Believers vs. Unbelievers; A Play on Words
All that is idealistic and desirable, yet very subjective. Objectified, it is quite offensive. America IS an ethical country. We ARE loyal to ourselves and our democracy. We do not have to accept muslims simply because they have some kind of brotherly love for each other…Their brotherly love for each other has been shown to translate into brotherly hate for US. Calling themselves believers (that Allah is God’s proper name) translates to Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians as UN-believers. That is name-calling in the name of ethics, and presumes that we are NOT ethical… We need to stop letting Free-thinkerphobia define what is best for America. We cannot let the un-free CONTORT (Mattson uses the word “shape”) our policies just because they are using subjective, noble, pretty words (which they objectify respective to their own agenda).
What right do unfree thinkers have to ‘shape’ our policies any way??? Their insistence only proves they know they do not FIT IN. The reason they do not fit in is because they do not like nor understand the term “Democracy.” Therefore, they “challenge” the Democracy using words like “ethics” to blind us as to what is really going on.
This is PRETEXT and deceit at its finest…Using pretty words as drugs to lure us to sleep or to try to make us feel guilty… Any liar can utter a truth; any thief can tell you that a thief will steal from you; and any murderer can tell you that you might not recognize a murderer even if he was staring you in the face…. and any believer (in this) can call you an un-believer (in that)…It is all rhetorical manipiulation,… and Believers in Freedom of Religion need to get control of the converstion… ASAP.
Another observation–an interfaith forum is merely a pretext for a muzlim to help others ‘understand’ (that their ‘belief” is one religion for all, insisting that “Allah is God’s proper name”). The main purpose of an interfaith forum is usually to appease (understand) Muzlims, so that afterwards, the “Allah is God’s Proper Name”, the Unbelievers in YHVH and Jesus Christ, the Son of GOD, people can refer to the free-thinking majority as “UNBELIEVERS.”
“During the conference, the leaders also condemned terrorism, but came down heavily on ‘victimisation’ of innocents in the name of curbing terror, especially those belonging to minority communities, and ‘dividing’ the people on the basis of religion.”
“Innocents”– Just exactly who are the innocents?
“Dividing the people on the basis of religion.” It is well known that Islam wants all religions to be one, and that one religion to be Islam. So dividing religion into Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims would be against it’s sharia policy and therefore, any one who encouraged such “division ” would be considered a “terrorist”. Any country that permits more than one religion, (like a Democracy) would likewise be considered a terrorist country.
Victimization”. Yet another example. I have recently noticed is that some authors are intentionally eliminating the letter “z” from certain English words, using “victimisation”, and “organisations”, that are ordinarily spelled “…zation(s)”. I think that is one other clue as to the sentiments of a writer. It is true that some Saudis would like to ban the letter X because it is represents the crucifix (to them).