Perry and Palin tied to Dominion Movement

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by zeek

What if Obama were a muslim? Are we having a clash of civilizations with muslims?

If the reports are true, Dominionists do not believe in religious freedom. Do you?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Islam has clashed with every civilization on earth. They started their religion by the edge of the sword. Today, they have advanced all the way to "belly bombs."

No, I don't believe in religious freedom. God desires all men to be saved.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did Ohio ever say he didn't value it?

Ah, I get it now, Dominionists (if the reports are true) value religious freedom, they just don't believe in it!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Ah, I get it now, Dominionists (if the reports are true) value religious freedom, they just don't believe in it!

Did Ohio say he was a dominionist? It seemed he was talking for himself not the standing of this group. I would prefer to let Ohio speak for himself.

Second, I am well aware of the atrocities and unrighteousness that takes place in countries under Sharia law towards non muslims. I think it was clear that Ohio was referring to this. If you read what Sharia law means any country that adopts it makes all non muslims second class citizens at best.

The reason for the terrible atrocities in Sudan, at least in part, was that the Muslim nations have a block of about 60 countries, kind of like NAFTA. They exert extreme pressure on Nations like Sudan and Nigeria to join. Sudan was viewed as a gateway to Africa and has rich oil and gas resources.

Before getting all huffy over this issue, why not first take a look at what is actually going on. When Bush invaded Iraq one of the key justifications was that Saddam Hussein was a "bad" man. The reality according to Amnesty international is that our Allies, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are considered much worse than Iraq. By contrast Iraq was considered tolerant by Middle Eastern standards. So the idea that we were fighting for truth, justice and the American way was baloney, we were fighting for oil. Iraq has the largest known oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia in the world. Saudi Arabia has booby trapped their oil wells with dirty nuclear bombs so that if anyone tries to seize the oil the entire world will go down in flames (that would be the impact of removing Saudi oil from the world's economy).

Now it is typical that those that learn of the atrocities being perpetrated under the guise of Sharia law are offended at the hypocrisy. Muslims scream bloody murder over the slightest offense in the US (NYC recently got exposed for setting up their own intelligence service to learn about the local muslims and local muslim groups were on the news crying how unjust this was. By all definitions we were attacked with an act of war. Our adversary views this as a holy war between Muslims and infidels, yet our government, charged with protecting us, is supposed to cover their eyes and play dumb?!) yet are completely silent over much worse examples of atrocities perpetrated by their native countries against non muslims. Why didn't these same people make a fuss about what was going on in Sudan, that was clearly much worse.

However, I believe that the key principle here is "to treat others the way you want to be treated" not the way they treat you. Freedom should be both ways, there is no such thing as "religious freedom" in a country that has Sharia law. It is written into the constitution that non muslims are second class citizens. Some are more tolerant than others. Worst case scenario is similar to the book 1984.

Now you may wish to uphold your view of what "freedom of religion" means in this country, but the context is that we are in a holy war. If you stipulate to that, then I think we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, then obviously we can't.

[RollingStone]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did Ohio say he was a dominionist? It seemed he was talking for himself not the standing of this group. I would prefer to let Ohio speak for himself.

Second, I am well aware of the atrocities and unrighteousness that takes place in countries under Sharia law towards non muslims. I think it was clear that Ohio was referring to this. If you read what Sharia law means any country that adopts it makes all non muslims second class citizens at best.

The reason for the terrible atrocities in Sudan, at least in part, was that the Muslim nations have a block of about 60 countries, kind of like NAFTA. They exert extreme pressure on Nations like Sudan and Nigeria to join. Sudan was viewed as a gateway to Africa and has rich oil and gas resources.

Before getting all huffy over this issue, why not first take a look at what is actually going on. When Bush invaded Iraq one of the key justifications was that Saddam Hussein was a "bad" man. The reality according to Amnesty international is that our Allies, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are considered much worse than Iraq. By contrast Iraq was considered tolerant by Middle Eastern standards. So the idea that we were fighting for truth, justice and the American way was baloney, we were fighting for oil. Iraq has the largest known oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia in the world. Saudi Arabia has booby trapped their oil wells with dirty nuclear bombs so that if anyone tries to seize the oil the entire world will go down in flames (that would be the impact of removing Saudi oil from the world's economy).

Now it is typical that those that learn of the atrocities being perpetrated under the guise of Sharia law are offended at the hypocrisy. Muslims scream bloody murder over the slightest offense in the US (NYC recently got exposed for setting up their own intelligence service to learn about the local muslims and local muslim groups were on the news crying how unjust this was. By all definitions we were attacked with an act of war. Our adversary views this as a holy war between Muslims and infidels, yet our government, charged with protecting us, is supposed to cover their eyes and play dumb?!) yet are completely silent over much worse examples of atrocities perpetrated by their native countries against non muslims. Why didn't these same people make a fuss about what was going on in Sudan, that was clearly much worse.

However, I believe that the key principle here is "to treat others the way you want to be treated" not the way they treat you. Freedom should be both ways, there is no such thing as "religious freedom" in a country that has Sharia law. It is written into the constitution that non muslims are second class citizens. Some are more tolerant than others. Worst case scenario is similar to the book 1984.

Now you may wish to uphold your view of what "freedom of religion" means in this country, but the context is that we are in a holy war. If you stipulate to that, then I think we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, then obviously we can't.

I seem to remember Saddam Hussein paying $25,000 to the families of members who would strap a bomb on themselves and blow up in Israel. after we invaded Iraq I think this practice was diminished. Thatwas a good enough reason for me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by RollingStone

I seem to remember Sadaam Husien paying $25,000 to the families of the Palestinians who strapped bombs on themselves and blew themselves up. That practice diminished after the Iraq invasion. That is good enough for me. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Assad leveled an entire city in Syria and turned it into a parking lot because they were not supporting his regime. Again, using Amnesty international as a fair arbiter, by Mid East Standards he was considered "tolerant". The idea that we were going into Iraq because he is an evil dictator is complete hypocrisy. Everyone knows that our allies were far more evil as dictators.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Second, I am well aware of the atrocities and unrighteousness that takes place in countries under Sharia law towards non muslims. I think it was clear that Ohio was referring to this. If you read what Sharia law means any country that adopts it makes all non muslims second class citizens at best.

Obviously Sharia law and religious freedom are mutually exclusive. Kinda like how papal involvement in European politics wasn't particularly conducive to religious freedom there.

So I don't think it's "clear" that when Ohio said "religious freedom", he really meant "adopting Sharia law".

For years our society has been indulging in this fetish of removing all public mentions of God, prayer, etc. Not only the "ornamental" stuff (Ten Commandments in courthouses, for example), but also more substantial old-timey moral laws as well (am I the only one who finds it a little odd that polygamy is not yet covered under the "get the government out of our bedroom" amendment?). What I'm getting at is, does anyone really believe we are heading in the direction of adopting one of the most conservative, fundamentalist-based legal codes that exists in the world today?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

What I'm getting at is, does anyone really believe we are heading in the direction of adopting one of the most conservative, fundamentalist-based legal codes that exists in the world today?

When it comes to moral codes, and moral laws, then it seems like there are no more laws. The porn industry has benefited the most 1st amend. "rights."

When it comes to Christian liberties, however, then new restrictions abound on every level, under the guise of "separation of church and state." Instead of "the state" referring to government interference in church policy and faith, as Jefferson's Federalist Papers indicated, "the state" is now everywhere we look -- at work, in school, retail, public places, programs, sports events, etc.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When it comes to Christian liberties, however, then new restrictions abound on every level, under the guise of "separation of church and state." Instead of "the state" referring to government interference in church policy and faith, as Jefferson's Federalist Papers indicated, "the state" is now everywhere we look -- at work, in school, retail, public places, programs, sports events, etc.

But the state can't endorse, sponsor, or establish one religion over another. You're disturbed that the state is into all aspects of our lives, and you then want the state to represent one religion over another?

Christians need to stop whining about being persecuted just because they can't get the state to endorse their religion over others.

The problem with Christians that feel this way is that they want a Christian based theocracy ... same as Islam that wants an Islamic theocracy.

What's the difference? None. Both want to push their religion down our throats, and want to use gov'ment to do it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the state can't endorse, sponsor, or establish one religion over another. You're disturbed that the state is into all aspects of our lives, and you then want the state to represent one religion over another?

This seems far too naive for you. Since when do you look at issues superficially and assume that the black and white law will govern the man with a deceitfully wicked heart? Bottom line, if you have ways to funnel money to influential and powerful people you will get many perks and benefits. As I mentioned earlier, saints that attend our meeting will get tickets if they park on the street, but at the exact same time and in the exact same spot those that attend the mosque do not get tickets, they are exempt. Why? We have a much bigger property, we have purchased 3 parking lots, we have an agreement with the operator of a 4th lot. The mosque has no parking lot and I am not aware of any agreement they have with anyone else.

We have already had a very difficult issue with defining religion. I will throw out another definition, I believe religion is a lifestyle based on a systematic belief. Based on that definition you can clearly see a distinction between the Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. But you also see that "fornication" is also a lifestyle with a belief system. Porn stars become "sacred prostitutes" just like in the worship of Molech. I feel the Supreme Court ruling on Abortion was a clear case of the US govt establishing Fornication as a legitimate lifestyle and belief system. Without the fail safe back up plan of abortion it is very difficult to establish this religion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This seems far too naive for you. Since when do you look at issues superficially and assume that the black and white law will govern the man with a deceitfully wicked heart? Bottom line, if you have ways to funnel money to influential and powerful people you will get many perks and benefits. As I mentioned earlier, saints that attend our meeting will get tickets if they park on the street, but at the exact same time and in the exact same spot those that attend the mosque do not get tickets, they are exempt. Why? We have a much bigger property, we have purchased 3 parking lots, we have an agreement with the operator of a 4th lot. The mosque has no parking lot and I am not aware of any agreement they have with anyone else.

Wouldn't it be a Christian testimony if you guys allowed those attending the mosque to use your parking lots? Why be at odds with your neighbor.