Muslim Woman Leads Prayer to Allah on Wisconsin Assembly Floor

Najeeb-compressedMADISON, Wisc. — A Muslim woman led the first prayer to Allah on the Wisconsin Assembly floor on Thursday.

Janan Najeeb, the president of the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and founder of the Islamic Resource Center, had been invited to give the invocation by Rep. Mandela Barnes, D-Milwaukee, who professes to be a Christian. He told reporters that he invited Najeeb to promote diversity and portray Muslims in a positive light.

“There is just so much for us to get over in terms of our fears,” Barnes told the Journal Sentinel.

Najeeb said that it was her hope that lawmakers “will realize that Muslims are part of the fabric of our society … and we are adding our story to the stories of the many communities that came before us and created this country.”

In addition to offering an Islamic prayer, she also read from the Koran, citing Ar-Rum 30:22 and Al-Hujurat 49:13.

“And among his Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations in your languages and your colors: verily in that are signs for those who know,” Najeeb read. “O mankind, we have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.”

Najeeb is married to physician Waleed Najeeb, and was among those who opposed a recent move by the manufacturing company Ariens to change its prayer policy to prohibit prayer breaks other than at meals. A number of Muslims quit their job due to the rule as the Islamic faith requires prayer five times a day at specific times.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It’s no longer than some other employees probably taking some bathroom breaks,” she stated. “They’re being basically asked to choose between their employment and their faith.”

Najeeb recently gave the presentation “Understanding the Islamic Faith: Commonalities With Christianity and the Role of Women” before the Roman Catholic School Sisters of St. Francis in Milwaukee.

As previously reported, in 2014, an Islamic imam led a prayer before the U.S. House of Representatives as those representing the people from states across America stood with their heads bowed and eyes closed.

“In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful,” declared Imam Hamad Ahmad Chebli of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey. “Praise be to Allah, the cherisher, the sustainer of the world, the most gracious, the most merciful master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship and thine do we seek.”

“Guide us to the safe path,” Chebli continued. “The god of the prophets and the messenger says in the Koran [that] he does not place a responsibility on you greater than you can bear. Everyone will receive the good they have earned and vice versa.”

Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey also noted on the House floor that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had “appointed [Chebli] to the governor’s leadership summit on diversity.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Joshua Krug

    John 10:10 The thief comes only in order to steal, kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, life in its fullest measure.

    “I have come,” – the one who is called the Son of God.

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion; nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    That’s the beauty with freedom of religion: citizens have the freedom to pray in legislatures all across this land, regardless of their faith. I vehemently disagree with the muslim religion on many points, but as citizens, they have every right to offer prayers, as do Buddhists, Sikhs, Pantheists, or Christians.

    As for specifics with our Muslim neighbors, ask them if I, as a Christian, would be allowed to open a session of the Iranian parliament with a prayer, or as a Christian, be allowed to travel to Mecca and offer a prayer at the Kaaba?

    Have that Muslim explain the obvious answer: No. There is no freedom of religion in Islam. Yet, they utilize that freedom provided here in the USA. Odd, yes.

    • Cady555

      Iran is a theocracy. A Christian theocracy would be just as unpleasant, as evidenced by Christian theocracies that have existed in the past.

      The Constitution of the United States establishes a secular government and specifically prohibits government favoritism of one religious view over another. This is a good thing.

      • nobody

        The “expert” speaks (contradicts himself) again.

        “Our beloved pilgrims created a theocracy. They didn’t just require that people be Christian.”
        um, then it’s not a “theocracy.”

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Try reading that again. The point just passed you right by.

          • nobody

            LOL, ambulance chaser. Appropriate name.

        • gizmo23

          You should read before insulting, but that seems common for conservative Christians

          • nobody

            Ironic. You did exactly the same thing. Or maybe I mean “hypocrite” — I always get those terms confused, being a conservative Christian and all.

        • acontraryview

          Please note the word “just” in the sentence you quoted. It indicates that they DID require that people be Christian, and further required them to be adherents to a particular sect of Christianity. Failure to do so was punishable by imprisonment and/or exile.

      • afchief

        What is the purpose of the Constitution? To set up a government that acknowledges our equality in God’s eyes (and yes, the equality stops right there, except for the idea that all men should have equality before the law in a courtroom) and allows us to exercise our “unalienable rights,” among other things. The Declaration states our independence from tyranny, and so the obvious need for the Constitution is at hand.

        If you liberals wish to discount our Declaration or discount God’s presence in the Declaration, then the purpose of our very existence as a nation becomes somewhat confused. The Founders created a constitutional republic, but why? For what purpose? The Declaration gives the why and purpose. A part of the Founders’ justification for declaring independence was that King George III “broke covenant” with the colonists for many reasons, and “covenant” is a sober biblical concept.

        Just so that we are clear about all of these matters, most Christians do not advocate a theocracy, although progressives delight in announcing otherwise. It’s just that the liberal construct of “separation of church and state” has mutated into state-enforced atheism. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” It is about Congress! Not the people! It does not say that Christians cannot influence or be involved in government. It does not say that God has to be removed from anything government has its tentacles in. It does not say that the ACLU can remove a Christian symbol at will or with the threat of litigation. Progressives have used the ruse of “separation of church and state,” which is not in the Constitution, to rabidly attack everything Christian. Christians should have as much influence in our culture and on our government as anyone else. Behind every law is some sort of value, and the source of that value is vital.

        Now, here is another item of galactic importance in our Declaration. Here is what it says: that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights[.]” Those rights, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” are from God Himself, not from governments or government leaders. So the Declaration is a most vital statement by the Founders. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized. To an atheist leader like Stalin, Lenin, Mao or Hitler, people have no God-given rights at all.

        So now we are at a vital point: most of the time, when someone removes God from an equation, the result is confusion, dysfunction, and incoherency. Liberalism does this routinely and with reckless abandon. It is incoherent to suggest that abortion does not snuff out a life. It is incoherent to suggest that there is virtue in deficit spending. It is incoherent to suggest that there is no God, and Hitler just died and that’s the end of it.

        But for most progressives, that incoherence is preferable to the difficulty of having God in the equation. If God is in the equation, then maybe He has something to say about how I live and what I do. He might very well have some sort of claim on my very existence.

        The Founding Fathers were an enlightened bunch, and they afforded God his proper place. In the beginning…

        • acontraryview

          “To set up a government that acknowledges our equality in God’s eyes”

          No, the purpose of the Constitution was to set up a government that acknowledges our equality in the eyes of the government.

          “If you liberals wish to discount our Declaration or discount God’s presence in the Declaration”

          The word “God” does not appear in the DoI.

          “The Founding Fathers were an enlightened bunch, and they afforded God his proper place. In the beginning…”

          Agreed. They afforded God a place in their personal religious practices. They purposely omitted any reference to God or Christianity in the Constitution.

          As I’ve mentioned before, Russ, it is considered plagiarism (lying) when you attempt to pass off the work of others as your own. In this case, you failed to provide attribution to the actual author of those words – Ron Hunnicutt – and instead tried to pass them on as your words. Tsk, tsk.

          • afchief

            More proof you are a LIAR!!!

          • acontraryview

            Please cite what proof you offer.

          • afchief

            I won’t bother with the rest because I will not waste my time with a LIAR!!!

            The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

            IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

            The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

            When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

          • acontraryview

            My apologies. I misspoke. The term “Nature’s God” does appear in the Constitution. That does not, however, equate to singling out the Christian view of God.

            No, Russ, back to what I said that was a lie. Is that it?

          • Celephais

            In the minds of almost all of the founders, that is exactly what “nature’s God” signified. What else could it be? “Endowed by our Creator” means the God of Genesis.

          • acontraryview

            “In the minds of almost all of the founders, that is exactly what “nature’s God” signified.”

            Really? How is it you know what was in the minds of the founders? Have you’ve discussed this with them? If they meant the God of the Bible, why not just say so?

          • Celephais

            How did you know what was in my mind? I wrote it down for you. They wrote a lot of things that were on their minds too, and you can actually go to a library or online and read them! Since they considered rights to be bestowed on human nature by God, not by the government, maybe that’s why they wrote “nature’s God.” I don’t think they had any other God in mind, since they were Christians in a Christian culture.

          • Quantz

            Must you shriek LIAR!!! at people who prove you wrong?

          • Ambulance Chaser


          • Quantz

            I appreciate your tenacity with afchief. He seems to think screaming and bludgeoning and name calling will get people to back down, and sadly, most of the time, it does.

          • Celephais

            The constitution did not have to include a reference to God, since at the time it was adopted, all the state constitutions included, not only such references, but requirements that state officials be Christian, or at least profess belief in God. The constitution limited the power of the federal government, not that of the states. That was the way it was set up at first. Gradually, especially after the Civil War, the federal government usurped more power until the states became virtual satrapies or bureaucratic divisions of the federal government, which influences their rules and policies by threatening to withhold federal funding; a cozy little extortion racket.

          • acontraryview

            “”The constitution did not have to include a reference to God, since at the time it was adopted, all the state constitutions included, not only such references, but requirements that state officials be Christian, or at least profess belief in God.”

            Really? State Constitutions that existed prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution? And that required state officials to be Christian or at least profess belief in God? What states were those? Odd, then, that the founders chose to include Clause 3, in Article VI, of the Constitution which specifically states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Why do you think they would have included that?

            “the federal government usurped more power”

            In what manner did the federal government “usurp” power?

            “by threatening to withhold federal funding; a cozy little extortion racket.”

            Since the states are not required to take federal funds, how could the withholding of federal funds be “extortion”? The states are completely free to fund themselves. if they choose to change their policies based upon receipt of funds, that would seem to be an issue of state greed rather than federal extortion, wouldn’t it?

            What specific rules and policies are you referring to?

          • Celephais

            What was the nation called? The United STATES of America, right? All the states existed as colonies first, before independence. When they ratified the declaration, they became states, and adopted constitutions of their own. The federal government was not at first conceived as dictating to the states, as it is today; the states jealously guarded their autonomy, and adopted the constitution specifically to limit the size of the government by delegating the specific powers it could exercise. Look at the last amendments in the Bill of Rights: all powers not specifically granted to the federal government were reserved to the states, or to the people. The establishment clause therefore prohibited congress, not the state legislatures, from establishing a religion, and the religious test applied to the federal government, not the states.
            Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780, required every governor and legislator to profess the Christian religion, “and have a firm persuasion of its truth.”
            South Caroline constitution, 1788: “The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of the state.”
            Constitution of Maryland, 1776, required a declaration of belief in the Christian religion from every office holder, and authorized the legislature to levy a tax for the support of the Christian religion.
            Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776, required each member of its legislature to declare belief in “one God, the creator and Governor of the universe” and to acknowledge th inspiration of the Old and New testaments.
            Other states had similar provisions, and you can look them up at your leisure in a book called “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States,” by Benjamin F. Morris, reprinted by American Vision, 2007.

          • acontraryview

            And then along came that pesky Federal Constitution that all the states agreed to. What WERE they thinking?

            I’ll ask again:

            in what manner did the Federal Government “usurp” power?

            Since the states are not required to take federal funds, how could the withholding of federal funds be “extortion”? The states are completely free to fund themselves. if they choose to change their policies based upon receipt of funds, that would seem to be an issue of state greed rather than federal extortion, wouldn’t it?

            What specific rules and policies are you referring to?

          • Celephais

            There is legal coercion and there is, for lack of a better word, emotional coercion. The “extortion” refers to subtle dependencies of that sort. Consider human nature. Once states start depending on free federal money, it’s hard to give it up, especially when officials would have to replace it by raising taxes of voters whom they depend on to reelect them. Are there not many policies which must be followed in order to continue receiving federal funding? Sure, the states could forego that money, but they have strong motivation not to.

            As for states, technically you are correct. However, the mentality of the time was that most people were loyal to their state, or colony, first and the nation second. That state of mind was a major cause of the Civil War. After that conflict, the relationship of states to the nation changed radically but gradually, with state powers and independence being taken over by the federal government. This was often a good thing, but it was different.

          • acontraryview

            I’m glad we agree that “extortion” was hyperbole.

            “That state of mind was a major cause of the Civil War.”

            The major cause of the Civil War was economic.

            “Are there not many policies which must be followed in order to continue receiving federal funding?”

            Yes. The receipt of money typically comes with requirements. But, again, they are not required to take the money, therefore they are not required to change any of their policies.

    • nobody

      Not only “no freedom of religion in Islam/Iran,” they (Iran) will imprison you for preaching Christianity there, as they did Pastor Adbedini who was just released after years of prison.

    • WhiteHorse

      well stated.

    • afchief

      Islam is a world take over cult that masquerades as a religion

      • C_Alan_Nault

        All religions are cults.

        • Celephais

          Nonsense. The typical cult isolates its members, forbidding or discouraging contact with non-members; it enforces the authority of one leader who exercises absolute power within the cult, and whose power cannot be questioned. These are not features of Christianity, for example, or of other major religions.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Who gets to define what a “typical” cult is?

            Here’s the dictionary definition of the word:

            Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

            By this definition, all religions are cults. One person’s cult is another person’s religion.

          • Celephais

            I was responding to the unspoken implication that all religions operate more or less like Jim Jones or David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon and their followers. That is an absurd distortion of the truth which is not corrected by a superficially correct, but popularly inaccurate, definition. Sociologists who study phenomena such as the groups I mention have isolated these typical features, which are not typical of major religions.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Christianity, for example, or of other major religions.”

            Who gets to define what is & isn’t a major religion?

          • Celephais

            Do you really see no difference in degree between a religion with hundreds of millions of adherents over many centuries, and the 12 or so people in the Heaven’s Gate cult who killed themselves because the aliens didn’t beam them up? Who gets to write the dictionaries? Common sense gets to define what is, and what is not, a major religion.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Sure, there are differences. But large religions are large cults & small religions are small cults.

            “Who gets to write the dictionaries? ”

            Any who wants to can write a dictionary. After it’s written, other people get to decide if they want to use your dictionary or an established dictionary.

            “Common sense gets to define what is, and what is not, a major religion.”

            Common sense is a bad way to decide things. Common sense tells us the world is flat. Common sense tells us the Earth is immobile & the sun moves around the Earth.

            And a major religion is still a cult.

          • Celephais

            Only if you subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty school of definition, in which “a word means what I want it to mean, no more and no less.” Okay, but good luck communicating with people.

    • acontraryview

      “As for specifics with our Muslim neighbors, ask them if I, as a Christian, would be allowed to open a session of the Iranian parliament with a prayer”

      How is that relevant? The Iranian Constitution does not provide the protections and freedoms as the US Constitution.

      “or as a Christian, be allowed to travel to Mecca and offer a prayer at the Kaaba?”

      Travel to Mecca and visitation at the Kaaba is not restricted based upon religious belief.

      “There is no freedom of religion in Islam.”

      Islam is not a country.

      “Yet, they utilize that freedom provided here in the USA. Odd, yes.”

      Odd that you are comparing freedoms provided by a nation’s Constitution with a religious belief.

    • Peter Leh

      “Yet, they utilize that freedom provided here in the USA. Odd, yes.”

      why would that be odd? Is this not the very reason our ancestors came to america?

    • malaka_eneuresis

      Howcum the apostate and the Kaffir are slaughtered ?

  • Cady555

    This is what freedom of religion looks like. Government treats all religious views equally. This is a good thing. It would be better if no religious observation were included in the agenda of a legislative body. But equal treatment is the next best thing.

  • Ben Welliver

    Madison is uber-liberal, always trying to be the San Francisco of the Midwest. They despise Christians, and this episode was intended as a poke in the eye of Christians.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What kind of a legislative prayer schedule would you prefer to see?

      • The Last Trump

        The kind that actually produces blessings.
        You know, like the unprecedented blessings that America USED TO enjoy?
        When her people prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
        Yes, those were the days….
        Not doing so well currently, are we?
        Oh wait. You’re not one of those liberal whackos who actually believes that things are getting better!? ARE YOU!?
        Wow. Watch the news much?
        Maybe look up from your Christian website stalking from time to time and take a good look outside your window. Not pretty.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          In order to convince me of something, you have to make specific, testable statements that can be evaluated as either “true” or “false.” You can’t use “literally everything” as your barometer.

          • The Last Trump

            First off, “I” don’t have to convince YOU of anything.
            YOU are responsible for YOU. Cool huh?
            And secondly, see the historical record.
            Pretty basic stuff. Not a lot of “convincing” necessary.
            America prayed to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and honoured Jesus for centuries = blessings.
            America rejected and turned their backs on THAT God and dishonoured Jesus = collapse.
            Ahh yes. Simple math. Math is a great barometer. Math is our friend!
            OR….it could all just be another AMAZING COINCIDENCE!
            Sure, you bet on THAT. 🙂

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Or you could be just making stuff up. “Blessings” here, “collapse” there. What do those mean? What “blessings” and “collapse” are you referring to? And what do you attribute them to?

          • The Last Trump

            Again, historical record.
            Known history.
            You know, that “stuff”.
            No biggie.
            Making stuff up!? Hee, hee! What a kidder!

          • Quantz

            I think he means what specific events are you referring to, and I would also like to know. What’s a blessing, and what’s a collapse?

          • Celephais

            I read an article that compared what high school principals considered the main problems in their schools 50 years ago and what the main problems were today. 50 years ago, the main problems were kids smoking in the bathrooms, chewing gum, talking out of turn, skipping class. Now they are drugs, violence, beating up teachers, abortions. Looks like a collapse to me.

          • Quantz

            Meanwhile with scientific advances we are wiping out more and more of the diseases that killed us only a few years ago, living longer and healthier, and are taking advantage of new technology in ways we never dreamed of before.

          • Celephais

            True, but irrelevant. The advances you speak of do not occur because of the collapse we deplore, but in spite of it. In fact, some of them, such as surrogate parenting, chemical warfare, and euthanasia, enable the corruption to fester even deeper.

          • Quantz

            What, may I ask, is wrong with surrogate parenting or euthanasia?

          • Celephais

            Besides defying the will of God, surrogate parenting destroys family ties and weakens the already feeble roles of parents in today’s families. Euthanasia is just a euphemism for murder, which God has forbidden for any reason.

          • Quantz

            I cannot imagine ANYONE taking issue with surrogate parenting, which allows people unable to conceive on their own the opportunity to have children using their own biological material, and I find it offensive in the extreme that anyone would force a dying person to suffer a drawn out and painful demise rather than be spared the pain.

          • Celephais

            Thanks for illustrating my point.

          • Quantz

            Thanks for illustrating the version of Christianity you choose to follow.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You still can’t give anything specific when asked? Instead, you’re just basically saying “it’s obvious”…..not an answer.

          • The Last Trump

            Don’t tell me you’ve been waiting all this time for specific references on known history and documented fact!? Seriously!?
            Well your highness, please forgive me for not desiring to waste any further time on sheer stupidity and willful ignorance. Look it up.
            While you’re at it, why don’t you look for “specifics” that prove other known facts like water is wet, the sky is up, and Barack Obama is a black man!
            Hee, hee! “”Specifics”!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, you admit you don’t have anything specific to point to. I see.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh THAT’S what I did now, huh? Ahhhh. Yes, THAT must be it! 🙂
            I’m beginning to understand now how you ended up with such an inadequate education. My condolences.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Uh, yeah, it’s exactly what you’re doing. How is it not, if you’re just going to say the world is going into some kind of “collapse” without citing any kind of examples whatsoever? Oh, and then resorting to ad hominem attacks when questioned further?

          • Quantz

            What exactly is adorable about what he said, Mr. Smug-and-Superior?

          • Bob Johnson

            Maybe you should cut&paste all of Steven Pinker’s book “The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Tempting, but I’m above their tactics 🙂

          • gizmo23

            You mean those “centuries” when we sold and bought slaves and murdered natives?

          • DanH

            And if you’re not convinced, we’re supposed to just die of shame?
            Talk about egotism.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You said it, I didn’t.

          • DanH

            Get over yourself, missy. Your delusions of adequacy require medications.

          • You are an arrant fool. This is specific and testable. You can test this by comparing your conduct and manner to the conduct and manner of arrant fools. You agree in “literally everything”.

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Whenever I hear people looking back at the good old days, I wonder what they’re talking about. Are you talking about the unprecedented blessings of slavery for the Africans brought here against their will? Or the unprecedented blessings of genocide against the native Americans? Or perhaps you want to be move to more recent times, like the unprecedented blessings when women were not allowed to vote. Or the unprecedented blessing of the Great Depression? Or the tremendous blessing of wasting vast resources on the military, only to lose every war we’ve fought in the past 50 years (or more)? Or the unprecedented blessing of keeping every African-American in his/her place with segregated drinking fountains, poll taxes, segregated school systems? Are those the unprecedented blessings that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bestowed on the U.S.? Seems to me we’re doing vastly better than in those days. I suppose my view differs from yours, however.

          • The Last Trump

            Yes! Exactly!
            The blessings that ENDED all of those terrible evils man always attempts to inflict on his fellow man.
            Yes, you should definitely say thank you to the God who brought about such sweeping change for good in the Christian nations that civilized humanity. Thanks for that reminder trollmeister!

          • DanH

            Yeah, if you think the “marriage” of sodomites has created a utopia in America, then today is just wonderful. Talk about historical tunnel vision.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            I know two married gay/lesbian couples personally, and yes, I think this is a very good thing. They’ve been together for about 10/15 years and I do support their right to marry. Their love for each other, and commitment to each other deserves to be recognized.

          • DanH

            Right, love and commitment were not possible till the SCOTUS ruling.

            You people are so funny.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            As I said, that love and commitment deserves to be recognized, fully and completely with all the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. And it now is. Get over it!

          • afchief

            The Big Gay Lie (BGL) is that the gay lifestyle is the same as the straight lifestyle. The BGL has a number of facets including:

            • Lots of people are gay
            • Gay relationships are just like straight ones; they want long-term commitment
            • Being gay isn’t bad for your health
            • Gays are born that way

            The BGL has made the debate over gay marriage like a debate about smoking where no one realizes that smoking causes lung cancer.

            Before looking at what scientific studies tell us here’s some anecdotal evidence that people may already be familiar with:

            • When AIDS first struck gays fought tooth and nail to keep the bathhouses — where gays go for anonymous sex with strangers — open. Gays are so addicted to sex that even in the face of a fatal disease they didn’t want to curb their promiscuous lifestyle.

            • AIDS. While we’re constantly told that it’s not a gay disease the reality is that in the U.S. almost no one but gays get AIDS from sex. Yet even though condoms don’t stop the spread of AIDS gays continue to risk their lives to have sex with strangers

            • While everyone condemns crimes by priests and ministers against children, the fact is that 81% of the victims of priests have been young boys; the problem is a gay one.

            • NAMBLA — which advocates sex with 3 year olds — is an accepted part of the gay community. The organization marched in the SF Gay Pride parade for years before pressure from straights got the organization booted out due to bad optics.

            Very few people are gay:

            The debate about gay marriage has been skewed by a gross misrepresentation of the number of gays in America. While the average American thought 23% of Americans were gay the real number is 1.6% with only 3.8% of the population being LGBT.

            Gay relationships are nothing like straight ones:

            The simple reality is that the gay lifestyle consists of sex with many strangers and few if any long term, let alone monogamous, relationships.

            Less than 1% of gays report, to gay friendly researchers, to having sex with fewer than 5 partners. On the other hand, 43% report having more than 500 sexual partners including 28% who have had more than 1000 sexual partners.

            To put this in context, only 25% of heterosexual men have sex with more than 10 women in their lifetimes; women average 4.7 partners over their lives.

            Gay relationships rarely last more than 2 years. A study of gay “marriages” in Holland found that they last, on average, 1.5 years and that they are not monogamous. Another study showed that not a single gay couple was monogamous for more than five years. Straight marriages are far longer lasting and much more likely to be monogamous.

            For example in 2009 the average duration of an American woman’s first marriage was 20.8 years. Second marriages last 14.5 years. In 2009, 30% of American heterosexuals were not married, 55% had been married once, 12% had been married twice, and 3% had been married more than twice.

            This disparity isn’t surprising, given that men tend to be more promiscuous than women. A sexual relationship without a woman is hence likely to be based on sex, not love.

            Basically what passes for love in gay relationships is really lust or infatuation. It’s not the sort of love that keeps a couple faithful and together for decades. Gays as people deserve better than that, but they will never find it if they follow their inclinations.

            Being gay is very bad for your health:

            Being gay cuts roughly 20 years off of a man’s expected lifespan; smoking only cuts 10. That’s not surprising given the AIDS epidemic but the basically unhealthy sexual practices of gays lead to death and illness from sources other than AIDS as well.

            Additionally the gay community serves as a reservoir of other STDs due to the massively promiscuous nature of gay relationships.

            Finally the nature of gay “sex” leads to a wide variety of other problems — nature has taught us to not play with feces for a reason.

            Gays aren’t born gay:

            Even a cursory examination shows it’s absurd to think that gays are born gay, that there is a “gay” gene. Evolution teaches that genes that help an organism survive and reproduce endure and genes that hinder survival or reproduction disappear. Yet what gene could possibly be worse for reproduction than a “gay” gene? Clearly any person with a “gay” gene wouldn’t have had kids and hence the gene would disappear from the gene pool.

            Further many studies have shown that being gay is not genetic. Eight major studies of identical twins prove that being gay is not due to genetics. Identical twins have the same DNA and hence, if being gay is purely genetic, if one twin is gay the odds of the other being gay would be 100%. Yet the reality is on average the chance of the other twin being gay is around 12%.

            This does not mean that gays wake up one morning and decide to be gay. Studies have shown that gays are very likely to come from families with detached or absent fathers. That makes sense; gays turn to sex with men to replace the love they never had from their fathers. After all, our society is great at confusing sex with love.

            Given that being gay is not genetic it is likely that being gay is curable. While the MSM attacks any possibility of gays becoming heterosexual the reality is that cure rates of 30% or more may be possible for gays who want to be cured.

            Moving beyond the BGL:

            Why has the BGL been so successful? There are several reasons, but the primary one is that since gays are so rare, most people don’t interact with them that much; and when they do gays are unlikely to boast about their promiscuity. On the other hand the media, both news and entertainment, portray gays as being just like straights. Not only are the health, mental and physical, consequences of the gay lifestyle concealed but even the fact that gays are sex addicts is never mentioned.

            It’s hardly surprising given the prevalence of the BGL that support for gay “marriage” is as high as it is.

            Based purely on science, gays are defective since from an evolutionary perspective the only purpose of life is to produce offspring. It’s Christianity that teaches that gays are not defective only prone to a different kind of sin than most people. In fact, Christianity teaches that gays who live chaste lives are truly great servants of God for bearing a very heavy cross successfully.

            Once the BGL is exposed it’s clear that the only truly loving response to gays is to urge them to seek a cure and to live chaste lives. Because our objection to the gay lifestyle is based on love it makes perfect sense to simultaneously condemn violence against gays, persecution of gays, and hatred for gays with efforts to encourage gays to not live the gay lifestyle.

            The liberal response of encouraging the gay lifestyle is like encouraging smokers to smoke, fat people to eat more, or people who want to amputate their limbs to go right ahead. If you truly love someone you don’t enable them to do things that are self-destructive.

            In reality, #lovewins should mean encouraging gays to avoid the gay lifestyle not enabling them to live a lifestyle that cuts decades off their lives and involves the objectification of others as things to be used rather than people to be loved. Gays deserve better than that.

            Use the truth to combat the BGL and you’ll find that people’s attitudes will begin to change — true love will win in the end.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2015/07/the_big_gay_lie.html#ixzz3fwcZPylG

          • afchief

            There are three main attack vectors that the neo-marxists/liberals use in their war against Western civilization:

            – Attacking the family
            – Attacking private property
            – Attacking Christianity

            We are under siege by an administration that wants to destroy America. Christianity is at always at the vanguard of any group of people who want to bring down a nation. We represent Jesus. Satan hates our guts because he knows he loses in the end. But! That doesn’t mean he plans to be thrown into Hell all by his lonesome. And he most assuredly wants ALL Christians to feel his pain before he is defeated. 0bama doesn’t even try to hide his contempt for Christians anymore and I suspect at some point soon he will admit he is a Muslim. Put on the armor of God, lock and load and hold no quarter. This could be God’s last warning to our nation, because if we don’t fix this mess God will go bless another nation that truly loves him. Over 150,000 Christians were martyred last year. Not one from America. That alone explains why we had better hit a knee and pray for forgiveness. Christ is coming soon.

        • gizmo23

          When was this golden era? I can never get anyone to answer that.
          The Christian always needs someone to hate, it helps fill pews and bank accounts

          • afchief

            For the first 200 years of our countries existence mainly Christian prayers were said at the federal and the state level or anywhere else. The last 50 years an evil has crept in our country and it’s name is……….liberalism. It is a cancer that is spreading and it will eventually kill this once great country.


        • Becky


      • Ben Welliver

        Not my day to feed trolls, move along.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Oh, I’m sorry, I though this was a discussion board. Where people discuss things.

          • Ben Welliver

            People discuss things, trolls rant. I’m not interested in your tedious rants or anyone else’s. Using 10,000 words to say “I hate Christians!” is silly. Just come out and say it and then the Christians can respond “So what?” and these threads will be much shorter.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Luckily for you, I don’t hate Christians. Considering there are over a billion of you, I don’t have much opinion at all about “Christians.”

            The users of Christian news sites, however, tend to enjoy living in a safe little bubble, where their ideas go unchallenged and they never have to think too critically. Those people, I feel, need to be educated a little bit.

      • Ben pointed out that Madison is uber liberal. He said that it is trying to be the San Fransico of the Midwest. He said they despise Christians. He said this episode was intended as a poke in the eye of Christians. You’re not addressing his points, but raising one of your own. If you have a point, you will be able to state it without phrasing it as a question.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay, they’re liberal. So what? How is that relevant to the topic?

          • You are asking a question about relevance in response to a point about your lack of relevance. You are not seeking answers but just making a noise.

    • acontraryview

      “They despise Christians”


      “and this episode was intended as a poke in the eye of Christians.”

      So then when Christian prayers are said, that is intended as a “poke in the eye” of everyone who is not Christian?

      • afchief

        Why are you here with you lies Oshtur? You keep changing you Disqus name and everything you state is anti-Christian.

        Why don’t you leave and go back to you homo friendly sites? Or are you a troll getting paid to be here?

        • acontraryview

          I have no idea who “oshtur” is. You and I have been conversing under this name for quite some time.

          “everything you state is anti-Christian.”

          That is simply another one of your lies.

  • afchief

    The USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts, despite the far-left’s talking points. When the first people from the European Continent stepped foot on the New Land, they were escaping from the Church of England.

    They weren’t free to hold different beliefs than the beliefs of that Church. What was common among them, was the Ten Commandments. No Islam, Buda, or whatever, was present in the early formation of this Nation.

    We do know the founders were men of conviction and morality, and for this reason they would still abhor even the idea of homosexuality much less be for marriage between two people of the same sex. If you think otherwise, you are delusional. In fact, they would be horrified we’re even having this conversation. In their time, the topic of homosexuality would be whispered among themselves, if at all, and certainly with no ladies present.

    Christianity has always been the prevalent religion of this Country. The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity. There is a big difference between those who follow Christ, and those who follow Mohamed.

    In this day and age, the USA no longer accepts inequality between men and women. In Muslim Countries, the women are second class citizens. They can’t move about without a male escort; and some Countries don’t allow them to drive a car, and their genitalia is cut and sewed, to eliminate any pleasure from having sex. Can’t say this enough! Women aren’t allowed to derive pleasure from sex in MOST Muslim Countries, while men are. Does this seem “fair” to you? Yet President Obama supports this Muslim “crap”, even when he has two daughters. It’s disgusting!

    • Quantz

      Why are you even TALKING about homosexuality? This story is about a Muslim woman.

      • gizmo23

        He is obsessed

      • afchief

        To show how far our country has fallen.

        • Quantz

          Oh, boo hoo hoo. Most of us like it just fine.

    • gizmo23

      Radical Muslims seem pretty much in line with conservative Christians

      • StanW

        Giz, even you are not this stupid!

        • gizmo23

          They hate gays, abortion, secular media, want a religious society and government, don’t think women should have equal rights, believe military power can force people to do their bidding. Sounds just like far right Christians to me

          • StanW

            Exactly NONE of that is true of Christians. You are a fool!

          • gizmo23

            I’m not stupid enough to live in Texas

          • StanW

            And what does living in Texas have to do with your stupidity?

          • gizmo23

            So you are a Christian and endorse gay rights, abortion, etc.

          • StanW

            I do not hate gays, I just do not think they deserve to have special and superior rights.
            I do not support abortion.

            NONE of that makes me or any Christians like Radical Muslims.

          • gizmo23

            Yes it does. I have read your posts, you hate gay people and hate anyone that supports abortion and other liberal causes. And yes you do hate them.

          • StanW

            No, I do not. You need to stop lying.

          • Quantz

            Gays don’t want special rights. They want equal rights. All they want is what you take for granted.

          • StanW

            No, they want special rights that pertain only to them, AND they want people to be punished for not liking them.

          • Quantz

            They want to be able to get married and have marriage benefits, Stan. Just like the rest of us. Nothing special about that.

          • StanW

            Very special since marriage is not between members of the same gender. They are asking for a special exception to marriage to fit their perversion.

          • Quantz

            We are not bound by the rules of your superstition, Stan. And Christianity doesn’t own marriage.

          • StanW

            Why are you bringing religion into this? Is that the only way for you to justify your perversion.

          • Quantz

            Because it takes the bigotry and hatred and exclusion inherent in religion to try to deny people of basic human rights. And I have no perversions, Stan, nor am I homosexual.

          • StanW

            There is no basic human right at stake here, and religion is NOT a part of it. You may end your strawman there.

            There are numerous reasons why people cannot just marry whoever they want, gays want those restrictions lifted for them… that is SPECIAL rights!

          • Quantz

            Do you know what a strawman is? It is when I misrepresent your argument. I haven’t done that. You want to deny marriage to people based on your religion, but we do not live in a theocracy. Your “numerous reasons” are based on your superstition. There is no non-religious basis to deny same-sex marriage.

          • StanW

            I did not bring religion into this, YOU DID. THAT is your strawman.

            And there is numerous reasons you cannot marry the person of your choice BY LAW.

          • Quantz

            The law? It’s legal in many places now.

            And of course your reasons have nothing to do with religion, which is why you’re on a forum called Christian News Network.

          • StanW

            And why are you here? So you can vent your irrational hatred of Christians?

          • Quantz

            Some of you Christians need to be reminded that Christ’s message was about love and forgiveness and tolerance and not screaming “pervert” at people.

          • StanW

            It was also about “Go and Sin NO MORE”!. Haters like you always leave that part out!

          • Quantz

            You are the one insisting based on your superstition that they should not be allowed the equal right of marriage, and it’s ME who is the hater? Falling in love is not a sin.

          • StanW

            I based my opposition on the LAW, it is YOU that tried to bring religion into this.

            And falling in love can be a sin if you fall in love with the wrong person.

          • Quantz

            Who are you to tell someone else that they’ve fallen in love with the wrong person? Could YOU control who you fell in love with? I think that’s about the worst thing I have ever heard someone say.

          • StanW

            You have got to be joking.
            Is it OK to fall in love with another man’s wife?
            It is OK to fall in love with someone other than you own wife?
            Is it OK to fall in love with a person that does not love you?
            Shall I continue?

            Just because you and your demented mind fall in love with someone does NOT mean you get to act on it.

          • Quantz

            YOU have got to be joking.
            Just because you fall in love doesn’t mean you follow through with it, like if it was to someone married. But there is not a single reason two adults of the same sex should not get to do what everyone else gets to do, fall in love, enter into a relationship and get married.

            Not one single reason.

          • StanW

            I just gave you THREE reasons why you cannot just fall in love and get married. And those are reasons of THE LAW!

            You continue to prove that gay people are demanding SPECIAL rights!

          • Quantz

            You gave no reasons of the law, Stan. You just ranted a lot about marrying the wrong person, as if that were even your choice to make for someone else.

          • StanW

            Can you marry someone that is already married?
            Can you marry someone if you are already married?
            Can you marry a person that does not want to marry you?

            At least TRY to pay attention.

          • Quantz

            What do any of those things have to do with same sex marriage, which is what we are talking about?

          • StanW

            We were talking about reasons why BY LAW you cannot just fall in love and marry the person you want.
            You are REALLY stupid!

          • Quantz

            Was that your way of changing the subject? Either way, with same sex marriage, you CAN fall in love and marry the person you want, and it is legal to do so, so what on earth is your point?

          • StanW

            My point is that same-sex marriage is a SPECIAL right granted to an insignificant minority of the population.

          • Quantz

            Marriage is a human right. Period.

          • StanW

            No, it is NOT!

          • Quantz

            Yes it is, Stan, otherwise you wouldn’t legally go out and be able to DO it. The law is the law. Your religion is not.

          • StanW

            A right and being legal are NOT the same thing.

          • Quantz

            All right Stan, we have established that you are an excellent tap dancer. Try not to weasel out of the issue here. On what grounds do you deem two adult homosexuals unable to marry? Why are you denying them the same right that the rest of us enjoy?

          • StanW

            Marriage is not a right. You have to get past your lie first!

          • Quantz

            Read it and weep, Stan.

            http://afer. org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

            Is the Supreme Court lying, too? Going to answer the question now, or is it going to be more weaselling?

          • StanW

            Marriage is not a right. Are your rights being denied if no one wants to marry you? Is the government supposed to force someone to marry you to preserve your RIGHT?

            Stop being an idiot!

          • Quantz

            Irrelevant and ridiculous. We are not talking about people being forced to marry by the government nor are we talking about unattached people. Neither of those situations has anything to do with rights being violated. You seem to be putting another bizarre twist on your story yet again and making it about mandatory marriage, although I have absolutely no idea why.

            Stick to the topic, quit tap dancing, and give me a NON-RELIGIOUS reason why two adult homosexuals should be denied marriage if they want to marry.

          • StanW

            I have not yet given you a RELIGIOUS reason.
            Stop your lying and stop with the strawman arguments.

          • Quantz

            You have not given me ANY reason. Except that you don’t like it.

          • P.J.

            Please correct me if I am wrong-

            I am assuming you are stating that same-sex marriage is a “special” right because “marriage”, as YOU define it, is between one man and one woman. You also state that marriage is not a human right, so I am assuming that means that opposite-sex marriage is also a “special” right afforded only to members of the opposite sex. wait a sec- that can’t be right? please explain

          • StanW

            OK, you are wrong.

            Marriage is one man and one woman. It is very simple. No one has a right to get married.

          • P.J.

            so where am I wrong-

            I said you define marriage as between one man and one woman
            I said you stated that marriage is not a right

            so tell me where I am wrong- or are you just reacting to your perception that I might be okay with adults of the same sex getting married and so no matter what I say I am just wrong

          • StanW

            Marriage is not a right.

            There are a number of reasons, some of which I have already stated, why you cannot simply run out and marry the person you love. Gays want the definition of marriage changed to that they can do something others can’t. It is a special right. And as an added benefit to them, they want laws in place where you cannot oppose them.

            Yes, it is a special right granted to an insignificant minority of the population.

          • P.J.

            marriage is not a right
            there are rules that govern marriage
            gays want the definition of marriage changed
            gays want to do something that others can’t
            gays want laws to prevent people “opposing” them

            let’s concede that marriage is not a right for anybody
            let’s concede that there are rules in place in regards to marriage
            let’s even concede that gays want the definition of marriage changed

            they are not asking to do something that other’s can’t- non-gays CAN get married (especially since our agreed definition is that of “one man, one woman” we have definitely agreed that marriage amongst adults does happen and they are allowed)
            If marriage is not a right for anybody then it is a “special” right for opposite sex couples to be able to marry too (and without opposition)

            So the issue is that of the rules and definition- and you say they should not change.

            Laws, rules, definitions, literally everything changes in life, as is quite natural- (please don’t give a knee jerk dispute to laws being able to change otherwise we will end up offending women and blacks because the laws that have changed in their favor are not things polite people should question in this day and age)
            the definition of marriage has also changed over time and place, so what was acceptable in biblical days- one man, many wives e.g.- is not what is the law and definition as it is now.

            So your venom against same-sex marriage is that you don’t want the laws, the rules and the definition of marriage to change so that gays can have the same “special” right to marry a consenting adult not already married to someone else (and they themselves are not already married) because they are an insignificant minority and it is against your religion?

          • StanW

            You are all the same aren’t you. I argue against gay marriage from a legal perspective, so you throw in religion and argue against that.

            Fine, I am done with the two of you contributing nothing but your irrational hatred of religion.

          • P.J.

            My irrational hate of religion?
            If you can indicate where I implied any hate for religion that would be very welcome

            you state you are trying to come at it from a legal perspective but then have no answer to my questions just some whiny childish retorts.

            Now I really am getting sick of you people too- if only you could have reasonable logical arguments not just simple, narrow minded rhetoric.

          • sharon cain

            Stan….Still trying to emulate your hero Lush Limbaugh….And still failing……By the way, where is LD these days….We miss him.

          • sharon cain

            That has been decided Stan, like the 2000 election, just learn to live with it.

        • Allan Trenholme

          LMAO… good one!

        • afchief

          Yes, liberals are!!!

        • TampaZeke

          She’s just lonesome and wants attention.

      • Josey

        There is no such thing as radical muslims, they are muslim period. There is no such thing as a gay Christian, or whatever label you want to put before Christian. There are the true wheat, born again Christians who follow Christ wholeheartedly or there are the tares, non believers in Christ waiting their judgement.
        Matthew 13:24-30 24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      “The USA was founded on Judea-Christian concepts”

      Oh? Name them. Name one concept that this country was founded on that is exclusive to Judeo-Christianity.

      “The majority of our Laws are based on Christianity.”

      No, they’re not. Like I keep pointing out, about half of the 10 Commandments would be unconstitutional, if they were laws.

      • afchief

        This nation was founded by Christians (regardless of what you think) to be a self-governing entity, “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, as Lincoln put it. Yes, Christians belong to ANOTHER Kingdom, but we still LIVE in the kingdom of this world; and as such, we have not only the RIGHT, but the duty, to interface and influence the affairs of our nation. The Lord does not call His people to sit idly by while this nation is hi-jacked by lawbreaking men. Is that what you are advocating? Let’s just preach the Word save as many as we can, but let America go to hell because it is our temporary home. What kind of nation do you want to leave for your kids and grandkids?

        Dennis Prager who has listed Judeo-Christian Values and elaborated on this subject long before this article and those who know his work will recognize many of his thoughts.

        1. Our sense of right and wrong and our sense of wisdom come from the use of reason and common sense, but also, and importantly, from the Bible which, by faith was considered by our Founding Fathers to be God’s inspired text; and not just from the mind or heart of man. This faith lead to the mottos: “In God We Trust” and “One Nation under God.” Our Founding Fathers were believers in the God of the Bible, even if some were not orthodox Christians, and they put that faith into the Declaration of Independence, into our laws, into our national monuments, and into our culture. Faith is a part of American Culture, something Atheists, Secularists, Humanists and those of other religions should acknowledge and accept as historically accurate truth. To remove the results of Biblical Faith from America is to undo what the Founding Fathers have wrought.

        2. Truth is Sacred; there can be no liberty or justice, and little happiness without it. Jesus connected truth and liberty when he said “the truth shall make you free.” In the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible God describes Himself: “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth…” In Deuteronomy God is described this way: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice.” Listen to King David in Psalm 25: “Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me your paths. Lead me in Your truth…”; and in Psalm 51: “Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.”

        3. Human life is the first gift of God, and it is of infinite value since man is made in the image of God. Judeo-Christian Values have lead to a culture of life in America, not a culture of death. Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend innocent God-given life.

        4. Our Liberty is a gift from God and stated so in the Declaration of Independence. It is also stated in the New Testament Christian Bible: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Americans with Judeo-Christian Values will defend their God-given Liberty from tyranny and terror.

        5. Human creativity is also a gift from God and is not to be unjustly suppressed by totalitarian, tyrannical or excessively taxing government. The work ethic is an important part of Judeo-Christian Values since honorable work is a reflection of God-given human creativity. Human reason is also a part of God-given human creativity, and it has led to scientific knowledge and technological progress. Reason and science are important aspects of Judeo-Christian Values. Human creativity is central to the pursuit of happiness, but does not guarantee it; totalitarian systems such as Communism or Islamic Sharia Law guarantee utopian happiness, but don’t deliver it.

        6. “Establish justice.” This is commanded repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. This is how it has been done in America: Honor Life, Liberty and Creativity. Liberty in practical terms means: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, no established or state-supported religion, right to bear arms and act in self-defense, uninterrupted elections and the division of powers into its three branches. Where our culture is now headed in the wrong direction, in my opinion, is to provide special rights for certain groups of people. Our Founding Fathers acknowledged these basic rights for all people, and our Civil War enforced it for the American slaves when they were denied their God-given Liberty.

        7. “Hate Evil”. This is commanded three times in the Hebrew Bible; this is from the book of Proverbs: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” Hear the Prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness….” Americans with Judeo-Christian Values, as opposed to Europeans, still believe in the death penalty for pre-meditated murder, and America is still the nemesis of terrorists and tyrants – see the seal of the state of Virginia.

        8. “Love your neighbor” – commanded in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. “Love your enemy” – commanded in the New Testament Christian Bible. Generations of Americans, starting with our Founding Fathers, have had to square the values of “Hate Evil” with “Love your enemy.” This has been done by hating the evil within the enemies of God-given Life and Liberty, but not hating the evil-doer him/herself.

        9. In the Judeo-Christian Value System there is a natural and common-sense balance between compassion and courageous confrontation of evil. This can be seen metaphorically as a natural balance between femininity and masculinity; both good and necessary. The secular culture of Europe and of many in the United States today have unwisely suppressed the masculinity of Judeo-Christian American Culture, and this has put our society out of balance.

        10. From Many, One: e pluribus unum. Ethnicity and race don’t matter, but values do matter. We Americans should consider ourselves blessed to live under God-given Liberty in the same melting pot; and we are privileged to pursue happiness through creative work and play, unencumbered by excessive government. Those things that divide us, such as race or ethnicity, can be viewed metaphorically as our various styles; and are not very important. Those things of lesser importance should melt into what is very important and which should unite us: our value of Life, Liberty and Creativity – those rights defined by the Declaration of Independence, and rightly identified as the gifts of God.

        11. The natural resources of the Earth, including the animals, along with the rest of creation should be honored and well cared for, but also used and enjoyed; and never worshiped.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I’m not denying this country was largely founded by Christians, but like the article said, (well, hinted at, because it certainly didn’t put it how I will) a good number of them would probably not be considered “true Christians” by the likes of you.

          Are any of the things in that list exclusive to Judeo-Christianity? Do you really think that Jews and Christians are the only ones that believe in right and wrong, truth, justice, and the American way? (thought I was Superman for a second there, excuse me)

          #10 kills me. I agree with it, how it says race isn’t important, but I’ve always found just as much racism among Christians as anyone. Now, I’m not saying Christians are generally racist, or that there aren’t racists of other faiths, or of none for that matter…..but come on, those Founding Fathers believed in slavery, and probably used the Bible to justify it. The KKK and many other racist groups call themselves Christian organizations.

          And #7, too….I’m fine with the death penalty for premeditated murder, it certainly isn’t MY ‘Judeo-Christian values’ telling me that, I assure you. I just did a quick bit of research on that….interestingly, Christian denominations seem to be divided on that issue. There’s some that are against it, and some that are for it.

          • afchief

            Only in the last 50 years have we become “less Christian” in this country. A cancer called liberalism/progressiveism/socialism has crept in and started to remove all things Christians, to include prayer in schools, abortion on demand, etc. And now godless religions have crept in like Islam and other anti-American/Christians religions. It was NEVER like this when our grandparents grew up. It was a Judeo/Christian nation

    • Quantz

      No, the founding fathers were atheists and deists.

      • afchief


        Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

        http://christianity.about. com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm


        …We, therefore, the people of Mas Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new Constitution of Civil Government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, DO agree upon, ordain and establish, the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS.

        Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

        Art. I — All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

        Art. II.— It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

        Art. III. — As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

        Thus the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution, and first three Articles of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, principally authored by John Adams. The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1780, and served as a model for the federal Constitution which was drafted seven years later.

        The Massachusetts Constitution has the distinction of being “the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world.”

        It is QUITE OBVIOUS which God it was!!!



        All of us posting here have been brought up in an America whose early history was largely revised, removed from local libraries, and/or deliberately removed from school textbooks. We must remember that the so-called “liberal” or “progressive” movement began before we were born, and by the time we were in school, much of the work to distort, dissemble, and remove the essential ideas of liberty from textbooks and public discourse already had begun to occur. As a result, we must look to early histories, original documents, or the writings and speeches of the day. Even Theologians are not a reliable source for answers to these questions, for they have been trained in similar educational institutions as the rest of us.

        An 1872 history by Frothingham is available for reading online. “Rise of the Republic of the United States . . . ” traces the “Christian Idea of Man” as the idea which underlay the development of America. Then, there is an 1876 Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon by Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, available in the American Memory Section of the LOC (African-American Collection) which provides great detail and documentation for the idea that America was, indeed, founded as a “Christian” nation, including references to Supreme Court Justices’ statements and other documentation from records.

        As for Jefferson, for obvious reasons, he did not discuss his personal faith publicly, and said so. Some of his pertinent comments in letters have been posted on this thread already, and I will not repeat those. There are others though which may provide another glimpse that the censors and mind controllers of the Left have failed to acknowledge in their quest to misuse a single phrase from his Letter to the Baptists.

        For instance:

        “Our Saviour… has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

        Then, we might examine “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 2.

        Author: Thomas Jefferson

        Editor: Paul Leicester Ford

        Part of: The Works of Thomas Jefferson, 12 vols Notes on religion l

        This should be read in its entirety as an indication of Jefferson’s diligent study of the subject. The following are only a selected few observations from these “Notes.”

        To Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 January 1808 “Sir, -I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.

        “I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

        “I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect.”

        To James Fishback, 27 September 1809 (L&B 12:315):

        “Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all nations agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness,) and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality. In all of them we see good men, and as many in one as another. The varieties in the structure and action of the human mind as in those of the body, are the work of our Creator, against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniformity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. It is, then, a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize.”

        To Miles King, 26 September 1814 (L&B 14:197-8):

        “He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of His state, He can feel pain or pleasure in anything we may do; He is far above our power; but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by One whom you and I equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone. I inquire after no man’s, and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes, are exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind, and find ourselves united in those principles only in which God has united us all.”

        “Our Savior chose not to propagate his religion by temporal punishments or civil incapacitation, if he had, it was in his almighty power. But he chose to extend it by it’s influence on reason, there by shewing to others how they should proceed.”

        “Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. together in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ This is his definition of a society. He does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. Without them it suffices for the salvation of souls.”

        “Compulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgment, but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.

        “Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth, or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way, cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses: & whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses & therefore prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child. It should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children: it is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs. They may therefore be religiously sacrificed, but if the good of the state required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.

        “Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error. If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner & no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for faction & flagitiousness.”

        “Our wish… is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers.” –Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:382

        “It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

        • Quantz

          “It is QUITE OBVIOUS which God it was!!!”

          Not to me, Charlie. And your super right wing ultra wacko fundie religions weren’t even invented then.

  • ‘“Guide us to the safe path,” Chebli continued.’

    Noooooooooooooooo! Not the safe path! Enter by the narrow gate! For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many! For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few!

  • Reason2012

    “He told reporters that he invited Najeeb to promote diversity and portray Muslims in a positive light.”

    If muslims want to be portrayed in a positive light, then let them stop killing Christians daily all over the world, and let the ones here publicly denounce specific individuals and groups that claim to be islamists as not being islamists.

    They don’t as they fear the revenge from such people and such groups.

    “There is just so much for us to get over in terms of our fears,” Barnes told the Journal Sentinel.

    The only thing we need to get over is to stop upholding islamists who kill Christians and stop ignoring the Christians that are killed by them.

    • Michael C

      If muslims want to be portrayed in a positive light, then let them stop killing Christians daily all over the world,…

      How many Christians has Janan killed?

      … let the ones here publicly denounce specific individuals and groups that claim to be islamists as not being islamists.

      I’m not sure what this sentence means. If you’re saying that Muslims should be denouncing violent extremism… I’ll let Janan address that concern;

      “We still hear people say, ‘Why don’t Muslims condemn this?’ But Muslims are always condemning this.”
      “There is nothing that resembles Islam in their actions.”
      “It think it’s important to recognize whether it’s lives in Europe or lives in the United States or lives in the Middle East or lives in Africa, that all lives are sacred.”

      • Reason2012

        How many Christians has Janan killed?

        I didn’t say she killed any. Does that change the fact that islam teaches they should kill others who do not believe and doing so gets them into heaven? No.

        “We still hear people say, ‘Why don’t Muslims condemn this?’ But Muslims are always condemning this.”

        Please cite 10 articles where muslims condemn a person or a group that killed in the name of allah, but that other muslims point out
        – they are not really muslim
        – they are going NOT going to end up in heaven

        Saying “They condemn the violence” while never pointing out that “no muslim would ever do any such thing” is hardly the same thing.

        And meanwhile, what about how the koran COMMANDS each of them to kill others – to kill Christians – to kill unbelievers? Is the Koran a lie?

        • acontraryview

          “but that other muslims point out

          – they are not really muslim

          – they are NOT going to end up in heaven”

          You mean like when people who say they are Christian do things and then other Christians say: “Well, they aren’t REAL Christians”? Like that?

          “what about how the koran COMMANDS each of them to kill others – to kill Christians – to kill unbelievers?”

          You mean like in the Old Testament where Christians are told to kill unbelievers? Is the Old Testament a lie?

          • Nohm

            Your last sentence is bizarre.
            Christians are not told to kill unbelievers in the Old Testament. Christians are not even mentioned in the Old Testament.
            If you can’t even grasp the difference between Old and New Testaments, you have issues. Go educate yourself before posting nonsense.

          • acontraryview

            Deuteronomy 17

            If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

            So that doesn’t apply to Christians?

          • Celephais

            No, that doesn’t apply to Christians. Jesus instituted a new covenant, replacing the old, and the Old Testament (i.e. covenant) theocratic nation of Israel was abolished by Rome in 70 A.D, destroying the Temple. When Jesus sacrificed himself to pay the price for all sin, the old covenant was fulfilled and is no longer in effect. Christians are called upon to imitate Jesus the Son of God, not Joshua the son of Nun.

          • acontraryview

            So then nothing in the OT applies to Christians? Then what was Jesus referring to in Matthew 5:17 – “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.”

            “Christians are called upon to imitate Jesus the Son of God”

            Well most of them are doing pretty lousy job. Unfortunately, most Christians do not imitate Jesus. They would be more accurate if they called themselves Gospelcans, as they seem much more focused on following the teachings of writers of the Gospels outside of what Jesus said than they are with conducting themselves according to the teachings of Jesus.

          • Celephais

            I didn’t say that “nothing in the OT applies to Christians.” I said that since Jesus fulfilled the terms of the old covenant laws related to sacrifice, and paid the penalty for those who had broken it, as well as those who commit sins after, it was abrogated and no longer in force. Or, as you aptly pointed out yourself, he “accomplished their purpose.” Why do you distinguish between what the Gospel writers said and what Jesus said when you quote what Jesus said from one of the Gospel writers?
            The moral laws of the OT, being based on the eternal righteousness of God, are still in force, and binding on every person born. Unfortunately, as Paul reminds us, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The good news, of course, is that by his death and resurrection, Jesus paid the penalty on behalf of everyone who believes this and accepts it for themselves.
            Admittedly, Christians fall short of the requirements of the moral law, and we all know and admit it. Fortunately, we are saved by faith, not by perfect obedience. Therefore “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Romans 8:1. You can be free as well, if you want; otherwise, you will have to face the penalty for your own sins. We do not worship ourselves or our church or the Bible; we worship the only Son of God, who gave himself for us. Saying that Christianity is wrong because Christians don’t obey perfectly is like saying hospitals don’t work because they are full of sick people. We are not perfect; no one is. But we are forgiven. How about you?

          • acontraryview

            “Jesus fulfilled the terms of the old covenant laws related to sacrifice”

            How so?

            So are Jews supposed to be killing non-believers?

            “The moral laws of the OT, being based on the eternal righteousness of God, are still in force, and binding on every person born.”

            So how does one distinguish a “moral” law from a law that did not deal with morality? What about it being moral to stone a woman if you find out that she is not a virgin after you marry her? What about stoning unmarried women who are not virgins? What about the abomination of eating shellfish? If something is an abomination would it not be immoral? Are those not all examples of the “law of Moses”? How about men having long hair and women having short hair? How about women getting all gussied up in fancy clothes and jewelry? Those are in the NT. Surely you agree with those, right?

            “Why do you distinguish between what the Gospel writers said and what Jesus said when you quote what Jesus said from one of the Gospel writers?”

            The quotes attributable to Jesus as relatively consistent in the Gospels. That is not the case, however, with the various personal musings of the gospel writers. However you bring up an interesting point – that all of what is in the Bible is simply the invention of man, particularly given the length of time between when Jesus was purported to on Earth and when the Gospels were written.

            “Fortunately, we are saved by faith, not by perfect obedience.”

            I would suggest “convenient” would be a better word. No doubt about it – Christianity makes for a very convenient religion. Do whatever you like, commit all the heinous acts you care to, then, accept Jesus as your savior and all is forgiven. Oh, and since we know you are flawed, we don’t actually expect that you won’t commit sin after you accept Jesus as your savior, but if you do, no worries, as long as you are genuinely remorseful and ask for forgiveness, your pass to Heaven is still valid. And one final thing, it isn’t necessary that you do good works – and they don’t really count for anything and certainly are not sufficient – no matter how much good you do in the world or how many people you help – if you don’t accept Jesus as your savior and join our religion (where tithing is STRONGLY recommended) you will spend eternity in hell. So if you don’t want to help others, that’s OK – just as long as you accept Jesus as your savior – streets paved with gold and flowing with milk and honey (although I have no idea why there would be a need for streets in heaven, nor milk and honey) are yours!

            Well no wonder Christianity is so popular!

            “Saying that Christianity is wrong because Christians don’t obey perfectly”

            I never said that Christianity is wrong.

            “But we are forgiven.”

            So you believe.

            “How about you?”

            I believe that God has forgiven me for acts that needed forgiveness.

          • Reason2012

            You mean like when people who say they are Christian do things and then other Christians say: “Well, they aren’t REAL Christians”? Like that?

            You see it all the time.
            Christians support same-gender marriage? “They’re not Christians”
            Christians support abortion? “They’re not Christians”
            Christians support women preaching? “They’re not Christians”

            Islamists behead Christians and murder any who do not believe as they do? “Well, we condemn violence” but never “they are not really islamists”.

            You mean like in the Old Testament where Christians are told to kill unbelievers? Is the Old Testament a lie?

            The OT tells how God use the Jewish people to judge wicked and evil nations and also how He raised up enemies to then judge the Jewish people at various times in history.

            What He does not do is say “whenever you can, each of you should go kill unbelievers to be guaranteed heaven”.

            Islamists ARE commanded to do this individually.
            And they do.

          • acontraryview

            “”Well, we condemn violence” but never “they are not really islamists”.”

            Yes, you do hear that.

            “Islamists ARE commanded to do this individually.”

            Deuteronomy 17

            If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

            As are those who follow the Bible.

          • Reason2012

            “Well, we condemn violence” but never “they are not really islamists”.” Yes, you do hear that.

            Cite FIVE examples of muslims claiming ISIS or others that made it clear they are killing in the name of Allah that such people are not really islamists. Just five. I have yet to see ONE. Now that you’ve made the claim, should be easy to back up.

            If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness

            Is that all you have? They are commanded to kill their own people (Jewish people) who DO wicked things.

            They’re not commanded to individually throughout their lives to
            – kill those who walk among them who do not believe as they do (but they didn’t do any wicked things)
            – kill them to get to heaven (but their victims didn’t do any wicked things)

            And yet today muslims are slaughtering Christians almost every day – yet here you are defending muslims. Why is that?

            If Christians were going around slaughtering and beheading islamists instead (which they don’t), let alone because the Bible tells them they’ll get to heaven if they kill those who are not Christian (which it doesn’t), would you THEN defend Christianity?

            I doubt it.

            Why is that?

            You seem to just hate Christians and seem to be going out of your way to support their continued beheading and slaughtering of Christians in the name of allah, defending muslims and hating on Christians.

            Why is that?

            Your own behavior proves the very point I’m trying to make.

          • acontraryview

            “I have yet to see ONE.”

            You should look a little more thoroughly. http:// time. com/4112830/muslims-paris-terror-attacks-islam-condemn/

            “Is that all you have?”

            That is sufficient.

            “DO wicked things.”

            One of which is defined the passage as: And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.

            “kill those who walk among them who do not believe as they do”

            See above.

            “kill them to get to heaven”

            So you are saying that if one does not follow the commands of the Bible, one still gets into heaven?

            “If Christians were going around slaughtering and beheading islamists instead (which they don’t)”

            Again, you owe it to yourself to do a bit more research. https://www. washingtonpost. com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

            “You seem to just hate Christians ”

            Not at all. The majority of my family and friends identify as Christian. Fortunately none of them has seen fit to follow the Biblical command of stoning me because I don’t share their beliefs.

            “seem to be going out of your way to support their continued beheading and slaughtering of Christians in the name of allah”

            Please cite where I have ever stated support for such actions. It would appear that you are bearing false witness. How do you square that with your supposed faith in Christianity?

            “Your own behavior proves the very point I’m trying to make.”

            What behavior are you referring to and what point is it you are trying to make?

          • Reason2012

            You still haven’t shown one. In what you link, they say “condemn the perpetrators and defend Islam as a faith of nonviolence.”

            They didn’t say those who did this were not muslim. They only condemn the violence while their Koran tells them to do what these terrorists do.

            One of which is defined the passage as: And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them.

            Again, it’s about their OWN people: the Jewish people, not killing others in the world, not killing others to get into heaven, not killing others if they’re not Jewish, which is what the Koran teaches about islam that you seem determined to avoid.

            So you are saying that if one does not follow the commands of the Bible, one still gets into heaven?

            See how dishonest you’re being? I didn’t say there are NO commands in GENERAL to follow to get into heaven – I said you’re not commanded to KILL others to get into heaven. Let alone you pretending it’s the same thing.

            Now you’re just showing everyone else how flat out dishonest you are on the subject, which only proves my point of how Islam is not only evil bent on killing others, but then people like you come along and seem bent on defending it while even outright lying to do so.

            Thank you for posting.

        • malaka_eneuresis

          If the momammadan condemns the practices of islam, he is an apostate and must die. Them’s the rules.
          “When you’re a Jet, you’re a jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dying day.” Same thing, same rules.

    • gizmo23

      I have heard many Muslims condemn violence. If you only expose yourself to conservative media you will never hear it. Christian leaders make their bank on keeping people in fear and hating other people. The church always needs a bogeyman

      • malaka_eneuresis

        Read the koran, sira and hadith. Mahomet is the ideal man. Everything he did is an example to his followers, and it is their duty to be like him. Slaughter the kaffir, make sex slaves of their women, enslave all who will not submit. Kill those who would abandon the faith. Kill those who would insult mahomet. Boy are you an igger (ignoramus).

        • gizmo23

          GOOD BYE

  • Omnis Odium

    Speak for yourselves Christians, I’m more scared of you than I am any Muslims.

    • Danfire

      Because we go around cutting off heads & blowing people up?! Give me a break!!

      • The Last Trump

        Guess he didn’t get enough Christmas and Easter gifts as a child. The horror!
        Down with Christianity! Bring on the “peace” of Islam! (?)
        Hee, hee! Boy are these entitled little “progressives” going to enjoy slavery.

        • Josey

          Especially the homosexuals who these muslims throw off buildings, tho. I suspect many of them are homosexuals also but such is the age and last days where many are offended by the truth of Christ. These anti christs will stand up for anyone or anything that is against Christ even to their own detriment.

          • Peter Leh

            “Especially the homosexuals who these muslims throw off buildings, tho”

            god was happy when we stoned them though… and god never changes, right?

          • Josey

            Christians are to show the love of Christ to all regardless and you will not find a Christian who follows Christ stoning anyone for any reason, we are to share the truth about this sin as well as others and also that Christ alone can deliver one and change one’s heart giving them a new heart. I can embrace the sinner w/out condoning the sin and tell them about Christ’s love and forgiveness. There are none of us perfect although those who are reborn through Christ are being renewed and changed day by day for Christ will finish the good work He began in each of His own. But as we are in the last days as the Bible warns about with many signs showing this to be true there are more and more ppl who reject the truth of Christ’s redemptive power to deliver and heal and I know those who continually reject the truth God just turns them over to a reprobate mind, they are doomed when this happens, they bring God’s judgement on themselves with out any help from any Christian, that is indeed a sad state just as it will be a sad state when during the time of Jacobs trouble the seven year tribulation many will gladly receive the mark of the beast forever sealing their fate to an eternity of hell and torment. Today is the day of salvation, choose ye this day whom you will serve, the God of all creation who rightly deserves our best or satan the evil god who Christ will throw into hell, the loser of this world who is only a created being who knows his time is short.

          • Peter Leh

            I agree, in general.

            but you did not answer the question. 🙂

            We worship the same God that ordered the stoning of homosexuals.

            there is no explicit overturning of that law in the NT like we do with animal sacrifices.

            So why are we throwing muslims under the bus while acting like jews and/or chrisitans historically have not put homosexuals to death as well?

          • Josey

            The only answer I have for you on that is God knows the heart of every soul and perhaps they were so far gone and reprobate that the only way was to remove them off the earth so their poisonous ideas would not infect God’s holy ppl. I do know more of God’s reasons for why David was told to wipe entire cities out leaving neither animal or peoples but I will not tell you the reason, If you do not know the reasons then nothing I say will make a difference, you have to seek truth in order to find it and wisdom.

          • Peter Leh

            is it about seeking the truth… or recognizing we are throwing rocks in a glass house?

            our god said to put homosexuals to death. seems strange to criticize those do what god has put into law as being ” against christ” . 🙂

            we all have blood on our hands, bro.

      • Quantz

        No, probably because he lives in the USA where he sees the horrors of evangelical Christianity far more than he would see the horrors of fundamentalist Islam.

      • gizmo23

        Christians have done that in the past. Who says the terrorists are true Muslims?

        • Danfire

          I thought we were talking about current events. But, judging by your other posts, you are a hater of Christians. I’m very sorry for you :-/

          • gizmo23

            Believe what you wish

          • gizmo23

            It was 20 years ago that Irish Christians were blowing people up, not ancient history. Supposed Christians kill more people in the USA every year than Muslims have in our entire history

          • Josey

            When will you learn that anyone can label themselves with “Christian” but that doesn’t make them a follower of Jesus Christ. Your claims are nonsense.

          • gizmo23

            Just like labelling all Muslims as terrorists.

          • Josey

            a muslim believes in the quran or they are not considered muslim except in word only, just as a Christian believes in the whole word of God, the Bible and follows Christ or they are secular and call themselves Christian even though they fail to obey or do God’s will. Many will say to the Lord on that day of judgement, didn’t we do this or that and Jesus will profess that He never knew them but only those who do the will of God will He acknowledge, many christians seek to do their own selfish will, not God’s.

      • gogo0

        I am more afraid of Christians because they are a much larger voting group in America and are on a quest to change my country into a christian theocracy and subject my life to their backwards beliefs.

    • DanH

      Then get some therapy. You are seriously out of touch with reality.

    • Josey

      What you fear a Christian telling you the truth in how you can be forgiven for sin through Christ? You have some serious mental issues if that scares you more that a muslim who wants to take off your head. Or maybe you are afraid that a Christian would pray for you, wow scary…John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

    • Mark0H


      • Josey


    • Brad F

      Yeah, the fact that you post on a Christian blog proves you are trembling with terror.

  • Danfire

    “They’re being basically asked to choose between their employment and their faith.”

    Like the florists & bakers?

    • Peter Leh

      The florist and the bakers were the owners not just employees. The business owners set up policies to discriminate against the public.

      In this case the owners were discriminating against the employees

  • Reason2012

    I would think again: islam is a political system of domination via hate and murder, disguised as a religion by religious-sounding bits thrown in. Read the parts that clearly demands such hateful murder of others by those who claims to be following islam:

    I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them – (8:39)

    Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

    Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

    O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (4:144)

    O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (5:51)

    They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary (5:17)

    For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies (4:101)

    O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty. (9:123)

    The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30)

    Listen not to the unbelievers, but strive (Jihad) against them with the utmost strenuousness. (25:52)

    Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)

    Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. (66:9, See also 9:73)

    …He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no guide. For them is a penalty in the life of this world, but harder, truly, is the penalty of the Hereafter… (13:33-34)

    Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace… (9:14)

    And fight them until there is no more ftna (unbelief, worshipping others beside Allah), and religion is all for Allah… (8:39)

    We shall punish them gradually from directions they perceive not. (68:44)

    Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment. (8:12-13)

    O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence (8:65)

    Not equal are those of the believers who sit at home… and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and lives” (4:95)

  • Reason2012

    The author of the bestselling book “The Jefferson Lies” recently sat down with WND TV to discuss President Obama’s controversial visit to a Baltimore mosque.

    “In 1783, we finished the American Revolution and in 1784, we had to deal with Muslim terrorists attacking Americans,” said Barton, referring to the Barbary pirates.

    He explained how Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were all designated to negotiate with Muslim representatives in Europe and attempt to halt the fighting. Eventually, Adams and Jefferson had an opportunity to question a Muslim ambassador as to why Islamic forces were attacking Americans.

    “They asked him a very pointed question,” said Barton. “They said, ‘We don’t understand why you’re attacking us. Americans have never done anything to Muslims. We’ve never bothered your nations. Why the unprovoked attacks?’

    “And the Muslim ambassador answered them, they wrote it down, they sent it to the State Department, still there, you can see the letter to this day. And Jefferson records, ‘They attack us because that’s what their Quran requires.’ Their Quran requires that we as infidels must be subdued, they have to enslave us, they have to attack us, and if they get killed while attacking us that’s their straight ticket to heaven. And Adams and Jefferson kind of go, ‘You’re kidding me. You go to heaven if you kill people?’”

    • The Skeptical Chymist

      The author of “The Jefferson Lies” titled his book well. It is very well established that this book is indeed full of lies about Jefferson.

      • Michael C

        Isn’t that the book that was dropped from publication by it’s Christian publishing company because it was too full of inaccuracies?

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          Yes, that’s it.

          • DanH

            You characters just love having Christian scapegoats to hate on. Must be the only emotion you got going.

          • Michael C

            It was a Christian publishing house that dropped his book. Two evangelical Christians wrote a book calling out Barton’s inaccuracies.

          • Semp

            The fact that homosexuals derive pleasure from seeing that evangelicals disagree is pretty revealing about the emptiness of their lives.

        • Reason2012

          Cite to back up your claim.

      • Reason2012

        Full of lies?

        Feel free to cite 10 lies in the book – just 10. Quote each lie, then cite the proof that it’s false – and to make it an actual lie instead of just wrong, cite how you know the author knew otherwise as well and hence was clearly intent on publishing things he knew were false, which makes it a lie.

        Thank you for posting.

        • Michael C

          I believe that two guys already wrote an entire book about Barton’s claims. It’s called “Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President.”

          • Reason2012

            So cite 10 lies in the book – just 10. Quote each lie, then cite the proof that it’s false – and to make it an actual lie instead of just wrong, cite how you know the author knew otherwise as well and hence was clearly intent on publishing things he knew were false, which makes it a lie.

            Since you are implying you read the book, should be easy for you to do.

          • DanH

            Yeah, it’s a real smash hit – ranked at 694,782 on Amazon. Those two gay college professors really wrote a blockbuster. Probably the only copies they sold were to their students. One of them has a whole “Christian” blog devoted solely to bashing Barton.

            They hate Barton because he writes bestsellers. Losers envy the successful. His book The Jefferson Lies is 389 on Amazon. Lots of people love to hate on Barton, I guess losers need scapegoats in their lives. He’s probably crying all the way to the bank.

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          I work for a living and don’t have time to do this. This information is readily available. Chris Rodda has done a thorough job in researching and debunking this book. It was withdrawn by its publisher, a Christian publishing house, because it was full of lies. Do your own research.

          • Josey

            in other words you cannot back up your lies for there isn’t a way to back up lies…lol…and for one who claims to work and you don’t have time to back up what you said above, you sure are on here a lot spouting this or that, guess that’s another lie ’cause you make time for other rants.

          • Semp

            Does Target give its part-time workers an employee discount?

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            I wouldn’t know. You should ask your boss to find out if you qualify for one.

  • DanH

    Sometimes the Muslims who appear so meek and docile are terrorists too. Google Sami Al-Arian, or look him up on Wikipedia – the mild-mannered computer science professor – and terrorist. Ironically, he hosted a cable TV show titled “Peace Be Upon You.” A real Jekyll and Hyde character that they finally deported. Stealth is one of Islam’s oldest weapons, and they have no scruples about passing themselves off as model citizens.

    • Peter Leh

      “Stealth is one of Islam’s oldest weapons, and they have no scruples about passing themselves off as model citizens.”

      Criminals normally do. Muslim Christian or Jew.

      • malaka_eneuresis

        Only is it institutionalized in the cult.

        • Peter Leh


    • FoJC_Forever

      Yes. The Islamic invasion and take over of America is underway. Those who are sitting by and arguing in favor of Islamic practice and acceptance now will one day be punished for their rejection of religion. They too will have Islam forced upon them.

    • FoJC_Forever

      The Catholic invasion has also been going on for decades now. See how their numbers grow in the USA as they flee the countries ruled by drugs, poverty, and corruption. They bring their pagan religion masquerading as Christianity to America and it is sinking deeper into Darkness, being captivated by the False Light.

    • malaka_eneuresis

      Oh ya means to tell me that this is a cult of duality where up is down and down is up, both facts extant simultaneously? Sami ain’t no Jekyll-hyde; it is the duality that permits both conditions to exist at the same time. The devil is a liar. You expect any difference from his apostles ?

  • Yolanda Kidwell

    Allah and the God of the bible are not the same God. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ the Son of God. Selah

  • Reason2012

    As someone else posted:
    As long as the islamist following population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

    United States Muslim 1.0%

    Australia Muslim 1.5%

    Canada Muslim 1.9%

    China Muslim 1%-2%

    Italy Muslim 1.5%

    Norway Muslim 1.8%

    At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

    Denmark Muslim 2%

    Germany Muslim 3.7%

    United Kingdom Muslim 2.7%

    Spain Muslim 4%

    Thailand Muslim 4.6%

    From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

    They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).

    France Muslim 8%

    Philippines Muslim 5%

    Sweden Muslim 5%

    Switzerland Muslim 4.3%

    The Netherlands Muslim 5.5%

    Trinidad &Tobago Muslim 5.8%

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

    When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam Mohammed cartoons).

    Guyana Muslim 10%

    India Muslim 13.4%

    Israel Muslim 16%

    Kenya Muslim 10%

    Russia Muslim 10-15%

    After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

    Ethiopia Muslim 32.8%

    At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

    Bosnia Muslim 40%

    Chad Muslim 53.1%

    Lebanon Muslim 59.7%

    From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

    Albania Muslim 70%

    Malaysia Muslim 60.4%

    Qatar Muslim 77.5%

    Sudan Muslim 70%

    After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

    Bangladesh Muslim 83%

    Egypt Muslim 90%

    Gaza Muslim 98.7%

    Indonesia Muslim 86.1%

    Iran Muslim 98%

    Iraq Muslim 97%

    Jordan Muslim 92%

    Morocco Muslim 98.7%

    Pakistan Muslim 97%

    Palestine Muslim 99%

    Syria Muslim 90%

    Tajikistan Muslim 90%

    Turkey Muslim 99.8%

    United Arab Emirates Muslim 96%

    100% will usher in the peace of Dar-es-Salaam the Islamic House of Peace theres supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

    Afghanistan Muslim 100%

    Saudi Arabia Muslim 100%

    Somalia Muslim 100%

    Yemen Muslim 99.9%

    Of course, thats not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

    It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

  • WhiteHorse

    BEWARE – THEY ARE HYPOCRITES AND koran teaches them to lie to non-muslims that it is right to lie. Sometimes the Muslims who appear so meek and docile are terrorists too. Google Sami Al-Arian, or look him up on Wikipedia – the mild-mannered computer science professor – and terrorist. Ironically, he hosted a cable TV show titled “Peace Be Upon You.” A real Jekyll and Hyde character that they finally deported. Stealth is one of Islam’s oldest weapons, and they have no scruples about passing themselves off as model citizens.

    • Bob Johnson

      Deja vu – DanH posted this same word for word post four hours earlier.

  • Herb Planter

    lol who do these islam scum think they’re foolin ?

    • Peter Leh

      “lol who do these islam scum think they’re foolin ?”

      Probably chrisitan scum?

  • Chrissy Vee


  • BarkingDawg


  • Peter Leh

    of all… most chrisitans reject a woman in authority over a man. Just
    think how “liberal” a muslm must be to let a woman pray in public as men
    bow their heads.. :0

    • Brad F

      Your ignorance of what Christians actually do is laughable.
      Most Christians have no problem at all with a woman praying in public.
      Sounds like you enjoy you stereotypes. If they make you feel superior, go for it.

      • Peter Leh

        lol… i have been around the religious block a few times to witness what “christians” actually do. 🙂

        there are a few here posting that can be exhibit A

  • FoJC_Forever

    Pagan prayers made in false belief. Only those who know Jesus (the) Christ shall be saved from their Sin. As the world has been fooled by Catholicism, so the world has been fooled by Islam. These, and other false religions, exist because people reject the Truth.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    The Christians shouldn’t want prayers to be said in the council chambers, that goes against what the Bible tells us Christ taught.

    Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

    7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

  • Celephais

    If some Pagan wanted to invoke Zeus and brought in a statue of him, I wonder how many would stand respectfully with heads bowed and eyes closed. How about Moloch? Diversity is just another name for idolatry.

  • peanut butter

    Well… Wisconsin’s had it. Praying to a false god in their assembly will surely bring on God’s wrath.