Believers vs. Unbelievers; A Play on Words

August 27, 2008 at 1:53 am Leave a comment

We need to stop letting UnBelievers in Freedom of Religion re-define English terms. Just say ‘no’ to them. 
American Believers in Freedom of Religion mostly speak English so there seems to be some confusion with words and conceptual meanings between BELIEVERS in Freedom of Religion, and the UNBELIEVERS in Freedom of Religion. A speaker at the Democratic National Convention in Denver is confusing such terms and definitions. Her words can be found here. According to her, Ingrid Mattson, “the first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so they are in harmony with the essential values of this country.”  She acknowledges ethics in context with human rights and values.. She also uses terms like loyalty and brotherly love. She challenges America to be an ethical country.
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.”
Here is another example of why Free-Thinking Believers in Freedom of Religion need to take control of the English language: The Un-Free Unbelievers in Freedom of Religion will try to change English dictionaries…An excerpt from a recent article

“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?

“Minority”–Are these always automatically the innocents?… and is the author referring to a worldwide minority community, or just a minority within a specific, city, or neighborhood? And how is this minority declared innocent? Just because they happen to be part of a minority community somewhere? Further, does that somewhere have to be physical or mental? There are minority ‘points of view’ and minority ‘votes’ as well as ‘minority people’. Also, being a minority does not necessarily make one accurate in his/her assesment, and it does not automatically deem them oppressed. This is the anti-thesis of Democracy, where the majority rule applies.

“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.
This is a big play on little words with big meanings using already established English concepts… No wonder Islam wants us all to read Arabic! It hasn’t figured out a way to ban the entire English brain yet, so there is an effort to pull a switcheroo on words and conceptual meanings from the vocabulary of BELIEVERS in Freedom of Religion.

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).


Entry filed under: Politics, Religion, Uncategorized. Tags: , .

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex Is Obama the Jihad Candidate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed