<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Islam to Become Ireland&#8217;s 2nd Largest Religion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:33:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: nightrangervt</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5344039</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nightrangervt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5344039</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sounds like a lot of target practice for my brothers over there.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like a lot of target practice for my brothers over there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343930</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You ducked both questions.  I asked what moral equivalency I&#039;d drawn, and how it was inappropriate.  Crickets on that.   You also claimed to have forgotten more about Islam than I&#039;ve ever known - I&#039;m asking how you&#039;ve learned about Islam?  What&#039;s your basis of knowledge and experience?  Where did you study?  Who did you study under?  Where have you lived?  What were your professional experiences?  How did you come by this rich depth of understanding of the Muslim world?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You ducked both questions.  I asked what moral equivalency I&#8217;d drawn, and how it was inappropriate.  Crickets on that.   You also claimed to have forgotten more about Islam than I&#8217;ve ever known &#8211; I&#8217;m asking how you&#8217;ve learned about Islam?  What&#8217;s your basis of knowledge and experience?  Where did you study?  Who did you study under?  Where have you lived?  What were your professional experiences?  How did you come by this rich depth of understanding of the Muslim world?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343929</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You certainly are not the first gullible useful idiot leftist moonbat addicted to apologizing for Islam and Muslims to be duped by Muslims. In fact, Marxists the world over are infamous for their capacity to ignore reality that is staring at them right in the face, and that explains how you can be a Marxist as well, especially when you consider the fact that without fail Marxism has failed every time it has been implemented. I&#039;m guessing that you reside somewhere across the pond, which also explains a lot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You certainly are not the first gullible useful idiot leftist moonbat addicted to apologizing for Islam and Muslims to be duped by Muslims. In fact, Marxists the world over are infamous for their capacity to ignore reality that is staring at them right in the face, and that explains how you can be a Marxist as well, especially when you consider the fact that without fail Marxism has failed every time it has been implemented. I&#8217;m guessing that you reside somewhere across the pond, which also explains a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343768</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalence...&quot;
 
What moral equivalencies did I form in that post, and how were they inappropriate?
 
&quot;....especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam.&quot;
 
Your characterizations of Islam actually conflict with what I experienced in years of living and traveling in the Arab world.  Not sure how that adds up to &quot;fantasy,&quot; and I note that you ducked the questions on where you had acquired your understanding of Islam.  I invite your attention back to that question.  You&#039;d insisted that you have forgotten more about Islam than I ever knew; I&#039;m curious to know what&#039;s behind that rather bold claim.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalence&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>What moral equivalencies did I form in that post, and how were they inappropriate?</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;.especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your characterizations of Islam actually conflict with what I experienced in years of living and traveling in the Arab world.  Not sure how that adds up to &#8220;fantasy,&#8221; and I note that you ducked the questions on where you had acquired your understanding of Islam.  I invite your attention back to that question.  You&#8217;d insisted that you have forgotten more about Islam than I ever knew; I&#8217;m curious to know what&#8217;s behind that rather bold claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343720</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 02:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343720</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You ever here the term, &quot;action speaks louder than words?&quot; You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalences that you completely ignore the actions of Muslims, especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam. 

By the way, Dufus, I know you don&#039;t realize it, but equating Christianity and Christians to Islam and Muslims as you constantly do is extremely denigrating to Christianity and Christians! However, in your case, I believe you do it subconsciously and without realizing it, which at the same time reveals your strong contempt for Christianity and Christians on a subconscious level. 

Also, you did a wonderful job of pointing out all of those populations of Muslim immigrants in Europe that actually assimilated and integrated and then matriculated into becoming productive and contributing members of their newly adopted host infidel states. Bravo!

Meanwhile, you totally ignore the FACT that in Islam there is no freedom of conscience to choose to believe or not to believe as there is in faith-based religions, as the latter choice is effectively blocked via the punishment of death for blasphemy and apostasy. When something is inconvenient or otherwise doesn&#039;t comport with your preconceived notions, you simply ignore it as if it doesn&#039;t exist. How convenient!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You ever here the term, &#8220;action speaks louder than words?&#8221; You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalences that you completely ignore the actions of Muslims, especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam. </p>
<p>By the way, Dufus, I know you don&#8217;t realize it, but equating Christianity and Christians to Islam and Muslims as you constantly do is extremely denigrating to Christianity and Christians! However, in your case, I believe you do it subconsciously and without realizing it, which at the same time reveals your strong contempt for Christianity and Christians on a subconscious level. </p>
<p>Also, you did a wonderful job of pointing out all of those populations of Muslim immigrants in Europe that actually assimilated and integrated and then matriculated into becoming productive and contributing members of their newly adopted host infidel states. Bravo!</p>
<p>Meanwhile, you totally ignore the FACT that in Islam there is no freedom of conscience to choose to believe or not to believe as there is in faith-based religions, as the latter choice is effectively blocked via the punishment of death for blasphemy and apostasy. When something is inconvenient or otherwise doesn&#8217;t comport with your preconceived notions, you simply ignore it as if it doesn&#8217;t exist. How convenient!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343336</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;Translation: No, I can&#039;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e&#039;d said. Thought not. 

Uhm...I don&#039;t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

 

Well, you don&#039;t &lt;i&gt;have to,&lt;/i&gt; in the sense that nobody can force you to do it.  You won&#039;t go to jail or get shot or have your posting license revoked or anything like that.  On the other hand, if you expect your claims to be taken seriously, you have to be able to support them, and in this case, that means being able to cite something I&#039;ve actually said that matches what you claimed I said.  If my posts are as full of such examples as you imply, then it should be no bother at all.

 

&quot;...it&#039;s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective.&quot;

 

Again, can you support this?  Can you find a single post of mine in which I&#039;ve advocated for, say, the elimination of private property, or international class struggle, or, well anything that&#039;s actually Marxist?  Or is &quot;Marxist&quot; just a sort of verbal tic with you, a reflexive slur you insert the way less tormented people say &quot;like&quot; and &quot;ya know?&quot;

 

&quot;I mean you can&#039;t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I&#039;m a conservative?&quot;

 

If I made a point of claiming that you were conservative, I&#039;d certainly be prepared to look at your posts and cite a few examples of conservative positions you&#039;d taken.  That wouldn&#039;t prove that you were a conservative, but it would serve as a good start to the conversation.  

 &quot;I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level.&quot;

 

&quot;Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty...&quot;

 

That represents a very curious reading of my positions.  How do you suppose that I&#039;ve &quot;denigrated&quot; Christianity, Christians, freedom, and liberty?

 

&quot;So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.&quot;
 
The problem here is that you&#039;ve confused your opinions, however you came by them (and how &lt;i&gt;did&lt;/i&gt; you come by them, btw?), with &quot;reality.&quot;  There is no shortage of wild-eyed fanatics (and your avatar does you proud in this respect) who insist that those who disagree with them are out of touch with reality, traitors to their country/race/religion/section/class/whatever; your loud and repetitive insistence that this is the case simply doesn&#039;t make it so.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Translation: No, I can&#8217;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e&#8217;d said. Thought not. </p>
<p>Uhm&#8230;I don&#8217;t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, you don&#8217;t <i>have to,</i> in the sense that nobody can force you to do it.  You won&#8217;t go to jail or get shot or have your posting license revoked or anything like that.  On the other hand, if you expect your claims to be taken seriously, you have to be able to support them, and in this case, that means being able to cite something I&#8217;ve actually said that matches what you claimed I said.  If my posts are as full of such examples as you imply, then it should be no bother at all.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;it&#8217;s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective.&#8221;</p>
<p>Again, can you support this?  Can you find a single post of mine in which I&#8217;ve advocated for, say, the elimination of private property, or international class struggle, or, well anything that&#8217;s actually Marxist?  Or is &#8220;Marxist&#8221; just a sort of verbal tic with you, a reflexive slur you insert the way less tormented people say &#8220;like&#8221; and &#8220;ya know?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;I mean you can&#8217;t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I&#8217;m a conservative?&#8221;</p>
<p>If I made a point of claiming that you were conservative, I&#8217;d certainly be prepared to look at your posts and cite a few examples of conservative positions you&#8217;d taken.  That wouldn&#8217;t prove that you were a conservative, but it would serve as a good start to the conversation.  </p>
<p> &#8220;I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>That represents a very curious reading of my positions.  How do you suppose that I&#8217;ve &#8220;denigrated&#8221; Christianity, Christians, freedom, and liberty?</p>
<p>&#8220;So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.&#8221;</p>
<p>The problem here is that you&#8217;ve confused your opinions, however you came by them (and how <i>did</i> you come by them, btw?), with &#8220;reality.&#8221;  There is no shortage of wild-eyed fanatics (and your avatar does you proud in this respect) who insist that those who disagree with them are out of touch with reality, traitors to their country/race/religion/section/class/whatever; your loud and repetitive insistence that this is the case simply doesn&#8217;t make it so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343331</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 01:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;...as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel...&quot;
 
So far, so good.  Christianity maintains that the Word was made Flesh; Islam maintains that the Word was made Book.  Both are miraculous claims.

&quot;Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of 
all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts 
that are divine. &quot;
 
Now you&#039;re starting to lose the bubble.  Muslims certainly believe that the Qur&#039;an is the Word of God, and therefore supreme over all other texts.  Similarly, Christians believe that Jesus was the Word of God, and that the Bible, as the divinely inspired record of his life, words, and ministry, is supreme over all other holy scriptures.  Again, it&#039;s a rare religion that does &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; consider its scripture to be supreme.  

There are some practical implications to the Muslim belief in the Qur&#039;an as the Word inlibrate, as you might say, but in the sense you&#039;re discussion, Islam is hardly unusual, much less unique.  Some of the more practical implications:  the Qur&#039;an is not the Qur&#039;an if it is translated; this has had an impact on the development and survival of Arabic as a language, and on the cultural influence of Arab language and culture throughout the Muslim world.  The physical book is treated with reverence; allowing it to touch the ground or defiling it will get a very visceral response from a Muslim, akin to dragging an American flag on the ground in front of a vet here at home.  

&quot;In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must 
further supersede all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere 
mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from 
Allah...&quot;
 
Again, Shari&#039;a supersedes other laws in the same sense that any other religion claiming divine inspiration does.  First, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about shari&#039;a.  The Qur&#039;an is the Word of God; shari&#039;a is a code of conduct, so to speak, derived from the Qur&#039;an and from the sunna, or traditions.  Shari&#039;a is not the infallible word of God, it&#039;s the rules for living derived therefrom.  In that sense, it&#039;s not significantly different from a code of conduct derived from the words of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus was God made flesh; I can&#039;t begin to tell you how many times in my life I&#039;ve heard Christians insist that the Law of God is superior to the Law of Man.  You might also want to pay a visit to Israel; a few hours spent trying to use an elevator or get a meal on the Sabbath will tell you that the codes of conduct derived from the Word of God is taken pretty seriously by the Jews, too.  

&quot;Indeed, this is why reforming Islam is utterly impossible.&quot;
 
Where did you study Islam?  WND University?  The &lt;i&gt;Qur&#039;an&lt;/i&gt; is the infallible word of God according to Islam, and too true, it can&#039;t be revised.  No more can one change the Bible.  The Bible, of course, was assembled from many sources in many languages, and improving the &lt;i&gt;translations&lt;/i&gt; of the Bible is an ongoing task, but it is no more acceptable to Christianity to simply decide to change an uncomfortable verse than it is to Islam to change a line in the Qur&#039;an.  
 
However, shari&#039;a is not the Qur&#039;an, and the interpretation of the Qur&#039;an and the Hadith were long the subject of ijtihad, or the use of reason, logic, and argument from analogy to determine how to proceed in new situations.  In the event, there came a time, during the Abbasid Caliphate IIRC, that Muslim scholars argued that all relevant questions had been settled and that ijtihad was no longer appropriate.  That&#039;s not a ruling from God or from the Qur&#039;an, but a decision made by the &#039;ulama, and reformers today are discussing the return of ijtihad (which never fell entirely out of favor among the Shi&#039;a - that&#039;s a large part of what an ayatullah actually is).  The barriers to reform in Islam are formidable, but then, so are the barriers to reform in Christianity.  The underlying problem is the same:  how does one reconcile the principle that laws are rightly derived from the will of the people with the principle that the Supreme Creator of the entire universe has already told us what He wants us to do and how? 
 
&quot;Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you 
obviously also don&#039;t have the first clue about Sharia or what more 
accurately is Islamic totalitarian law.&quot;
 
Just out of curiosity, while you&#039;re posturing like this, what&#039;s your source of understanding of the same?  Where did you learn what you believe you know about Islam?  
 

 
&quot;Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia?&quot;
 
That&#039;s a question you should have asked long ago.  It might surprise you to learn that there are many, many possible answers that have nothing to do with shari&#039;a. 

&quot;I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing...&quot;
 
That&#039;s a pity.  If you had remembered some of it, your posts wouldn&#039;t be so frothy and hysterical.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>So far, so good.  Christianity maintains that the Word was made Flesh; Islam maintains that the Word was made Book.  Both are miraculous claims.</p>
<p>&#8220;Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of<br />
all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts<br />
that are divine. &#8221;</p>
<p>Now you&#8217;re starting to lose the bubble.  Muslims certainly believe that the Qur&#8217;an is the Word of God, and therefore supreme over all other texts.  Similarly, Christians believe that Jesus was the Word of God, and that the Bible, as the divinely inspired record of his life, words, and ministry, is supreme over all other holy scriptures.  Again, it&#8217;s a rare religion that does <i>not</i> consider its scripture to be supreme.  </p>
<p>There are some practical implications to the Muslim belief in the Qur&#8217;an as the Word inlibrate, as you might say, but in the sense you&#8217;re discussion, Islam is hardly unusual, much less unique.  Some of the more practical implications:  the Qur&#8217;an is not the Qur&#8217;an if it is translated; this has had an impact on the development and survival of Arabic as a language, and on the cultural influence of Arab language and culture throughout the Muslim world.  The physical book is treated with reverence; allowing it to touch the ground or defiling it will get a very visceral response from a Muslim, akin to dragging an American flag on the ground in front of a vet here at home.  </p>
<p>&#8220;In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must<br />
further supersede all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere<br />
mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from<br />
Allah&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Again, Shari&#8217;a supersedes other laws in the same sense that any other religion claiming divine inspiration does.  First, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about shari&#8217;a.  The Qur&#8217;an is the Word of God; shari&#8217;a is a code of conduct, so to speak, derived from the Qur&#8217;an and from the sunna, or traditions.  Shari&#8217;a is not the infallible word of God, it&#8217;s the rules for living derived therefrom.  In that sense, it&#8217;s not significantly different from a code of conduct derived from the words of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus was God made flesh; I can&#8217;t begin to tell you how many times in my life I&#8217;ve heard Christians insist that the Law of God is superior to the Law of Man.  You might also want to pay a visit to Israel; a few hours spent trying to use an elevator or get a meal on the Sabbath will tell you that the codes of conduct derived from the Word of God is taken pretty seriously by the Jews, too.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Indeed, this is why reforming Islam is utterly impossible.&#8221;</p>
<p>Where did you study Islam?  WND University?  The <i>Qur&#8217;an</i> is the infallible word of God according to Islam, and too true, it can&#8217;t be revised.  No more can one change the Bible.  The Bible, of course, was assembled from many sources in many languages, and improving the <i>translations</i> of the Bible is an ongoing task, but it is no more acceptable to Christianity to simply decide to change an uncomfortable verse than it is to Islam to change a line in the Qur&#8217;an.  </p>
<p>However, shari&#8217;a is not the Qur&#8217;an, and the interpretation of the Qur&#8217;an and the Hadith were long the subject of ijtihad, or the use of reason, logic, and argument from analogy to determine how to proceed in new situations.  In the event, there came a time, during the Abbasid Caliphate IIRC, that Muslim scholars argued that all relevant questions had been settled and that ijtihad was no longer appropriate.  That&#8217;s not a ruling from God or from the Qur&#8217;an, but a decision made by the &#8216;ulama, and reformers today are discussing the return of ijtihad (which never fell entirely out of favor among the Shi&#8217;a &#8211; that&#8217;s a large part of what an ayatullah actually is).  The barriers to reform in Islam are formidable, but then, so are the barriers to reform in Christianity.  The underlying problem is the same:  how does one reconcile the principle that laws are rightly derived from the will of the people with the principle that the Supreme Creator of the entire universe has already told us what He wants us to do and how? </p>
<p>&#8220;Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you<br />
obviously also don&#8217;t have the first clue about Sharia or what more<br />
accurately is Islamic totalitarian law.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, while you&#8217;re posturing like this, what&#8217;s your source of understanding of the same?  Where did you learn what you believe you know about Islam?  </p>
<p>&#8220;Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia?&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a question you should have asked long ago.  It might surprise you to learn that there are many, many possible answers that have nothing to do with shari&#8217;a. </p>
<p>&#8220;I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a pity.  If you had remembered some of it, your posts wouldn&#8217;t be so frothy and hysterical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343327</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 01:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson&#039;s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. &quot;

 You were complaining about &quot;the Left&#039;s&quot; attempt to deny Robertson his right to free speech in response to a comment on the First Amendment.  If you&#039;re simply complaining because &quot;the Left&quot; is exercising its own right to free speech in epxressing disapproval of Robertson&#039;s views, and you understand that the First Amendment isn&#039;t in play, it&#039;s not clear what you&#039;re crying about.  

&quot;It didn&#039;t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.&quot;
 
Could be.  Not at all relevant to the conversation, but it seems possible.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson&#8217;s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. &#8221;</p>
<p> You were complaining about &#8220;the Left&#8217;s&#8221; attempt to deny Robertson his right to free speech in response to a comment on the First Amendment.  If you&#8217;re simply complaining because &#8220;the Left&#8221; is exercising its own right to free speech in epxressing disapproval of Robertson&#8217;s views, and you understand that the First Amendment isn&#8217;t in play, it&#8217;s not clear what you&#8217;re crying about.  </p>
<p>&#8220;It didn&#8217;t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.&#8221;</p>
<p>Could be.  Not at all relevant to the conversation, but it seems possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343318</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson&#039;s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. That&#039;s your absurd argument. What the radical Marxist Left did in this case is attempt to use its hegemony together with political correctness to brand Robertson&#039;s speech as hate speech in order to destroy the show. It didn&#039;t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson&#8217;s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. That&#8217;s your absurd argument. What the radical Marxist Left did in this case is attempt to use its hegemony together with political correctness to brand Robertson&#8217;s speech as hate speech in order to destroy the show. It didn&#8217;t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343309</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Translation: No, I can&#039;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e&#039;d said. Thought not. &lt;/i&gt;

Uhm...I don&#039;t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.

&lt;i&gt;Reminder: You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress&lt;/i&gt;

Not quite, I said that Marxists view the imposition of Marxism as progress, and they do.

&lt;i&gt;Your political Tourette&#039;s is entertaining, but it&#039;s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said. That leaves you with three choices:
A. Find some evidence to back up your claim.
B. Retract your claim and apologize.
C. Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty. &lt;/i&gt;

I don&#039;t have to make any citations, moonbat, it&#039;s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective. I mean you can&#039;t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I&#039;m a conservative? I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level. Damn son!

&lt;i&gt;&quot;Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.&quot;

This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post. Imagine how much time you&#039;d have saved yourself if you&#039;d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest. &lt;/i&gt;

Actually, that sentence you referenced is exceedingly accurate, as you Marxist moonbats are all like mind-programmed robots in that you all say and do the same exact stupid idiotic things over and over again. It&#039;s like repeating the same stupid mistakes of the past over and over again is a time-honored tradition for you Marxist loons. Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty are no different from the countless other Marxist moonbats that I have encountered in the past, and they are just as idiotic as ever. So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Translation: No, I can&#8217;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e&#8217;d said. Thought not. </i></p>
<p>Uhm&#8230;I don&#8217;t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.</p>
<p><i>Reminder: You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress</i></p>
<p>Not quite, I said that Marxists view the imposition of Marxism as progress, and they do.</p>
<p><i>Your political Tourette&#8217;s is entertaining, but it&#8217;s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said. That leaves you with three choices:<br />
A. Find some evidence to back up your claim.<br />
B. Retract your claim and apologize.<br />
C. Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty. </i></p>
<p>I don&#8217;t have to make any citations, moonbat, it&#8217;s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective. I mean you can&#8217;t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I&#8217;m a conservative? I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level. Damn son!</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.&#8221;</p>
<p>This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post. Imagine how much time you&#8217;d have saved yourself if you&#8217;d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest. </i></p>
<p>Actually, that sentence you referenced is exceedingly accurate, as you Marxist moonbats are all like mind-programmed robots in that you all say and do the same exact stupid idiotic things over and over again. It&#8217;s like repeating the same stupid mistakes of the past over and over again is a time-honored tradition for you Marxist loons. Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty are no different from the countless other Marxist moonbats that I have encountered in the past, and they are just as idiotic as ever. So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343304</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2014 00:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam. &lt;/i&gt;

I hate to keep raining on your extremely gullible useful idiot parade over and over again moonbat because this is getting to be exceedingly boring, but nonetheless Islam alone makes the miraculous claim that its holy texts contained in the Koran emanates divinely, that is directly from Allah, as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel. Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts that are divine. 

In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must further supersedes all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from Allah, i.e., the infamous &quot;will of Allah&quot;, in which all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy, can be absolutely perfect and just. Meanwhile, all faith-based religions, on the other hand, make no qualms about admitting that their respective holy texts emanate from the writings of mere mortal and very fallible men. 

&lt;i&gt;Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you&#039;re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone. &lt;/i&gt;

But nonetheless adherents are not executed, as is the case in Islam, and that my delusional Marxist friend, is a very big difference between faith-based religions and the totalitarian cult of Islam.

&lt;i&gt;The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning? &lt;/i&gt;

Uhm...no Christian or Jew today takes the writings contained in the Bible in a literal absolutist sense. Meanwhile, the holy texts of Islam, on the other hand, is always and only taken in the most literal absolutist sense possible, as it emanates divinely directly from Allah. Moreover, any Muslim perceived as changing just one single word of the Koran will be instantly executed because again it is the literal verbatim text of Allah and is therefore absolutely perfect. Indeed, this why reforming Islam is utterly impossible. 

&lt;i&gt;But you&#039;re mischaracterizing shari&#039;a. A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor&#039;s wife is violating shari&#039;a, but isn&#039;t subject to the death penalty. &lt;/i&gt;

Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you obviously also don&#039;t have the first clue about Sharia or what more accurately is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, if anyone is guilty of misrepresenting the tenets of Sharia, go look in the mirror you dufus! Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia? Give me a break. 

&lt;i&gt;You&#039;ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy. &lt;/i&gt;

I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing until it is too late!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam. </i></p>
<p>I hate to keep raining on your extremely gullible useful idiot parade over and over again moonbat because this is getting to be exceedingly boring, but nonetheless Islam alone makes the miraculous claim that its holy texts contained in the Koran emanates divinely, that is directly from Allah, as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel. Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts that are divine. </p>
<p>In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must further supersedes all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from Allah, i.e., the infamous &#8220;will of Allah&#8221;, in which all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy, can be absolutely perfect and just. Meanwhile, all faith-based religions, on the other hand, make no qualms about admitting that their respective holy texts emanate from the writings of mere mortal and very fallible men. </p>
<p><i>Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you&#8217;re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone. </i></p>
<p>But nonetheless adherents are not executed, as is the case in Islam, and that my delusional Marxist friend, is a very big difference between faith-based religions and the totalitarian cult of Islam.</p>
<p><i>The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning? </i></p>
<p>Uhm&#8230;no Christian or Jew today takes the writings contained in the Bible in a literal absolutist sense. Meanwhile, the holy texts of Islam, on the other hand, is always and only taken in the most literal absolutist sense possible, as it emanates divinely directly from Allah. Moreover, any Muslim perceived as changing just one single word of the Koran will be instantly executed because again it is the literal verbatim text of Allah and is therefore absolutely perfect. Indeed, this why reforming Islam is utterly impossible. </p>
<p><i>But you&#8217;re mischaracterizing shari&#8217;a. A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor&#8217;s wife is violating shari&#8217;a, but isn&#8217;t subject to the death penalty. </i></p>
<p>Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you obviously also don&#8217;t have the first clue about Sharia or what more accurately is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, if anyone is guilty of misrepresenting the tenets of Sharia, go look in the mirror you dufus! Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia? Give me a break. </p>
<p><i>You&#8217;ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy. </i></p>
<p>I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing until it is too late!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343266</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2014 21:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your long and passionate interpretation of Duck Dynasty as metaphor for America&#039;s &lt;i&gt;kulturkampf&lt;/i&gt; nothwithstanding, here&#039;s the bit you still fail to track:  if every word that you wrote were perfectly accurate, none of this would involve the First Amendment.  

I don&#039;t know how much plainer it&#039;s possible to make it:  the First Amendment deals with actions by the government.  The Bill of Rights did not, does not,and was never intended to guarantee that all speech would be heard respectfully and politely, or that nobody would attempt to drown out, distort, discourage, or undermine someone else&#039;s message.  The Bill of Rights simply ensures that nobody can do so &lt;i&gt; with the power and authority of the government.&lt;/i&gt; 
 
You assert that the whole move against Duck Dynasty backfired, that the show is more popular than ever, and that you bought Duck Dynasty merchandise you otherwise would not have bought.  That alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that nobody&#039;s &quot;freedom of speech&quot; was, at any point, threatened.  
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your long and passionate interpretation of Duck Dynasty as metaphor for America&#8217;s <i>kulturkampf</i> nothwithstanding, here&#8217;s the bit you still fail to track:  if every word that you wrote were perfectly accurate, none of this would involve the First Amendment.  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know how much plainer it&#8217;s possible to make it:  the First Amendment deals with actions by the government.  The Bill of Rights did not, does not,and was never intended to guarantee that all speech would be heard respectfully and politely, or that nobody would attempt to drown out, distort, discourage, or undermine someone else&#8217;s message.  The Bill of Rights simply ensures that nobody can do so <i> with the power and authority of the government.</i> </p>
<p>You assert that the whole move against Duck Dynasty backfired, that the show is more popular than ever, and that you bought Duck Dynasty merchandise you otherwise would not have bought.  That alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that nobody&#8217;s &#8220;freedom of speech&#8221; was, at any point, threatened.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343240</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don&#039;t seem to be making the necessary connections.&lt;/i&gt;

Here&#039;s the necessary connection. Duck Dynasty, which features American traditions and values like guns and hunting and praying and religion in such a high profile in your face manner inevitably became the highest rated show ever in the history of cable TV. Meanwhile, the radical Marxist Left, which hates American traditions and values like guns and hunting and especially praying and religion, decided that one way or another it was going to take Duck Dynasty down. 

Thus, they conspired to send in their reporter to do a hit job by conducting an interview for GQ magazine no less and that no one outside the Left reads with Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the show. Not to mention also that GQ magazine, by the way, advocates the exact polar opposite of what the Duck Dynasty crowd represents. Then once that underhanded feat had been accomplished, the talking points were written and sent out. Next, the so-called MSM went into hyperbolic mode in order to crucify Phil Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion about gays in response to a question that was somehow asked by a GQ reporter/hitman, who was sent out to deliberately target and kill the Duck Dynasty Show. 

Next thing you know, A &amp; E suspends Robertson and the show and some advertisers like Cracker Barrel, for instance, were quick to take Duck Dynasty merchandise off their shelves. All of this was done, of course, to vilify and demonize Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion in response to a reporter&#039;s question with respect to gays and in order to destroy the show because it may or may not have hurt the feelings of some gays. 

Meanwhile, the majority of the American people, on the other hand, who not only mostly agree with Robertson&#039;s sentiments towards gays but also even if they do not would nonetheless still be willing to fight and die to protect Robertson&#039;s right to voice his opinion, sided on the side of Robertson and the show. Thus, A &amp; E and Cracker Barrel in their infinite wisdom were forced to reverse course rather abruptly and end their idiotic suspensions of Robertson and the show and put Duck Dynasty items back on the shelves. 

Indeed, what this whole episode amounted to was an attempt by the radical Marxist Left to destroy Duck Dynasty for the traditional American values that it espouses in a very high profile manner via the hegemony of the radical Marxist Left and its support in the so-called MSM, the gay activists and their army of leftwing political hack supporters, and through the force of political correctness, which was designed by the cultural communists to impede in their favor through self-censorship the freedom of speech in free societies. But this time around they all over reached and the entire episode ended up backfiring on them, as through the overwhelming support and response of the American people the show now is even more popular today that it was before and all associated Duck Dynasty merchandise are flying off the shelves. 

As a matter of fact, I just purchased the boxed three-season DVD collector&#039;s edition of the show in blue ray from Amazon. I never would have done so otherwise.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don&#8217;t seem to be making the necessary connections.</i></p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the necessary connection. Duck Dynasty, which features American traditions and values like guns and hunting and praying and religion in such a high profile in your face manner inevitably became the highest rated show ever in the history of cable TV. Meanwhile, the radical Marxist Left, which hates American traditions and values like guns and hunting and especially praying and religion, decided that one way or another it was going to take Duck Dynasty down. </p>
<p>Thus, they conspired to send in their reporter to do a hit job by conducting an interview for GQ magazine no less and that no one outside the Left reads with Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the show. Not to mention also that GQ magazine, by the way, advocates the exact polar opposite of what the Duck Dynasty crowd represents. Then once that underhanded feat had been accomplished, the talking points were written and sent out. Next, the so-called MSM went into hyperbolic mode in order to crucify Phil Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion about gays in response to a question that was somehow asked by a GQ reporter/hitman, who was sent out to deliberately target and kill the Duck Dynasty Show. </p>
<p>Next thing you know, A &amp; E suspends Robertson and the show and some advertisers like Cracker Barrel, for instance, were quick to take Duck Dynasty merchandise off their shelves. All of this was done, of course, to vilify and demonize Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion in response to a reporter&#8217;s question with respect to gays and in order to destroy the show because it may or may not have hurt the feelings of some gays. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the majority of the American people, on the other hand, who not only mostly agree with Robertson&#8217;s sentiments towards gays but also even if they do not would nonetheless still be willing to fight and die to protect Robertson&#8217;s right to voice his opinion, sided on the side of Robertson and the show. Thus, A &amp; E and Cracker Barrel in their infinite wisdom were forced to reverse course rather abruptly and end their idiotic suspensions of Robertson and the show and put Duck Dynasty items back on the shelves. </p>
<p>Indeed, what this whole episode amounted to was an attempt by the radical Marxist Left to destroy Duck Dynasty for the traditional American values that it espouses in a very high profile manner via the hegemony of the radical Marxist Left and its support in the so-called MSM, the gay activists and their army of leftwing political hack supporters, and through the force of political correctness, which was designed by the cultural communists to impede in their favor through self-censorship the freedom of speech in free societies. But this time around they all over reached and the entire episode ended up backfiring on them, as through the overwhelming support and response of the American people the show now is even more popular today that it was before and all associated Duck Dynasty merchandise are flying off the shelves. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, I just purchased the boxed three-season DVD collector&#8217;s edition of the show in blue ray from Amazon. I never would have done so otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey_Britain</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343075</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geoffrey_Britain]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2014 05:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read somewhere that Islam views 1/3 percentage of pop. as the tipping point, when Muslim&#039;s are &#039;justified&#039; in &lt;i&gt;demanding&lt;/i&gt; that a non-Muslim country adopt Shariah law.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read somewhere that Islam views 1/3 percentage of pop. as the tipping point, when Muslim&#8217;s are &#8216;justified&#8217; in <i>demanding</i> that a non-Muslim country adopt Shariah law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LindaRivera</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5343050</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LindaRivera]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jan 2014 02:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5343050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Western leaders are fully aware that when they allow Muslims to immigrate into our countries, the goal of Muslims is to live for free off hated infidel taxpayers. And Islamic conquest and cruel enslavement of our people under vile, woman-hater, barbaric sharia law.


Western leaders are the most evil traitors that ever walked this earth.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Western leaders are fully aware that when they allow Muslims to immigrate into our countries, the goal of Muslims is to live for free off hated infidel taxpayers. And Islamic conquest and cruel enslavement of our people under vile, woman-hater, barbaric sharia law.</p>
<p>Western leaders are the most evil traitors that ever walked this earth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hard Little Machine</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5342804</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hard Little Machine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2014 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5342804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Kerry can return to his homeworld then.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John Kerry can return to his homeworld then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pupsncats</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5342364</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pupsncats]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5342364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t share your optimism.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t share your optimism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baba ali</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5342248</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[baba ali]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 12:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5342248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love all the dreamers here!!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love all the dreamers here!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5342207</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 08:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5342207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where to begin?

First, Islam and Christianity are relatively unusual among religions in that they require an active act of faith - that is, there is a very specific idea that once must believe in order to achieve salvation.  For Christians, that belief is in the divinity of Jesus.  For Muslims, it is in the unity of God.  I had assumed that your term &#039;faith-based&#039; must, to some degree, recognize that distinction, but it appears that your thinking was not that well-defined, and you simply mean faith in some generic &quot;I believe &lt;i&gt;something&lt;/i&gt;&quot; sense.  Certainly, Buddhism and Taoism do not require rigid adherence to an article of faith in anything remotely similar to the Christian and Muslim conceptions of religion.  At any rate, Islam and Christianity are remarkably similar to one another in that respect, and remarkably dissimilar to most other religions.  

The Supreme Court has defined religions for purpose of the application of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  There&#039;s no exclusion based on your enthusiastic, if muddled, sense of &#039;faith-based&#039; religions.
 
Jefferson noted that the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia &quot;...was meant to be universal . . . to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.&quot;
 
What this tells us is that the Founders clearly considered Islam a religion.

On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don&#039;t seem to be making the necessary connections.  The First Amendment, in the context of free speech, deals with &lt;i&gt;governmental&lt;/i&gt; actions.  Period.  If you get up in a public square and start speaking, and the people around you shout you down, there is no First Amendment issue.  If the police tell you to shut up, there is.  Protesting an actor&#039;s comments and calling for the end to his employment or the end to sponsorship of a show is not an attack on &#039;freedom of speech,&#039; it&#039;s the &lt;i&gt;exercise&lt;/i&gt; of freedom of speech.  If the government uses its legal authority to shut down speech, you&#039;ve got a legitimate complaint.  Until then, you&#039;re just complaining.  
 
&quot;The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left.&quot;
 
The &#039;secular left&#039; came into existence about 1200 years after the inception of Islam.  You&#039;re letting your political paranoia lead you into some seriously nonsensical statements.  Frederick II was not a &#039;leftist,&#039; but he clearly considered Islam a religion.  
 
&quot;...but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine.&quot;
 
Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam.  Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you&#039;re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone.  The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning?  Seems pretty total to me.  But you&#039;re mischaracterizing shari&#039;a.  A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor&#039;s wife is violating shari&#039;a, but isn&#039;t subject to the death penalty. You&#039;ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy.
 
&quot;To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation.&quot;
 
That&#039;s well and truly worked into our laws.  The Free Exercise Clause does not apply to people who want to practice human sacrifice.  Polygamy, for some reason, was considered a threat to the state, so the government was free to override religious convictions on that matter.  What security concerns do NOT allow the government to do is declare whole religions threats to national security.  Again, the Supreme Court, to your apparent displeasure, has quite explicitly insisted that its job is not to figure out which religions are true or good.  
 
&quot;...as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate.&quot;
 
That was one of the complaints cited against the Jews while justifying pogroms against them, as well.  Just out of curiosity, how long did it take the Germans to assimilate?  The Irish?  The Muslim community in the U.S. seems to be assimilating pretty well - where&#039;s your evidence to the contrary?
 
&quot;...in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries.&quot;
 
Which one is going to become Muslim majority first?  When is it going to become Muslim majority?  Whose demographic figures are you using to determine this?  Or is this something you just sorta know?  Let&#039;s follow that country and see what actually happens.
 
&quot;All Marxist deny what they are.&quot;
 
Translation:  No, I can&#039;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I claimed he&#039;d said.  Thought not.   

&quot;Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don&#039;t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious.&quot;
 
Reminder:  You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress.  Your political Tourette&#039;s is entertaining, but it&#039;s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said.  That leaves you with three choices:
A.  Find some evidence to back up your claim.
B.  Retract your claim and apologize.
C.  Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty.

I know which of those my money&#039;s on, but maybe you&#039;ll surprise me.

&quot;Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.&quot;
 
This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post.  Imagine how much time you&#039;d have saved yourself if you&#039;d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where to begin?</p>
<p>First, Islam and Christianity are relatively unusual among religions in that they require an active act of faith &#8211; that is, there is a very specific idea that once must believe in order to achieve salvation.  For Christians, that belief is in the divinity of Jesus.  For Muslims, it is in the unity of God.  I had assumed that your term &#8216;faith-based&#8217; must, to some degree, recognize that distinction, but it appears that your thinking was not that well-defined, and you simply mean faith in some generic &#8220;I believe <i>something</i>&#8221; sense.  Certainly, Buddhism and Taoism do not require rigid adherence to an article of faith in anything remotely similar to the Christian and Muslim conceptions of religion.  At any rate, Islam and Christianity are remarkably similar to one another in that respect, and remarkably dissimilar to most other religions.  </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has defined religions for purpose of the application of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  There&#8217;s no exclusion based on your enthusiastic, if muddled, sense of &#8216;faith-based&#8217; religions.</p>
<p>Jefferson noted that the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia &#8220;&#8230;was meant to be universal . . . to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.&#8221;</p>
<p>What this tells us is that the Founders clearly considered Islam a religion.</p>
<p>On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don&#8217;t seem to be making the necessary connections.  The First Amendment, in the context of free speech, deals with <i>governmental</i> actions.  Period.  If you get up in a public square and start speaking, and the people around you shout you down, there is no First Amendment issue.  If the police tell you to shut up, there is.  Protesting an actor&#8217;s comments and calling for the end to his employment or the end to sponsorship of a show is not an attack on &#8216;freedom of speech,&#8217; it&#8217;s the <i>exercise</i> of freedom of speech.  If the government uses its legal authority to shut down speech, you&#8217;ve got a legitimate complaint.  Until then, you&#8217;re just complaining.  </p>
<p>&#8220;The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left.&#8221;</p>
<p>The &#8216;secular left&#8217; came into existence about 1200 years after the inception of Islam.  You&#8217;re letting your political paranoia lead you into some seriously nonsensical statements.  Frederick II was not a &#8216;leftist,&#8217; but he clearly considered Islam a religion.  </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam.  Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you&#8217;re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone.  The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning?  Seems pretty total to me.  But you&#8217;re mischaracterizing shari&#8217;a.  A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor&#8217;s wife is violating shari&#8217;a, but isn&#8217;t subject to the death penalty. You&#8217;ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy.</p>
<p>&#8220;To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s well and truly worked into our laws.  The Free Exercise Clause does not apply to people who want to practice human sacrifice.  Polygamy, for some reason, was considered a threat to the state, so the government was free to override religious convictions on that matter.  What security concerns do NOT allow the government to do is declare whole religions threats to national security.  Again, the Supreme Court, to your apparent displeasure, has quite explicitly insisted that its job is not to figure out which religions are true or good.  </p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate.&#8221;</p>
<p>That was one of the complaints cited against the Jews while justifying pogroms against them, as well.  Just out of curiosity, how long did it take the Germans to assimilate?  The Irish?  The Muslim community in the U.S. seems to be assimilating pretty well &#8211; where&#8217;s your evidence to the contrary?</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries.&#8221;</p>
<p>Which one is going to become Muslim majority first?  When is it going to become Muslim majority?  Whose demographic figures are you using to determine this?  Or is this something you just sorta know?  Let&#8217;s follow that country and see what actually happens.</p>
<p>&#8220;All Marxist deny what they are.&#8221;</p>
<p>Translation:  No, I can&#8217;t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I claimed he&#8217;d said.  Thought not.   </p>
<p>&#8220;Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don&#8217;t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious.&#8221;</p>
<p>Reminder:  You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress.  Your political Tourette&#8217;s is entertaining, but it&#8217;s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said.  That leaves you with three choices:<br />
A.  Find some evidence to back up your claim.<br />
B.  Retract your claim and apologize.<br />
C.  Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty.</p>
<p>I know which of those my money&#8217;s on, but maybe you&#8217;ll surprise me.</p>
<p>&#8220;Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.&#8221;</p>
<p>This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post.  Imagine how much time you&#8217;d have saved yourself if you&#8217;d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObamaYoMoma</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/islam-to-become-irelands-2nd-largest-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-5342175</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObamaYoMoma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 06:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214283#comment-5342175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;Your contortions aside, to argue that Islam is not a religion is absurd of the face of it&lt;/i&gt;

Okay, since as a secular leftwing moonbat you are an authority on what constitutes religion, what exactly makes Islam a religion? Please explain that. 

Of course, Islam has 1.6 billion followers. However, the followers of Islam unlike with the followers of real faith-based religions are coerced into following Islam via the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Not to mention that no one kills more Muslims than fellow Muslims. 

&lt;i&gt;Even you recognize this, hence your introduction of the caveat &quot;faith-based&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Not quite! All religions are faith-based. One either believes, i.e., has faith, or one does not. However, in stark contrast, Islam is not a faith-based religion as the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the &quot;will of Allah&quot; under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Thus, a person of Islamic persuasion is a Muslim or otherwise a blasphemous apostate, in which case they must be executed according to the texts and tenets of Islam. Indeed, the word &quot;Islam&quot; in Arabic means &quot;submission&quot;, and the word &quot;Muslim&quot; in Arabic means &quot;one who submits&quot;.

Furthermore, what is the so-called &quot;will of Allah&quot; that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence, it is Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law. 

Moreover, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, again they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

As a matter of fact, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. 

I hate to rain on your incredibly gullible useful idiot parade but there are no faith-based religions that are even remotely similar to Islam. Indeed, the only thing that Islam has remotely in common with real faith-based religions is the fact that Islam purports to be a faith-based religion, but when Islam is examined closely under the microscope of scrutiny, it fails that test miserably. 

In any event, if you can prove that my analysis and conclusions with respect to Islam are wrong, then by all means lets here it. Unlike you, I&#039;m not an inculcated leftwing loon. Thus, I&#039;m open-minded and my mind can be changed.

&lt;i&gt;as a first step in attempting to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment. &lt;/i&gt;

Again, because you are a secular leftist and because the only thing you know about religion is that you hate it because it hinders the imposition of Marxism, you are oblivious to the reality that all real religions are faith-based. As a matter of fact, another word for religion is Faith. Nevertheless, just because something purports itself to be a Faith, doesn&#039;t mean that it is. Indeed, when you place Islam under the microscope of close scrutiny, it fails all tests miserably.

&lt;i&gt;Bottom line: the first amendment puts no such caveat on its protection. I doubt that Buddhism, Shinto, and Confucianism would meet your definition of &quot;faith-based&quot; religions, yet they are very much protected&lt;/i&gt;

All of them, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, and Judaism, are all unequivocally faith-based religions, as unlike in Islam the freedom of conscience to freely choose to believe or not to believe isn&#039;t absent like it is in Islam, where adherents either believe per their total, complete, and unconditional submission to the &quot;will of Allah&quot; or otherwise they are declared blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.  

Not to mention the fact that all Muslim majority states in the world today are Islamic totalitarian hellholes or otherwise in the process of being turned into an Islamic totalitarian hellhole, and another fact is the fact that the non-Muslim infidels of all stripes that are unfortunate enough to live in those Muslim majority countries are all subjugated into harsh and degrading dhimmitude, where they are systematically discriminated against and oppressed, when not outright raped or murdered in cold blood. 

By the way, how many Buddhist, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, Judaism totalitarian states in the world are there today? The answer is none. Why is that? It&#039;s because they are true faith-based religions as opposed to being a very rabid form of totalitarianism masquerading as being a religion like Islam in order to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels to eventually subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism via jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law. 

&lt;i&gt;You are still confused. Disagreeing with someone, even strongly and loudly, is not a violation of one&#039;s First Amendment rights. &lt;/i&gt;

No, I&#039;m not confused in the least. Phil Roberson disagreed with the gay lifestyle and expressed the belief that it wasn&#039;t moral. As a result, his show was suspended by A &amp; E, and he was pilloried in the so-called MSM press. In other words, he and his family were subjected to harsh punishment and embarrassment for being honest about his beliefs. As a matter of fact, as it turned out though his beliefs on the subject to gays is the exact same belief of the majority of Americans, which is why A &amp; E was inevitably forced to lift his suspension once it became very apparent to them. 

&lt;i&gt;No citizen has a constitutional right to an on-air job, and no company has an obligation to pay someone to broadcast opinions antithetical with that company&#039;s values. &lt;/i&gt;

By the same token, Americans aren&#039;t obligated to watch A &amp; E either, which very quickly became apparent to A &amp; E in their failed attempt to impose political correctness, i.e., self-censorship in support of the gay lifestyle, upon America. 

Indeed, it is the radical Marxist Left that is always stifling the freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, in Europe where Leftism has become more infused, telling the truth about Islam is the prosecutable thought crime of Islamophobia, which only just a few years ago was an invention of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

&lt;i&gt;The First Amendment deals with action by the government; &quot;Leftwing hacks&quot; vilifying and demonizing someone for their opinion isn&#039;t a First Amendment issue. &lt;/i&gt;

It&#039;s an attempt by the Left to enforce self-censorship upon society, i.e., political correctness, regardless of the First Amendment&#039;s protections. In fact, it was the Left that invented political correctness and multiculturalism in the first place, which are both very destructive forms of cultural communism. The radical Marxist Left wants total control. Indeed, like Muslims, they are also totalitarians at heart.

&lt;i&gt;The &#039;reality&#039; is that Islam has been universally considered a religion since its inception&lt;/i&gt;

The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left. However, regardless of what the unhinged secular left believes, the reality of Islam cannot be denied. Moreover, the only thing the secular left knows about religion is that it impedes the imposition of progress, i.e., Marxism, which is why the secular left has been diligently trying to snuff it out for more than a century. 

&lt;i&gt;a bad one, a false one, an evil one by it s oppone nts, but a religion nonetheless. &lt;/i&gt;

They are all bad if you listen to the secular Left, but Christianity and Christians are the worse. Indeed, the secular left vilifies Christians and Christianity way out of proportion relative to other faith-based religions, while at the same time it holds Islam, which isn&#039;t even a faith-based religion but a rabid form of totalitarianism instead, up on a pedestal. 

Nevertheless, just because the secular left, which doesn&#039;t have the first clue about religion and Islam, accepts at face value Islam as being a religion doesn&#039;t mean that sane people like myself have to likewise be so stupid. I understand that you low information leftists have been inculcated into becoming compliant followers of the state and the leftist elites, but you are an ignoramus if you believe people not so inculcated like myself are going to be stupid enough to be blind followers of Marxism which always inevitably fails just like clockwork. 

&lt;i&gt;It&#039;s a rare religion indeed that doesn&#039;t have its laws or codes&lt;/i&gt;

Uhm...your stupidity and ignorance of religion is really showing here, but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine. Islam is very alone in that regard. Moreover, only Islam and Islam alone has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) in order to make Islam supreme throughout the world. Furthermore, no faith-based religions require their adherents to wage holy war in their behalf to make them supreme; again Islam is very alone in that regard. 

&lt;i&gt;To be fair, those religions that do not offer their codes as the revealed Word of God can be a bit less obnoxious about it than, say, the Abrahamic religions. &lt;/i&gt;

Dude, take it from me, you don&#039;t have the first fricking clue about Christianity and Judaism, the only two Abrahamic religions. You just know what you have been inculcated to believe, which is pure utter garbage. 

&lt;i&gt;Why, yes, I do. You don&#039;t seem to understand the purpose of the First Amendment. It&#039;s not the government&#039;s job to determine which religions are good and which bad, which true and which not, which &quot;totalitarian&quot; and which merely &quot;faith-based.&quot; &lt;/i&gt;

To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation. Allowing millions of Muslims to migrate to America and infiltrate our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism is incredibly suicidal. Imagine if the country were so enthralled by PC multiculturalism back during the Cold War. Had it allowed millions of Communists to immigrate to our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism at that time, we would not only have lost the Cold War, but we would also be a totally bankrupt Marxist state today, although we are headed in that direction anyway. 

I mean look at the undeniable evidence. How is mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage working out for the Euroloons today? It&#039;s a total unmitigated disaster everywhere, as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate. They assimilate and integrate the host infidels into the tenets of Sharia instead. 

As a matter of fact, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage in reality is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries. Do you think Muslims won&#039;t forcibly attempt to impose Sharia on the remaining infidels when that eventuality inevitably happens? You don&#039;t believe the host infidels will become harshly degraded dhimmis exactly like all non-Muslim infidels unfortunate enough to be stuck living inside Islamic totalitarian hellhole states today? If you don&#039;t or haven&#039;t considered it, you are unhinged.

&lt;i&gt;I challenge you to find a single instance in any of my posts, anywhere, in which I&#039;ve said that the imposition of Marxism is progress. Don&#039;t squirm and evade - you made a categorical statement, and leveled a direct accusation. Put up or shut up. &lt;/i&gt;

All Marxist deny what they are. Thus, you are par for the course. Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don&#039;t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious. Hence, despite your denial what you are is exceedingly obvious. Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Your contortions aside, to argue that Islam is not a religion is absurd of the face of it</i></p>
<p>Okay, since as a secular leftwing moonbat you are an authority on what constitutes religion, what exactly makes Islam a religion? Please explain that. </p>
<p>Of course, Islam has 1.6 billion followers. However, the followers of Islam unlike with the followers of real faith-based religions are coerced into following Islam via the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Not to mention that no one kills more Muslims than fellow Muslims. </p>
<p><i>Even you recognize this, hence your introduction of the caveat &#8220;faith-based&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Not quite! All religions are faith-based. One either believes, i.e., has faith, or one does not. However, in stark contrast, Islam is not a faith-based religion as the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Thus, a person of Islamic persuasion is a Muslim or otherwise a blasphemous apostate, in which case they must be executed according to the texts and tenets of Islam. Indeed, the word &#8220;Islam&#8221; in Arabic means &#8220;submission&#8221;, and the word &#8220;Muslim&#8221; in Arabic means &#8220;one who submits&#8221;.</p>
<p>Furthermore, what is the so-called &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence, it is Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law. </p>
<p>Moreover, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, again they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. </p>
<p>I hate to rain on your incredibly gullible useful idiot parade but there are no faith-based religions that are even remotely similar to Islam. Indeed, the only thing that Islam has remotely in common with real faith-based religions is the fact that Islam purports to be a faith-based religion, but when Islam is examined closely under the microscope of scrutiny, it fails that test miserably. </p>
<p>In any event, if you can prove that my analysis and conclusions with respect to Islam are wrong, then by all means lets here it. Unlike you, I&#8217;m not an inculcated leftwing loon. Thus, I&#8217;m open-minded and my mind can be changed.</p>
<p><i>as a first step in attempting to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment. </i></p>
<p>Again, because you are a secular leftist and because the only thing you know about religion is that you hate it because it hinders the imposition of Marxism, you are oblivious to the reality that all real religions are faith-based. As a matter of fact, another word for religion is Faith. Nevertheless, just because something purports itself to be a Faith, doesn&#8217;t mean that it is. Indeed, when you place Islam under the microscope of close scrutiny, it fails all tests miserably.</p>
<p><i>Bottom line: the first amendment puts no such caveat on its protection. I doubt that Buddhism, Shinto, and Confucianism would meet your definition of &#8220;faith-based&#8221; religions, yet they are very much protected</i></p>
<p>All of them, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, and Judaism, are all unequivocally faith-based religions, as unlike in Islam the freedom of conscience to freely choose to believe or not to believe isn&#8217;t absent like it is in Islam, where adherents either believe per their total, complete, and unconditional submission to the &#8220;will of Allah&#8221; or otherwise they are declared blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.  </p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that all Muslim majority states in the world today are Islamic totalitarian hellholes or otherwise in the process of being turned into an Islamic totalitarian hellhole, and another fact is the fact that the non-Muslim infidels of all stripes that are unfortunate enough to live in those Muslim majority countries are all subjugated into harsh and degrading dhimmitude, where they are systematically discriminated against and oppressed, when not outright raped or murdered in cold blood. </p>
<p>By the way, how many Buddhist, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, Judaism totalitarian states in the world are there today? The answer is none. Why is that? It&#8217;s because they are true faith-based religions as opposed to being a very rabid form of totalitarianism masquerading as being a religion like Islam in order to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels to eventually subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism via jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law. </p>
<p><i>You are still confused. Disagreeing with someone, even strongly and loudly, is not a violation of one&#8217;s First Amendment rights. </i></p>
<p>No, I&#8217;m not confused in the least. Phil Roberson disagreed with the gay lifestyle and expressed the belief that it wasn&#8217;t moral. As a result, his show was suspended by A &amp; E, and he was pilloried in the so-called MSM press. In other words, he and his family were subjected to harsh punishment and embarrassment for being honest about his beliefs. As a matter of fact, as it turned out though his beliefs on the subject to gays is the exact same belief of the majority of Americans, which is why A &amp; E was inevitably forced to lift his suspension once it became very apparent to them. </p>
<p><i>No citizen has a constitutional right to an on-air job, and no company has an obligation to pay someone to broadcast opinions antithetical with that company&#8217;s values. </i></p>
<p>By the same token, Americans aren&#8217;t obligated to watch A &amp; E either, which very quickly became apparent to A &amp; E in their failed attempt to impose political correctness, i.e., self-censorship in support of the gay lifestyle, upon America. </p>
<p>Indeed, it is the radical Marxist Left that is always stifling the freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, in Europe where Leftism has become more infused, telling the truth about Islam is the prosecutable thought crime of Islamophobia, which only just a few years ago was an invention of the Muslim Brotherhood. </p>
<p><i>The First Amendment deals with action by the government; &#8220;Leftwing hacks&#8221; vilifying and demonizing someone for their opinion isn&#8217;t a First Amendment issue. </i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s an attempt by the Left to enforce self-censorship upon society, i.e., political correctness, regardless of the First Amendment&#8217;s protections. In fact, it was the Left that invented political correctness and multiculturalism in the first place, which are both very destructive forms of cultural communism. The radical Marxist Left wants total control. Indeed, like Muslims, they are also totalitarians at heart.</p>
<p><i>The &#8216;reality&#8217; is that Islam has been universally considered a religion since its inception</i></p>
<p>The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left. However, regardless of what the unhinged secular left believes, the reality of Islam cannot be denied. Moreover, the only thing the secular left knows about religion is that it impedes the imposition of progress, i.e., Marxism, which is why the secular left has been diligently trying to snuff it out for more than a century. </p>
<p><i>a bad one, a false one, an evil one by it s oppone nts, but a religion nonetheless. </i></p>
<p>They are all bad if you listen to the secular Left, but Christianity and Christians are the worse. Indeed, the secular left vilifies Christians and Christianity way out of proportion relative to other faith-based religions, while at the same time it holds Islam, which isn&#8217;t even a faith-based religion but a rabid form of totalitarianism instead, up on a pedestal. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, just because the secular left, which doesn&#8217;t have the first clue about religion and Islam, accepts at face value Islam as being a religion doesn&#8217;t mean that sane people like myself have to likewise be so stupid. I understand that you low information leftists have been inculcated into becoming compliant followers of the state and the leftist elites, but you are an ignoramus if you believe people not so inculcated like myself are going to be stupid enough to be blind followers of Marxism which always inevitably fails just like clockwork. </p>
<p><i>It&#8217;s a rare religion indeed that doesn&#8217;t have its laws or codes</i></p>
<p>Uhm&#8230;your stupidity and ignorance of religion is really showing here, but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine. Islam is very alone in that regard. Moreover, only Islam and Islam alone has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) in order to make Islam supreme throughout the world. Furthermore, no faith-based religions require their adherents to wage holy war in their behalf to make them supreme; again Islam is very alone in that regard. </p>
<p><i>To be fair, those religions that do not offer their codes as the revealed Word of God can be a bit less obnoxious about it than, say, the Abrahamic religions. </i></p>
<p>Dude, take it from me, you don&#8217;t have the first fricking clue about Christianity and Judaism, the only two Abrahamic religions. You just know what you have been inculcated to believe, which is pure utter garbage. </p>
<p><i>Why, yes, I do. You don&#8217;t seem to understand the purpose of the First Amendment. It&#8217;s not the government&#8217;s job to determine which religions are good and which bad, which true and which not, which &#8220;totalitarian&#8221; and which merely &#8220;faith-based.&#8221; </i></p>
<p>To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation. Allowing millions of Muslims to migrate to America and infiltrate our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism is incredibly suicidal. Imagine if the country were so enthralled by PC multiculturalism back during the Cold War. Had it allowed millions of Communists to immigrate to our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism at that time, we would not only have lost the Cold War, but we would also be a totally bankrupt Marxist state today, although we are headed in that direction anyway. </p>
<p>I mean look at the undeniable evidence. How is mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage working out for the Euroloons today? It&#8217;s a total unmitigated disaster everywhere, as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate. They assimilate and integrate the host infidels into the tenets of Sharia instead. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage in reality is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries. Do you think Muslims won&#8217;t forcibly attempt to impose Sharia on the remaining infidels when that eventuality inevitably happens? You don&#8217;t believe the host infidels will become harshly degraded dhimmis exactly like all non-Muslim infidels unfortunate enough to be stuck living inside Islamic totalitarian hellhole states today? If you don&#8217;t or haven&#8217;t considered it, you are unhinged.</p>
<p><i>I challenge you to find a single instance in any of my posts, anywhere, in which I&#8217;ve said that the imposition of Marxism is progress. Don&#8217;t squirm and evade &#8211; you made a categorical statement, and leveled a direct accusation. Put up or shut up. </i></p>
<p>All Marxist deny what they are. Thus, you are par for the course. Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don&#8217;t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious. Hence, despite your denial what you are is exceedingly obvious. Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 806/855 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 20:02:01 by W3 Total Cache -->