Browse By

No Mosque in Bridgeport, CT or Charlotte, NC? Classic Religious Bigotry

It’s not a 9/11 thing. It’s not a “Ground Zero” thing. The move to push mosques out is taking place across America, and it’s a religious bigotry thing.

Bigot. n. a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race

Collins English Dictionary

The anti-Islam movement would like you to think that it is only pushing to cancel religious freedom in Manhattan, but that’s just not true. News reports previously this year have identified activist efforts to push out existing mosques or stop the building of new mosques in Temecula CA, Brooklyn NY, Staten Island NY, Murfreesboro TN and Sheboygan WI.

Over the last month Operation Save America (a branch of Randall Terry’s old group, Operation Rescue) has been protesting against a mosque in Bridgeport, Connecticut. An online postings betrays the goal of the protests:



The same group mounted an anti-Mosque protest in Charlotte, North Carolina last month. Listen to them tell America straight out that it’s not enough to cancel religious liberty in Manhattan — it must be canceled everywhere in America:

We Came to Slay Your False God…

What does this mosque and the one they are trying to build at Ground Zero in New York City have in common? Muslims are coming to America in droves. They are using their great wealth from oil and are buying us up and buying us out. When weak in a nation, they can afford to “dialogue,” but if they ever gain the ascendancy, out comes the sword. At that juncture, each of us will have one of three choices, convert, become their Dhimmi (slave) or be murdered….

If we make it right with Him, God has the power to drive Islam into the sea or convert them to His Christ. It is truly, repent or perish time for America!

The real point of these anti-mosque protests is that Muslims and Islam must go. That’s why anti-mosque protests are being mounted in communities across the country. In the name of stopping a particular religion, an effort is being mounted to cancel Americans’ freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion.

This is a bigotry movement. This is an anti-freedom movement. Where do you stand?

24 thoughts on “No Mosque in Bridgeport, CT or Charlotte, NC? Classic Religious Bigotry”

  1. J. Clifford says:

    I think it’s astonishing that the 2nd writer can claim to be against Islam because of possible forced conversions in the future, but then threatens Americans that it’s “repent or perish time” – that we all need to accept Christianity, or be doomed.

    I’m working to try to organize some local voices on this issue in my area, but I have to say that, so far, very few people are willing to stick their necks out on this. People seem quite comfortable with the destruction of religious liberty, so long as they’re not the victims themselves.

  2. Jacob says:

    If you think the religious war going on in America today is one sided you are mistaken.

    1. Truman says:

      So then, Jacob, do you intend to be a combatant in this religious war, or try to bring it to a stop, so that there can be equality for all?

      1. Jacob says:

        I preach the Gospel, nothing more. Everything else is a symptom and not a cause. I would rather attack the cause. If they want to build a mosque in my neighborhood go for it. It gives me a place to preach in front of. This building will draw people that I can talk to

        1. Truman says:

          I’m sorry, but I’m not following your metaphor. What’s the disease, and what’s the symptom?

          What do you want to attack? In what form will your attack take place? What is the goal of your attack, and when will you stop attacking?

          As for only preaching the Gospel, that can’t be true, because your Gospel predates Islam, and therefore has nothing specifically to say about it.

          1. Jacob says:

            The disease is sin and the cure is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The symptoms are all of the trangrssions of the law. Islam as a religion is a transgression of the law. They are creating a false god to worship, one who is not real. I can fight that, or instead point out the one True God who is mighty to save.

          2. Steve says:

            But don’t Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same God, the God of Moses and the Hebrews?

          3. Truman says:

            There are some who say they do worship the same God, and some who say that they don’t. Some Christians says Muslims worship Satan. Some people say that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship imaginary beings. It’s all subjective, a matter of interpretation.

          4. Truman says:

            Jacob, you need to distinguish between Christian law and the law of the United States of America. Islam is not against the law of the USA. Many Christians say that Islam isn’t against Christian law, others like you say that it is.

            The trouble with this concept of Christian law you’re referring to is that there isn’t any single established source that defines what that law is. Don’t tell me that source is the Bible, because the Bible is interpreted far too widely to be relied upon as a source of law. It has different versions of law that contradict each other too thoroughly to make sense. So, different Christian groups make up their own versions of Christian law, based on loose interpretation of the Bible, mixed in with personal opinions and preferences.

            The law of the United States of America is much more clear, and it’s very clear that it’s not at all illegal in the United States for anyone to worship a “false god”. After all, many Americans believe that the Christian god is a false god, yet Christianity is not illegal.

            Those who are outside of Christianity don’t live in the Christian universe of sin/not sin. So, it’s kind of weird for you to accuse non-Christians of sinning against Christian rules. It’s as weird as us Americans expecting the British to drive on the right side of the road.

          5. Jacob says:

            Sin isnt realitive. Its the transgression of the Law. Whether they believe it or not doesnt matter. If I tell a police officer that I dont believe in the law he is still going to give me a ticket. My belief has nothing to do with it.

            I am not sure were the USA law came in there. Maybe you didnt read my post. I said I would welcome the building of a mosque. That freedom is the same freedom that allows me to preach in front of it

          6. Truman says:

            Sure sin is relative. It’s relative to which religion you believe in, and whether that religion includes the concept of sin, and whether you believe in any religion at all.

            The police in the UK are not operating under the same law as the police in the USA. People create laws, whether they’re religious or otherwise.

            The problem with the anti-mosque crusaders is that they’re trying to impose their religion’s laws on everyone else.

          7. Jacob says:

            Actually, the core of the law is the same in all countries. That is a huge arguement for the existance of God.

          8. Truman says:

            If the core of the law is now somewhat similar in all countries, it’s because European imperialists pushed their vision all over the world. The core of the law didn’t used to the the same in all countries. Not by a longshot. Do you worship European colonialism as a god?

            Really, though, the core of the law isn’t at all the same in all countries – not even countries as similar as the US and the UK. The USA has a Constitution as a clear and simple foundation of law. The UK has no Constitution. Other countries accept holy books as sources of law. The USA does not.

          9. Jacob says:

            The core morals that make up the law are the same in all societys throughout all of history. Dont be silly. You know better

          10. Jim says:

            I had no idea revenge killings were part of the law in all countries throughout all of history.

  3. Steve says:

    The propaganda put out by these groups is astoundingly similar to the precursors to the greatest genocides of the last century: Kosovo, Rwanda, Germany. Demonize the minority, instill fear, and convince the majority that there’s an imminent threat, thereby justifying aggression. It’s a proven formula. Members of any religious minority in America are justified in being fearful right now.

  4. Joe says:

    The presence of mosques anywhere is not simply an issue of freedom of religion. Islam is not just a religion. It is a legal code, a way of life which addresses itself to EVERYTHING in literal terms. It is a political ideology. The American government would be wise not to think that Islam is just your average religion whose members want to practice their religion in the way they see fit, privately and without bothering others or infringing upon the rights of others not to, to be religious in other ways, or to oppose particular religions ideologically. Islam is a political ideology which seeks world domination, at the point of the sword if necessary. Americans would be wise to read the texts of Islam, including the Quran and some collections of Hadith, the sayings of Muhammed. The Hadith are essential to understand the background of the life of the prophet of Islam. His life of political intrigue, assassination, mass murder, rape, highway robbery, warmongering, slavery and Jew/Christian hatred are lain out in these texts. His active campaign against Christianity and Judaism surfaces there. Islam is a “negative” religion, built on the truth it says Christianity and Judaism rejected and/or twisted. Islam in America is not a happy thought. Nor is Satanism. I suppose the best thing is for people not to be silent and to preach the gospel. Maybe some of the Muslims will be saved from the fire.

  5. J. Clifford says:

    Joe, you say, “The American government would be wise not to think that Islam is just your average religion whose members want to practice their religion in the way they see fit, privately and without bothering others or infringing upon the rights of others not to, to be religious in other ways, or to oppose particular religions ideologically.”

    Do you not realize that the same thing can be said of Christianity?

  6. Joe says:

    Tolerance is meaningless in and of itself. The idea needs a context. Whether a person is politically tolerant would have to do with whether the individual is satisfied with a variety of kinds of political structures and rule. Tolerant democrats might vote for republicans, for instance. They would tolerate some variation in political life. People tolerant politically might understand that society is diverse and people need to experience other ways of seeing and living and to appreciate them, if not fully embrace them. There are some kinds of tolerance, however, which are inappropriate. A sane parent would not tolerate his or her child being victimized, if he or she could help it, not in any sense. Nazi ideology ought not be given the respect that Jesus’ philosophy is given, for instance. While Nazis should be free to speak hatefully, they should not be protected from sharp criticism in every kind of media forum and in all kinds of public arenas. Tolerance does not necessarily mean that the thing tolerated is not demonized and vilified in every way. Islam must be attacked in the press and its doctrines published widely for all to mock and attack. Its characterizations of Judaism and Christianity must be hotly debated and shown to be deceitful. It is a religion filled with hate, specifically directed at Jews and Christians, among others. I would not want the people I love to be ensnared in that religion and I would hate to see my country becoming Islamicized.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      “It is a religion filled with hate… I would hate…”

      I’m just wondering whether you’re serious, or whether you were being intentionally ironic.

      The things you say you hate about Islam, hate for example, you then promote in the name of Christianity, Joe.

  7. Joe says:

    Yes, Clifford, but political Christendom (I don’t say Biblical Christianity) has learned since the demise of the Holy Roman Empire that it can not rule the land. There are many voices that should be heard in a democracy. However, an actual following of Jesus Christ would not be a threat to ANY country. Jesus was pacifist. So are his true followers. Christians who aren’t are not honoring their Lord.

    Do you realize that Islam is an ideology which calls for political domination of the world, Clifford? “Pursue the unbelievers until they submit to Allah or else pay a heavy tax. In lieu of that, cut off their heads.” That’s a paraphrase of an Islamic text. What may be said about Islam’s bloody past may not be said, indeed, about the history of BIBLICAL Christianity. Say all you want about Roman Catholic hegemony from the 4th century on through the Reformation and Radical Reformation and about aberrant Protestant warmongering subsequent to that (Calvin’s murder of Servetus, for instance). There have ALWAYS been true followers of Jesus who represented no threat to anyone. This is not true of Islam.

    I would rather people follow Jesus than Muhammed. I think that is better for a society.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      “There have ALWAYS been true followers of Jesus who represented no threat to anyone. This is not true of Islam.”

      Are you seriously saying that there have been periods of time in which there were absolutely no Muslims at all were non-threatening? Come on, Joe. Your categorical language reaches to the absurd.

  8. Joe says:

    That said, let them build their mosques, provided there is a steady stream of protestation on the roads on which the mosques are built, provided there is unending debate in the universities across the land, provided Muslims can’t get ten feet without having their ideology questioned everywhere. Will this happen? I am afraid not; Americans are asleep; they are believing the lie that all religions are the same and need to be treated with the same ten foot pole, that Islam is just another harmless set of beliefs people may or may not adhere to, perhaps best ignored. This is a dangerous attitude, especially if Islam would like to see democracy in America come to an end in favor of rule under some version of Quranic/Hadithic law, Sharia. This may be just how America is brought back to its knees.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      Yes, Joe, that may just be how America is brought back to its knees… wait a minute, are you wishing for that? Seriously? You’d accept Muslim attacks if only they drove people into the arms of Christianity?

      You know, Joe, there are other choices in life besides Islam and Christianity. You’re not addressing the plurality of choices people have out there, and increasingly, Americans are choosing not to be Christians. You might want to consider whether the intolerant, angry, venomous attitude you’re representing is a part of the reason for that. Really, why would someone want to go to a church where they have to hear such uptight, shrill, aggressive ideas as those you’re promoting?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!