Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.
Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.
Link s/b http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293451/quit-and-dead-mark-steyn
” If you want to be treated with respect by the cbc and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them.”
The Toronto 18 strategy.
Muslims ace in the hole is that their religion encourages killing all non believers, while Christianity encourages turning the other cheek and to forgive. A no brainer when seeking to dominate the world. Muslims live for religion. The west tolerates religion and even mocks it as we have seen with Obamas policies. Like oil and water. Go to any Muslim country and see their attitude towards Christians, then ask yourself why we welcome them into our country. The answer should jump right out……we are stupid.
Note the ad is put in by the “Freedom FROM Religion Foundation”
Well here is another foundation they might want to consider it’s known as the 1st Amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So if the comedians running the ad section don’t want to respect the 1st Amendment then they should be introduced to the 2nd Amendment.
That would about cover it….
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Osama bin Laden said, “We win because we want to die and you want to live.”
wallyj- There’s a new attitude emerging in the west. We win because you want to die, and we want to kill you.
There will not be a safe time for the NYT to publish the ad in the foreseeable future. The very act of publishing it will bring the wrath of Islam on the NYT.
That is why the adherants to that religion do not belong in a free society. They do not want freedom, they want their religion to dominate and are prepared to kill in the imposition of the peace.
The residents of the free society are too concerned about preserving freedom to act that they don’t know that by allowing the Islamists to act as they want the residents are giving up what they value the most.
One of the best, clearest examples of “liberal self-loathing” I’ve seen in a while.
I wonder if publications located in states which have “shall issue” concealed carry permit laws would be more eager to publish Ms. Geller’s ad.
Charlton Heston once opined that it was the 2nd Amendment that preserved the existence of the 1st Amendment.
NYTimes, the lion without the heart and courage of a lion, becomes a pussycat.
Pamela can be downright wacky, but she’s right with this one.
Not to mention that if (when?) the Islamists take over, there won’t be any contraception aids available for women whether they want to pay for them or not.
@ Hans at March 14, 2012 1:29 PM
“prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;”
And by making contraception coverage mandatory for the Catholic church is it not a direct attack on the first amendment? You raised a point Ms Fluke and the left are probably well aware of but just don’t give a damn. When the constitution is under attack by the POTUS we can be assured it will not end with the first amendment. No wonder guns and ammo sale are through the roof because once the first amendment has been defeated, the attack on the second will begin.
I thought the anti-Christian ad was disgusting. It was advocating beliefs that are not truths but are beliefs of a segment of the population and thus, are open and always will be open, to debate.
For example, it referred to ‘gay rights’ as if beliefs and behaviour specific to ‘being gay’ is a fundamental right. Is it? What about other axioms asserted as fundamental – such as ‘marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research, abortion’ etc. Are these fundamental rights or beliefs of a particular group?
The language that referred to the church and christianity was despicable. And yet, the NYT published it.
On the other hand, Ms Geller’s ad was focused around, not an assertion of debatable ‘rights’ held by one group but an outline of open, declared actions of jihadists – killing all who reject their fundamentalism. Killing others (not simply asserting a belief) but killing others in the name of a belief is a legitimate and necessary comment and should be picked up and published elsewhere – just as Luther’s axioms were necessary statements.
When those on the left talk about “Speaking truth to power”, they really mean parroting politically correct bromides to build street cred with the Greenwich Village crowd.
Such pretension is hard to stomach, given the cowardice so often displayed.
Picking on Catholics and Christians is a hobby for the liberal media.
It’s pretty sad when muslims in canada stay mute when the MSM and the pro-shariah law CBC have to censor their news as to not offend muslims because it’s inplied they are predisposed to riots and murdering people.
You would think that massive Peace-Marches by muslims and the NDP would have taken palce in Toronto after the 4 Brown female muslim immigrant were victims of Shariah-Murders just because they wanted to be candian intheir culture.
BUT NO… the FemiNazis exploited this islamic based murder as they did the Gamil Gharabi mass-slaugher in 1989 where 14 females were killed for allah. One candian islamic ORG lost its Charity Status after coaching arabs and muslims on Political issue which is against the rules, this ORG. was also tied to funnelling Donations to the USA CAIR org that gave it to a Bogus chidlren Charity for Muslims but it got to Hamas and Hezbollah for terrorism.
This ORG had the nerve to ask muslims to donate the Zakat to a Hezballah charity during the lebanon terroism attacks on a UN member, this happened in public at the Muslimfest in Mississauga which had ties to the Jihad Mosque and Palestine House ( named in the 300 Citizenship fraud cases to get welfare while in gaza and the West bank).
Shame on Barbara Hall and the Toronto Police for enabling Shariah Law and now seeing the Police go Shariah-Compliant for the Hijab cops and Halal-Lunchrooms to appease the 20 radical Jihadist Imam’s now dictating the rule in canada.
We just had the Aqza Parvez murder via Shariah Law for NOT wearing the Hijab because Daddy dearest hated canadian values, then the 4 aqua-cides for not wear the hijabs…..so the Police in Toronto respond to these Shariah murders by embracing the same islamic-supremacy doctrine that got the girls killed, and then hired a pro Hijab cop that will handle all the pre-Murders via Honour killings by showing up in a hijab and telling theses girls to obey the quran or be killed.
If i wanted to live in an islamic hell-hole run by sex-staved dirty old men the sanction the Whahhbai homophobic/misogynistic/pedophilia taught by muhammed….I’d move to saudi Arabia or Gaza,Iran,Tunis,Libya,Somalia,Nigeria,Syria or any of the 56 OIC islamic swamps.
I DON’T want to see these nation parachute in to canada and makes us an islamic hell-hole that hangs gays in public, condone honour killing,flog females,and legalizes pedophilia because muhammed had a 6 year old wife he had sex with at 9 when he was 54 .
Muhhamed would be jailed if he came to canada to and spoke at Mosques about his sexcapades with 14 wives and sex with a 9 year old.
NO islam – Know Peace
Know islam – NO peace
ET, I appreciate your comments about these two ads.
And, personally, I thank God that I am now a Catholic Christian. The “touchy-feely, lefty” Protestant churches—where I used to be a member—are every bit as bad as the NYT.
Well, actually, these churches are worse because they claim to be Christian, which the NYT has never done. But, as far as Islam is concerned, they’re all utter hypocrites: none of them minds the Catholic Church being attacked in the most vile and dishonest ways, but they ignore the abominations of Islam and actually carry its water.
Won’t these useful idiots—e.g., feminists, homosexuals, and “diversity” lovers of all kinds—be shocked to find that they’re first in line for the jihad that will be unleashed in the West if Sharia is allowed? (The RC Church will look like a friendly puppy dog by comparison.)
Kyrie eleison.
It still boils down to acceptance of Sharia law in North America, since anything considered to be blasphemy against Islam is punishable by death. No religion or belief should be above criticism in a liberal democracy, but far too many are giving the required supremacy to Islam while every other belief system is fair game when it comes to religion. This is clearly a form of fascism in its true sense.
We see the same fascism practised by the Left where they resort even to violence to shut down and shut out any conservative belief. Actually the belief does not even need to be partisan, only that it dissents from their dogma.
Both the Islamists and the Left want to impose a theocracy of one sort or the other and they both must be resisted at ever step of the way.
Gary – don’t hold it in, say what you mean, it will only fester inside of you. Good for you, dontcha feel better for that?
You would think that muslims would be outraged the NYT feels this ad can’t be printed for fear of reprisal but they aren’t. I can’t imagine why that would be.
I thought the anti-Christian ad was disgusting. It was advocating beliefs that are not truths but are beliefs of a segment of the population and thus, are open and always will be open, to debate.
So what? All religions advocate beliefs that are not truths but are disgusting beliefs of a segment of the population.
.
phil, dear phil, you totally missed my point.
I didn’t say that Christianity was advocating beliefs that are disgusting. I said that the comments made by one set of people who are not Christian, against Christianity, were disgusting. Whew – can’t you figure out the difference?
As for your suggestion that a religion is ‘disgusting’ because its beliefs are not truths, again, you totally misunderstand religion.
Religion isn’t about truth, with truth understood as objective, observable, empirically testable material FACTS.
Religion is a set of developed beliefs about ‘relations’, ie, how we humans ought to behave towards each other. Essentially, religion is a set of morals. These can hardly be scientific truths for human behaviour isn’t material but psychological and emotion.
I’m an atheist; that is, I don’t believe in a metaphysical agential Being. But I certainly believe in reason and rational order; any brief glimpse at the ordered petals of a flower will reveal that there is order in the universe. And I believe that humans do, and must, develop a sense of ethics, of moral relations with each other.
This morality is the basis of religion, and it is a sad day when a human population rejects their FAITH in these morals and instead decides that ‘what I feel right now’ is what ought to guide my behaviour.
So, we’ve got a generation raised on ‘what do you feel like doing’, and ‘your basic feelings are ‘the truth’…who haven’t a clue how to behave to other people and focus only on themselves and their immediate gratification.
Religion, whether or not you believe in Agential Forces, has an important role in any society.
Yeah, well… farmers!
The trick is to make cowards like the NYT more afraid of anti-islamofascist groups than they are of islamofascists. Loading up a truck with ANFO and parking it in front of the NYT building is just so 1990’s and intellectually trivial. Considering that we’re quite a ways beyond the 7th century, then it’s time to use more modern attack techniques that would be as crippling to the NYT had it been destroyed by explosives.
DDNS attacks on their servers, “disappearance” of their accounts, embedding viruses in their web pages driving people away in droves are just some of the ideas that a few seconds reflection comes up with. A group of hackers giving this problem a few days though would likely come up with something far more devastating. It’s time to make the leftists start to feel fear and eliminating the various bits of data which give them an “official” existence would terrify them as they have no idea how to survive under those terms.
Kudos to ET for expressing it so clearly. I couldn’t agree more and as ET states one does not need to be religious to understand.
I may be just a knuckle-dragging Catholic but I never realised birth control (which apparently cures all social ills like unwanted pregnancies and poverty) was a right, that the Church was engaged in a crusade, launching an Inquisition and was holding American healthcare hostage and was preventing women from being priests, which apparently hinges on every other right a woman may have.
Wow. They covered the gamut of anti-Catholic stereotypes and lies, didn’t they? If I didn’t know better, I’d say they hated the Church and everyone in it.
These “brave freedom fighters” can either run Pamela Gellar’s ad or go back to the Stone Age where they truly belong.
Repeat after me “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim”.
ET, I got your point. You were disgusted. One can only infer that you were disgusted because “It (the ad) was advocating beliefs that are not truths but are beliefs of a segment of the population and thus, are open and always will be open, to debate” but why is that reason for disgust? Maybe I didn’t get your point. Since religion fits that bill, by your criteria, religion is therefore disgusting. I happen to think religion is disgusting for more coherent and cogent reasons, but c’est la vie. But again, you were disgusted… so what?
And yes Mamba, freeloading farmers and right wing hypocrites are disgusting, too.
@ Osumashi Kinyobe :
Matthew 5:17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
From Obambi’s & Phil’s point of view they would amend the above text as follows:
I would come to abolish the law and the prophets.
Given Prof. Bell’s view, the Constitution should be overthrown on the basis of his ‘critical race theory’. So far we haven’t heard anything from Obambi disavowing this crackpot theory. I’d say the Americans are in for a helluva fight…
I hear ya peterj…!
OT: Thank you to the loon who left a dead octopus on my front step. Nice to know people are so mature that they need to express their ill considered feelings via small dead animals. Next time, ring the doorbell and leave some fresh caught salmon as I find octopus somewhat rubbery.
I gather we can put Phil down as a non-observant 1st Amendment revolutionary or anti-Constitutionalist.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Hans, if Obama had his way, the Constitution would have been put in a shredder.
That the ad contained what it did is not shock when one thinks about the usual mud-slinging at the Church, nor is it a surprise that the New York Times would print it. But that the city which ten years ago was the biggest recipient of terrorist violence will never see an ad that would shake readers to its core.
wow, phil, again, you simply don’t understand.
The way you are now setting it up, you are stating that ‘a belief, because it is not a truth, is disgusting’.
Nope. First, the ad was defining its beliefs (about the rights of gays, gay marriage, stem cell etc) as truths. Not as beliefs open to debate but as ‘fundamental rights’. Got that? That’s what was disgusting – and its vicious attack on those who didn’t accept its point of view.
Second, any and all beliefs, because they are not objective truths but (in this case) societal morals, must be evaluated for their ethical values within the community.
So, a religion, which deals with the relations people have with each other, must evaluate its axioms for their value as ethical strengths in the community. Such values as ‘love thy neighbour’, charity, forgiveness, not harming others’ etc. These are beliefs of the community.
I think that such beliefs are vital, because in opposition to the tenets of the past generation, we do not live as isolate individuals. We don’t exist simply to satisfy ‘our rights’, ‘our needs’ because ‘I deserve it’ or ‘I’m worth it’. We exist, always, within a community and therefore, we must establish beliefs about how we relate to others. Got that?
Now, if you find that disgusting, heh – that’s you.
Yes, religion also informs us that these values and axioms about how we relate to others, come from some supreme metaphysical authority. Since I’m an atheist, I don’t accept that assertion, but I sure accept that a community requires community values, a belief system about relations, that support and strengthen its members in their lives.
Critical Race Theory is a deeply disturbing theory. It is damaging both to race relations and to the legal and Constitutional order. As Jeffrey Pyle rightly sums up in the Boston College Law Review:
“Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis in principles, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled government, and they have lost patience with false promises.”
CRT is what has provoked the current contratemps…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
If you intend to “…make it clear you’re willing to kill them…“, you had damn well better be a Preferred Species. If you fail to make that categorization, you need to understand they WILL sic the pigs on you. And “Law Enforcement” will be more than happy to do their thing to Mere Citizens who are stupid enough to threaten their Masters. After all, they are not REALLY “Law Enforcement”, but instead are nothing more than a Praetorian Guard…
Islam is a death cult. End of story. It proves it every day in every way. By its women hating genocidal policies.
ET writes, “Essentially, religion is a set of morals.” That’s an opinion. But it’s not, essentially, what Christianity’s about.
Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus, the Son of the living God. Yes, “a set of morals” is involved, but that’s because of fidelity to the Person the Christian worships. Many moral people in the West are not Christians, though their morals are based on the Judeo-Christian commandment, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”.
lookout – yes, I recognize your point about Christianity. But I’m not talking about Christianity and its justification for the validity and authority of its moral axioms. I’m talking about the emergence of religion, per se, within human society. That includes monotheistic, polytheistic and non-theistic belief systems.
And I suggest that religion emerged, not merely to answer the questions of ‘what and why is life’ and ‘why are we here’ but, ‘how and why do we relate to each other’. These are all beliefs and refer to the importance of a set of morals vested within the community.
No, ET, I do understand… you stated one ludicrous thing, and now you’re backtracking with a lot of obfuscating mumbo jumbo trying to say that you didn’t say what you indeed said
The way you are now setting it up, you are stating that ‘a belief, because it is not a truth, is disgusting’.
No that’s what you said.
I thought the anti-Christian ad was disgusting. It was advocating beliefs that are not truths but are beliefs of a segment of the population
First, the ad was defining its beliefs (about the rights of gays, gay marriage, stem cell etc) as truths. Not as beliefs open to debate but as ‘fundamental rights’. Got that? That’s what was disgusting – and its vicious attack on those who didn’t accept its point of view.
Doesn’t religion define it’s beliefs as fundamental truths, and, indeed, in the constitutional sense, fundamental rights?…is that therefore a vicious attack on those who don’t accept that point of view? heh?
ET, I do appreciate your civil and intelligent thoughts about religion. I also appreciate your gracious response. Thanks!
(Still, rather than the human answer to the three most important questions you raise, Judeo-Christianity is based on God’s astonishing revelation, first to Abraham, and then to many others, that His love and mercy are unconditional. It’s not essentially a matter of the intellect—though that’s an important aspect—but a matter of the heart: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” The [altogether imperfect] Christian is called to a life of love and sacrifice: such exemplary witnesses as William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer come to mind. WHAT a difference, it seems, from the obligations of an observant Muslim!)
No, Phil, because a religion defines its beliefs as truths, does not constitute a ‘vicious attack’ against those who don’t accept those beliefs.
It is only an attack IF the promoter defines these beliefs as truths AND chastizes and attacks those who do not accept them as truths. That is what the pro-gay life ad did.
The Judaic religion does not attack those who do not accept its axioms as truths; the Christian religion does not attack those who do not accept its axioms as truths. [Yes, the medieval Church did, but that church was not the religion].
The Islamic religion DOES attack those who do not accept its axioms as truths – and that is where it is a false religion, for it has self-defined its beliefs as material truths.
Religion is not science; this doesn’t mean it is irrelevant. Its axioms are beliefs and you either accept them or not.
Lookout – I understand your perspective. Since I don’t accept the existence of a metaphysical Agential Being, then, I don’t accept the basic axiom of that description. I would, myself, translate the Word becoming Flesh into a scientific metaphor of the Big Bang transforming pure or infinite energy into the diverse material forms of finite energy – which only exist by filiation (love) with other forms.