Philly Cop Shot in Name of Islam. What To Do?


The suspect in the shooting (“attempted execution”) of a Philadelphia police officer declared that he shot the officer in Islam’s name.   (From the Police Commissioner: “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”) Somehow, the mayor of Philadelphia seems to disagree with the shooter.  Sorta like how Obama doesn’t think muhammedans shrieking their hatred and vengeance upon the infidel as they murder Christians by the thousands has anything to do with muhammedanism.

Be that as it may, the man used a stolen police gun, something the new Obama executive action surely would have prevented.  The police need to be armed, of course, so the real criminal here is obviously religion.  It is high time we recognize that religion kills more people than anything else.  And in order to keep our children safe, we need to have some serious curbs on just anyone having religion.   Schools should be God-free zones.  We need to stop the “extremists” who have hijacked the First Amendment to claim an individual right to faith.

Do you believe in God?  Then you are an extremist.  You should be listed in a federal database as a believer in God.  The place you attend church services should be legally liable for anyone of that faith who kills or harms another person.  That way, when people are no longer allowed to have religion and we are all thankfully safe, armed Federal authorities can come to your house and confiscate bibles, crucifixes, prayer books, rosary beads, and other religious paraphernalia that are dangers to themselves, their household, and their neighbors.

Such a plan, of course, is not unprecedented.  Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, replying to a questioner in Keene, NH who asked “[Regarding] churches…the Soviet Union managed to take away tens of thousands–even millions–of churches and houses of worship, and in one year they were all gone. Can we do that? And if we can’t, why can’t we?”


“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Soviet example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

Common-sense religious laws.  Religion is responsible for more violence than any other single thing.  This outmoded idea that everyone has the right to have God in their lives, God telling them what to do instead of the dictates of the State, “makes no sense”, in the words of President Obama.  Maybe, if we can eliminate such dangerous religion in the hands of private citizens, we can avoid the tragedies like San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Umpqua, UC Merced, Paris, and elsewhere.  Let’s do it, for the children, so they can be safe from God and religious violence.  Like the ones in Kampuchea.


9 thoughts on “Philly Cop Shot in Name of Islam. What To Do?”

  1. Well, you’re certainly correct in one particular: we *should* get rid of religious extremism, and the easiest way of doing that is by getting rid of religion. It’s hard to have sectarian violence when everyone’s an atheist.

    What’s that? You don’t want to give up your god? Then I’m going to keep my guns, too, in case your god starts talking to you and giving you weird ideas.

    1. Not on your life, mister. No, no, no, no. You will give up your guns AND your God, and your atheism. And you will embrace the new religion of worship of the State.

    2. I’m uncertain if you’re employing sarcasm. If you are, then what follows matters not.

      If you’re sincere about getting rid of religion, then you’re suggesting substituting the comparatively episodic violence with relatively low death rates caused by the friction between minority elements of some faith groups with a belief system which is responsible for mass exterminations on a magnitude of 100+million in the 20th century alone. It is precisely the belief in an accountability and authority greater than man (be it Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, etc.) which keeps MOST of the 8 Billion people on the planet in check.

      Additionally, whereas it’s “boring” and doesn’t rate the evening news, the traditional faith groups have historically been the drivers of compassionate efforts aimed at reducing human suffering. It’s an older data point but: In 2010, faith-based groups in the US sent $7.2B in aid overseas, approximately 18% of all international aid provided. I have friends who went to AFG and IRQ armed only with textbooks and medicine. A few watched their friends die for the crime of teaching basic women’s healthcare– and they went back. They went back BECAUSE of their faith, their belief that God called them to the dangerous field of mission work. Let us not forget the Mother Teresa’s of the world are extremists, too.

      So yeah– religion is messy and it causes friction and occasionally things boil over. It has caused suffering. It has also offered hope to the addicts, food and shelter to the poor, education to uneducated– all with a financial efficiency the state can never touch. But the alternative? Atheism? It has no upside– none. It oppresses. It lacks any compassion. It provides no hope. It offers no love. It extends no mercy. There is no “fair” and “just” because there is no benchmark for those concepts. It is only survival. Take or be taken, kill or be killed.

      If there is an example of ANY nation which embraced atheism and thrived, I’m all ears.

    3. Religion replaced with deference to the State as the moral guidepost is akin to the disarming of the populace and allowing the State to have a monopoly on violence.

      There was no religious strife in the Third Reich, or the Soviet Union, or Cambodia, or Red China. Nor was there any “gun violence”. All those problems which the Secular Progressive Socialist-Communists wish to eliminate were effectively eliminated in those places. All it took was the deaths of tens and hundreds of millions of souls, and the oppression of hundreds of millions more. Something about not being able to make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

      Don’t think for a second that Bernie and Hillary supporters are not convinced that THEIR version of the socialist-communist paradise will be different….

      So yes, it was hyperbole. And irony. Because, in the end, it is the Second Amendment which guards the First, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

  2. Let’s step back a bit here and think for a minute. How is it that most folks got along reasonable well in this nation back when the Muslims were called Mohammedans and they was all herding goats in the Middle East?
    (Not counting the civil war, but religion didn’t have a lot to do with that the way I see it.)
    I think that the Brits (and Lawrence in particular) brought the Mohammedans along too fast. Civilization – particularly the type that we practice in the West is too advanced a concept for then, since the Mohammedans have yet to experience a Renaissance and religious reformation.
    I say that we send them all back to the 7th century and let them try for civilization a bit more slowly (say in 500 years).
    I say that we make religious extremism grounds for deportation and don’t give me any of this bill or rights crap. The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
    If you believe that God wants me to convert to your religion or you’ll kill me – you are by definition a religious extremist.

    1. Oh make no mistake. If we are to parallel the dismantling of the First Amendment with the dismantling of the Second, then muhammedans will be able to practice their religion, but Christians and Jews, etc., would not be. Much as criminals will have guns, and the law-abiding won’t.

    2. “the Mohammedans have yet to experience a Renaissance and religious reformation.”

      There can be no reformation. How can you “reform” a religion whose Prophet himself has people killed for mocking him ( a la Charlie Hebdo), leads armies to conquer, pillage, and enslave unbelievers, owns and trades sex slaves, etc.? How can you “reform” Islam without changing the immutable and perfect word of God as written in the Koran?; an obvious impossibility. What we see is what we get and what we will always get.

      Islam is a totalitarian philosophy, unlike Christianity. Like other totalitarian belief systems there is no “private sector” and there is no facet of life that is not ruled by it. It is incompatible with Democratic forms of government and with Western Civilization. Allowing more than a token number of Muslims into the US is suicidal.

  3. Do you have a link to a video or transcript of Clinton’s comments? I’m coming up empty on my search unless I sit through 90 minutes of her rally on Oct 21st.

    1. They’re actually (cleverly!) altered from comments she made about gun control in a “town hall” in Keene NH. The idea being, of course, if she is so willing to dispense with one of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights, she will be just as willing to dispense with the others.

Comments are closed.