Sunday, June 15, 2014

On the Muslim Claim that Jerusalem is Their Third Holiest City

It is absolute rubbish. The only times that the Muslims have ever cared about Jerusalem have been when they haven't possessed the town. Other than that they could give a rat's ass about it and if you don't believe me just open up the damned Koran and look for a mention of it ANYWHERE (yep, that's right, zero mentions as opposed to over 700 mentions in the Bible)....Just bring a barf-bag, that's all.

8 comments:

dmarks said...

I find completely inacceptable the very idea of "holy cities" in which people of other faiths (or lack thereof) are explicitly denied their rights in such matters of conscience as faith.

If you want to see real apartheid, look at Mecca, the first holy city, where people who don't worship the Muslim god are outright banned. To accept Jerusalem as one of these cities would be to endorse persecution.

This is an undeniable problem Islam has. It might well be a unique one. There's simply nothing like it in Christianity: Consider the Catholic Church as the largest sect, there is no prohibition against Jews, Muslims, or even Satanists traipsing through the Vatican.

Aside from this, there is the historic reality that Jerusalem is of undeniable "holy" significance to Christianity and Judaeism, much more in evidence than any connection to Islam.

It was Jewish first, and only Islamic hundreds and hundreds of years later when Mohammed's armies pillaged and raped and conquered the place: an act as brutal as the Crusades, but coming from the east.

Rational Nation USA said...

Throughout history"holy" has been responsible for massive numbers if unholy deaths.

Go figure.

BB-Idaho said...

'Satanists traipsing through the Vatican' ....some of them were probably Popes back in the day.
Claiming a city 'holy' brings
tourists, and it brings violence.
..even in the Moslem fourth Holy City: they are still arguing in the mosques of Kairoan and Harar
which has that precedence.

dmarks said...

By the way, Will, taxation is completely and objectively at an all-time high.

While I would accept a small tax increase that is small enough to not encourage such behavior as people moving out of the country, but large enough to placate the Stalinistic desires of "class warfare" leftists, it is very very clear that the budget problem is not one of not enough money, it is one of wasting way too much in spending.

BB-Idaho said...

dmarks, never accepts a link which is biased, but quotes CNS,
the agit-prop organ of Leo Brent
Bozwell III? Might as well quote conservapedia.

dmarks said...

BB: You are right. I usually do tend to avoid these sources. My bad.

Revenues are indeed close to a record high, and have been for a while. But so far I am unable to find a separate source than CNSNews that shows they went to a record high now, for sure.

Rational Nation USA said...

Meanwhile we are paying on or servicing the national debt expanded by trillions under Bush II all the while he was keeping taxes artificially low while spending like a drunken sailor on two wars.

Two most prolific KEYNSIAN deficit spending Presidents? 1) Reagan, 2) Bush II, check it out at RN USA on thread concerning the current Iraq situation. I linked to concrete data to help set dmarks straight.

dmarks said...

RN said: "I linked to concrete data to help set dmarks straight."

You didn't sent me straight at all...Not because I disagree with you, but because I already knew that the Bush budget policy was atrocious.

I agree with you in general, but not on some specifics. The taxes were not artificially low at all. Bush spent like a drunken sailor, but mostly on domestic spending. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during "Bush II" amounted for between one-quarter and one-third of Bush's total debt amount of $4.9 trillion [source: Politifact.

Take away these wars, and yes, Bush still spent like a drunken sailor. Again, something I already knew.

The Bush tax cut package, which mostly benefited the middle class, was followed by a trend of increase in tax revenues. This does not necessarily mean causality, but it is strong evidence that the government plundering the people a little less during this time didn't have a negative effect on the budget.