I thought this was a joke until I went to their website. Could it happen? Not in our lifetimes, but who knows what the future holds for our kids.
http://shariah4america.com/
saw this from the web site you pointed to...
b. Companies controlling public properties
Some companies at present operate in areas which are recognised as public property in Islam such as oil, gas, minerals, etc. Islam considers that these properties cannot be owned by individuals or private companies and will therefore be placed under the control of the state. The original investment however will be returned to the companies. The state may then allow the companies to continue to work in the areas they have built up as an excuse on a shariah basis but must work as agents of the state on behalf of the nation.
Doesn't this seem to smack of Michael Moore's comments regarding how it's not their money, it's everyone's money???
If a Liberal wanted the Statue of Liberty removed, people would chuckle. If an Islamist wants it removed, people look out for low flying planes headed toward Ellis Island.
-- Modified on 3/15/2011 6:13:54 AM
That's why Saudia Arabia kicked him out. Bin Laden wanted to raise a private Islamist army to march into Iraq. The Saudis didn't want that mess on their hands, and so they sent him to Ethopia.
Why did bin Laden hate Saddam so much? Because he was a socialist and the state owned everything, and tollerated a religiously open society.
Of course, Snow, Moore is more likely to promote workplace democracy than state ownership. But you knew that.
starving choldren all over the world while the fat f**ker eats enough food for four people!!
Talk about a limousine liberal!!
re that nice little clip. The chick, the ugly chick, has a PhD in Anthropology and is working as a cab driver making $18-$26 an hour. What a dumbass. Why doesn't she get a job in her fucking field and probably make 2X, 3X, or 4X than what she makes as a cab driver.
With a PhD, assuming she completes her dissertation, she can at least get a job as an Associate Professor, where she can spew her workers cooperative crap for more money.
she did say that she loved her cab job. I know there's a lot of people who have degrees in certain fields, have the high paying job and hate it. Maybe happiness on the job is a key part of her decision.
I used to drive a cab in my early 20's, and I do have to admit that it was fun as hell at times. There's not that many jobs where you get to see a drunk punching the shit out of a deer.
When the Taliban ruled there, they blew up Buddhist statues that were nearly 2,000 years old. So-called "graven images" are forbidden by the Koran.
Orthodox Jews, and perhaps even of some Christians, since the same law is mentioned in the Old Testament. With Muslims, as with Jews and Christians, some want to interpret and practice their scriptures more rigidly than others.
What kind of argument is that? Graven images are basically images referenced to idols other than God. You agree? So what you are saying is that there has been no contemporary destruction of grave images by Orthodox Jews, and "perhaps" even some Christians, but if they had their way, they would be right their with the Muslims blowing up Buddha, or some other graven like images.
Why you are at it, how about slamming the Japanese and their Shinto idols? I'm sure "if they had their way"
I'm not religious, but even your point is ridiculous.
-- Modified on 3/15/2011 5:00:39 PM
"graven images." As the link points out:
"The Second Commandment reads:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)"
A graven image can be of anything. And, the admonition is not make such was to prevent the worshiping of them as idols.
I've been in churches where there were no statues, pictures of Jesus or Saints, crucifix, etc., where no musical instrument was allowed, and no one was allowed to wear jewelry, even wedding bands. And, in their cemeteries, there were no headstones with any artist representations.
Just to say that some people believe everything the Old Testament says, and if they had the power, they believe that God would want them to enforce their views on what God's word was commanding them to do. Aren't you glad they no longer have the power to do so. There are even church where they believe that if you don't handle poisonous snakes in your worship, you're not a true believer, hence condemned to hell fire. Boy, am I glad they're not in power.
Orthodox Jews and "perhaps" some Christians, "if they had their way", would do something similar like the Taliban.
I haven't seen any recent examples of a religious group with explosives, tanks, missiles, etc., standing about 200 yards away, and blasting away graven images.
Your example is about churches that made a decision to exclude graven images, not using high explosives. You just had to equate other religions to what happened in Afghanistan. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Thank you for the complete 2nd Commandment. I only remember the cliff note version.
no matter what their religion is. And that, if they have the political, governmental, organizational and or other authoritative means to implement God's law, according to their view, they will do so. That's one of the reasons why the founding fathers were so big on separation of church and state. Given the power that the Muslims have in many countries, they've been better able to enforce their beliefs than small sects of Christians and Jews. IMHO.
There is only one, almighty all powerful God.
Mankind was shown the light, one thousand years before his son gave his life for your sins.
Follow Gods will to the heavens, or cast your shadows to the valley of darkness and despair, for all of eternity.
There will be, no more second chances.
Ask our almighty father for your redemption, and you shall receive.
I'm thinking 105mm is enough. I want to point at someone (lol)
how about a Bunker Buster! 
Needless to say, there is a politically influential group of very Orthodox Jews in Israel.
There is no movement to destroy, close, damange, or do anything to the hundreds of Christian or Islamic sites in the country. I don't know if the law is mentioned in the Old Testament, but it sure isn't read that way.
Likewise, there are scores of devout and "orthodox" Catholics in scores of nations around the world. Since the Inquisition, 500 years ago, there has been no movement to destroy Jewish synagogues. (The Nazis were not "Orthodox" Christians, so that is not included.
No, it is not true that Orthodox Jews and Christians are doing the same thing.
"Needless to say, there is a politically influential group of very Orthodox Jews in Israel."
Is that the same as the ruling religious group in a theocracy?
"I don't know if the law is mentioned in the Old Testament, but it sure isn't read that way."
Yes, it is mentioned in the Bible if you had read the quote that mentioned above. And, yes it is read that way by some people in certain Christian and Jewish Sects. The issue is, that they are not a ruling party in a theocracy.
"No, it is not true that Orthodox Jews and Christians are doing the same thing."
I never said they were! Though they have in the past when they had power and control of tribes, and countries.
There are several things you obviously don't understand about those who take all or some of the scriptures in the Bible seriously and literally.
One. That ultimately, they really don't accept any form of government other that a theocracy. They only tolerate it because it is force on them by a society bigger in numbers, and with more political power.
Two. They believe that since their nation is formed by and with the blessing of God, they must obey his laws and enforce them, from a literal interpretation.
Now, none of these religious groups have control over any governments, nor do they have the backing of a significant amount of people to institute a theocracy. All I'm saying is, if they did, you would see much the same behavior as you see now with the radical Muslims. It's true, that we need to be much more concerned about them than fundamentalist Christian or Orthodox Jews, because they do run the governments of many countries, and are a strong religious movement in the world, where the former are not.
Regardless of the past, you have to go back a hell of a long time to find that. In fact, I do not know of any time in the past 1,000 years where Jews destroyed religious objects of other faiths.
It may be a theocracy, and it is all well and good to put labels on it that sound like it is. But the bottom line fact remains that even if you give it the same name "theocracy," Jews in Isreal have not smashed the Church of the Nativity or Annunciation or Dome of the Rock or ANYTHING.;
It may be a "theocracy" but Jews in Isreal have not put anyone to death for converting. They don't kill people for blasphemy.
Maybe they did 2,000 years ago. But there is a little difference between a group that did in then and one that does it now.
Even today, even though they may not be in control, there is no call for anything like that.
I just think any comparison is silly. Sorry.
Is that the same as the ruling religious group in a theocracy?
"I don't know if the law is mentioned in the Old Testament, but it sure isn't read that way."
Yes, it is mentioned in the Bible if you had read the quote that mentioned above. And, yes it is read that way by some people in certain Christian and Jewish Sects. The issue is, that they are not a ruling party in a theocracy.
"No, it is not true that Orthodox Jews and Christians are doing the same thing."
I never said they were! Though they have in the past when they had power and control of tribes, and countries.
There are several things you obviously don't understand about those who take all or some of the scriptures in the Bible seriously and literally.
One. That ultimately, they really don't accept any form of government other that a theocracy. They only tolerate it because it is force on them by a society bigger in numbers, and with more political power.
Two. They believe that since their nation is formed by and with the blessing of God, they must obey his laws and enforce them, from a literal interpretation.
Now, none of these religious groups have control over any governments, nor do they have the backing of a significant amount of people to institute a theocracy. All I'm saying is, if they did, you would see much the same behavior as you see now with the radical Muslims. It's true, that we need to be much more concerned about them than fundamentalist Christian or Orthodox Jews, because they do run the governments of many countries, and are a strong religious movement in the world, where the former are not.
I'm not certain if you are saying, or think I'm saying Israel is a theocracy? Israel has a parliamentary form of government. I'm not aware of them having any priests interpreting the Pentateuch, and developing legislation from their interpretations. Matter of fact that was Jesus' criticism of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who made up the Sanhedrin, that "God's Law" was quite clear in the Pentateuch, and their interpretations corrupted their meaning and purpose. I think it's time for you to look up the definition of theocracy.
It's gotten that you are basically just talking to yourself, and you haven't seemed to have read my responses or understood them, so I've got nothing left to say, other than I'm talking about the nature of theocracies and the logical consequences of such, which is, if it's "God's Law," everyone in that system must live it, and if they do not, they are punished according to "God's Law." And, the same is demanded from any peoples that are conquered by the armies of said theocracy. And, I know plenty of conservative, evangelical Christians who really don't like democracy, would much prefer a theocracy. Some of those who would have "Creationism" taught in the public schools, would prefer a theocracy. When you have preachers like Falwell, Wright, Pat Robertson,or the one from the Westborro Baptist Church condemn the U.S., and say we deserve the calamities we've suffered, they are by logical extension saying that such things would not have occurred if "God's Law," had been obeyed by us, and those found guilty of breaking such laws, were punished according to "God's Law." Those preachers, down deep underneath, hate our form of government because they believe that it stands in the way of implementing "God's Law," just as the Jewish religious leaders in the article attached believe.
I'm talking about the nature of theocracy and those who would prefer that over a secular form of government. You are talking about who we should be concerned about; Muslims over Jews and Christians. You have failed to understand that I have no argument with you on that. Too bad we're talking about same things!
You strongly implied that it was a theocracy when you said,
"Is that the same as the ruling religious group in a theocracy? ....One. That ultimately, they really don't accept any form of government other that a theocracy. ....Two. They believe that since their nation is formed by and with the blessing of God, they must obey his laws and enforce them, from a literal interpretation."
True, you kind of danced around whether it was, but it approached an aphososis, of not saying it was, and then giving the traits you attribute to a theocracy that apply.
The bottom line is that someone attributed a certain type of behavior - detroying public icons that don't comport with their religion - to Moslems, and you said Jews and Christians do the same thing. That is what I was disputing.
It's gotten that you are basically just talking to yourself, and you haven't seemed to have read my responses or understood them, so I've got nothing left to say, other than I'm talking about the nature of theocracies and the logical consequences of such, which is, if it's "God's Law," everyone in that system must live it, and if they do not, they are punished according to "God's Law." And, the same is demanded from any peoples that are conquered by the armies of said theocracy. And, I know plenty of conservative, evangelical Christians who really don't like democracy, would much prefer a theocracy. Some of those who would have "Creationism" taught in the public schools, would prefer a theocracy. When you have preachers like Falwell, Wright, Pat Robertson,or the one from the Westborro Baptist Church condemn the U.S., and say we deserve the calamities we've suffered, they are by logical extension saying that such things would not have occurred if "God's Law," had been obeyed by us, and those found guilty of breaking such laws, were punished according to "God's Law." Those preachers, down deep underneath, hate our form of government because they believe that it stands in the way of implementing "God's Law," just as the Jewish religious leaders in the article attached believe.
I'm talking about the nature of theocracy and those who would prefer that over a secular form of government. You are talking about who we should be concerned about; Muslims over Jews and Christians. You have failed to understand that I have no argument with you on that. Too bad we're talking about same things!
you will find that I never implied Israel was a theocracy. I responded to your comment: "Needless to say, there is a politically influential group of very Orthodox Jews in Israel," with: "Is that the same as the ruling religious group in a theocracy?, which I should have answered for you, since you didn't know the answer. An influential group is not by nature the same as a theocracy.
And, if you read very carefully and slowly, you will not find any place where I said the Orthodox Jews and Christians are doing the same as radical Muslims. I said they have, and "if they had their way some would," because if they had their way they would be living in a theocracy based on their view of scripture. End of discussion!
I read it slowly in context.
Inicky said that the Moslems did it in Afghanistan and you said “Yep! And, same can be said, if they had their way, of...Orthodox Jews, and perhaps even of some Christians...”
That seems to mean if the Jews had their way, they would do the same.
I said it wasn’t true, and I pointed out areas where Jews and Christians were either in charge or a prominent block, but they were not doing it.
It went from there
Now you explain to me how that statement of Ink's and your reply does not mean that the Jews and Christians would do it.
And, if you read very carefully and slowly, you will not find any place where I said the Orthodox Jews and Christians are doing the same as radical Muslims. I said they have, and "if they had their way some would," because if they had their way they would be living in a theocracy based on their view of scripture. End of discussion!
can't see the forest from the trees, or are a defense lawyer exercising a knee-jerk response, feeling you must defend all Jews and Christians?
Just to make it as clear as possible:
Apple: Context=A theocracy: past, presentand future.
People in that context=Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians.
Orange: Context=All over the world: present.
People in that context=All Jews of any group and all Christians of any denomination.
I'm talking apples! You're talking oranges! You are not acknowledging I'm talking apples because you don't understand that, or refuse to accept it, or whatever. And, you're insisting I'm taking oranges when I'm not, for whatever reason. Either way, I don't care! But, at least you have a clear picture.
Islam is on a path to self destruction. How come these MF's can say whatever they under our free speech and we cant say fucking thing about them under our own free speech.
While I don't much care about any religion that much, Islam is one fucking evil religion.