work was written 60 years ago