Sunday, July 31, 2011

'Hate Preacher' Posting Scary Islamic Signs, Declares Intent To Impose Islam

Story here.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.

(...)

Choudary, who runs the banned militant group Islam4UK, warned: ‘We now have hundreds if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us and a print run of between 10,000 and 50,000 stickers ready for distribution.

(...)

‘We are going to go to all these same areas and implement our own Sharia-controlled zones.

(...)

‘This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.

‘We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.’

Oh, don't worry, folks.  There's no problem with religious zealots actively plotting to impose their values and views on us.

 The hateful Islamic supremacist who openly declares intent to impose his extreme, intolerant values onto all.  Nice looking fellow, right?  Oh, no need for "hate speech" laws to be enforced... Muslims are peaceful, eh...  Now let's scream instead about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, those horrible Christian fundamentalists who want to impose Canon Law on all... right?

Now go and vote for the nice, very-devout Muslim candidate in the election...  And don't vote for the hateful Christian running against him, because you know about them Christians... they want to impose, to take your rights away...  right?

So if the above is ok, then it's got to be ok to post anti-socialism, anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage signs and declare areas to be Christian-controlled...  Ok, let's do it, eh!   Man... I loooove being sarcastic!

91 comments:

balbulican said...

I'm picking up on the discussion in the previous thread, since this is essentially the same topic.

What has happened here is some Islamist punk has printed up and posted a whole bunch of stickers.

Did you read the entire article you?

Did you note that this idiot is a member of a group that is banned? That even the right wing Quilliam foundation says this little piece of theatre is the work of ‘Talibanesque thugs, a small group which is not representative of these communities.' That the community and cops are going through CCTV cameras to identify and arrest the vandals? That people in the neighborhood called the stickers "ridiculous", and went out the next day and peeled them down?

Glacierman rather rudely called Mike a "traitor" for refusing to take this idiocy seriously. Scenty, when you take the vandalism of some Islamist punks as Clear Evidence of the Coming Islamization of Europe and the World, you are doing EXACTLY what that punk is hoping you'll do? And I mean EXACTLY - giving worldwide exposure to a juvenile act of political theatre, and abetting them in raising fear.

Canuckguy said...

testing

Canuckguy said...

Ahh, back to normal.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Full circle:

"The Palestinians “must have their own state, the occupation must end, the wall must be demolished and it must happen now,” said the Norwegian Foreign Minister to cheers from the audience."
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2011/07/another-look-at-norway-labor-party.html


Bummer when gun control bites you in the ass...
"Norway, where hunting is popular, has some of toughest firearm legislation in world..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

“I hadn’t walked in the door from a visit to Copenhagen, when a new bomb exploded, also this time signed by Knut Storberget,” says Rustad. This time the justice minister wants to allow the hijab in the police.
“I’m afraid this war will be long,” says Rustad."

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/bloggers-save-norway-slow-the-cancerous-creep-of-sharia-law/

∞ ≠ ø said...

This freak is going for the 72 virgins as he obviously has no clue what a pain in the ass that will be.

Canadian Sentinel said...

That's pretty funny, Infin. Pain in the ass... LOL

Canadian Sentinel said...

If those folks want to live in an intolerant Islamic society, they can move to one. We sure as hell aren't going to tolerate their efforts to turn our countries into such, whether they're immigrants or were born here.

Canadian Sentinel said...

After all, we've got enough problems already with the Far Left...

balbulican said...

"Now go and vote for the nice, very-devout Muslim candidate in the election... And don't vote for the hateful Christian running against him, because you know about them Christians... they want to impose, to take your rights away... right?"

What are you saying here, Sentinel? That Canadians shouldn't elect Muslims to public office?

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Well, they have placed them in offices here and they are going against what the Constitution states..also we have had Muslims now in the service and I see they going amuck. Sorry, their religion dictates what they should be doing and that is going against us. To take over and to kill and it seems there a few on here that are basically denying the facts....?? I dont know, I dont see anyone showing facts of the opposite being said. Sure, we can all go to our favorite site and blog what we read, so maybe why dont we try finding one that is nonpartisen...oh..that would be no fun..lol.

balbulican said...

So Gabriella, is your view that Muslims in the US or Canada should not be allowed to run for public office or serve in the armed forces?

∞ ≠ ø said...

balbulican says:
…this idiot is a member of a group that is banned…
As if there was some significance I should attach to this ‘banned’ status and be mindful of ramifications.
Does he LOOK banned? Apparently not. So, who’s the idiot here?

Then balbulican says:

“…giving worldwide exposure to a juvenile act of political theater…”

Really? Does it not give worldwide exposure to the intolerant nature of Islame? Does it not expose the very nature of the Muslim community; dominated by punks and hate preachers, unwilling to remove them from their society as they are the core defining elements.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Gabbers!

I've been baiting you.

Shocked to see no response to the Kate's sweet ass comment designed solely to draw your fire... and now you appear reticent to debate the potential merits of 72 virgins....

Or... are you really that cool. Has there been a tacited acknowledgement that women should be respected as they respect themselves and that the concept of heaven should in fact transcend worldly gifts based upon the insecure Islame-ic male?

Partisan, moi?

balbulican said...

"As if there was some significance I should attach to this ‘banned’ status and be mindful of ramifications."

It kinda doesn't jive with Scenty's "run! RUN!! The Muslims are taking over the planet!" Nor does the rest of the story, unless, of course, it's amped with with the kind of Gelleresque drivel you conclude with.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Ok, I'm once again considering moderation. I'm sure no one would mind...

And, Balbs, quit it. You know what I'm doing... being sarcastic. Your peeps on the Far Left are always saying there shouldn't be any devout Christians in public office, and I'm reminding you of that. But it seems you've conveniently forgotten.

And the Left and the media, when they suggest that Christians shouldn't be allowed to be in public office... they get away with such suggestions, because they're politically correct.

Now I see leftists think it'd be bad to make the same suggestion about devout Muslims. Hmm. Why the DOUBLE STANDARD?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Balbs, do you ever publicly demand that your ilk stop fearmongering about Christians in public office, like Stockwell Day, Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, George Bush, etc?

If so, please prove that you have, because I seriously doubt you have.

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Infin....you been baiting and me not biting huh?? LOL. Making comment about Kates bum...bad boy. See you then had everyone thinking of Kates bum..if I added to that I would be an enabler..lol.

As to your question first part,"Has there been a tacited acknowledgement that women should be respected as they respect themselves" What do you think? Do you think we should be respected if WE respect ourselves??

"that the concept of heaven should in fact transcend worldly gifts based upon the insecure Islame-ic male?"


I was thinking...wordly gifts..mmm well, I think we all have some sort of gift we were given. You have to find out which is yours. If you are saying you think Kate has a nice bum, well so be it. Others may think I have nice ..mm chest ;)Heck I feel if males have a woman that was blessed with nice...whatever, then not only will we be blessed by a good man appreciating it,but lucky to be able to show it off.

Now,,heres the last thought, since I believe in God and heaven, I would say that MY Gods heaven would never send anything nice to the Muslim nation. They are polar opposites of what is right. I dont care what ANYONE thinks of them, thats their business. What I know of them...well theres a saying...Ill just say the last part of it .."let God sort them out"

Canuckguy said...

"I'm once again considering moderation. I'm sure no one would mind..." Sentinel

Why, you just dropped moderation again.

Why, just because Balbul is disagreeing with you? Can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen entirely.

balbulican said...

"Your peeps on the Far Left are always saying there shouldn't be any devout Christians in public office, and I'm reminding you of that."

I don't have "peeps", and I don't believe anyone should be excluded from public office on the basis of religion.

Is that clear? Do you understand my views? Do you require further clarification?

If not, I'll be pleased to explain further. If so, will you please stop attributing view to me that I don't hold? Thanks. Much appreciated.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

You have stated repeatedly that you fear the "takeover" of Canada by Muslims. So I'm asking you specifically: do you believe that Canadian and American citizens who are Muslim should be excluded from public office, public service, or the armed forces? Commenting on Muslims, Gabriella said:

"they have placed them in offices here and they are going against what the Constitution states..also we have had Muslims now in the service and I see they going amuck."

So. Do you favour any kind of limitation on Muslim participation in public service or office, or not? Very simple question.

balbulican said...

"Ok, I'm once again considering moderation. I'm sure no one would mind..."

If the issue is that you don't like people disagreeing with you, then why on earth are you blogging? To hear a bunch of people agreeing with you? Good Lord.

balbulican said...

To make it really, really clear: when the Government of Ontario seemed to be considering recognition of Shariah Law on purely domestic matters in Ontario, I opposed it to the point of writing to the Premier and to my MLA. I think Sharia Law is a medieval collection of obsolete regulations suited for desert nomads and in large measure incompatible with both the contemporary body of knowledge and our current models of governance.

I also feel the same way about bronze age anachronisms like the sexism inherent in orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

Is that clear?

∞ ≠ ø said...

Well... there it is.
Or, I should say, there they are.
How fantastic is it to know how Sentinel stays out of the rain. I could spend hours on the subject, but I wouldn't want to rack up the need for moderation.

So, on to Kate's bum: Common language for a common girl I'm afraid. She is of little interest, but Mike thought the windy bottom photo caused the Sun to withdraw from the leftist press swamp.

Do you think we should be respected if WE respect ourselves??
Very much so. It works both ways.

And as for letting God sort them out, I agree, if it comes to that. Thrilled to see someone not wearing the 'but for the sake of one' belt. Some folks like to confuse this message of the capacity of God's mercy with our own. Pure foolishness.

Canadian Sentinel said...

"If the issue is that you don't like people disagreeing with you, then why on earth are you blogging? To hear a bunch of people agreeing with you? Good Lord." -Balbulican


---Oh, I see an atheist convert taking the Lord's name in vain. How ironic, eh?

And disagreement isnt' a problem for me. Bullshit, however, definitely is.

∞ ≠ ø said...

"...Gelleresque drivel..."

Well don't listen to Geller or to me or to lettered cornerstones of English history. Like...John Wesley

"Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind."

Canadian Sentinel said...

I'd like, by the way, to see Muslim politicians treated with the same prejudice by the progressive liberal left and the establishment media as were Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Stephen Harper, George Bush, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc., who are all Christians.

Alternatively, I'd be far more pleased if they'd stop with that gosh-darned double standard and stop bashing people on the basis of their faith so as to fool swing voters into not voting for them!

Alas, the status quo will continue... the usual suspects will continue to make slurry and smeary remarks about Christian politicians, not for what they even say or do, but for the fact that they're devout Christians. Why don't they do it to devout Muslim politicians too? Hmm?

How about Keith Ellison in the US Congress? I've blogged about him and have exposed his extremist views and associations. Funny how the usual suspects said nothing about that, whereas they never let up on Christian Republican politicians. Weird how it all works...

balbulican said...

Gosh, I thought it was a simple question. Let me simplify it still further.

Should Muslim Canadians be allowed to run for public office and serve in the military?

Now, don't tell me you can't even answer that.

balbulican said...

"Bullshit, however, definitely is."

Ah. That would be, like - lying? Or refusing to acknowledge it when a lie is caught out?

Say, did you ever get back to me with the sources for your claims about Sun News? ;) And you don't you're not still claiming I'm a Chinese communist spy, I hope?

You mean...that kind of "bullshit"?

What, bullshit? said...

"...Sun Group, one of the biggest media conglomerates in the country, has 20 TV channels, 45 radio stations, four magazines, two dailies, a DTH (direct to home) service provider...

It also produces and distributes movies under Sun Pictures and runs Sun Cable Vision, a cable distribution company with a reported market share of 90%..."


Oh, about the severe sensitivity of you-know-who-ican. Shhhhh!
http://www.rense.com/general19/secretreportAL.htm

balbulican said...

I guess someone missed the original statement - the one I debunked.

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Balbs,
I THINK I may know the answer to why CS is NOT answering your question that you keep asking over and over. It MAY be because, no matter what he will say, you will turn it around and spew the venom that we all know happens. He, I bet, would rather save you from looking like an ass.
In fact, Im not sure what is going on with everyone lately. Seems to be a lot of anger on here...hence why I have quit writing as much as I would like to. Im thinking anger management would be in order here.
Geez, glad I started my own blog..so much nicer there ;)

Also, Infin..Im not sure what you meant by your statement. Sometimes during the day of doing postings and such, I see your answers and in bewilderment.

Glacierman, Im shocked at how some of your postings have been to to CS. Kind of curt..dont you think.

CS, please dont bait Balbs into arguments where you know you are going to get Balbs britches in a bunch. You know he going to ask you questions and you are going to avoid so short of saying hes an ahole etc. Lets keep to topic yes??

OH PS,, I speak no French..so I am forced to look up or ask CS..just saying so if I dont respond to things thats why. Maybe Rosetta Stone may be called for in order to live in Canada..

Canadian Sentinel said...

Excellent points, Gaby!

Indeed, it's better to focus on the topic and not try to score partisan-ideological points...

balbulican said...

There's one of two possible answers, GG.

If Sentinel believes that Canada should restrict immigration, employment or public service on the grounds of religion, that's fine - it's a political position that he shares with the Taliban, the Nazi Party, and several political groups currently active in Europe.

If he believes in the values he claims to espouse in both the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights, then he does NOT support the introduction of religious-based restrictions.

It's a very simple question. I have no idea why he's having such a hard time answering it. As a Christian and upholder of the Constitution, of course, there's only one possible answer. So why all the squirming?

Would you like to answer that question for him too, GG? ;)

Canadian Sentinel said...

There is no squirming here, Balbsy.

And you're being a demagogue again. Shame on you.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Getting your talking points from Warren Kinsella and Scott Reid, e, Balbs? ;)

balbulican said...

"There is no squirming here, Balbsy."

Then answer the question. If you believe Canada, like the Taliban and the Nazi party, should introduce religious discrimination, then have the balls to say so. That's not where I want to see my country going, and I sincerely hope it's not what you're hoping for either. Why on earth are you finding this so hard to be honest about??

balbulican said...

"It MAY be because, no matter what he will say, you will turn it around and spew the venom that we all know happens."

Nope. If Sentinel tells me he supports the Constitution and our Charter, and does NOT believe in discrimination based on religion, I won't "spew" anything. I'll congratulate him, agree with him, and apologize for doubting him.

But I'm getting the funny sense from his evasiveness that he's actually a little closer to the Ayatollah in his views that I thought.

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Balbs, Of course you're aware that leftists and the mainstream media are always saying nasty things about conservative, devout-christian politiicans seeking or being in high offices. You have noticed that they don't do it to devout muslim politicians like keith ellison (us congress), despite his extremist ties.

Have you ever condemned, publicly, the left's and media's habit of unfairly using a christians faith against them to hurt their electoral chances?

Im not sure what kind of discussion you and CS were having. The reason I have not written was because,not that I do not conversations and even ones that do not agree with but when I am backed into a corner due to others wanting to 'score points' in their minds, its no longer fun. I can handle where you may not agree and vise versa but do not make me feel like a low life degraded idiot thats all I ask..respect. You guys may do that to each other and thats fine, however, Im here to enjoy conversation. I also know that each of you have a relationshiop with CS on your own terms and thats fine. Im not here to bash or ridicule anyone.
Ok..so...I think I said my peace for now. No hard feelings eh?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Funny... Balbulican says Orly Taitz is crazy for being persistent in her inquiries re Obama's real birth certificate.

Does he wish to apply that standard to himself re. his ridiculously obsessive, and unnecessary, not to mention hostile, question re whether I believe in excluding folks from seeking political office merely on the basis of religion, which I certainly don't? Hmm? Please answer, don't evade. ;)

balbulican said...

"which I certainly don't?"

Excellent. Thank you for finally answering the question, and I apologize for thinking that you believe otherwise.

So we agree that Muslim Canadians and Americans have all the rights and responsibilities of citizens of any religion. That's great.

Gabriella, in Canada the simple fact of a candidate's religion is not much of an issue (I don't think the fact that Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were Catholics won or lost them any votes). Where it DOES become an issue is when a candidate states they will use their power, if elected, to promoted their own religious views, as opposed to the views their constituents.

If a Muslim candidate presented themself in my riding and announced their intention of letting their faith, rather than the will of their constituents, define their policy, I would vote and lobby against them.

If a Catholic candidate presented themself in my riding and announced that they intended to let their faith, rather than the will of their constituents, define their policy, I would vote and lobby against them.

Like John Kennedy, I believe in the separation of Church and state.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Do you also openly believe in separation of mosque and state?

Yes or no?

glacierman said...

Momma Bear, not sure about the short curt things which I am being accused of saying to CS. I tend to agree, for the most part, regarding his posts so not sure what you are referring to.

My comments have mostly been to Balb, so if I have been "caustic" that may have been to talking points, not personal attacks.

We have all been inundated with Balbs rants and misdirection, not staying on topic and without the ability to understand the Christian faith, just like a person who talks about a foreign language by reading somebody else's opinion on said language, and then pretending to be an authority on it. For the most part, he baits and trolls, but in a weird kind of way helps us to think and work out our beliefs.
Short and curt is his MO, not sure if he is bating for the HRC, as he constantly wants us to know our opinion on what to do about immigrants, Muslims, etc and compiling files on us. Whatever! Compile away.
Just like I have read, trying to appease your enemies does not turn them into your friends.

The tone on this blog has been a might-bit pungent, but the subject matter has brought this out. The world is diverging, evil and good are becoming more apparent and easier to spot...for those with eyes to see and ears to hear!

balbulican said...

"Do you also openly believe in separation of mosque and state? Yes or no?"

Yes, unequivocally. And Temple and state, and synagogue and state. That's what "separation of church and state" means. Kennedy didn't mean "Catholic" or "Christian" church. He meant that a democracy requires a model of governance that takes its direction from the governed, not from any religion.

balbulican said...

Glacierman, it's always a delight to be exposed to a wonderful role model of Christian humility like yourself - a man so obviously, deeply infused with Christian love and charity. And humility. Did I mention your humility?

Since Sentinel and I both agree that prejudicial laws based on religious bias are wrong, may I count among our number, my brother?

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Oh..shoot...Glacierman I owe you an apology...I did not mean you but Canuckguy. RRRR..have to many little distractions pulling my mind away. OK..so my comments were directed to Canuckguy...sorry ;)

glacierman said...

Balb, your trite remarks are always condescending and muchly appreciated. When exposing evil, the evil always has a way of attacking the person, not the ideas.

Humility is knowing who you are in light of who God is, then know where you stand with your fellow man. My questioning is not at your person, but your belief systems, and you then take them as personal attacks. Can you move beyond the shoot, duck and hide?

As to the Church/State debate, not knowing your history exposes your bias, as evidenced by your Kennedy comment.

Jefferson was the one attributed with what Kennedy and others refer to as the separation of Church and State, but that was a private letter, not a government document. The separation of Church and State was specifically referring to the state not being able to tell the Church what, where, why...and the Church was always intended to be there to influence the Government and its laws. Once again your ignorance is showing. Poor history reading and comprehension is at the root of this debate, the narrative of a sloppy education system full of socialists and atheists intent on corrupting and twisting the truth.

You have been hooked!

glacierman said...

Thanks GG, thought I was losing my mind there for a minute! Would love to read on your other blog, any chances?

glacierman said...

Off to the beach to soak up some rays with the family! Will resume later this evening...if there is anything worthy of debate, that is? ;^P

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

OHH Balbs,
Thank you for answering my posts. Also, I wanted to tell you before I forget again, when I was up there a couple of weeks ago I looked at you site of scuba diving. Very impressive! I had a friend at home check it out since she too loves scuba diving. Just wanted to let you know Im impressed with your work.

Glacierman, please give CS your email address so I can give you my blog site. Thanks!

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

OHHH and PLEASEEEEE do NOT call him SCENTY no more. I kind of take offense to this due to the meaning behind it. Geezz....you know...I hate when I hear kids call other kids names and try to make them feel bad..and also CS is saying nothing about this but you know..I am going to marry him one day soon and no matter what you all think, he deserves respect as well as all of you. I try doing just that..we all may not agree but that doesnt to make others feel like dirt. Ok..I think I said my peace. Thank you~

Consilium - Aarluk - Stonecircle said...

Gabriella, out of respect for you, I will refer to him as nothing but Sentinel from here on in. You have my word.

balbulican said...

"I looked at you site of scuba diving."

I am very, very glad you liked it! Our little team (my wife Valerie, my cinematographer buddy George, and his wife Janice) have just done a half hour pilot show for Moses Znaimer's new channel, highlighting older divers. I doubt it'll go into production (only about one of a hundred pitches make it) but it sure was fun to produce. Wanna see a sneak preview clip?

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

I'm the guy doing the narration, and in the water, I'm the diver in the yellow fins swimming up to the shark. My wife is the lady in the white hat in one of the early shots.

balbulican said...

Glacierman - I've known, loved, and learned from a lot of Christians. My parents, my sister, the priest who performed my marriage, and many others. They have enriched my life.

I've also, unfortunately, met a lot of shallow, bigoted "christians" who use their version of religion as a platform from which to piss on other who don't meet their very personal rules.

Dreadfully sorry, old sock - you really don't belong in the first category. :)

balbulican said...

One more note, Gabriella. I really appreciate the note of humanity you bring to this site. I know that I go over the edge in terms of personal attack. So does CS. I very much recognize the fact that you occasionally weigh in to keep things human, and to remind us that this really just people talking to other people. Thanks!

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Balbs,
I am going to site now. I am not a person to go into water that has..sharks, fish and so on, but I still find it facinating. I didnt know your wife also did this with you...very nice! Keeps a marriage happy.

Also, Balbs, I totally understand when you mentioned about "I've also, unfortunately, met a lot of shallow, bigoted "christians" who use their version of religion as a platform from which to piss on other who don't meet their very personal rules." I grew up in a family and was forced into their religion. As I got older I went my own path. Im not saying every religion is right, Im know we all have issues in them. So, trust me..I understand.

Also, Aarluck..mmm ok..thank you also for understanding. I must say, for a day starting off so crappy, Im glad theres a good ending. Thank you all. Now,,off to watch the video link...
PS..Yes Balbs, you are right,CS does that to and I have warned him ...lol. Gosh, I bet about this time he will be happy that I came into his life...haha.

Ohhhh,,,men...mmm, gotta love'em! Thanks everyone and hope I didnt come off to ...bitchy..not my intent.

Balbulican said...

Blessed are the peacemakers.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Yes, but remember that peace and vigilance walk hand in hand.

My answer to the question of allowing Muslims to hold public office is this.


Muslims are inextricable from Islam. Islam is inextricable from its defining tenants. Islam requires a caliphate. To my knowledge this type of requirement is unique to Islam. As this requirement is in direct conflict with the first amendment of The Constitution of The United States, so is Islam and, therefore, so are Muslims by their own requirement. As no Muslim can honestly swear to uphold The Constitution in this regard, no Muslim should be elected or be allowed to hold a position requiring the oath. This, of course, includes citizenship. The conflict with freedom of religion is solely theirs.
The suggestion that those who have the preservation of The Constitution as their agenda are in conflict with freedom of religion is a purposeful lie.

Canadian Sentinel said...

It would be fair if Muslim and Christian politicians were equally scrutinized, questioned, etc., by those who currently only dare to do so to Christian ones.

Alas, I don't see those "progressives" being thusly fair.

Interesting, isn't it?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Why are "progressive" political activists/propagandists not questioning Muslim politicians re their faith and loyalty to the Constitution as they are Christian ones?

balbulican said...

"No Muslim should be elected or be allowed to hold a position requiring the oath. This, of course, includes citizenship. "

Thanks. Now I know as much about you as I will ever need to.

balbulican said...

"Why are "progressive" political activists/propagandists not questioning Muslim politicians re their faith and loyalty to the Constitution as they are Christian ones?"

I guess you'd have to find a progressive activist who thinks Christians can't be trusted to separate Church and State. That wouldn't be me, I'm afraid.

I wasn't going to bother with Glacier's little tantrum, but your question and Squiggles' admission that he thinks Muslims should be barred from public office reminded me of why I referenced Kennedy, specifically.

The biggest barrier to his candidacy was his Catholicism, and a vestigial fear among Americans that as a Catholic he was under the domination of Rome - that he could never be trusted to act in the best interests of America if public matters conflicted with his private faith.

As I stated above, I would oppose any politician - Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jew - who declared their intention of putting their beliefs ahead of the will of their constituents. That's not a "progressive" thing. Both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin (and many others) have stated explicitly that they have had to subordinate their private religious principles to the will of their party and of Parliament.

∞ ≠ ø said...

And in Canada a woman can strangle to death a 14 year old girl with a scarf, her daughter no less, and get probation for 3 years. That is a "progressive thing."
A pure genuflection before Sharia.

Your refusal to acknowledge the threat of Sharia has directly contributed to Canada's failure to defend the rights of that poor girl, and many others. You have her blood on your hands. This much I know about you.

I amazes me that a person mired in the results of European colonization on native North Americans cannot see the ramifications of Islamic colonization.

As you continue your elitist little march, bearing the white man's burden, know this. The fragile cultures you work with now are the most vulnerable. Their trust in you is misguided.

balbulican said...

LOL. I'll let them know you said so.

glacierman said...

Balb, thanks for the vote of confidence!

I am just thankful that my standing and validation comes from my Creator, not you and your opinion, which you give us regularly. As you have clearly stated that you are an atheist, I find it sad, but not without much surprise, that you seem to know my spiritual state and the degree of my relationship with God. Because I disagree with you and state some points about history and constitutional items, you turn the attack personal and are unwilling to stay on topic and refute my points.

Your "progressive" view on separation of Church and State is bass-ackwards as is the case with most on the left.

PMSH is not our Prime Minister to preach his personal views on matters, but you and other progs think that Christians should be quiet about their personal beliefs, but to separate the man from his beliefs is a mind-game that the left loves to play. You don't say the same about the Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Communists, Atheist and other religions of the world. Just as Infin stated, the Muslims don't and won't, as prescribed by their faith, be loyal to any political party, system or government if it does not submit itself to the tenants of Islam.
The Pilgrams left England to start a new life in America so as to leave behind the oppression of the State over the Church because as history has proven over and over again, when you take God out of the state, the State always tries to eliminate those who stand in the way of "progressive" ideas.

Balb, because your beliefs don't include God, you have proven to be intolerant of those who do. How are those progressive ideas, when you exclude but demand inclusion?

balbulican said...

"I find it sad, but not without much surprise, that you seem to know my spiritual state and the degree of my relationship with God."

Really? You've made it pretty clear.

"You and other progs think that Christians should be quiet about their personal beliefs."

Not at all, dear boy. Believe what you want. Just don't impose your beliefs on me: and if I elect you, I expect you to listen to your constituency.

'You don't say the same about the Muslims, Hindus, Sihks, Communists, Atheist and other religions of the world."

I guess you didn't read my prior statements very carefully. Try again.

"Muslims don't and won't, as prescribed by their faith, be loyal to any political party, system or government if it does not submit itself to the tenants of Islam"

LOL. I'm going to guess you don't know or work with many Muslims.

'Balb, because your beliefs don't include God, you have proven to be intolerant of those who do."

Oh, no, my dear fellow. I'm only intolerant, as I've said several times, of folks like you - the smug, judgemental ones who give religion a bad name.I have the utmost respect for those seek to embody the humility and compassion of Christ.

But I think we've had this conversation before, and you're just dipping back into the same old bucket. Anything new to introduce?

Canuckguy said...

@ GG
"..OK..so my comments were directed to Canuckguy...sorry ;)"

Well at least I don't call him Scenty.

balbulican said...

Neither will I. I promised.

Gabriella Grizzly of US said...

Canuckguy and Balbs,,true he did and yes you did promise ;)
Oh, by the way Balbs...watched that..very nice. How big was it did you ever figure it out? If you have more to watch let me know..interesting for sure.

Well, carry on men..lol.

∞ ≠ ø said...

A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine …percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:
Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%


And in 2003 according to Pew Research

Catholic: 8%
Jewish: 10%
Evangelical Christian: 15%
Muslim: 38%
Atheist: 50%


"...non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups."

And, according to Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Muslim Americans continue to give President Barack Obama the highest job approval rating of any major religious group in the U.S.

Awwwww isn't that special?

balbulican said...

"How big was it did you ever figure it out?"

It was about eight feet shorter than the length of the boat, so about 28-30 feet long. They're impressive (biggest living fish), but not in the least bit dangerous.

Glad you liked it. I'll let you if we put any more up.

glacierman said...

B - "Not at all, dear boy. Believe what you want. Just don't impose your beliefs on me: and if I elect you, I expect you to listen to your constituency."

Even if your constituents are telling your to vote against the constitution and the laws of the land? RIIIIGHT!! Activist politicians and judges are consistently voting against the will of the people and the laws of the land. They make it up as they go. I believe that it is the "feel good" form of politics. Whatever fells good and is popular, in a "progressive" sort of way, as you would say.

B - "LOL. I'm going to guess you don't know or work with many Muslims"

Kind of like the Muslims who I have worked with in the past you mean? Project much? Would those be the same Muslims just like the one that David Menzies just got punched in the face on Sunday by a Muslim woman "because she was insulted even though she was in public and had her picture taken, stating that it was against the Koran to have her picture taken" kind of Muslims? Then the police wouldn't allow him to press charges, even with witnesses right there willing to testify against the Muslim woman? Is that who you mean, Balb?

balbulican said...

Heh. No, I mean the real ones, GM, not the ones who live in the headlines on blogs like this, and, of course, in your demon haunted world. You know - the mayor of Calgary, my head researcher, our corporate archivist, my wife's Unit head, my niece's husband, a Conservative MP...you know, just regular folks.

Now, these are the folks that Squiggles would bar from public office. I guess you and he think they're all plotting Jihad and laying plans for the Emirate. You figure?

balbulican said...

"Even if your constituents are telling your to vote against the constitution and the laws of the land? RIIIIGHT!! Activist politicians and judges are consistently voting against the will of the people and the laws of the land. They make it up as they go. I believe that it is the "feel good" form of politics. Whatever fells good and is popular, in a "progressive" sort of way, as you would say. "

Now take a deep breath, little fella. You're getting all sweaty and excited again. Let's just looks at what you said.

You're worried about:
a) citizens who tell their politicians to vote against the law and the constitution
b) politicians and judges who vote against the will of their constituents and the law

So you don't trust voters, politicians, OR the judges? Well, damn, son, no wonder you're so depressed.

I kinda go back to that old Democracy thing. I figure if the politicians screw up, the voters will throw them out. Old fashioned of me, I know.

Anyhow, thanks for shining a little more light on your fears - talking about this is probably healthy for you. But you sorta missed my point, which had to do with the link between personal religious belief and one's duty as an elected legislator.

glacierman said...

So, Balb,

Are you in support of the legislation of the gun registry which most of the citizens in Canada didn't want, but that the Liberals brought in? That kind of activist law? Or the carbon tax here to stop Global Warming? Those kind of laws?

All they are are wealth transfer laws.

Any other "fear" issues you think I have? These are real life examples. How about yours?

balbulican said...

Err...no, I don't support the gun registry. I lived for too long among people who hunt for their food.

Which carbon tax law specifically are you referring to?

You do understand that we live in a parliamentary democracy, right? Not a giant public opinion poll?

As for your fear issues, well, you seem mortally terrified of Muslims, you don't trust voters, or judges, or politicians...scary little world you live in. You should travel more.

glacierman said...

Balb, I've been to Disneyland 17 (guess where that is) times, my Grandparents church was in the middle of East Los Angelas which we went to numerous times during each visit, making friends with the kids in the "hood", so if you would like to talk down to me like I'm 12 and still in my mommy's basement that is your right, but I am tired of your condescending "progressiveness".

If you think that our nation is beyond repairs and renovations, without anything to fix, you are a lucky but deluded man living in your progressive utopia.

Me, I believe that we can do better, become more tolerant without giving up our personal convictions, and having the right to downsize our intruding governments who exercise their authority over us like we are brainless sheeple. We can then become more independent, outside the box thinkers making us much more productive individuals. All I have ever heard from you is platitudes of the liberal left, not allowing me the freedoms of association, freedom of movement and freedom of speech as it may "offend" somebody else's beliefs or hurt their feelings. Ones who have come to this nation and are intent in making it just like the nation they just left because of all the corruption, violence, murder and starvation.

You need to use a little direction in switching off the CBC-mind-teat and grabbing another flavour for a day or two. Might be a bit scary for you, but you will get used to it...if you can handle the mothership withdrawal.

balbulican said...

"I've been to Disneyland 17 times."

ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the best laugh of the week. I hope you don't mind if I quote you on this? I don't think I've every heard anyone cite their visits to Disneyland as evidence of their cultural sophistication before. That's priceless.

"I am tired of your condescending "progressiveness"."

Sorry, I didn't know about your visits to Disneyland at the time. I'll show much more respect for your views on geopolitics and intercultural relations from now on. :)

"If you think that our nation is beyond repairs and renovations, without anything to fix, you are a lucky but deluded man living in your progressive utopia."

You really MUST learn to read more carefully, GM. There's lots of work still to do. After all, we have a Conservative government to get rid of. So we agree - there's LOTS to do.

"All I have ever heard from you is platitudes of the liberal left..."

I suspect that's because you're not a very good reader, and not particularly thoughtful, and you tend to reduce your input to the predigested cliches you're conditioned to expect, and either don't understand or don't recognize much else. I'm thinking that must be the root of some of your more baffling misconceptions - that I must hate the gun registry, that I must hate Christians, that I somehow want to stifle your freedom of speech, yada yada yada.

I LOVE your freedom of speech. It affords me endless hours of amusement.

glacierman said...

Glad I could finally get some real laughter out of you with the DL reference, you do have a sense of humour. B^D

Once again you missed the point about East LA, (sigh) a community with many challenges, but still made up of people who gained our love and respect, to the point of protecting us when newbies entered the hood and continued their crime sprees in the church parking lot. The perps took a beating on more than one occasion from the locals.

"...we have a Conservative government to get rid of. So we agree - there's LOTS to do."

And replace them with what?...(snicker, gaffah, chortle) The gun registry legislators? The Kyoto protocol inventors and signators? Let me guess...the deal on a napkin and little brown baggers? The multiculturists?

I hear there is a great island which you all could go try out these ideas on first, to populate till your hearts content. Or even better, you could throw open your arms (because liberals love everybody...but Conservatives;0) you all could have unlimited immigration, no restrictions, just the rich ones though! It may be a bit cold for most of the year, but that would give you more time for your group-hugs and huddled-up-think-tanks. Baffin Island has real great views and real estate is very reasonable. Good luck with that!

balbulican said...

Yes, I lived in Iqaluit for four years. Quite liked it, and I still do a fair amount of work there.

You're wrong about the price of real estate (it's horrifically expensive, and land within municipalities can't be privately owned, just leased) but then you're wrong about most things anyway. ;)

Give my regards to Goofy.

glacierman said...

Your cousin says "hi", but wonders what's up with your politics? He even recognizes a socialist when he sees one!
I had to explain that living in Trudaupia has that effect on people. The closer to the epicenter the more the spin!
That's when he really started to "yuk" it up!

By the way, that capitalistic Mickey, says hi too!

balbulican said...

Been to Baffin yourself?

glacierman said...

No, just really good friends.

What do you want to name the Liberal mecca? Balby World?

Then again, I better get up there before you Liberals take over, the hands on security checks and visit permits might make the trip less desireable...all in the name of safety...of course!!!

Balbulican said...

I think you're tuning out of steam on this one, gm. Getting a bit leaden.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Err...no, I don't support the gun registry. I lived for too long among people who hunt for their food.

My how convenient that answer is. Now let's see what's under the covers.

http://voiceofcanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/caledonia-palestinian-flag.jpeg

http://voiceofcanada.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/hezbollah-leader-mohawk-warrior-flag-palestinian-flag.jpg

balbulican said...

"Now let's see what's under the covers."

Err - actually, Squiggles, I was referring to my years in Nunavut, where everyone still hunts. Nice try, though.

∞ ≠ ø said...

It's a curious aberration for a lefty none the less. Clearly the juxtaposition I have offered shows a stark and very relevant contrast.

Let's use the term subsistence hunters for your example and assume they are outside the "reasonable day trip" for food status.

Arguably under... what 3, 2% of the population?

Do you consider your perspective to be "but for the sake of."

And then, to press the question, why?

Unnecessary burden of fees and renewals?

Lack of trust in government to use the registry information appropriately?

Uncertainty about information security?

Or, perhaps, a lack of faith in the Canadian people to continue to elect appropriate stewards of said program?

Keep Caledonia-Hezbollah-Mohawk Warrior stuff and the anti terrorism act in mind.

I am genuinely interested to see how you resolve this.

balbulican said...

I'm sorry, that wasn't very coherent. Could you rephrase? I don't understand what you're asking.

∞ ≠ ø said...

I don't support the gun registry. I lived for too long among people who hunt for their food.

I'm asking you to explain what has driven you to this conclusion.

I have added some speculative reasons for you to steer around or include.

I also have pointed out the vast difference(or perhaps not) between
the Mohawk Warriors and the Inuit of the place never to be referred to as Iqualuit.

balbulican said...

" I'm asking you to explain what has driven you to this conclusion."

Thanks, that's clearer.

My exposure to firearms over the course of my life has been benign. As a kid, they were recreational (riflery at camp and at the cottage). As a late teen and in my early twenties I hunted a bit, recreationally. But when I moved to Iqaluit (which involved extended stretches of living in Baker Lake and Cambridge Bay, and lots of travel to other Nunavut and Nunavik communities), I found myself in a culture where rifles were tools and hunting was an integral part of the territorial economy, both directly for consumption and indirectly for the use/sale of byproducts (e.g., subsistence hunters paid for their gas and ammo by selling seal pelts). Guns were just part of the landscape; everyone had them, everyone used them; it was one of the basic lifeskills you were expected to master.

For the primarily urban Canadian population whose exposure to firearms is largely through movies, I understand the urge to regulate. But that's not how I see guns.

I hope that helps. I'm still not clear on what point you're trying to make vis-a-vis Inuit and Mohawks.

Anonymous said...

Had to go on a search myself to find some kind of evidence where it was not put out by any one side. Below is the video I think you should all watch, if you have not seen as of yet.

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=36422

∞ ≠ ø said...

The contrast between Inuits in Inqaliut with MohawkWarriors in Caledonia should clearly demonstrate that guns have never been and never will be just tools for hunting.

I was curious to measure whether your opinion on this issue resembled conservative thinking. But what I am seeing is a narrowly constructed "but for the sake of the few" type of resolution based on a selectively blinded perspective of firearms.

That's insane or Uber-liberal.

Your ability to cleave the larger picture in this matter makes it clear that a discussion concerning the threat of the islamization of native peoples would be silly.

You work with and have Muslims in your family. You will never allow yourself to see past that. It stands to reason that your perspective on sharia is equally selectively blinded.

How convenient.

How elite.

balbulican said...

LOL. I keep forgetting not take you seriously, ever. Mea culpa; I'll remember from here on in.