RT's (Russia Today TV) description:
There's Islamic leadership tension in Britain - with hardline Muslims trying to enforce Sharia law in London. From abstention to amputation, RT's Laura Emmett's been hearing how they want to instill their tough code on the capital.
I wrote the following on a Facebook friend's Wall:
Des, after what I've seen in the last few days about the attempted creation of "Londonistan," it appears you're on to something. I trust you've had a great birthday — hope so. I hope you won't ever celebrate a birthday under sharia in England.
I was amazed by the brazenness of the particular Muslims holding a press conference to declare that they were going violently to enforce sharia there. I listened to the whole thing on the Internet. I saw video from both sides: one supportive and the other offended.
There was one on RT that said Muslims had already approached women to tell them to cover their heads. I couldn't help but think that there are going to be some young non-Muslim men who are going to beat up some Muslims who go around "enforcing" sharia (on non-Muslims anyway). A number of non-Muslims who were interviewed were really open about being against this sharia stuff.
I also heard the lead spokesman for the sharia group distort my own religion of Christianity.
He went on to say that their intention is to take over not only the whole of Europe but the world. I think they are itching for a fight and they're going to get more than they're bargaining for.
One commenter on YouTube wrote that this group of Muslims is proving some Zionists' statements against Islam to be right. There's some truth to that, which isn't good.
Is it a big story there? Is it national news? Headlines? TV?
Over here, there are "liberals" who pooh-pooh fear of sharia coming to the US. I think they're being naive. They try to twist Sharia into nothing more than observing prayer and such. They don't believe that Islam doesn't separate Mosque and state.
I agree with some Islamic points, but I'm completely opposed to coercive religion.
By the way, I have Cockney blood in me. I don't know the whole family tree, but my father was fond of his Cockney grandmother. He could do a really good Cockney accent. What about you, Des? Are you Cockney?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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 said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)