[DonGlock26]

Demolition of Imbaba Church from the inside (the latest exclusive video)

Muslim youths attack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0N_i...ature=youtu.be

Video at above link:


The 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks are a series of attacks that took place on 7 May 2011 on Coptic Christian churches in the district of Imbaba in Cairo, Egypt. The attacks were blamed on Salafi Muslims.[1] The attacks resulted in the burning of 3 Coptic Orthodox churches, and the destruction of many Christian-owned houses and businesses. In addition, 12 people were killed in the attacks, and about 120 injured.[2][3][4] All those killed were Coptic Christians, shot dead by thugs and Muslim fundamentalist Salafis.[5] Imbaba has been known to be a stronghold of Muslim fundamentalists since the 1970's, but also comprises a significant number of Coptic Christians.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Imbaba_Church_Attacks

[Guss]

It really makes you appreciate freedom of religious choice. It also points out how dangerous a majority can be if they are prepared to ignore fundamental rights.

[Brucev]

Fundamental rights? In whose book? In the United States we enjoy rights guaranteed by The Constitution. Those rights are not universally held, not in old europe and most certainly not in the vast majority of the third/developing world. Those rights are extremely restricted in china, north korea, cuba. The very presence of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights is entirely the result of work by Baptist's. It is not the result of any widespread idea by the Founding Fathers that such a right was fundamental.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Brucev

Fundamental rights? In whose book? In the United States we enjoy rights guaranteed by The Constitution. Those rights are not universally held, not in old europe and most certainly not in the vast majority of the third/developing world. Those rights are extremely restricted in china, north korea, cuba. The very presence of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights is entirely the result of work by Baptist's. It is not the result of any widespread idea by the Founding Fathers that such a right was fundamental.

A couple of points

• the Founders did not believe the Bill of Rights was granting any rights, merely recognizing rights that everybody is born with
• because of the point above many Founders believed that it was not even necessary
• the Baptists were not pushing the freedom of religion out of any noble cause to keep religion out of public policy, they were merely trying to protect themselves and keep government out of their affairs after the experiences in England.

-ArtificialGrape

[Guss]

Originally Posted by Brucev

Fundamental rights? In whose book? In the United States we enjoy rights guaranteed by The Constitution. Those rights are not universally held, not in old europe and most certainly not in the vast majority of the third/developing world. Those rights are extremely restricted in china, north korea, cuba. The very presence of freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights is entirely the result of work by Baptist's. It is not the result of any widespread idea by the Founding Fathers that such a right was fundamental.

Yes, the early American Baptists were all for separation of church and state. Jefferson's famous “Wall of Separation” letter was addressed to the Danbury Baptist Church to assure them that the Constitution would work to their benefit. Still, it took many years to fully implement those protections.


Alexis de Tocqueville took note of this American way as he toured the infant country:
They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.


Today, though, the biggest Baptist group, the Southern Baptists seem to have changed their minds. Strange how things go in cycles. It is up to the defenders of liberty to keep us from turning into what Egypt is now.


Egypt's constitution allows for freedom of religious practice, but the religious majority has different ideas. We can only hope that time and experience will show them that our way is better. What is disturbing is that these tendencies seem to pop up in many religions.

[Norske]

Freedom of Religion also includes freedom from Religion.

It is this fundamental fact that drives the 1,400-year old war that is Islam versus the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Here in the West, the "formula" is secular government that has respect for individual liberty. Including freedom from coercion concerning religion.

Whereas, Islam sees no distinction between their Religion and Sharia-based government; they are one and the same. As part of this, there is no such thing as individual liberty. Including no liberty to choose your religious beliefs.

The word "Islam" itself translates as "submission". Submission to the will of Allah as dictated by his self-chosen imams and other so-called "Holy" Men.



Under Islam, you are either, and in "pecking" order, (1) A Muslim cleric, (2)Muslim, (3) a Muslim slave (including all women except as are included in the classes below), (4) non-Muslims subject to Sharia law and under the humiliating requirements of "jizya", and (5) non-Muslim slaves owned by one of classes (1), (2), (3) or (4). Sometimes (5)s even own other (5)s!

Furthermore, a significant minority of Islam believe it their religious duty to reduce the entire world to (1) or (2) and will settle for (3)s.

Those are the ones who highjack airliners and crash them into skyscrapers.

Those are the ones who attack Egyptian Coptic Christian churches and kill their members while the "government" effectively turns a blind eye to it and at the same time does not let the oppressed defend themselves.

They are worth fighting until each and every one of them is either dead or forced to renounce their religio-governemental system.

Islam is not a religion. It is an historically violent political movement that claims to be a religion and demands the respect normally accorded to bonafide religions.

What we need to do is refuse to recognize it as the religion it is not, and start treating it as the hostile political movement it really is.

Treat it and fight it as we did Nazi-ism and Communism.

To the death.