Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The man who murdered his wife didn't do it in the name of his religion. He did it because she was divorcing him, and he couldn't control her. Did his religion suggest that he should control her? Yes. Just as some Christian sects interpret that the Bible says a husband should control his wife. And do some men murder their wives when they don't feel they have any other means to control her. Yes.
Again, though, why not get back on topic?
He did it in the name of his religion, hence the BEHEADING. Who are you trying to fool.
If you need those dots connected, you need more help than I can provide.
I will take that complete non-response as a concession that you either cannot do so, or that you know full well that any discussion that followed would make you look foolish.
"Innocent missionaries" who just happen to video tape their proselytizing efforts during a street festival? At least they're getting their 15 minutes of fame.
Face facts - these "innocent missionaries" have much in common with the Westboro bunch.
If people are peacefully assembling and a small few are quietly discussing their religion, what right does the police department have to arrest them?
There's obviously a Muslim bias in Dearborn (we've seen this with the schools already) and the non Muslims feel the need to videotape themselves in an effort to protect themselves.
If people are peacefully assembling and a small few are quietly discussing their religion, what right does the police department have to arrest them?
There's obviously a Muslim bias in Dearborn (we've seen this with the schools already) and the non Muslims feel the need to videotape themselves in an effort to protect themselves.
There may well be a Muslim bias in Dearborn. However, the characterization of people peacefully assembling and a small few quietly discussing their religion is a mischaracterization. This was a large festival held annually to celebrate a cultural heritage. While the police may have been overly pro-active in arresting these people, they had a history of creating disturbances, and they were not quietly discussing their religion but actively trying to engage other attendees in religious discussions. You and I both know that religion can be a sensitive topic, that it can quickly become heated, that people are not receptive to having their religious beliefs challenged. I agree that the Christian activists have a right to be present at this festival and to exercise their right to free speech. I understand the actions of the police in this case as well. I don't think that non-Muslims as a group feel the need to videotape themselves to protect themselves at all, just that a particular group of activists with an agenda saw the advantage of videotaping themselves in an effort to further that agenda.
Five videos. Watch ALL of them. It completely discects the lies told by the Acts 17 group by matching up their own commentary on their own videos with their own actions on their own videos.
If people are peacefully assembling and a small few are quietly discussing their religion, what right does the police department have to arrest them?
There's obviously a Muslim bias in Dearborn (we've seen this with the schools already) and the non Muslims feel the need to videotape themselves in an effort to protect themselves.
Yawn. Maybe people in Dearborn need to pass a law where Christian missiionaries are granted immunity from charges of harassment. Otherwise they deserved to be arrested.
There may well be a Muslim bias in Dearborn. However, the characterization of people peacefully assembling and a small few quietly discussing their religion is a mischaracterization. This was a large festival held annually to celebrate a cultural heritage. While the police may have been overly pro-active in arresting these people, they had a history of creating disturbances, and they were not quietly discussing their religion but actively trying to engage other attendees in religious discussions. You and I both know that religion can be a sensitive topic, that it can quickly become heated, that people are not receptive to having their religious beliefs challenged. I agree that the Christian activists have a right to be present at this festival and to exercise their right to free speech. I understand the actions of the police in this case as well. I don't think that non-Muslims as a group feel the need to videotape themselves to protect themselves at all, just that a particular group of activists with an agenda saw the advantage of videotaping themselves in an effort to further that agenda.
The issue isn't free speech.
It's free excersize.
Are you aware Muslim information booths were set up inside the fair for the purpose proselytizing fair attendees?
Are you aware Christian organizations like Acts 17 are restricted to an area far from the actual fair?
Are you aware street proselytizing on public streets is a Constitutionally protected activity.
Public streets may not be temporarily declared non-public as Dearbornistan officials would like. This is also an unconstitutional action.
Last edited by momonkey; 03-11-2011 at 05:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least they're getting their 15 minutes of fame.
