Home » Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Towson students should be more respectful

5 February 2012 By Jim Grandfield 55 Comments

While walking across campus with a friend, we came across two Towson police officers and a maintenance worker at Freedom Square looking at something.

At first, I thought they were just talking, but then I looked on the ground and saw something that made my blood boil. Some Towson students thought it was appropriate to attack the religion of Islam by chalking such epithets as “Down with Islam” and “Stop the Islamization of America.” I am not going to name names, but anyone who is a frequent reader of The Towerlight must surely know who did this.

To the students who did this, I have only one thing to say: You are cowards, using your anonymity as protection while disparaging a sizable number of our student population. If you were brave, you would be standing out with signs expressing your views. But we know you won’t, because you know you are in the minority. You claim that you are against a religion that has caused much blood to be shed. But if you really wanted to attack a religion that preaches violence and hate, you need only look in a mirror.

Christianity has caused as much bloodshed and wars as Islam has, if not more. Luckily, the Towson police officers were quick to get a clean-up crew to the scene and wash away the chalk. Towson, we are better than this. This culture of fear and intolerance must be wiped out before these students cross a line that cannot be undone.


55 Comments »

  • Vin Ienco said:

    poor uneducated Jim, read a koran, get a clue, dhimmi

  • Josie said:

    Hey! I was that friend. If I overheard correctly later, they had video of two of the people who did it. I could be wrong, but I hope I am right.

  • Matt H said:

    Look we don’t need to use coded phrases like “not going to name names” because we all know that myself and the brave guys and gals of Towson Youth for Western Civilization are the ones who took a stand against Islamic extremism. Now to clarify a few points, firstly last semester we have several protests where we actually did hold signs, hand out literature, and talk to students about sharia law and Islamic extremism. We plan to show films this semester on the subject and protest several more times before the year is out. We are not afraid to stand up against stealth jihad, which is why when a Muslim started video taping myself and one of my members doing one of the chalkings we waved and carried on. I have no issue whatsoever of telling anyone to their face what I think of Sharia law or Islamic extremism and neither do the members of YWC. Our very insignia is the Hammer of Charles Martel (Its because we stand against Islamization if you couldn’t tell)

    Now on to the chalkings, we did not right down with Islam. We wrote “Kick Sharia out of America” in front of the Union. Now that is a statement that everyone should agree with. From the Bible thumpers like myself, to the gays, to the atheists, to the moderate Muslims. Sharia law calls for things like third class citizenship for non Muslims, executing homosexuals, women being worth half as much as a man, and forced poll taxes on all dhimmi’s (thats you!!). So the idea that in response to “Kick Sharia out of America” that Muslim students drew the Islamic crescent over where we chalked “America” kind of proved my point. There is part of the Towson population who wants to push Islamic supremacy. That is why they are members of the Muslim Student Association, which please consult Federal documents entered into the Holy Land Foundation case in which is was discovered that the MSA on a national and chapter level is part of the Muslim Brotherhood network whose very purpose is to spread Sharia to all corners of the globe.

    Now to most on campus you probably have not read the Quran and most likely believe what your told about the “religion of peace”. And if a Muslim truly is moderate and rejects the violent teachings of the Quran I would be proud to stand next to them against Islamic extremism. But the sad fact is that Islam from the 7th century has not been a friend of the West. From the invasion and occupation of Spain to the the push west to the gates of Constantinople Christians have had to fight back against Islamic armies hell bent on invading our lands and enslaving our people. We did not defend the walls of Vienna without a reason my friends. Areas of Europe are engulfed in Islamization, from South London to Brussels the European continent is being swiftly suffering from Islamization. I pray that some of the campus wakes up to the danger of Sharia, and the true threat of Islamic supremacism that is at our door. But if I have to be the last voice in the wilds I will say this and mean it “I will never surrender to Islamofascists” and I call all those brave enough to stand up for basic human rights to learn about Islam and filter out the Muslim Brotherhood drivel that groups like C.A.I.R and the MSA trot out. Your being lied to, time to wake up

  • a grad student said:

    Matt, you obviously do not know what sharia is or what it covers.

    You obviously also do not recognize that everything you accuse Islam of can be said of Christianity.

    The more you write, the more ignorant you look.

  • Jim G. said:

    I can’t say that I have read the Quran. However, neither Islam nor Christianity are “religions of peace.”

  • Sean said:

    Will you be branching out and protesting against Christian extremism, homophobia, sexism, racism or any other extreme message of hate? Perhaps this could be part of a larger series. You could even start with the irony behind your anger about students drawing the crescent over the word “America” while Christians wrongfully attempt to claim this country as their own daily.

  • Dan G. said:

    I saw Matt H. doing the chalking in front of the Union. It was done in the dead of night while wearing hoods as if to hide your appearance while a Union maintenance worker looked on in disgust.

    What disgust me most about YWC is their use of inflammatory language.

    And Sean is right, when are you going to protest Christian extremism or homophobia. You only advocate positions that are associated with being against these things. Sure you can say “I’ve publicly denounced homophobia or racism”, and while that may be true, you don’t do it with a fraction of the effort you commit to promoting more hateful ideas.

    Papa Jim is right, YWC is a disgrace to our campus.

  • Jordan Brooks said:

    As a Christian, YWC angers me because they twist our religion of love in to one of hate. As a libertarian I stand for their freedom of speech no matter how mean spirited it is. The best way to fight hate is with love.

  • Jordan Brooks said:

    And to Matt, you tell us that our freedom is in grave danger from the extremist who wish to install a theocracy. These extremists whish to force there religion upon us all? When I hear you call the US a Christian nation I wounded if a theocracy is what your interested in?

  • Poor Richard said:

    > Matt H.

    Thanks, your response was very informative. You have helped me decide whom to vote for. Re-elect the President!

    Stop the Stupification of America!

  • Matt H said:

    a grad student: Sharia is Islamic law imposed upon a nation. There is not an opt out feature for the dhimmi’s that live within the nations borders. Seems pretty simple to understand. But being a grad student you must have already known that right?

    Dan G: My jackets hood was up because it was below freezing, seems like a logical thing to do. Once again, if I was trying to hide my appearance why would I admit to doing the chalkings and hold multiple protests where I hold a sign condemning Islamic extremism?

    Oh Mr. Brooks once again the party lines are rather evident. It is no wonder that in Spain during the revolution that the libertarians sided with the anarchists and communists, I can barely tell y’all apart. Considering you love the Constitution so much as I do, I would encourage you to look up the Supreme Court ruling in 1892 that did in fact affirm that the US is a Christian nation. Add in some confirmation from the Founders plus a 200 year plus history of this being a Christian nation and I think that the truth is pretty clear. You seem to forget that Jesus himself told us that “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.” Christianity is not about being a sheep and allowing the innocent to be subjugated and enslaved. Our Church’s history (I am Catholic also) spent hundreds of years actively fighting defensive conflicts to repel hordes of Muslim invaders into our lands. I can quote you dozens of Pope’s and many theologians who speak the Gods honest truth that Islam is directly from Satan himself and leads those who follow it into eternal hellfire. So yes I hate the ideology, but where the love comes in is in the fact I love every Muslim and want to see them come to Christ and get eternal salvation. As a Christian you must hate the ideology that leads billions away from God, but love those who are misguided enough to try and show them the truth.
    Your disdain for YWC objecting to Islamofascism however is surprising. It is an ideology that is rooted in destroying personal liberties and yet once again instead of the right wing rallying against our enemies we are stuck in this endless infighting. I actually don’t really get what we disagree on actually. I support Ron Paul for President, I want to End the Fed, and I totally am for bringing our troops home from overseas, and most of all I want to protect the Constitution. But the trend has remained consistent for a long time in both European and America politics, libertarians side with the enemies of freedom and condemn those who actually are doing something productive for the society.

  • Jordan Brooks said:

    @poor Richard- Obama stands for stupidity as well just from a different side of the political spectr.

  • a grad student said:

    Keep digging that hole, Matt, because you very obviously do not know what you are talking about.

  • Samuel Johnson said:

    Killing for God – I’m sure he would be proud.

    Thank God I’m an athiest!

  • Charlie Croker said:

    Matt,

    So, your religion is better than mine or anyone elses?

    Remember, there is no established religion in the US. Calling it a Christian nation is misleading. Many of the founders were Christian because most of them were from English backgrounds and the original settlers who happeded to be Christian. We started this country because of religious intollerance. Do you want to return to that intollerance? This country was formed by compromise, balance of power between government branches, between states and federal governing, between liberal and conservative. Inclusivity and multiculturalism are naturally a strenght to any democracy – similar to how a varied genetic animal population is stronger than “pure bloods”.

    Besides, the hypocracy in many “Christians” I have encountered is a pity.

  • Jordan Brooks said:

    Matt,where we disagree is that you wish to use government to force other to live as you live. That view is the antithesis to what Ron Paul and other libertarians follow. And a idea that your calling me a communist is laughable eather you don’t know what a communist is or your just souring out talking points. You sir are a statist.

  • Roach said:

    The idea of a “respectful” campus is obtainable. I would say my fellow students are pretty respectful towards each other, with some exceptions every now and then. However, this is not an article asking for respect. It is another article mad at YWC and the writer wants to vocalize their anger. Quite frankly, these articles and commentary all look very similar.

    1. Someone gets mad at YWC
    2. Someone supports their argument via online comments
    3. YWC member(s) defends their group
    4. Another poster tries to refute said member’s claim with life experience
    5. Repeat cycle

    There you go, the life and cycle of a YWC-rage article. But, it works well and people eat it up (including me apparently, as I’m commenting here, obviously).

  • Jim G. said:

    I feel as if I should clarify what I tried to do with my original letter to the editor. I was aiming to make a point, which is that Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same coin: religions with a violent and conflict-laden history. Bashing one because it is “extreme” and “oppressive” while extolling the other makes absolutely no sense. Obviously, with a 250-word cap on these letters to the editor, I could not get my view across in a way that I wanted to, that is, a lengthy critique of both religions. Both “holy books” are filled with fallacies, inaccuracies, and dated laws that have no place in today’s world. You cannot say that the Quran is false and wrong, when so much of the Bible is wildly extreme as well. If you believe everything in the Bible, then surely you do not shave your face or eat delicious Maryland blue crabs, for the Book Leviticus says you shall do neither.

    Matt, from one fellow (but rapidly disenchanted and questioning) Catholic, as well as one fellow historian, to another (based on your citing of various court cases, the Founding Fathers, etc.), surely you must know about the persecution Catholic immigrants faced in this country from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries. The nation was awash in Catholic-tinged xenophobia for decades, as “normal, Christian, God-fearing” Americans feared and publicly lambasted Catholic immigrants, decrying that they could never be American because their duty was to swear allegiance to the Pope and the Holy See. Do you see where I am going with this? You claim that sharia law is stealthily taking over America, and that it is our duty to stop this. Where do the differences between swearing allegiance to Rome and to Islam end, and where does what you believe is right begins?

    I can’t change the way the campus community feels about your group; as a firm believer in the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, I have staunchly defended your groups existence to fellow friends and classmates, and will continue to do so, however wrong I may feel your views are. I just ask that you take off the blinders and look at the situation objectively.

  • Matt Hill said:

    As an agnostic, I am far more concerned about the threat of the so-called “Christian Nation,” than I am about the institution of Sharia law. While Sharia law would definitely be a terrible thing, it’s nowhere near as close to home as the damage caused by repeated attempts at a Christian theocracy.

    We are not supposed to be a Christian Nation. We are supposed to be a nation that separates church and state so that all citizens are free to worship or not as they please.

    But repeatedly “Christian” ideals are forced on non-Christians in a wide variety of areas. Most actions against homosexuals in this country are by people who claim to be Christian. Most attacks on feminism come from people trying to force a specific moral code on how women can behave, how they dress, what healthcare they can receive. Education is frequently interfered with, especially the sciences, in attempts to force a Christian worldview despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Entire branches of medicine are blocked for potentially treatable diseases in the cause of protecting Christian sensibilities.

    And theocracy doesn’t even work for Christians. I’ve been to any number of churches. I went to a religious high school. No two groups worship the same way. But once you have state mandated faith, even Christians will find their faiths are interfered with. Will the Catholics be forced to pray like the Lutherans, or vice versa? What about the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Calvinists, or the fringe groups like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any number of groups that exist with church support? What about them?

    Better, I think to be an atheist or agnostic nation in which all faiths are tolerated.

    Because the idea of living in a Christian nation terrifies me, and I will fight against it to my last breath.

  • TU Alum said:

    Saying the United States is not a Christian nation is as asinine as saying the U.S. isn’t an english speaking nation because it hasn’t been declared as our official language.

    -60%-75% of U.S. citizens identify themselves as Christians. Non Christian religions only account for 3.9%-5.5% of the population.

    -52 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians

    -Almost all of the U.S. presidents can be characterized as Christian.

    -Christianity is also implicitly present in the U.S. Constitution. There is even a direct reference to Jesus Christ.

    Pardon me for bringing in some inconvenient data (i.e. evidence) to the discussion instead of just calling people I disagree with silly, misleading, ridiculous and offensive.

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    TU Alum, there is a major difference in saying we are a nation with a majority population of Christians and a Christian Nation. One is a cultural statement of fact and the other makes a strong implication about the inclusion (or, more importantly, exclusion) of other religious groups in our nation’s identity as well as implying a sponsorship by the state of Christianity.

    Also, I would like to know where in the Constitution you’re finding a direct reference to Jesus Christ. As of my last reading of the document, the only references of religion and religious terminology at all are in Article VII. stating the date on which the Constitution was signed and in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Regarding any possibility of a “threat” of Sharia in the United States, such ideas toe the line between ludicrous and ridiculous. In every study taken, including one by the University of Windsor reported no more than 10 days ago, North American Muslims deny any interest in establishing a theocracy based upon Sharia. But, let’s say for sake of argument, one believes in a conspiracy that any Muslim reporting is lying. Even if this were the case, it would be irrelevant to United States government, where if any level of legislature tried to implement laws based upon Islamic law (or any religion for that matter), it would be immediately overturned as unconstitutional based on a ruling by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, where any law regarding religion must satisfy these three tests:

    1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
    2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
    3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

    Any legislation so brazen as to be explicitly based on religious doctrine would breach all three requirements. So long as a active public would appeal such laws, there exists no reason to worry about Sharia.

    Even in cases where sharia is used as a justification for a person’s action, these have failed in our judiciary.

  • TU Alum said:

    Brian,

    Thank you for your response. I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

    The identity of a country is in large part based on its culture.

    The United States was founded by Christian men using Christian concepts. The overwhelming majority of our population is Christian. The leaders we elect are Christian.

    I fail to see the “major difference” you mention above. Again, that would be like saying we aren’t an english speaking nation because our language has not officially been declared.

    Perhaps you should read the Constitution again. Article VII, known as the “subscription clause”, says the drafting of the Constitution was “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” Lord is Jesus Christ.

  • Matt Hill said:

    Anno Domini. Year of Our Lord. A.D.

    Use of standard time keeping is not an implicit sanction of religion.

  • Emily said:

    GO PAPA JIM!

  • Dan G. said:

    Dear TU Alum & YWC,

    I think the founding fathers would disagree with your assertion that they intended for us to be a Christian nation.

    I look to James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”. Prior to his work with the Constitution Madison helped Thomas Jefferson draft the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which disestablished the Church of England and made efforts separate church and state. Then on his death bed Madison wrote essays arguing against letting chaplains serve in Congress!

    Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

    Furthermore, all of our “Founder Fathers” signed a pact stating:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    That pact is the Bill of Rights! They clearly intended for our nation to be composed of a multitude of religions.

    Sources: The Constitution of the U S of A!

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    Matt Hill explained better than I could have the relevancy of “our Lord” in Article VII. I would also point out I did not overlook Article VII. I explicitly mentioned it.

    Though your point about culture determining identity may hold truth from a perspective of sociology, and I am in no educated position to argue one way or another on such merit, it has little relevance in regards to Constitutional Law. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” explicitly prohibits the United States taking any stance in determining a state religious identity. The religious affiliations of the Founding Fathers in light of this weighs little on

    To elaborate on what I called the “major difference” in my previous post, it is the difference between the State adhering to neutrality or “choosing a side.” If the State is to favor one faith and by doing so implicitly acknowledging one group as favored over others, it must do so at the expense of disfavoring all other faiths and creating an implicit exclusion of these people. The stance of the Constitution of neutrality, favoring no group, does not lend implicit legal preference to any faith. It’s inarguable most Americans are Christian. But, that is simply census data, not a legal principle.

  • Charlie Croker said:

    > John D. – If you would like to be taken seriously do not post anything from FOX News. Such relations will only hurt your credibility.

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    Pardon the double post, but to John D., what that article does not mention is the New Jersey case in question was later overturned on appeal.

  • Charlie Croker said:

    AD (The Year of Our Lord) was the only accepted designation for an era when the Constitution was written. This does not establish the nation being “Christian”. Now it is universally accepted to use ‘CE’ for common era, thus acknowledging the entire world culture.

  • John D said:

    To the two guys who responded to me:

    It’s not really an opinion article so the source isn’t relevant. You can check other sources, the facts don’t change. However I am aware that it was later overturned, and it is in fact mentioned in the article I posted. I was really just trying to provide some food for thought.

    However, it is worth noting that laws in multiple states banning the practice of Sharia OVER American laws in state courts were recently challenged by a federal judge. Say what you like about how unnecessary the law might be, my question is why would it be in any way unconstitutional?

    And then my next question is this: Why is it so bad to protest Sharia law as a matter of policy? It’s happening in Europe. Thankfully not here yet…But why can’t we protest it?

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    The reason anti-Sharia laws have been overturned (at least upon what happened in Oklahoma) is based upon Larson v. Valente, which forbids the government from discriminating among religions. The reason the anti-Sharia law failed this test was that it singled out Sharia and specifically banned it and only it.

    Regarding protesting sharia, there’s nothing wrong legally with protesting it on principle. That’s guaranteed by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment. I may or may not agree with such action, but that is neither here nor there.

    Larson v. Valente: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=456&invol=228

    Further explanation of the ruling against OK’s Anti-Sharia law: http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2012/01/oks-anti-sharia-law-not-ok-10th-cir.html

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    And I’ll stand corrected on the content of the Fox News article. I initially only gave it a quick parsing.

  • TU Alum said:

    In response to Matt Hill:

    I disagree. The use of the words “year of our Lord” was not necessarily routine. Virginia’s constitution, for instance, fixed it’s inception “on Monday the sixth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six”. Also, you will find that many people use C.E. (Common Era) nowadays to explicitly avoid the sanction of religion.

    In response to Brian:

    Your question was “I would like to know where in the Constitution you’re finding a direct reference to Jesus Christ.” A.D. stands for Anno Domini, year of our Lord. This is a direct reference to Jesus Christ.

    To try and make any argument that this country wasn’t built on a Christian foundation is absurd. Putting aside the fact that 90% of the men who signed the Constitution were Christian, consider the following:

    - The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible.
    - The Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance of Sunday as the day of worship, as well as a direct reference to Jesus Christ.

    The ACLU has even come out and said the Constitution is unconstitutional because of this.

    I encourage you all to read this website where I obtained the above information.
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556

  • TU Alum said:

    I stand corrected, the ACLU did not say that. I misread.

  • TU Alum said:

    In response to Charlie. Fox News is the most watched news program in the United States by a wide margin. Making those sorts of statements only makes you look foolish.

  • TU Alum said:

    In case you try to dispute my last comment regarding Fox News, here are the most recent cable news ratings.

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/09/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-february-8-2012/119318/

  • Brian Andrew LaCour said:

    I never stated anything one way or another on a “Christian foundation.” I acknowledge the Founders were Christians (and Deists, if I’m required to split hairs). But, my point is that their backgrounds hold no legal value against the text of the Constitution. They may have been Christians and that may have influenced their political outlooks. But, their religious holdings are not the law and a governmental neutrality towards religious was established in the, no pun intended, Establishment Clause (which does not advocate Christianity explicitly) and reaffirmed over the past few centuries in numerous case law rulings by the Supreme Court.

  • Josie said:

    Matt H, if you say you were not trying to hide who you were while doing it. Why not do it in the middle of the day? It surely must be more convenient to chalk during the day, rather than in the middle of the night. Also warmer, so you wouldn’t have to wear your hood.

  • TU Alum said:

    Matt H still has a lot to learn. Having an opinion on something is fine but sometimes its best to keep them to yourself and not offend others. I’m sure you will come back with some cute “we’re not afraid” response but you won’t think that way when the Fortune 500 companies aren’t calling you for job interviews because of your insensitive remarks. Maybe you dad owns a company and you don’t need to worry so you live a wreckless and immature lifestyle.

  • Dan G. said:

    In response to TU Alum:

    First, I feel that you did not address my point that James Madison himself clearly argued for religious freedom. I can also point to Thomas Jefferson, a self professed diest, who authored a version of the New Testament edited to exclude any supernatural events and stress only Jesus’s moral message.

    The article you posted from Apologetic Press was an interesting read. It is understandable that the discussions surrounding the Constitution focused on Christianity, because at the time non-Christian religions had membership numbers that could be qualified as cultish, but it is just insulting to think that our founders didn’t have the foresight to imagine a nation where other religions composed significant minorities.

    Even if that is what the framers of the Constitution intended (and its not) that doesn’t make it okay to demonize Islam or other religions. I don’t want to live in a country like that.

    Matt H and YWC: Please respond to my charge that radical Christianity is just as/more dangerous than radical Islam. See my original comment on this article or my comment on YWC’s most recent Towerlight article: http://www.thetowerlight.com/2012/02/ywc-still-stands-against-sharia-law/

  • Charlie Croker said:

    Just because FOX News has a large population of sheep doesn’t make it a respectable news source. It’s still vitriolic tripe in my opinion.

    Make yourself better off and don’t watch any news at all.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

  • John D said:

    Josie: Maybe because people have to walk around during the day? Hard to chalk while hundreds of people are trying to get where they’re going. Plus, being students, we both have classes and jobs to be at. So you’ll have to excuse us not being able to put on a show for everyone.

    Dan: Radicals of any banner are quite dangerous. Personally I’m really more offended by people such as the Westboro Baptists and the KKK (who I believe you mentioned in your other post) than I am by radical Muslims. They twist the Gospel message into something that it isn’t. However, the beliefs and opinions that these people espouse are not what Christ’s message was: redemption and forgiveness. People like to throw around quotations of the laws of the Old Testament as proof that Christians are some sort of evil people who will murder you for not obeying. Many Christians do believe in following most of these laws. But what many people (and at times especially Christians themselves) don’t realise is that the entire point of Christ’s death and ressurection is to atone for the violations of these laws that mankind commits. In essence, the message is that salvation will not come through the old laws but through belief in Jesus Christ. Christ himself in his own words invalidates some of the old laws (such as the dietary laws) in the Gospels. We’re not called to forcefully implement the old laws, it’s irrelevant to our one true means of salvation.
    Our problem with Sharia is that the ideology itself is to forcibly spread these laws. You will never hear us claim that all Muslims are extremists, terrorists, or really any more evil than anybody else. But Sharia is not something that I am willing to accept as a part of my society. It was mentioned that these laws were meant to govern everyday decisions such as trading and prayer. This is fine in my book. But I firmly believe that some other aspects (mainly the murdering and what not) should never be accepted in American society or western culture in general. These laws are contrary to ours and cannot be allowed to supercede our own.
    So I suppose to answer your question, yes all radicals can be dangerous. But I won’t ignore radical Islam simply because radical Christianity exists as well. I will disagree that currently radical Christians pose as potent a threat as radical muslims do. The groups you mentioned do not wield nearly as much capability to do harm as radical muslims do (for instance, the idea of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in control of nuclear weapons is particularly sobering). And frankly, in the past twenty years the total amount harm done by each group does not even compare.

  • Anne Elke said:

    “But I firmly believe that some other aspects (mainly the murdering and what not) should never be accepted in American society or western culture in general.”

    So, John D., when is taking another life not murder? What about capital punishment? That is perfectly accepted in America, especially in Texas and especially under that model Christian George W. Bush. It sounds to me that Texas would love to adopt some good ole fashioned Sharia law.

    Who would Jesus execute?

  • John D said:

    I’m sorry, where did I advocate for capital punishment exactly? Aside from the fact that that is a completely different and unrelated issue, I have not expressed any support for the death penalty, despite its legality. Abortion is also legal, but I don’t support that either.

    George Bush is not a model Christian. Neither is Texas a model of Christian society. However, a state’s decision to execute criminals does not link it to any one ideology, let alone radical Islam. Criminals have been executed since throughout history.

    Remember that Jesus will be the one who stands in judgement of us in our day of reckoning, separating the sheep from the goats. He will effectively be executing for all of eternity any who He does not deem worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. So who will he execute? I can’t say for sure.

    “Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Matthew 13:49-50.

    “You will say “We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.” Then he will say to you “I do not know where you are from. Depart from me, you evildoers!” Luke 13:26-27

    “I am the way and the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

  • John D said:

    Oh, sorry I meant to address one more thing. Killing is not murder, both under the laws of man and of God, when it is done in self-defense or in defense of another.

  • Anne Elke said:

    So, your religion is better than mine, right? Suppose I’m an athiest or a buddhist or best of all, a Pastafarian (FSM). How is your story book better than mine? Or more true??

    You are backing up your arguments from a very one-sided viewpoint; Christianity. Not everyone is Christian or religious for that matter. As a matter of fact some of the most spiritual people I know are a-religious. Some of the most egotistical, selfish, mean-spirited people I know happen to be Christians.

    R’Amen

  • John Donovan said:

    Um. Well, I think so. You probably don’t. That’s why I’m part of one religion and other people belong to others.

    I think I already mentioned that my problems are not with individuals, but with the laws themselves. My problems with Sharia have nothing to do with me being Christian. They have to do with Sharia being a very bad system of government.

  • Ben Franklin said:

    Here is a solid run down of the Founding Father’s religious beliefs

    http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

  • TU Alum said:

    In response to Anne Elke:

    You are about as crazy as they come. It’s a shame that our country lets someone like you vote.

  • Anne Elke said:

    TU Alum – A very informative response -kuddos!

  • TU Alum said:

    Anne Elke:

    Really? Your trying to act like your being the bigger person here? This is after you:

    1. Made the argument that any time a life is taken it should be considered murder.

    2. Brought up capital punishment which had been completed unrelated to the discussion.

    3. Said that capital punishment is “perfectly accepted” in America

    3. Strangely brought George Bush into the conversation. You do realize he hasn’t been the Governor of Texas since 2000 right?

    4. Referred to the Holy Bible as a “story book”

    5. You also appear to have a very narrow minded view of Christianity due to the fact that “Some of the most egotistical, selfish, mean-spirited people” you know happen to be Christians.

    It appears you are uneducated and make assumpumptions, arguments, and base your beliefs purely on emotion.

    Your situation really is a shame.

  • John D said:

    Let’s play nice folks…

    TU Alum: Pretty much. But let’s not be insulting.

    Anne Elke: He’s not wrong. It’s more productive to try showing some respect….Especially considering the title of this article.

  • Someguy said:

    You want violent, just take a peek at your book.

    “Samar’ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”
    Hosea 13:16

    And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
    Leviticus 26:7

    I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children , and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.
    Leviticus 26:22

    God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
    Numbers 24:8

  • Historian said:

    John D. of YWC says: “(for instance, the idea of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in control of nuclear weapons is particularly sobering).”

    Funny that Israel has nuclear weapons and has attacks US military installations in the Lavon Affair, and the USS Liberty.

    Israel should be nuked by the USA in retaliation.

    John D. and YWC are nothing but front organizations for the Jewish Zionists.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

Formatting help »

By posting a comment you acknowledge and accept the following policy. Any material published on TheTowerlight.com may be used in the print edition. The Towerlight reserves the right to remove any comment from our website at any time for any reason. Online comments do not reflect the views of The Towerlight.