So if a Church of Christ somewhere is linked to terrorist activity, then it deserves to be siezed.
DUH. Badger40 on November 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

A church somewhere is a lot different than daily attacks.

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

Etc.

- The Cat

jgdp on November 13, 2009 at 9:49 PM

In your dreams, pal, and only in your dreams.

I doubt at this point we’ll ever try to purge the ranks of our own armed forces; it would take many more Fort Hoods before survival instincts finally overrode the PC buls–t paralyzing out nation.

RD on November 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Seize’em and sell’em to ACORN for pimp housing projects.

hillbillyjim on November 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM

I say we put all the Truthers in the skyscraper and test their deliberate demolition theory out. Rosie O’Donnell goes on the top floor.

US to seize mosques, skyscraper tied to Iran

There’s something else going on here. I doubt the seizures are taking place to protect America. Remember, people like Barack Obama, they give you the politically correct; the politically correct lesson, which is the opposite of what our conclusion should be about the threat of Islam, the Holocaust, Nazi dictators like Hitler and Ahmadinejad, Marxist dictators like Putin. Our conclusion should be that you destroy your enemies and you kill Nazi’s and you save your people and you don’t worry about world opinion and you don’t worry about anything else. And because left-wingers don’t think like this, there is something else going on here.

I’d suggest that everyone check into CAIR’s web site on a regular basis. Know Thy Enemy….

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Sure it did, it just stole from the German pagan system, and added some of it’s own. You didn’t have a problem with islam stealing belief systems from other religions, or scientology’s self-admitted criminal intent, one wonders why you’ve turned squeamish over this particular example.

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:27 PM

We also have a definition of “cult”, which is not a valid religion.

Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Ok. Last comment. Scientology is a tex exempt religious organization. It meets both cultural and legal definitions of a religion. The nazis grafted religion on to a political ideology but it’s actually missing a cosmology, prayer life, and it certainly had atheistic tendencies. Spiritual and religious are not the same as far as nazis go. Really do have to catch a plane now. Have a great weekend!

No. It isn’t.

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 5:10 PM

The nazis took the old German paganism and grafted it onto their ideology, forming a “political religion” that meets all your criteria. It certainly was less absurd than other examples you claimed were religions, like my morning bowel movement or scientology.

According to your definition, it is

No. It isn’t. Where’s the theology? the cosmology? The eschatology? The prayer life? The divine commands? The relationship with the supernatural? There are religious overtones but it doesn’t actually meet the requirements.

Here’s a fun idea.

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Ask them if nazism is a religion.

According to your definition, it is. Will you find one in a million, one in ten million, who will say yes? Doubtful.

People say islam is a religion because they’ve been told it is, and there is appalling ignorance about what it actually believes. If they knew the truth, that it’s far more violent, barbaric, and dangerous than nazism ever was, there is no doubt the majority of Americans would say islam is not a religion, nor deserving of any protection or consideration of one.

I doubt you’ll find one person in a thousand who would agree with your “general consensus”.

Here’s a fun idea. Stop a thousand Americans on the street and ask them which of the following are religions: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Jedi

I’d predict almost universal acceptance of the first two and a good number for the last ;>

Any definition that includes anything up to and including my morning dump, is wrong, and I doubt you’ll find one person in a thousand who would agree with your “general consensus”.

It’s just the consensus definition in a dictionary, in law, in most schools of theology, etc. All of these people would probably also say that any religion centered on your bowel movements is a ridiculous religion but that doesn’t mean that it is less of one.

I also find it ironic, that someone would go to such lengths to defend islam as a religion, when it specifically claims to be the only religion, has as it’s express goal to destroying all other faiths, and gleefully uses violence to force conversion and approves of the murder of those who refuse.

Again – I’m not defending Islam I’m defending the idea that it meets the currently established definition of a religion. That’s the way conservatism works – we keep the values, concepts, and definitions as they are barring a very good reason to change them. Once we decide there is a good reason for the change we then clearly establish what the new form is.

Nobody is establishing WHAT this new idea of religion that doesn’t include Islam is – they just want to say “But not them!” and expect everything else to follow.

Conservation of ideas, institutions, and concepts.

And yet I don’t come up with the commonly agreed definitions.

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Any definition that includes anything up to and including my morning dump, is wrong, and I doubt you’ll find one person in a thousand who would agree with your “general consensus”.

It’s nonsense, and anyone with an iota of common sense will tell you so.

I also find it ironic, that someone would go to such lengths to defend islam as a religion, when it specifically claims to be the only religion, has as it’s express goal to destroying all other faiths, and gleefully uses violence to force conversion and approves of the murder of those who refuse.

A smart fellow like you should be up to that task.

Rebar on November 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM

And yet I don’t come up with the commonly agreed definitions. I’m not the author of general consensus. (General – not universal) If you want a new one that excludes those things it’s up to you to come up with it, spread it, and convince other people that this should be the REAL definition rather than the “overly broad” and “highly flawed” one you object to now.

And be sure to consider all the loose threads when you do it. ‘Cause I’m sure all those monks, priests, imams, lamas, popes, saints, evangelists, etc. are just waiting to hear how they got it wrong.

dieudonne on November 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM

You keep defending your overly broad, and since it can included worshiping my morning dump, highly flawed definition of religion.

No one is buying it.

A better definition would exclude my bowel movement, and the even more disgusting islam, while including civilized creeds like Christianity of it’s various denominations, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, and all other faiths based on peace and coexistance.

A smart fellow like you should be up to that task.