Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, November 13, 2014

The U.S. Constitution Vs. Shari'a

With a hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance (Click directly on the image to enlarge it):


Now, please consider these statistics.

One example from the above list: 65% of the Muslims interviewed in one particular study say that Islamic Sharia law is more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Read the rest HERE.

76 comments:

  1. We also have a certain percentage of Americans that say they hold biblical law above the Constitution [though they're more coy about enforcing Levitical law].

    Did I miss a question or overarching topic for today? The Constitution and Shari'a law are not the same, nor [like other canon law] completely compatible with the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      The point of this post has much to do with the final link in the body of the blog post.

      As for Levitical law, we who are Christians typically believe that the New Testament frees us from using the Old Testament as governance. The Kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world.

      Now, do some Christians in America say they hold biblical law above the Constitution? Perhaps so. But all the Christians whom I personally know are talking about the personal level -- not the level of governance. For example, the rule of civil law doesn't punish adulterers, but Christians believe that adultery is a sin for which we will, one day, answer for to our Maker. I don't know of a single Christian who wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible as the method of the rule of civil law.

      Of course, if we Christians are ordered by the government to bow down to an idol, we would -- I hope -- "pull a Daniel" and refuse to bow down.

      I do know a few Christians who refuse to eat halal meat because it has been slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by Islam, which some Christians view as a pagan religion. To my knowledge, most Christians are not that legalistic. Many Muslims, on the other hand, will not eat food that is not halal -- and thereby arise some of the conflicts about cafeteria food, prison food, etc.

      Delete
    2. AOW, I am not comparing [in terms of percentage or raw numbers] Christians to Muslims who favor canon law over secular law....but like Muslims, those Christians do exist and have well funded associative groups who lobby likeminded politicians.

      Canon law can [and in many cases does] have reasonable crossover with secular law. But law that is strictly based on religious doctrine with no secular value, has no place in governing a free society. Much of Shari'a falls into this paradigm but I'd like to ensure that the watchtowers are not looking in only one direction.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      those Christians do exist and have well funded associative groups who lobby likeminded politicians

      As you can tell from my comment above, I "don't go there."

      I do think that Christian canon law has more compatibility with secular law than shari'a law does -- as long as there is no unity of the Christian church and state.

      I also think that, in the current climate, shari'a law is more politically correct than Christian law is.

      Delete
    4. "I do think that Christian canon law...."

      I'm inclined to agree.

      ".....shari'a law is more politically correct than Christian law is"

      PC is only a subjective perspective. Sine there is no metric for what constitutes 'PC' and it exists everywhere on the political spectrum.....I could neither agree or disagree.

      Delete
    5. CI,
      I mean PC in the sense that there seems to be a push (or a fear) of not offending Muslims to the point that "things get weird."

      I'm not very coherent this morning, I'm afraid. Too little sleep and too little morning coffee.

      Delete
    6. Understood...and agreed. No worries. I'm on my second mug and the caffeine hasn't took yet.

      Delete
    7. CI,
      I'm also a bit distracted because I went to hear Stephen King give a lecture last night at Lisner Auditorium (George Washington University, D.C.). I shouldn't have started reading his new book Revival last night. Pity that I have to go to work today!

      Delete

    8. I do know a few Christians who refuse to eat halal meat because it has been slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by Islam, which some Christians view as a pagan religion.
      -------
      Will they eat Kosher? Same thing.

      Delete
    9. Duck,
      Will they eat Kosher?

      Most will.

      They believe that Jehovah is the same God as the Christian God.

      Again, I'm saying a few Christians. Most Christians whom I personally know take their lessons about diet from Peter's of the basket filled with different animals. Do you know the passage I mean?

      Delete
  2. CI's real name is the Reverend Barry Lynn, a militant atheist who wears a clerical collar, but functions as an enemy of decency and acts as a bondservant to militant, unperfected Jews.

    ++++ Jerry Bosch ++++

    ReplyDelete
  3. Constitutional Insurgent:

    The current agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood is to convince the rest of us that the United States Constitution is an Islamic document by application ofan overlay/imprint of Islamic jurisprudence across the document. This agenda began to make an appearance in the prior decade. For this decade, the focus is on another aspect of America's way of life.

    I know this for a fact. I talk to Islamic jurists that other people merely write about.

    Regarding your snipe attack against Christians, may I pose a serious question. If today, the demographic was reversed - percentage of Christians to Muslims in our nation - do you have any real idea of what your life would look like today? Most likely, AOW would be dead. Just a few days ago, a Christian couple in Pakistan were beaten and thrown into a blazing brick kiln. Please.... tell me of such an incident in America. Yet across the globe, Muslim-on-Christian violence is intense and increasing at an alarming rate. We have a problem. Let us identify it as such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you consider the fact that there are Christians who believe that canon should trump Constitutional law to be a 'snipe attack'...how can you then ask a serious question?

      I suppose that the only religious fanaticism that can be mentioned is Islamic? How utterly PC.

      Delete

    2. But I will respond to your question:

      "If today, the demographic was reversed - percentage of Christians to Muslims in our nation - do you have any real idea of what your life would look like today?"

      Having spent a fair amount of time in Muslim countries, I think I have a pretty fair idea of what life would be like. Not fair...not free. SO why would any of us be supportive of government endorsement of ANY religion? It sets a precedence by which bed-wetting over Shari'a law, would be more prone to come to fruition.....instead of holding the State to it's enumerated powers.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      Although we are not coreligionists, we do share very similar views on church and state and the proper role of each.

      I am not trying to pick a fight, but why are you so hung up on "government endorsement of religion?"

      Do you seriously see that as a problem in the US?

      Indeed, people are leaving churches, and the percentage of agnostics, atheists and heterodox believers is growing.

      Like you, I do not like the White House Office of Faith Based whatever, but beyond that, how do you see government endorsement of Christianity to be a threat?

      How is this threat manifesting itself?

      We have no blasphemy laws, adultery and fornication are legal, as is drinking, homosexuality and many other things Christianity prohibits or frowns upon.

      Maybe you could do a blog post and invite us all over to comment?

      Delete
    4. "Do you seriously see that as a problem in the US?"

      It's more of a threat to our civil liberties than Islamic terrorism. Our own worse enemy is ourselves. I view government endorsement of religion to be an obvious threat [not merely Christianity]. With a fixation on Shari'a law, people lose sight of the near threat in favor of the more enticing far threat.

      "We have no blasphemy laws, adultery and fornication are legal, as is drinking, homosexuality..."

      Indeed, those are legal.....now. And there are those who desire a return to the state where they are criminalized...based in large part to their personal religious beliefs. Many seem to treat this as an either/or paradigm....either we are a "Christian nation" or we will be subjected to Shari'a law. They lose sight of the fact that our government has no enumerated power to choose one over the other...and indeed doing so, establishes a legal precedence that can enable 'the other'.

      Delete
    5. But how is this threat manifesting itself in US law?

      Sodomy laws have been stricken down everywhere.

      Give us examples.

      Yeah, there are some Christians with a soapbox talking about it, but I don't see government taking any action to specifically implement any explicitly Christian laws. Rick Santorum will never be president.

      Go Google 'UN Defamation of Religions' if you want to see a real threat to free speech.

      Delete
    6. SF - There are still laws across the country that are based exclusively on religious belief; 12 states still ban sodomy; countless jurisdictions ban gambling and alcohol sales, for a couple of examples. My point is that it's still not either/or. There is little prospect of Islam or Shari'a law taking root in the US....because the Constitution is not compatible with Shari'a or canon law.

      Delete
    7. But are such laws increasing, or decreasing?

      Going back through the thread, I guess I see your point, if it is to refute what you see as this post's contention that Sharia is a threat to our society and constitution.

      I maintain that it is when noisy Muslims move in and demand others change their behaviors and traditions, so yeah, that's a problem.

      I see the opposite happening vis a vis Christianity. Our society and our laws are evicting formerly-ensconced Christian traditions and religion-based laws.

      Delete
    8. "I maintain that it is when noisy Muslims move in and demand others change their behaviors and traditions..."

      Sure. It's a problem when any subset demands special recognition or infringement upon the liberties of others.

      "Our society and our laws are evicting formerly-ensconced Christian traditions and religion-based laws."

      No argument. It is happening, in fits and starts anyway. Does that mean we disregard those who are still fighting to halt that progress and exclude it from the conversation, out of fear of offending someone who is fixated on a similar problem, but farther removed?

      Delete
    9. Does that mean we disregard those who are still fighting to halt that progress and exclude it from the conversation, out of fear of offending someone who is fixated on a similar problem, but farther removed?

      Of course not, was that ever in question or even on the table here?

      Delete
    10. It's not a question on the table, it's the collective response. What's the likelihood of Shari'a being implemented in the US?

      Delete
    11. About as likely as a Christian theocracy.

      100 years from now? Could be more likely, if past history has any predicative bearing on future performance.

      Delete
    12. CI...

      First, an apology if I am confusing/rambling, I am sick.

      Second... where to start.

      First, you DO realize the Constitution is based, in part, on the Bible, right? Ideas like all men are created equal (in the sight of God), man is in control of and responsible for his actions (the basis of freedom), or even the idea of being ruled by conscious, instead of state, is Christian in origon.

      There is a reason the basic rights are different for the West (Christian), East (Buddhist/other), Middle East (Muslim) and old Southern Hemisphere (pagan).

      Second, the argument about Christians not follow the law is a little moot. The Bible specifically instructs us, several times, to follow the laws of this world (most obviously, Romans 3). Not to the point of breaking our law (which in practicality boils down to: do not worship other things, and do not kill), but even then, the call is more to deter from rather than resort to action. There is a reason many a rebellious Christian ended up jailed, peacefully.

      Christians who do not follow that may want a refresher course of Paul's letters... and a reminder of where lived (Roman Empire) and under who he was subject (Nero. Doesn't get much worse than that).

      Thirdly, a reminder and a question. You do realize that secularism didn't exist until recently, right? And even secularism is based on Atheism, which has it's own values and morals drawn from different sources- utilitarianism, humanism, mercantilism, Darwinism, etc.

      All laws are based on some belief or culture, and culture is always based on beliefs of some kind. There is no such thing as a law made in a vacuum. Secular law is simply atheism law.

      The US is a little unique, as we were the first country to not have a state religion. After seeing the effects of religious persecution in Europe, the settlers were fed up with it. The founders decided to let men choose their own path, and enforced no beliefs on anyone. This was actually a long time coming in some states (like Virginia, which was Anglican).

      This, however, was NOT a cry to get rid of religion or of God. It merely was letting men worship as they wished, be guided by their conscious, and to let God judge the actions of men, instead of the state.

      Lastly...

      "has no place in governing a free society"

      If it weren't for Christianity, we wouldn't HAVE a free society. Look at the rest of the bloody world and tell me who had more freedom than we did. Who does now. Are there any untouched by the West and it's doctrine? Even Japan, Shinto to the core, has accepted some WESTERN morals to become more free. Beforehand? Hahaha no.

      I get fear of religious extremism. Extremism of all kinds is bad. But don't make the mistake of forgetting the past while you do...

      -Wildstar

      Delete
    13. Bravo, Wildstar! Very good thinking. Militant atheists, however, would never let themselves be persuaded by it, because it would require a healthy dose of humility and the possible admission they might be wrong -- at least in part.

      Those with no faith, themselves, and little respect for faith in others are among the most fearful -- and bigoted -- folk on earth. [If we look up "bigot" and "bigotry" we shall find it does not really mean what we've been conditioned to believe. "A "bigot" is simply a person who can only see his own point of view, and refuses to give credence to anyone else's. Bigotry, therefore, works ALL ways.]

      A any rate those who have no faith or hope of achieving faith are usually angry, stubborn, chronically disputatious disputatious, fault finding, and desperately afraid of being proven wrong.

      Of course GENUINE faith is The Pearl of Great Price, and very few have it -- even among those who profess belief in the Trinity.

      "FIght the good fight with all of thy might. God is thy strength, and God thy right ..."

      And GET WELL SOON. ;-)

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete



    16. Wildstar, worry not...your sentiment comes through just fine and I appreciate the time you out into your points. In the interest of time [mine, which I have little of right now] let me address a few key points.

      "First, you DO realize the Constitution is based, in part, on the Bible, right?"

      Of course. The Bible influenced most of our Founders in some form or another; as did Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Machiavelli. Such ideas that "all men are created equal" are easily attributable to Locke. Was Locke influenced by the Bible? Perhaps.

      "Second, the argument about Christians not follow the law is a little moot."

      Not for the point I was making. Subsets of Christians, commonly labeled even amongst themselves as Dominionists, believe fully that this land was blessed by the Christian god and should be governed by theonomy. Are they mainstream? Not particularly...but they tend to be well funded.

      "You do realize that secularism didn't exist until recently, right?"

      Define recently. Philosophers throughout the ages questioned the existence of a god or gods.This was not tied to a notion of atheism [generally] but of an agnosticism, given the unprovable aspect of a deity.

      "Secular law is simply atheism law."

      I completely disagree. For your statement to be valid, any law that we maintain, that is not tied to religion, would be an atheist law. Any law. That simply makes no sense. Religion, the belief in a deity, is a privately held, and deeply personal commitment of faith. This is no intrinsic component of jurisprudence. Religion can, and obviously does, influence law through the moral norms within a society.....but law itself is neutral.

      "This, however, was NOT a cry to get rid of religion or of God."

      Of course not. But the Founders explicitly omitted any mandate or enumerated power to endorse religion, in our guiding documents. I find it interesting that you posit that without Christianity, we would not be free. I disagree. I believe that man can come together in a social collective, contract laws that protect the commonly held natural rights of man, and govern accordingly.....respecting the practice of all faiths or none.

      Delete
  4. ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION, it is an INCURSION.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION, it is an INVASION.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ISLAM is NOT a RELIGION, it is SUBVERSION.

    ReplyDelete
  7. An ENEMY may be defined by IDEOLOGY he supports.

    Legalistic, literalistic thinking is ANTITHETICAL to good common sense and often an offense to common decency.

    "The Letter of the Law SLAYETH ..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Laws and Jurisprudence spring from the cultural mores of a people, and religion will always play a role there.

    Here in the west, the roots of our laws go back to religion, but we now enjoy secular societies.

    Islam has yet to make that leap, even in Attaturk's Turkey. Indeed, Islam has yet to go through its reformation.

    I see that as the crux (no sneaky jibe intended) of the problem between east and west, and more specifically, allowing muslims to immigrate here.

    People like Ducky see my views as a hatred of Islam and Muslims, but that's not it. Our religions, and the cultures that have sprung from them, are incompatible.

    Jews, Christians (in our various denominations), secularists, etc, have learned how to get along here in the west without succumbing to paroxysms of murderous hatred that unfortunately grip many areas where groups rub up against one another.

    For that reason, I oppose Muslim immigration. It brings trouble to our society, which is already fracturing as it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here in the west, the roots of our laws go back to religion ...
      -------
      You should read Montesquieu or give the Magna Carta a look.

      Delete
    2. Fundamentalists have not learned how to get along with secularists.

      Let's admit that secularists and strict fundamentalists can only get along because of enlightened institutions and any move to allow any religious fundamentalist to exercise government control is not a good thing.

      Delete
    3. Ducky,

      I will surprise you by agreeing with you that our 'enlightened institutions' do indeed moderate fundamentalist urges, and thank God for that.

      I understand the history of the works you cite. Indeed, our own founders were more influenced by secular thinkers than by the Bible or religious writings.

      Delete
    4. Damn, wonders never cease.

      Ducky and Silverfiddle in agreement.

      Etch this day in granite.

      Delete
  9. Oil and water, love and hate, and Western Civilization and Islam are incompatible with each other. Trying to socially engineer their compatibility will not work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reading through the comments, I think CI figures this out right: As long as we understand our laws as based on a secular constitutional, we have no fear of religious imposition in our laws from any religion. Problem solved.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah Jersey, CI is spot on. Only one small problem. There exists those of Christian faith, predominately the socons dominated by evangelicals, who believe their religion should be tied to, or at least have a significant influence on, our secular law.

      Certainly not as threatening as Sharia but disquieting nonetheless.

      Delete
    2. Of course Christianity is not as threatening as Sharia.

      Look at what has bloomed from Western Christendom: Liberty, the rights of man, a diversity of thought deep and wide, great scientific achievements, systems of law and justice that respect first the rights of the individual, all of the arts and humanities.

      And it all didn't just suddenly appear at the renaissance. The "Dark Ages" (along with scholasticism) were not so dark, keeping the flames of knowledge alive handed to them by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc. Western Christendom birthed the artistic and philosophic shoulders upon which the people of the renaissance would stand.

      Compare that to the Islamic world. What have they done since giving us the zero? (the concept of which already existed anyway)

      Delete
    3. Right-0 RN!

      We need to strike those murder and theft laws from the books.

      Can't have the government enforcing any of the Ten Commandments.

      Delete
  11. [NOTE: I don't care whether this is literally true or not. It needs to be said everywhere that Muslims infest Western Communities.]

    MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN- MENU... EXPLAINS WHY

    Let's Hear It for a Quebec Mayor...


    Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval,has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why...

    “Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate. “They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec. “They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them. “They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).

    “That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.

    “And if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.

    “Finally, they must understand that in Canada (Quebec) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain. The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia. “For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah. “If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.

    “Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”

    “A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Find myself in agreement.

      Don't like pork? Don't eat it.

      Simple. Bag your lunch with Sharia approved foodstuffs.

      Delete
  12. Shari'ah is at Harvard. The university allows times where only the Muslim women can use the gym so that they do not have to exercise with men present.

    A recent Shari'ah thrust is for halal menus. Throw in accomodation of prayers in schools. This means rooms for ablution must be made available. Shari'ah moves in incremental manner.

    Constitutional Insurgent - I suggest you read a few books on Islamic Jurisprudence. Start with the Hanafi. It is the softest of the Sunni schools. Then move to read Shi'a jurisprudential code, which is different in many respects.

    Sniping at Christians does not address the very real problems Western nations are facing. You have to delve deeply to know that in the early 1930's a well-known jurist stated, "When I see Paris, I see Islam". The movement toward dropping Western nations into an Islamic envelope has been going on for decades now.

    I agree with the mayor of Quebec. The primary duty of an immigrant is to assimilate to the host, at least in public life. But Islam is a code of conduct which cannot be experienced only within the confines of the home and house of worship. Islam, is a gestalt: A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.

    This is geopolitical Islam. It is the black-boxed Borg hurtling through space. For the sake of the Muslims who truly wish to live in peace in the West, we must push back against incremental policies to install Shari'ah. Shari'ah enslaves. We are meant to be free.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItHcsIHshhs

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tammy, I've read through many of the Median Sura's, as well as Risaal-e-Jaleela and Reliance of the Traveller [dealing with Islamic terrorism is a huge part of my job] I'm not a newcomer to Islamic scholarship. You seem confused that I'm somehow supportive of Islam....but then again you keep insisting that I'm "sniping" at Christianity.

      Delete
  13. You guys are so f'n stupid. Can't you see all this Islam paranoia is just a fear distraction, a shiny light to draw you like stupid f'n moths? Of all the real problems a modern American has in his life, Islam should be way down toward the very bottom of the list. Grow the f up you stupid morons. Get your f'n priorities straight, idiots.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn Jersey, what's up with the anger routine? You don't want to start sounding like the nimrods you rail about so you?

      Delete
    2. I'm just sick of it.

      I still can't post on your blog, by the way. I have tried.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Jersey Jersey Jersey. Quick tip:

      Online, nobody has to listen to you. Therefore, the ruder you are, the more likely we are to see your name, roll our eyes, and move on.

      If you have a comment, state it politely. Or at least without swearing. This is not the real-world. We cannot hear you. Therefore, being loud will not help you in the slightest.

      -Wildstar

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. Please listen to JMJ and the Friends of New Palestine!

      Even the usefull idiots of the world need to be heard!

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMJ,
      Please review the guidelines for commenting at this blog.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    2. JMJ,
      I owe you no explanation. My blog, my property, my rules -- and my whim, for that matter. If you don't understand vocabulary words in the guidelines, look up those words in a dictionary.

      Reactivate your own blog if you want to insult people by calling them stupid. Just because somebody else's opinion differs from yours does not make that person stupid.

      And keep yapping about this matter (the decision of blog administrators to delete comments) and you're gone. Every single comment you've ever made at this blog will be gone.

      Delete
  15. It would be nice to know what Jersey McJones is doing to make life in America better. Last week I accomplished three acts of random kindness, paying for the groceries of people behind me in the queue who had only a couple of items to scan.

    I also took groceries to my mother and stopped by a bakery to order a cake for an employee birthday party next week.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  16. Constitutional Insurgent,

    I have read the complete Qur'an in more than one transliteration, sorted out the Madani from the Makki Sura, etc. My private library contains more Islamic than Western texts.

    Don't care to hook horns with you. I believe, what I believe. This is called Freedom of Expression.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it's freedom of expression. I'm not arguing against that nor the threat posed by radical Islam. The most cogent way to guard against tenets of Shari'a taking hold in this nation, is to ensure that citizens [or non-citizens] are unable to use government as a venue to endorse their beliefs.

      Delete
  17. Calling US "f"en stupid is Unacceptable!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Please dump this guy where he won't be found for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous,
    Do not allow JMJ to hijack this thread.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Constitutional Insurgent,

    I also do not wish to hijack the thread with sparring directed at one individual. I am easy to locate on line. You may also respond to anything I write by sending an e mail.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear AOW, although I don’t comment much, I have been reading your blog for years. And if you don’t mind my putting my two cents in here, for what it’s worth I would like to.
    My suggestion and advice to you is this.
    As I said, you have a wonderful and very informative blog here and for the most part your commentors are also very informed and very intelligent.
    I have noticed that from time to time you get certain disruptive Liberal minded comments that are only meant to be mean, disrupt the flow of conversation, and to behave, rowdy, and add absolutely no value to your blog. You have seen wht they have already done to Lisa and to Free Thinke, don’t put up with them.....

    So, I would suggest, if I may to either immediately delete their comments or simply block them (if you can do that). Because all they do is come here from “That” progressive blog to cause trouble and act as the stupid uninformed imbeciles that they are. Jersey is one of them and of course Ducky is another.

    Thanks and Good Luck, and Happy Thanksgiving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Melissa,
      Acknowledged.

      These things go in cycles.

      Blog administrators don't babysit this blog, but all of us administrators show up and delete comments as our schedules allow.

      Delete
  22. Here's Ducky and Jersey McJones are quite charming and erudite fellows.

    Please do not censor them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see who do I dispise mores?
      Humm, that's a tough one. I'll pick BOTH!

      Delete
  23. No don't censor them, throw them the HELL out

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cease the ad hominem sparring. Address the topic presented in the body of the blog post.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wildstar,

    A primary anchoring concept of the Constitution, that of man as a free moral agent, came from the Judeo-Christian tradition. God who was the first to say to man "You are free....". (Genesis 2). Isn't it amazing. God created man as a higher order of creation and then mandated man's freedom to make choices.

    God said, "You are free....".

    The Islamic tradition is that of a God who enslaves his creation and binds them to his will with punishments galore for living as a free moral agent in a world which offers us so many opportunities to mess it all up!

    We must embrace freedom. Even the freedom to screw up royally, step back, and learn from our mistakes is a greater gift than that of enslavement with no surprises.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  26. I just wonder why the lefties, who are SO vocal in the matter of separation of church and state when it comes to Christians are SO silent when it comes to Muslims and Sharia?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      Islam and the Left have a common bond: the hatred of America.

      I think that the reason for the Leftist-Islamist alliance is that simple.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective