Phillips said he has spent time personally studying Islam and believes that when a Muslim swears the oath to the Constitution using the Quran, that negates the constitutional law because they are “sworn to turn this country into an Islamic country.”
Hamas-linked CAIR has already weighed in, calling upon “state and national Republican Party leaders to repudiate the Islamophobic, unconstitutional statements” made by Phillips. That was to be expected, but Rick Phillips’ statement opens up a needed debate on the nature of Islam and the potential impact of jihad and Sharia upon America. The larger question Phillips poses is this: if the normative belief of any religion contradicts the American Constitution, and if a religious practice teaches the supremacy of that faith over America, and in fact views America as part of the House of War (dar al harb), is that religion protected under the American Constitution? In other words, does the Constitution allow for sedition and subversion as long as it is carried out under the auspices of a religion?
Rick Phillips is being attacked as an “Islamophobe,” but the questions he raises have too long been swept under the rug, and they require attention for the survival of America and its values. This does not mean that it is prudent to revoke the religious status of Islam altogether, but his recommendations should lead to further discussion about treason vis-a-vis the general understanding of religious freedom today, the activities of Muslim Brotherhood operatives, the imposition of the “Islamophobia” subterfuge, the tolerance of radical mosques, and much more.
“Republican in Iowa’s 2nd District primary calls for Islam’s religious status to be revoked,” by Ian Richardson, Des Moines Register, April 13, 2020:
A Republican candidate for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, whose platform calls for redefining Islam as “militant cultural imperialism seeking world domination,” drew fire Monday for saying he doesn’t believe Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
Pella Republican Rick Phillips told Quad Cities television station WHBF that he believes the founding fathers were specifically talking about Christianity and its denominations when they established the freedom of religion outlined in the Bill of Rights.
“They were not talking about anti-Christian beliefs,” he said. “Now, if a person doesn’t want to believe in Christ, that’s their business. But to say that this First Amendment right includes all religions in the world, I think, is erroneous.”
Reached by the Des Moines Register Monday afternoon, Phillips said he has spent time personally studying Islam and believes that when a Muslim swears the oath to the Constitution using the Quran, that negates the constitutional law because they are “sworn to turn this country into an Islamic country.”
He said former president Barack Obama brought several Muslims into the country and there has been an increasing number of mosques built since 9/11.
“All this is packaged as if it’s harmless, and stuff like that,” he said. “But I really see this as an invasion to install a caliphate — an Islamic form of government — here.”
Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group, and the Republican Party of Iowa have condemned Phillips’ remarks.
In a news release, Robert S. McCaw, director of government affairs for CAIR, called on state and national Republican Party leadership to “repudiate these Islamophobic, unconstitutional views.”
“The Constitution must protect Americans of all faiths,” he said. “The kind of hatred and anti-American views promoted by Mr. Phillips places in danger both constitutional protections of religious freedoms and the safety of ordinary American Muslims.”
Republican Party of Iowa spokesman Aaron Britt said in an email that Phillips’ comments “are not reflective of the views of the Republican Party of Iowa.”…
Tracie l Koehler says
We need more politicians like this. To save America !!
Iambob says
I wholeheartedly agree: Politicians who are well-informed, haven’t sold out to Islamic money and are courageous enough to speak the politically-incorrect truth about Islam despite virulent opposition are what America needs now.
However, we are unlikely to see more like Philips when we read: “Phillips’ comments “are not reflective of the views of the Republican Party of Iowa.”…
America is done. It’s only a matter of time…
Woke Infidel says
We shall see. There may be hope in that Europe is decades ahead of us, and we will likely see some countries become fully politically islamicized. Perhaps then, more US leaders will purchase a Koran and see what they’ve been defending. All is not, yet, lost.
jimjfox says
No need to buy the book, get one of 12 approved translations on line for free.
Sam says
And when the first Amendment give the Muslims the Mercy of the United States, they are taking that as weak and we are Submitting to Sharia laws. We even allowed them to swear on a Quran?
gravenimage says
Actually, the First Amendment says nothing about Muslims swearing on the Qur’an, nor dies it allow any of the crimes of Islam. And the First Amendment guarantees our freedom of speech. If you think that crushing the First Amendment will aid in the fight against Islam, you are mistaken.
gravenimage says
does it
kathleen7546 says
yes
Jean says
I find the last statement by “the Republican Party of Iowa” MOST disturbing…..Why is that this party (and I have been a Republican all of my life) does not have Phillips’ back? Any person with half a brain would know he’s correct in what he’s saying…
Anita Mills says
I agree
Libby Rafferty says
We need more politicians with balls in Australia too.
Ferd III says
Beautiful. Someone with a clue, a brain and a spine.
Anathema no doubt for the Leftards and usually cadre of idiots including the delusional femi-nazis.
mortimer says
Yes, discriminatory Sharia law negates the US constitution. Rick Phillips has based his comments on knowledge of the Islamic doctrines. Islam is a hostile, alien ideology opposed to the universal rights protected by the US constitution.
He is correct: the Koran decrees a ‘higher law’ than the US constitution, namely, the constitution of Islam that is distilled in Sharia law.
Sharia law speaks often of the Islamic state and the caliph. Muslims have allegiance to the caliph, the caliphate, the Islamic state and discriminatory Sharia law.
This is a LEGAL QUESTION and opinions from uninformed people or propagandists do not change the facts: Sharia law negates the US constitution.
mortimer says
Rep. Phillips should use the term ‘POLITICAL IMPERIALISM’ rather than ‘cultural imperialism’.
The main challenge is to the universal values of the American constitution. The challenge is POLITICAL in nature.
Muslims are ALL lying when they say Shari is compatible with the American constitution. A Muslim who adheres to discriminatory Sharia law adheres to a constitution that is hostile to the US constitution. The two constitutions are mutually exclusive.
The US constitution claims to be based on the divine principle of inherent human rights and inherent equally. Thus the US constitution places itself above Sharia law.
Jocelynn Cordes says
I usually say that Sharia and the US constitution are incommensurable. Period.
Dajjal says
Islam negates everything!!! God, Jesus, Judaism, Christianity, liberty, equality …. ! It imposes a duty to conquer the world and issues rights to pillage, plunder, rape & enslave. None of those can be a constitutional right!!!
Nay more!!! The attacks on the World Trade Center were Islamic acts of worship! Khalid Sheikh Mohammad clearly stated it in plain language. Jihad is the ultimate act of Islamic worship.
I go further. Islam is not a religion; Islam is an Arab Mafia cleverly disguised as a religion. I have proof. Sahih Bukhari volume 4, pagess 108 and 218. Read’em and curse Islam!!!
“My livelihood is under the shade of my
spear ,(1) and he who disobeys my orders will
be humiliated by paying Jizya •,,(2)
(1) (Ch. 88) “Under the shade of my spear” means, from war booty.
(2) (Ch. 88) Jizya: See glossary.
Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so He made booty legal for us.”
How can anyone know that and remain silent? The GOP must tell CAIR to pound sand.
Anne says
Nice post, Daijal. Islam is a reprehensible system created by a degenerate warlord wherein stealing the production of others’ work and their possessions is halal, and riba, or profit, derived from the productive employment of capital, is haram.
Islam is inimical to a thousand years of moral and legal advancement in the West, yet stupidly our citizens welcome and accept it.
peter says
Someone should file a law suit challenging the validity of Islamic faith in light of US constitution which promises equality ,fraternity and freedom of conscience . We are all certain where the truth lies .US constitution will prevail over Islamic Ideology which advocates total authoritarianism.
Zaheer says
Such an attempt was made in India but it did not succeed
see
The Calcutta Quran Petition – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki ›
It is worth trying in IOWA and many other US states….
until it reaches the Supreme Court.
gravenimage says
If it became illegal to read the Qur’an, people like us would be the only ones to suffer. Muslims would just flout the law.
Boromir's Horn says
“But I really see this as an invasion to install a caliphate — an Islamic form of government — here.”
If this story gets any traction, and likely it won’t, but if it does…..watch the left go after this guy, his family and anyone associated with him. Instead of taking his point and having a rational, counterpoint discussion, they will attack and impugn. That’s what they do.
Anjuli Pandavar says
So write to the guy. Congratulate him. Invite him to speak in your town. Interview him on your social media platform. Get his name and ideas and actions out there. Blow the debate wide open before anyone can shut it down. This is a pivotal moment.
mortimer says
Thanks and congratulations to Representative Rick Phillips for a courageous and accurate description of the situation.
Individual Muslims may be loyal Americans in their own minds, but as an IDEOLOGY, Islam opposes the universal human rights and civil liberties in the US constitution, because Islamic law discriminates on the basis of religion.
wpm says
Just like if a native born American is a member of the Nazi party he does not believe in equal rights for all or the golden rule ,a truly practicing Muslim does not believe in the rights of the “other non-Muslim people” or equal protection of the law.Islam sees all non-Muslims as sub-human with less then rights or protection of the law of the land.
gravenimage says
Rick Phillips is a write-in candidate making a run for Iowa’s 2nd U.S. House District–I believe the election there is early June. Sadly, I have been unable to find any contact information for him.
mortimer says
Agree with AP. Americans should also write to the Republican Party and point out that Rick Phillips’ comments accurately reflect reality: Islam is a discriminatory ideology hostile to American universal ideals.
Dajjal says
I agree! I will tweet this post: @GOP @IowaGOP I urge all readers to tweet it!!
Boromir's Horn says
Agree, and if plan “A” doesn’t work, we still have 25 more letters in the alphabet
Michael Copeland says
Rick Phillips is not mistaken.
All members of Congress should know the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum”. This specifically instructs “destroying the Western civilisation from within”.
Muslim speakers elsewhere confirm this aim:
“Islam will invade Europe and America, smashing Western civilisation and replacing it..with Islam” – Mohammed Mahdi Akef
“Yes, we will be masters of the world!” – Safwat Hegazy, Egypt
“Mastership of the world!” – Mohammed Badie, Egypt
“Islam will dominate the world” – placard
“Our Islam is political” – Mullah Krekar, Norway
For “Islam’s Agenda: Muslims Speak”, see:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/02/islams-agenda-muslims-speak/
mortimer says
Yes, very good. Also: cf Maulana Maududi
“…a ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964
• It [Jamaat-e-Islami = the party of Islam] is not a missionary organisation or a body of preachers or evangelists, but an organisation of God’s troopers.
o 1964, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, page 58, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan
Or Else! says
Where is CAIR when Islam’s clerics, mullahs, and imams are preaching the actual hate found within the Qur’an and Hadith? Where has CAIR been throughout 36,600 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11?
Such organizations serve as nothing but political cover for a hegemonic, supremacist ideology….using “religious protection” under the First Amendment.
It IS time to define exactly what constitutes a “religion” in that protective sense.
John says
If a group wanted to practice the old Aztec religion or old Hawaiian religion with human sacrifices to the gods, would that be allowed under the first Amendment’s freedom of religion? I doubt it. The Supreme Court needs to rule on whether Islam is a religion or a political system masquerading as a religion.
PRCS says
There is a name for ideologies under which populations are governed in accordance with *divine” law.
Theocracy.
Theocracy and democracy are polar opposites.
Theocracy
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god
99% of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s population, for example, are Muslims and, per its Constitution, are governed by Islamic law—which prohibits man-made laws that make lawful what “Allah and His messenger made unlawful
Democracy
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
The U.S. population is a mixed bag of virtually every religion–and none–and are governed by man-made laws which (a) prohibit the establishment of religion and (b) make lawful what Islamic law makes unlawful
As ridiculous as Islam–and more than a few of the world’s 4000 other religions are–man made ‘thought police’ laws can no more prevent Muslims from believing as they do than anyone else.
The issue–which the First Amendment does NOT protect–are ‘religious’ practices which violate U.S. law.
The punitive amputation of thieves’ hands for example.
Casting all other aspects of Islam aside, THE reason Islam has no legitimate place in America’s governance is because it IS a theocracy.
gravenimage says
John, the First Amendment protects religions, but *not* all religious practices. Cutting the hearts out of your enemies is not legal, nor is throwing virgins into volcanoes.
Nor, of course, are many of the practices of Islam.
The problem is that we are not enforcing many of our laws now.
Jocelynn Cordes says
Excellent point. And apt, too, as killing in Islam appears to be a form of worship.
End PC says
Trump, as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and others have advised, should declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, then get rid of CAIR as one of its offshoot Hamas-affiliated organizations.
Phil Copson says
Great – where and how can JW readers contact Rick Phillips to (A) congratulate him on having the courage to state the obvious, ie – that tolerance does not extend to tolerating a culture that intends to overthrow your own, and (B) to urge him to stick to his guns come-what-may, and not to issue the usual cowardly apologies for telling the truth ?
Frank Scarn says
Phillips likens himself to Francis Marion. Here’s his website,
https://theswampfox.net/
or,
https://www.facebook.com/IowaDistrict02/
gravenimage says
Thanks, Frank. I found that first website, and thought it was a supporter, and not the candidate himself.
Anjuli Pandavar says
“does the Constitution allow for sedition and subversion as long as it is carried out under the auspices of a religion?”
—
Yes. That is exactly the question. I’m not sure I would describe this as “redefining” Islam, rather than acknowledging that this attribute applies to Islam. The quoted words leave Islam’s nature as a religion in tact and, in fact, depend for its meaning on Islam’s nature as a religion being acknowledged. I think this is exactly the correct approach to take. Is a religion allowed to get away with sedition, just because religious freedom is protected? This, in my view, is much more sound that trying to claim that Islam is not a religion and therefore does not qualify for protection.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Anjuli.
Al says
Any doubters will just have to read the koran
Emilie Green says
Thank you, Mr. Phillips, for bringing this issue to the fore. Is the US Constitution a suicide pact? Is the very undoing of the entire system part and parcel of the 1st Amendment because we are putatively forced to tolerate an intolerant, alternate political system simply because that system masquerades as a “religion?”
Now that’s a debate that demands attention. Keep up the good work, Mr. Phillips.
underbed cat says
Agree Emilie Green, after viewing video of the,I think, 5 Iowa mosques that opened for caucas voting for Bern and realizing the numbers that an organized group could be working against our stability, as aligning with the “alternate political system” masqurading as a religion it was a concerning image. The chaos that followed may not have been just a electronic process problem.
Sanders is interesting and has a softer voice tone effect, but may or may not know the details of the doctrine and drive for a sharia world and the easy slide of hidden sedition and subversion that is the hidden face of the religion of peace a required collective to silence inquiry and never be identified. So I too” thank Mr. Phillips” and agree this deception has gone on long enough.
Anjuli Pandavar says
In these dark times, this really lifts the spirit. Thank you Rick Phillips, and CDW for bringing it to our attention.
gravenimage says
+1
ed says
Needs to be classed as the political movement it is .
Diane Harvey says
John Adams expressed the underlying thesis of our system. “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
A moral and religious people among whose guiding principles is having your yes be your yes, and your no being your no. In other words, honesty, no lying. Contrast that with Islam which permits lying if the purpose of a Muslim lying is to advance Islam or to protect the Muslim. The value of the Article VI oath is meaningless in the case of a Muslim.
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2014/04/12/taqiyya-about-taqiyya/
Kilfincelt says
Three cheers for Rick Phillips!!! He gets it and he’s right!!!
Tony Naim says
Dhimmitude is apartheid.
Abolish Dhimmitude – worldwide.
You will solve the supremacy of Islam.
No need to reinvent the wheel.
Wellington says
This politician did the one thing a politician must be very careful of doing and that is speaking the truth. So, I very much congratulate him.
Now, I still hold to the view that Islam is a religion but that it is an evil, totalitarian, supremacist, subversive religion and the question must be asked how does this all relate to the First Amendment protection of religion? Well, I think belief should be total but action upon belief many times not. Satanists can’t have a human sacrifice, American Indians practicing their native religion cannot use proscribed hallucinatory drugs, and Muslims should be denied all kinds of things that their religion requires of them, including death for apostasy, placing Sharia above the Constitution, and waging jihad to eventually put all the world under Islamic domination. I also think the First Amendment is not violated at all for disallowing religious people from coming to America whose religion is in direct contradiction of the liberties outlined in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, with respect to the First all kinds of freedoms and with respect to the Fourteenth equality under the law (which equality of course Islam mandates against wherever it gets the chance).
Again, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and what is imperative above all is PROPER identification of Islam as something rotten. You have the right to believe in rot in this nation but you don’t have the right to act upon rot in many instances and you don’t have the right to come to America with your rot. But a huge mistake is not seeing something which is rotten as rotten. Pretending rot is not rot is an insult to the Constitution, to common sense, to accurate knowledge and even to self-preservation.
This is in summary my take on this most important of matters. Islam is simply awful and a mortal enemy of liberty. Proceed from this starting point and treat Islam as the pariah that it is while still allowing confused human beings to believe in it. And this would NOT include a public official or politician being allowed to swear upon the Koran to uphold the Constitution anymore than one should be allowed to swear upon Mein Kampf or Das Kapital to uphold this most magnificent of documents.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
An excellent, accurate, and informative post – my compliments.
I think you hit on just about everything…
Dajjal says
Islam is not rotten, it is evil by design from it’s inception. It’s mission is mercenary: the personal emolument of it’s founder and his family & successors. This truth is evident on the face of Bukhari’s books of Jihad & Khumas (vol. 4).
It is not possible to separate belief and action. The Muslim who meets Allah without scars of battle meets him with a sign of hypocrisy. Allah will burn him. See my series “Why Peace Is Impossibled” for the details. 9.111 & 49.15 define believers as those who fight in Allah’s cause. His cause is enriching Moe.
Let Muslims believe what they want, somewhere else, not within our borders.
Wellington says
Dajjal: “Islam is not rotten, it is evil by design….”
OK, what is the difference between rottenness and evil? I use them as synonyms. How do you use them? I think you have posited a distinction without a difference.
Second, your statement that, “It is not possible to separate belief from action” is demonstrably false on its face. For instance, one can believe that yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is all right BUT doing so is an entirely different matter. Or don’t you get this?
Remember, Marxism has lots of rot in it as does Nazism and other warped belief systems, but under the First Amendment such deluded people have a RIGHT to believe in this rot but not necessarily act upon it. Or don’t you get this either?
You, quite frankly, and I don’t mean to be insulting but only accurate, especially constitutionally speaking, have not thought through all of this very well. Not very well at all.
Frankly, as a former professor I would have to give you an “F” because you backed up nothing you asserted with either knowledge or common sense.
Your turn. But try being sharper and better informed if you do respond because ignorance about the Constitution, while not as bad as Islam, is still bad enough and not helpful at all in combating what Islam intends for us all.
Oh yeah, your turn. Give it a shot and don’t be a wuss—ignorant either because I have become exceedingly tired of people who understand Islam is iniquitous, as you do, but are utterly clueless and sometimes just downright stupidly wrong respecting how to combat it.
JR says
Wellington, although you may have been a professor, I suggest that you brush up on the subtlety of language. Rot and evil are not necessarily synonymous. Something that is rotten is something that started out in a more pure state, but has decayed. Something that is evil has started out in an impure state and remains so.
Wellington says
JR: Perhaps it is you who should brush up on things. Satan per Judeo-Christian thinking started out good but became evil but you assert that “evil has started out in an impure state and remains so.”
Your turn.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Wellington, clearly, when Dajjal says, “Islam is not rotten, it is evil by design from it’s inception,” he (she?) is clearly making a sound (and, I dare say, extremely important) point, that Islam has not decayed into what it is today, but is the way it is by design. It is not a good thing gone bad. Whatever might’ve happened to Satan (if you believe in the supernatural) is entirely irrelevant to his point.
When he says, “It is not possible to separate belief and action,” he clearly means in the context of Islam, and not in the abstract. And again he is right. Almost every single thing a Muslim could possibly do is dictated by his belief *and* beliefs are directly coupled to actions. I’m sure you can research this yourself.
We don’t always agree with one another, Wellington, that’s one of the good things about not being Muslim. I think Dajjal would have appreciated your pointing out to him where he was wrong, as you are entitled to. But instead you’ve disrespected and patronised him, and attempted to intimidate him. Surely you can see that his purpose in being here is the same as yours, and surely that is more important than the differences we may from time to time have.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that we should not have robust debate. But robustness lies in the comprehensiveness with which a position is dismantled, without implying any disrespect at all.
gravenimage says
I take your point, Anjuli.
OTTER says
Write to him to advise him to challenge those who disagree with his statement. There is overwhelming material to support what he says. If he is made to apologise or have the Republican party pull the rug from under his feet, we are finished. The brightest anti-Jihad minds in our midst must come to his emprical rescue.
Michael Copeland says
Phillips speaks of “cultural imperialism”. Bertrand Russell thought the same:
“…unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world”
See “Quiz: Who is being referred to?”
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/04/quiz-who-is-being-referred-to/#more-50092
don vito says
A salute to you sir. May you never apologize for your righteous beliefs.
somehistory says
He is totally right about what islam is and what the goal of moslims is…to take over and “fundamentally change” this country in to one of total domination by the filthy evil that moslims worship.
I sent an email and advised that he read the comments here to see just how many people agree with him. Of course, those who comment here are just a small part of the people out there in the country, in the world, who agree with him.
He should not knuckle under to c.a.i.r. or to the politicians who are afraid to speak the truth about this evil filth. He should not apologize for speaking the Truth.
Keys says
Right on, somehistory.
My comment on a JW post from yesterday.
“Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off” – Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Guess what the destination is.
Sharia, of course !
Most Muslims desire to live under Sharia. That is a statistic for certain conflict.
A fatal flaw of free Western Democracy:
1. Muslims gain the majority vote.
2. Muslims vote in Sharia law.
3. The Death of free Western Democracy.
Majority rules !“
4. Johnny does not come marching home again. There is no hoo-rah, hoo-rah ! There is no home. There is no Johnny. There is only Islam.
somehistory says
Very true, Keys. Death and islam…seems to be the same thing, As water is H₂O, islam is death and all moslims are in favor of it.
James Lincoln says
Here’s the actual video / comments from CAIR TV.
Everything that Mr. Phillips said was truthful. Jihad Watch readers will understand this.
CAIR is assuming that people watching this video will assume that Mr. Phillips is an “islamophobic conspiracy theorist” who should be condemned.
=======================================================
CAIR Calls on Iowa, National GOP to Repudiate Candidate’s Call to Eliminate Islam from U.S.
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/13/20) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on state and national Republic Party leaders to repudiate the Islamophobic, unconstitutional statements of a GOP congressional candidate in Iowa who claims Islam should be eliminated from the United States.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqIF_QwV07k
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link.
Jocelynn Cordes says
This was not strong. People who hold these correct views need to articulate them much better than this guy did.
James Lincoln says
Jocelynn,
Agree, not the most polished speaker by a long shot.
That being said, what he said was correct – and he was courageous to say it…
End PC says
Trump needs to endorse this perceptive candidate.
Peacelover says
Finally someone in government spoke up.
eduardo odraude says
I believe he is a candidate.
gravenimage says
He’s not in government yet–but if you live in Iowa you can help change that.
Peacelover says
Whatever the case,someone who seems to have some intelligence{particularly on this topic} is trying to get in government 🙂
UNCLE VLADDI says
So I guess using “global crime-and-murder gang!” as his statement was too short for him?!
PRCS says
And to tell the interviewer, John Niedelman he’s wrong.
https://www.ourquadcities.com/
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment does not green light ‘the free exercise’ of religious practices which violate U.S. law–like the amputation of thieves’ hands.
It’s wording gives credence to Phillips’ inarticulate explanation of the issue:
That Islam IS is a hostile ideology vis-a-vis anything and everything deemed ‘unIslamic’.
Michael Copeland says
“As a muslim I must have hatred for everything non-Islam”
Anjem Choudary
PRCS says
Anjem Choudary being an honest Muslim who too many wrote off as ‘an extremist’.
E T says
Revered, ISLAMIC, scholar, Sayyid Qutb stated quite clearly: “No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching ISLAM. It should leave every individual free to accept or reject it, and if someone wants to accept it, it should not prevent him or fight against him. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to FIGHT him until either he is killed or he declares his submission.
Since the objective of the message of Islam is a decisive declaration of man’s freedom, not merely on the philosophical plane but also in the actual conditions of life, it must employ Jihad.”
All one needs to understand is all Islamic so-called scholars preach “There is no deity except God”. / Allah
PRCS says
Another ‘extremist`, we`re told.
Sun says
“In a news release, Robert S. McCaw, director of government affairs for CAIR, called on state and national Republican Party leadership to “repudiate these Islamophobic, unconstitutional views.”
Mr. McCaw should stop using subterfuge and convince the American People with facts that Islam and its Sharia law is perfectly compatible with the constitution. If this is the truth, why doesn’t he and his fellow Muslims do not want to talk about it?
In Arabic, Sharia means “the way” or “straight path”.
Mr. Phillips is right. I lived in Islamic countries for many years. Islam is not a religion but an medieval ideology to control every aspect of peoples life.
Sun says
Please replace “to talk about it” with “to discuss it openly”
Veron Holness says
CAIR, talks about tolerance and understanding, what they really mean is censorship and intimidation!!!
“The man who is most aggressive in teaching tolerance is the most intolerant of all:
he wants a world full of people too timid and ashamed to really disagree with anything.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy
eduardo odraude says
Here’s a key point at the Find Law website:
Based on the above, I suspect Islam is protected under US free speech laws. What is not protected is specific jihadist plans for terror.
If candidate Rick Phillips thinks he can narrow religious freedoms in the US to cover only Christian denominations, I believe he’ll get nowhere with that, and indeed should get nowhere. The video of him unfortunately leaves unclear if he really wants to outlaw every religion except Christian denominations, or if he wants to outlaw only Islam because of its seditious character.
I’m concerned that he’ll do more harm than good to the resistance to Islam, insofar as he seems to be proposing a radical restriction to US religious liberties. George Washington seems to have thought that the First Amendment covered more than Christian denominations. For example do we not possess an exchange of very warm and respectful letters between Washington and a Jewish community, letters almost affectionate in character, in which religious tolerance and freedom are acknowledged and affirmed?
Phillips at any rate seems at least to accept the idea that disbelief in Christianity is protected by the First Amendment. But what does Phillips think about the legal status of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.? Does he want to outlaw those, and not just Islam?
Naildriver says
Your worry is precisely why no efforts have yet been made to forestall this invasive enemy, Islam. Your concerns in time of war, and we are in a war with Islam, should see the necessary priorities we all should have in defeating Islam and understand the sacrifices that other religions have to make, with perhaps some loss of their own bombastic or ridiculous pretensions to power; but, no, people like you are going to stall till we’re all planting our faces in the prophet’s snivel, to stay alive.
gravenimage says
Why should religions in general be crushed? That is Islam’s goal, as well.
Naildriver says
Graven, thank you for presenting exactly my misgivings of the above author’s premise. And, btw, who made you the zoo keeper of this zoo of religions in America?
I for one do have a belief, and so I don’t need any , ANY of the other religions nor feel obligated to respect ANY of them. Nor even consider them any thing but great frauds set upon our population. Do you not have a set of beliefs worth standing up for? Are they so flimsy you must keep the door open to all this other blather? Do you actually think God is Fkng with us in this regard?
We are a secular federal republic here .
if you want your system of beliefs to trump our laws go to KSA. It is you who is actually more of a Muslim given your absurd thinking.
Because my position that, Jesus said render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s is good enough for me — and our secular Constitution if nothing else is the law of the land — not Mohammed’s or Moses’s, or Buddha’s– and for my money, they can all be damned to cut this cancer, Islam, from the body of it.
Wellington says
Naildriver: That was a cheap shot you took with gravenimage, who is one of the most stalwart and informed persons who comments here at JW.
Moreover, and I speak as an agnostic, possessed of no religious belief whatsoever, are you not aware of what Ben Franklin, himself a skeptic, said, to wit, that if man is bad with religion imagine what he’d be without it? Or as Voltaire, another skeptic, opined, if God does not exist we’ll have to invent Him.
Now, Islam is the exception to this rule. Mankind is better off without any religion than with Islam.
Also, the Judeo-Christian ethical basis, an enlightened one I would argue as skeptics like Franklin and Thomas Jefferson did, infuses the founding of the American Republic. References to the important of religion can be located in such early documents as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Even the Constitution references “in the year of Our Lord.” To deny the Judeo-Christian role in the founding of America is error of the first dimension and, in my experience, usually is proffered by people who make a religion out of not having one. Enough for now.
Naildriver says
I’m usually in full agreement with both of you, Wellington and Graven, but for starters, as the warden said to Cool Hand Luke, “what we have here is a failure to communicate.”
Graven incorrectly conflates my assertion that I’m being like a Muslim, ‘Islam’s goal’, because I would challenge the belief systems of not just Islam but many religions. She does this insulting y’you are no better than them’ nonsense often, I suppose when she doesn’t wish to present a reasoned objection. So, my response wasn’t a cheap shot; her’s was.
And, you fail to see Wellington, that as a secular republic our constitution allows rule of law to over ride any religions claims or directives to its followers. We do not consult the pope for our laws regarding abortion nor a cleric for laws concerning homosexuality.
It’s immaterial if another faith is also offended by a law our representatives pass.
Both of you obviously misunderstood my posts since I am not advocating our republic ‘crush’ all other religions nor am I speaking from the position of a agonistic or atheist as you suggest. Actually, I even put forth the rather reasoned response Jesus Himself might have to our dilemma in fighting Islam.
Wellington says
Well, Naildriver, thanks for your response, but you still haven’t addressed the Judeo-Christian foundations which were intrinsic to the founding of America, from the Pilgrims to the Constitution—and beyond.
Being a secular republic (and representative democracy) does not preclude any religious foundations. This was my main point.
gravenimage says
Naildriver wrote:
Graven, thank you for presenting exactly my misgivings of the above author’s premise. And, btw, who made you the zoo keeper of this zoo of religions in America?
……………………….
Naildriver, it is my understanding that so long as people keep their comments polite and on topic here, that they are allowed to reply to anyone. How does my replying to you make me a “zoo keeper”?
And the idea that no one should be allowed to speak about freedom of conscience in the United States unless they have been appointed by–whom?–is quite troubling. The First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech.
You don’t have to hold any religious belief, nor did I say that you did–nor do you have to have the slightest respect for any faith. This is *very* different* from saying that all religions should be targeted because of the threat of Islam.
More:
Do you not have a set of beliefs worth standing up for? Are they so flimsy you must keep the door open to all this other blather? Do you actually think God is Fkng with us in this regard?
We are a secular federal republic here .
……………………….
Naildriver, your idea that being a secular republic means trampling on any beliefs you do not share is *much* mistaken.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I consider this a belief worth standing up for–this is true whether one is personally religious or not, and also extends to benign philosophies, as well–whether I personally share them or not.
The idea that my saying that if I don’t believe that the state has the right to crush non-harmful belief that this means I am calling for a brutal theocracy like Saudi Arabia makes no sense whatsoever.
Your seeming belief that the First Amendment is a Shari’ah concept is *much* mistaken.
And how is freedom of religion trumping our laws? In fact, freedom of religion is *very much* part of American law.
My balking at trampling on freedom of religion does not make me a Muslim–Islam does *not* preach freedom of religion, nor does it practice it. Really, is this something you actually believe? You may wish to study the history of Islam, and its mandate to force everyone to submit to Islam.
More:
Because my position that, Jesus said render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s is good enough for me — and our secular Constitution if nothing else is the law of the land — not Mohammed’s or Moses’s, or Buddha’s– and for my money, they can all be damned to cut this cancer, Islam, from the body of it.
……………………….
It is the Constitution itself that guarantees freedom of religion. Your belief that it does not is mistaken.
You also do not say how crushing all non-Islamic faiths will do anything at all about Islam.
My guess is that this is not your main goal here.
More, in reply to Wellington:
Graven incorrectly conflates my assertion that I’m being like a Muslim, ‘Islam’s goal’, because I would challenge the belief systems of not just Islam but many religions. She does this insulting y’you are no better than them’ nonsense often, I suppose when she doesn’t wish to present a reasoned objection. So, my response wasn’t a cheap shot; her’s was.
……………………….
Naildriver, I never said that you were no better than a Muslim. I just reminded you that Islam also seeks the eradication of all faiths–save itself.
And challenging religious beliefs is fine–this is *very* different from saying that all faiths should be forced to sacrifice because of the savagery of Islam.
This is rather like saying that Democracy should suffer in order to oppose Fascism, because they are both political ideologies.
More:
Both of you obviously misunderstood my posts since I am not advocating our republic ‘crush’ all other religions nor am I speaking from the position of a agonistic or atheist as you suggest. Actually, I even put forth the rather reasoned response Jesus Himself might have to our dilemma in fighting Islam.
……………………….
Exactly what *are* you suggesting? If it is merely separation of church and state, then we already have this in the United States.
But you are clearly suggesting something else–that peaceful religions should be forced in some undefined way to “sacrifice” due to the savagery of Islam.
If you don’t want to be misunderstood–and I certainly do *not* want to misunderstand you–perhaps you should clarify exactly what it is you want to do to freedom of thought here in America.
Naildriver says
Again , you both misread and want to say I would mount an attack on all religion in America. I’m saying that laws factions and religious populations will block or lobby against efforts to fight Islam because they fear any such laws may hurt the prospects of their own religion.
And I’m not referring to the vague freedom of conscience or belief we all presume from the first amendment.
I don’t have a clue if a law allowing a woman the right to abortion is contrary to the Pope and the church’s mandates in the ‘country of the Vatican’s’, as how Catholics deem themselves citizens, dually or one of the other, to their own choosing — since the US government has yet to address unilateral dual citizenship in the thinking of devotees — which is concretely expressed at the ballot box.
If one defines membership to religion where one considered themselves more beholden under one systems directives than the other it is problematic.
To say, ‘I vote this way because of my conscience’ is not the same as to say I vote this way because I am a member and citizen — where compliance is sometimes a life and death issue!
If the SCOTUS deemed Muslims as belonging to a nation, ( which I’ve advocated it should do) whose sharia is deemed inimical and in effect perpetually at war with our
system and constitution; and made a law, or allowed law that marginalized Muslims; then Catholics and Jews may contest any such laws as potentially impinging upon their rights.
In my view if such is the case, they can return or go to their own respective countries or even be deported as far as I’m concerned.
Our system of secularism should take precedent over factions and religions — they are not partners or entitled to share governing.
Naildriver says
Wellington:
‘you still haven’t addressed the Judeo-Christian foundations’
I didn’t know that they were part of my argument, or yours; but I will allow we do have them.
Nevertheless, they are not part of our law system — we owe that to English common law and Roman law.
I don’t see it as progress to legislate inclusion of the 10 commandments, or Buddha’s 8 fold noble path, or Mohammed’s call to prayer, for that matter, into our public school science books, schools and courthouses.
Then, there is what is possible in fighting Islam and what is fantasy. I hate to concede it is fantasy to expect our government to name Islam unfit for our citizens and an enemy to our constitution. But I do see serious difficulties.
It is fantasy to expect islam’s devotees will be converted by how modern and advanced we are.
It is fantasy as Mortimer thinks that Muslims, in any appreciable number, can be deprogrammed with facts.
It is fantasy that Islam’s devotees will someday edit or abrogate the Koran to be non hostile to our society and constitution.
It is fantasy to assume Islam isn’t a nation with imperatives to conquer our society and nation.
It is fantasy that Muslims will melt into the so called ‘melting pot’ and not remain in hostile conflict with almost all other citizens in this country.
etc.
Graven Image:
‘Sacrifice’ is necessary in times of emergency as with this Covid19 outbreak and times of war: 9/11 was such a time.
We expect it of citizens; even such that individuals accept conscription and possible death!
We expect it of corporations, as now, in this ‘Chinese’ virus attack with our whole economy closing down!, till relief from spread is achieved.
And we can damn well expect it of religious groups:
We did so with Japanese in WWII; with putting them into concentration camps, because it was assumed they, in many cases, had more devotional allegiance to the emperor than our government and society — And I’m certain many did, and the practice prevented many acts of terrorism. Why not the germans too? Because it had no emperor that was considered a God.
So the fear expressed by Eduardo may be well founded, but clearly not mandated upon our SCOTUS, POTUS, or congress. Islam needs to be named an enemy and its devotees, Muslims, marginalized.
As with my other post I say Millions of voters would be in an uproar and the politicians who represent them know it. But this country is now in a crises, and action needs to be taken.
Are you or are you not a citizen of the USA? Omar and other Muslims claims they are just as entitled as anyone to the fruits of the USA, even though she demanded a Koran to swear upon. I think of that Koran is adherence to another state or country.
This is a matter the SCOTUS should hear — the big question is, can it be done without also bringing in to question the citizenship alliegence of Catholics, Jews, and even Tibetan Buddhists, among others, as all have homelands or countries they may be devoted to — and who might under any such action aimed at Muslims also be focused upon themselves too.
The McCarthy era of hunting communists is well taught in schools today and this would certainly elicit howls of protest from the left; but Islam is this nation’s enemy, much more dangerous than the communists, and I expect my government to protect other citizens, my family and myself from it.
I cannot/ address all your reply Graven — Many things I say you rephrase or reinterpret and I’m just not going to waste my time.
Too bad this discussion of this candidate’s statement is not up front, as these questions should be raised more often on JW, to really do something politically and lawfully to curb Islam’s invasion.
gravenimage says
Naildriver wrote:
Again , you both misread and want to say I would mount an attack on all religion in America. I’m saying that laws factions and religious populations will block or lobby against efforts to fight Islam because they fear any such laws may hurt the prospects of their own religion.
……………………………
I have asked you–in the previous post–to specify what you *do* mean here.
And your claim that people of other faiths mindlessly protect all of the horrors of Islam because it is a religion makes no sense.
Many of those who have pushed anti-Shari’ah laws are Christian, and in fact Christians and other people pf faith have fought against Islam for hundreds of years. In fact, you would not be free today if Christians in the past had not defended against Islam at Poitiers, and Le Panto, and the Gates of Vienna, and against the Mediterranean pirates.
More:
If the SCOTUS deemed Muslims as belonging to a nation, ( which I’ve advocated it should do) whose sharia is deemed inimical and in effect perpetually at war with our
system and constitution; and made a law, or allowed law that marginalized Muslims; then Catholics and Jews may contest any such laws as potentially impinging upon their rights.
In my view if such is the case, they can return or go to their own respective countries or even be deported as far as I’m concerned.
Our system of secularism should take precedent over factions and religions — they are not partners or entitled to share governing.
……………………………
This is certainly what President Trump is moving towards with his “Muslim ban”. Again, you do not say why this should entail targeting every other faith, which does *not* threaten us.
More, in reply to Wellington:
Wellington:
‘you still haven’t addressed the Judeo-Christian foundations’
I didn’t know that they were part of my argument, or yours; but I will allow we do have them.
Nevertheless, they are not part of our law system — we owe that to English common law and Roman law.
……………………………
Naildriver, the idea that English common law was in no way influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics is, I’m afraid, fairly ridiculous.
And note that Wellington has *never* said that Islam will reform and Muslims become good citizens. He has said just the opposite, in fact.
More, to myself:
etc.
Graven Image:
‘Sacrifice’ is necessary in times of emergency as with this Covid19 outbreak and times of war: 9/11 was such a time.
We expect it of citizens; even such that individuals accept conscription and possible death!
We expect it of corporations, as now, in this ‘Chinese’ virus attack with our whole economy closing down!, till relief from spread is achieved.
And we can damn well expect it of religious groups:..
……………………………
This is certainly true. But sacrifice has to make sense–it cannot be random or gratuitous. Staying at home during this outbreak and wearing face masks when we go out is a reasonable and rational sacrifice, as was the draft during WWII.
But what if we were instead demanding that instead of just wearing face masks that we have to wear blindfolds, too? Now *that* would be a sacrifice, but it would be a gratuitous one that would in no way make us safer.
Certainly, we need to educate people about the threat Islam represents. This is, at its base, what Jihad Watch is about.
The idea that targeting non-Muslims if they are people who follow a non-violent faith makes no sense.
Do you think that Robert Spencer should be targeted–you *still* will not say in what way–because he is a Christian? How would this help the fight against Jihad and Shari’ah?
The claim that Catholics and Jews are not loyal citizens of the United States because of their faith has clearly been debunked many times over the past 240+ years.
Do you *really* believe that Robert Spencer’s having been Catholic means that he is out to undermine America? Is Pamela Geller in your view out to destroy the US because she is Jewish? If so, based on *what*?
ntesdorf says
Rick Phillips is quite correct to say that Islam is a “militant cultural imperialism seeking world domination”. Islam masquerades as a religion but is really a totalitarian political movement. Unfortunately Islam cannot be reformed and has proved over 1400 years to be very hard to eliminate.
Naildriver says
This politician is correct and I would hope he sticks to his guns. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to hear an apology from him in a few weeks or sooner. Sadly that seems to be the result of this kind of statement — either he’ll be bribed or threatened.
And his own party, Republicans, have already disavowed him and his statements. The ignorant cowards and traitors.
After this many years, since Islam’s murder of 3000 Americans, and this is the loudest voice we have, in 2020 this lone midwesterner. BTW, no mention was made of this on the ABC fake news I watched tonight.
We appear to be destined to become a fragmented nation into warring factions, mostly at war with the ‘white America’ and declining white males, and the wealth, health and maintenance of these factions; Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, Catholics, Jews Protestants, Mormons, Women, LGBT, and socialists/communists — not individuals.
gravenimage says
Iowa: Republican candidate calls for redefining Islam as “militant cultural imperialism seeking world domination”
……………………….
Rick Phillips is right that this is what Islam is. It is also a religion. But he is quite right that the First Amendment offers no protection for Jihad and Shari’ah. Glad to hear him speak out.
PRCS says
The First Amendment guarantees the ‘free exercise’ of every aspect of every religion which does not violate U.S. law.
That Muslims typically wipe with the left hand–per Islamic law, does not do that.
Amputating a thief’s hand, punishing an apostate, or any number of Islam’s other ‘religious’ practices does.
The real problem with Islam–here: theocracy is incompatible with democracy.
And Islam is a theocracy.
gravenimage says
+1
Clifford Fodor says
We should have learned that after 9/11.
John Doe says
We should have learned that after 9/11.
TKF says
I’d say this guy struck a nerve. He is right on the money 100% CORRECT. Islam doesn’t allow any allegiance except the prophet and allah
Veron Holness says
“The truth has become an insult.”
― Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie,
Half of a Yellow Sun
Veron Holness says
CAIR, talks about tolerance and understanding, what they really mean is censorship and intimidation!!!
“The man who is most aggressive in teaching tolerance is the most intolerant of all:
he wants a world full of people too timid and ashamed to really disagree with anything.”
― Criss Jami, Killosophy
AP says
Islamophobe, what is that? An intelligent person!
Aussie Infidel says
“Does the Constitution allow for sedition and subversion as long as it is carried out under the auspices of a religion?”
Why should any supernatural belief system – which also incites hatred and violence against those who do not accept its tenets – be granted constitutional protection and immunity from criticism, or being declared a criminal organisation and a threat to our national security? To grant such protection is simply a recipe for cultural and religious suicide. Any politician who would support such protection, does not understand the vicious, murderous nature of Islam, or is an apologist for this evil creed. Either way, he is either a traitor to his country or a political whimp who does not deserve to hold office.
It’s about time that someone like Rick Phillips raised this question and told CAIR to go to hell. The American people – and the rest of the Western world – need to have this debate.
Clifford Fodor says
Islam is not a religion. It is an anti-religion. Instead of love, it preaches hate.
gravenimage says
The First Amendment does not prevent criticism of any faith.
PRCS says
In factt, it protects it.
gravenimage says
+1
Giacomo Latta says
‘Republican Party of Iowa spokesman Aaron Britt said in an email that Phillips’ comments “are not reflective of the views of the Republican Party of Iowa.” ‘
Generally, a party spokesman should speak on behalf of the majority of its members. So the majority of Iowa Republicans, of all things, should support political correctness and mealy-mouthed commentary? This is truly sad.
January says
Maybe the oath should be taken with their hand on a copy of the Constitution!
gravenimage says
That would work for me.
Linde Barrera says
If I lived in Iowa (I live in Brooklyn, NY) I would not only vote for Rick Phillips, I would campaign for him.
Keep telling the truth, Mr. Phillips. And good luck, I hope you will win. I will pray for you. God bless you.
Judy says
Mr. Robert S. McCaw and Mr. Aaron Britt are both traitors of the United States Constitution. Or, they are ignoramuses. It would seem most Americans are sheep and believe anything they hear on TV.
Mr. Phillips is, indeed, correct. Islam is a political system cloaked in a false religion.
Who wants to serve a god who tells you should to kill everyone who isn’t just like you? Who wants to serve a god who belittles all of womanhood?
Everything about Islam is antithetical to our Constitution and our Bill of Right.
jca reid says
Missed out calling it Fascistic, Degenerate, Perverted, Misogynistic, Homophobic, Paedophilic, Sadistic, Unscientific, Hypocritical, & there are bound to be others I’ve missed out.
Aussie Infidel says
JCA reid, Fascistic, Degenerate, Perverted, Misogynistic, Homophobic, Paedophilic, Sadistic, Unscientific, Hypocritical, just about sums it up. I can think of a few other adjectives I could use to describe this ‘religion for psychopaths’, but not ones I’d use in polite company.
OLD GUY says
Hope this man Phillips gets a chance to stand up against this islamic attack. Sounds like he has figured it out and recognizes islam for what it truly is.
Goofy says
This is not a question about personal opinions and sympathy and antipathy.
What we need is a legal opinion on each and every verse of the Koran to assess ifs compatibility with the laws of the land.
Based on this work we need to mass produce study Korans which clearly spell out what it costs to follow the commands of Allah and his prophet Mohammed.
PRCS says
“This is not a question about personal opinions and sympathy and antipathy.”
Agree!
Islamic law prohibits man-made laws which make lawful what “Allah and His messenger have made unlawful”.
Almost 100% of Afghanistan’s population, for example, is Muslim and its Constitution states:
“The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” and that “No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.”
Conversely–and significantly–man-made U.S. laws clearly prohibit an establishment of religion and criminalize acting out those aspects of Islamic law which unarguably conflict with them (the punitive amputation of a human being’s hand and foot on opposite sides, for example). Unlike many Muslim majority nations, ours includes citizens and residents whose religious beliefs encompass numerous religions. And none at all. E pluribus unum.
Candidate Phillips First Amendment assessment seemed to go right over the interviewer’s head. Madison and his associates didn’t create it with the world’s 4000+ religions in mind and surely wasn’t meant to green light the ‘free exercise’ of Islam’s cruel and unusual punishments.
A legal opinion on all 6,236 verses shouldn’t be necessary, IMO.
JR says
Hello Wellington, Satan is a concoction of the Abrahamic religions. There is no such person as “Satan.” Just like another Christian misconception – that Jesus is “God made flesh.” God does come to this world, per the Vedas, but He has a transcendental spiritual body. He is never forced to incarnate in flesh, as is man. Jesus is the son, not the Father. Although the son and Father are one in purpose, and qualitatively one in that they are both fundamentally spiritual, the Father is infinite whereas the son is infinitesimal. Reference: Shree Ishopanishad, verse 8: “Such a person must know in fact the Greatest of all, Who is unembodied, omniscient, beyond reproach, without veins, pure and uncontaminated, the self-sufficient Philosopher Who is awarding everyone’s desire since time immemorial.” Hope this helps.
Wellington says
“Hope this helps.”
Well, frankly, it doesn’t. Here’s why: You maintained that evil has to exist from the get-go and I proved you wrong by noting the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of Satan and then you go off about the Vedas, etc. And hey, how do you know that the Vedas are more accurate than the Bible? To put it mildly, you don’t.
I also think it quite defensible to assert that something started out rotten, like a psychopathic killer, for instance Mohammed, Stalin and Hitler. And so in no way have you dissuaded me from essentially equating rot with evil.
Your turn—and remember I accept NO religious assertion on its face. Virtually all religions put forward extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, which is one of many reasons I am not religious, though I can appreciate the Judeo-Christian ethic while loathing the Islamic ethic.
Your turn again if you wish.
E T says
The time is long past due when politicians should have a conversation about migration, no assimilation, annihilation and domination. All politicians and voters MUST understand when Islamic scholars say “It is therefore necessary that Islam’s theoretical foundation –belief–materialize in the form of an organized and active from the very beginning. It is necessary that this group separate itself from the jahili society, becoming independent and distinct from the active and organized jahili society whose aim is to block Islam”.
Susan Heinle says
You can help and support Rick at Rick Phillips the Swamp Fox. I’ve known him all my life. He’s a Christian, has morals and values. He only speaks the truth and he supports President Trump ?
DazzleMe says
Well described and this needs to happen!