Creeping Sharia or the Case of the Creepy Mohammed

I'm worried that one day we will wake up and there will be a law making it illegal to say anything against Islam. Or to search out any information on the web that tells the truth about their ideology. There is a resolution in the UN stating it is a crime to insult Islam. Our president if reelected may sign just such a thing. I do believe his sympathies lie with the Muslims.

I agree and believe that is very possible. If we thought the last four years were bad, just hang on! Our rights will go by the way side and we won't recognize this country in four years.

But they surely can come here, use our resources and create terror cells. Ah yes America!

Your remark about 'it going over my head' is kinda offensive, btw.

Aida, I am a student of history. I have more books on history than most schools do. I've read every one of them at least once, some more than once. I realize you are as student as well. But what you are being taught is not actually how it really is. If you really are a seeker of truth, you do not accept blindly what you are told, you search for other view points and then make up your own mind without bias. The Treaty of Tripoli was enacted because the Muslims were attacking American merchant ships and taking American sailors into slavery. The clause in the Treaty that reads that America is not a Christian nation must be taken in context of the entire treaty. Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. Furthermore, it was Adams who declared: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America. For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes: Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons: The weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties: He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him: It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted: April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking! May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy's forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don't he come and take it? Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict: The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. The Treaty expressed the idea that the FEDERAL government, as opposed to the governments of Europe, did NOT HAVE a law making any religion THE religion. It does NOT SAY that America is not founded on Christian law (ten commandments) but instead founded as a safe haven for all beliefs. To understand this you must read the clause within its entire context: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You are both right. And the debate offended me FOR SURE. We do have the first amendment. Seems like it gets ignored a lot though.

LOL. I am sure they will both offend you at least once and I know they will both offend me at least once, but like you I will get over it. I agree if they live in this country then they have the same rights as everyone else. Though, I don't think going to another country would help. People can be offended by anything. Heck for some reason you could be offended by me saying people get offended.

Religion is suppose to improve the acts of mankind. It is suppose to reveal a better way for man to live. In fact all religious systems have what we here in America call the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. NOT SO WITH ISLAM. Islam says to those who follow it, All will submit, and if they don't you must kill them.