Why is that Northern Nigeria muslims have a disguisting habit of attacking Southern Nigerian Christians ?

Why are they so blood thirsty ? 

What do you think of a religion that will tell its followers to kill non-muslims, as a pre-requisite to paradise?


What do you think of a religion where its followers worship moon and black stone ?

What is it about their religion that if you dare criticise their religion, immediately they will kill you or they will burn down churches and where christians live ?


Why do the Northern Nigeria Muslims wants to be like Arabs muslims? Knowing fully well that Arabs never liked black people and they never will ? Knowing fully well that if black muslim people come into the midst of arab muslims, they will be discriminated against.  Take a look at what is going on in Sudan ? The arabs cry of occupation in their lands whereas they are occupying parts of Africa. Take a look at  Sudan, Egypt and other parts of Africa where these people ocupied. They started slave trade in Africa


Why would the federal government in Nigeria allow some states in Nigeria to be practising Sharia law in a secular country, whereas countries like Turkey where they have a strong Islamic history even ban their women from putting on a veil in public offices ?


Why do we imitate things in a blind way in Nigeria ?


When are we going to see an end to this killings and religious intolerance in the Nothern part of Nigeria.



Why would the Northern muslims prefer going to learn Arabic than going to proper school ? Knowing fully well that Arabic language is not their mothers tongue.


Please lets discuss.

I still maintain, these people shld be kicked out of Nigeria! End of story!

since allah has hands but cant hold anything, has moutn but cant talk, in short, since allah is practically helpless, they need to help their allah by force! So, do not hold any of them in high esteem. Any muslim not blood thirsty is not a tru muslim. They are commanded to kill!

i have never been to nigeria our any other Muslim state however every one seem to be angry with all Muslims for the deeds of all.

In every religion there are people who decide to interpret their god and his so call words the way they see fit it does not make it right.

Cathalics take it to the extreme by saying  unless yr husband or wife are dead you can not marry again what i want to know is god who is so all knowing, he can see the future shouldn,t he have seen this would be a problem in modern times?

seventh day adventist choose to obey the sabeth to the full they do not spent money sun down friday to sun down saturday.

is this at all possible in modern times, because going to work alone is spending money. The list goes on

Islam is beautiful and peaceful, it is not about what people choose to do.  Life is not ours to take however only Allah can judge those who choose to do this.

This is not only for non muslims it is for every one.

Coco29:


Cathalics take it to the extreme by saying unless yr husband or wife are dead you can not marry again what i want to know is god who is so all knowing, he can see the future shouldn,t he have seen this would be a problem in modern times?

Sorry I skipped out all your remaining post in this quotation here.

God knew wickedness and sin will abound over time and years. That was why he sent his beloved son to be the way to Life and Peace. It is now left for man to accept and truly believe in Him (Jesus), confessing our sins and knowing that the only to having a true knowledge of God is by accepting the Lordship of Jesus.

I am a living testimony to what I have stated above.

Coco29:

Islam is beautiful and peaceful, it is not about what people choose to do. Life is not ours to take however only Allah can judge those who choose to do this.

Thank God for I-man! kai! In one breath you blame the christian God for the problems of the world, asking why He couldnt have stopped it if He knew things would be so bad and then claim that Islam is "beautiful and peaceful". Was the islamic "god" (if he exists) sleeping when the tsunami came? Why didnt he stop it if he is so beautiful and peaceful or is wickedness only the responsibility of the christian God?

you may want to relocate to Iran, sudan, Syria, Lebanon, palestine, Iraq to experience this "peace" for urself.

I have been on this forum to know what and how those that have made this comment.

The truth is that there is alot of FAKE CHRISTIANITY. Imagine a Christian saying that we should exclude our own country men because of their religion!

Have we forgotten that among our fold we had one of the greatest men that persecuted the church in the name of Paul The Apostle? Paul Killed so many people in The True Church. How many prayed that Paul should Die.

Oh you may say that I have not been persecuted before by this people, in fact I have been persecuted by them. Yes they worship a false god but they are human beings.

Don't we know that are weapons are not carnal?

We have not been given the ministry of Condemnation but of Reconciliation. There are Christians among this people. I say there are Holy Christians that will need more of our prayers and They will need more men to evangelize the north of our country.

Are there not Christians in Chad?
Are there not Christians in Egypt?

There is Hatred in our Hearts and we must stop this now.

If a man is stubborn in sin and has known the scripture we dont care, so far he says he is a Christian that is all.

Backslider:

I have been on this forum to know what and how those that have made this comment.

The truth is that there is alot of FAKE CHRISTIANITY. Imagine a Christian saying that we should exclude our own country men because of their religion!

Have we forgotten that among our fold we had one of the greatest men that persecuted the church in the name of Paul The Apostle? Paul Killed so many people in The True Church. How many prayed that Paul should Die.

Oh you may say that I have not been persecuted before by this people, in fact I have been persecuted by them. Yes they worship a false god but they are human beings.

Don't we know that are weapons are not carnal?

We have not been given the ministry of Condemnation but of Reconciliation. There are Christians among this people. I say there are Holy Christians that will need more of our prayers and They will need more men to evangelize the north of our country.

Are there not Christians in Chad?
Are there not Christians in Egypt?

There is Hatred in our Hearts and we must stop this now.

If a man is stubborn in sin and has known the scripture we don't care, so far he says he is a Christian that is all.

I don't know you or have any idea what you're like in everyday life, but reading your posts in different threads I can honestly say
I HATE YOU.
The ignorance that oozes out of your posts is nauseating, you give me headaches. If you were on fire I wouldn't piss on you to put it out.
There I feel better

Dios, these people will send hired internet-cyber killers to you soon o -watch your back!

Coco29:

i have never been to nigeria our any other Muslim state

That always hampers any person's perspective.There is nothing as illuminating as first hand experience.

every one seem to be angry  with all Muslims for the deeds of all.

Obviously,its wrong to blame all for the sins of some.However,it is also unhelpful when people seem to prefer playing the ostrich.A straightforward condemnation of instances of violence cannot be too much to ask of Muslims who claim theirs is the religion of peace.Why do "peaceful people" find it hard to condemn violence? Violence is the antithesis of peace.

Why would anyone expect a condemnation of violence against Muslims if there is no quid pro quo?This is probably due to the idea amongst Muslims,that Muslims are not supposed to speak ill of each other.Which is okay if the whole of humanity is Muslim but inherently discriminatory where most humans are non-Muslim.Which leads us back to a culture of silence and inherent bias that feeds into religious intolerance and ultimately violence.

In every religion there are people who decide to interpret their god and his so call words the way they see fit it does not make it right.

I recognise this argument.Its the canard about their being extremists in every religion which is technically true but consequentially fatuous.Its a bit like saying,there are armed robberies in Western Europe as well as Nigeria,hence,Nigeria does not have a unique robbery problem.Its not the mere existence of extremism that is the issue but its pervasiveness.

To deny that Islam has a unique and pervasive problem with extremism because every religion has extremists will be tantamount to saying that Nigeria does not have a unique problem with armed robbery since armed robbery exists in every country.This is a denial of reality and of the suffering of many.

Cathalics take it to the extreme by saying  unless yr husband or wife are dead you can not marry again what i want to know is god who is so all knowing, he can see the future shouldn,t he have seen this would be a problem in modern times?

Thanks for that misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.It is interesting that this is your best example of Christian "extremism" against the background of violent extremism in Islam.One can also ask,if the Islamic God is all knowing,how come he never forsaw that people will misinterprete his words in the Koran to justify violence and sexual discrimination as we have seen today.

If the peacefulness of Islam was expressed in the Koran with the same forcefullness and clarity as we have in Buddhism or Zoroastrianism,to name but a few,we won't have the Bin Ladens,Zaraqawis of today just as we don't have their Buddhist or Zoroastrian equivalents.Why?Because while there might be a lunatic fringe in those other religions,they have no verses that can be interpreted in such a way as to support violence.

seventh day adventist choose to obey the sabeth to the full they do not spent money sun down friday to sun down saturday.

Again,in the context of violent extremism,this is a laughable example of Christian extremism.Such "extremism" harms no one who isn't 7th Day Adventist in the same manner as Islamic extremism harms non-Muslims and Muslims alike in today's world.Not spending money on Sabbath will not lead to the deaths of thousands just as strict rules on divorce does not lead to suicide bombing.

Islam is beautiful and peaceful,

This is a subjective opinion often expressed by either Muslims or non-Muslims who live in non-Muslim nations and has acquired the status of a meme.Most people who are not Buddhist see Buddhism as peaceful but strangely very few see Islam as same.

This maybe because the founder of Islam(Muhammad) engaged in more wars than even George Bush.Muslims claim that all these wars were in self-defence.Strangely,neither Jesus,Confucius,Gautama Buddha nor Zoroaster felt the need to fight these "self-defence" wars.Muslims may retort that unlike,these other religions,theirs is the true religion,so they faced much greater threats.The problem with that argument is that these wars set a very bad precedent for future "misguided" Muslim and the notion that they were all in self-defense flys in the face of facts.For instance,Muhammad wrote to the Byzantine Emperor,calling on him to convert to Islam or face retribution,no where did the Byzantines ever attack the Muslims.

Having militarily conquered most of Arabia,after his death,Muslims conquered the whole of North Africa conducting ethnic cleansing and turning N.Africa into a predominantly Arab region.Thus was created,a cycle of religious violence which we see today.

Enough of history.The Muslims defence is always that Islam if properly interpreted is peaceful.The reality is that Islam deliberately or not,contains verses which any susceptible mind can easily interprete as supporting violence.This is not the case with most other religions.If you are a victim of Muslim violence,it matters not whether upon a proper learned exegesis,Islam can be seen as peaceful.The reality of violence totally contradicts the empty chants of "Islam is beautiful and peaceful".Islam is thus beautiful and peaceful, only while speaking from the serene and secure confines of the Western world.

Life is not ours to take however only Allah can judge those who choose to do this.

This is a cop out from taking a stance.A muslim reliably informs you that eating sausages is wrong for Muslims but insists that the question of killings is up to Allah to judge the killers.This is a gross misplacement of moral priorities.If the same stringent attitude towards pork is taken towards violence,Muslims,as they are notorious for not eating pork,will be notorious for their peaceful nature.

Backslider:

I have been on this forum to know what and how those that have made this comment.

The truth is that there is alot of FAKE CHRISTIANITY. Imagine a Christian saying that we should exclude our own country men because of their religion!

Have we forgotten that among our fold we had one of the greatest men that persecuted the church in the name of Paul The Apostle? Paul Killed so many people in The True Church. How many prayed that Paul should Die.

Oh you may say that I have not been persecuted before by this people, in fact I have been persecuted by them. Yes they worship a false god but they are human beings.

Don't we know that are weapons are not carnal?

We have not been given the ministry of Condemnation but of Reconciliation. There are Christians among this people. I say there are Holy Christians that will need more of our prayers and They will need more men to evangelize the north of our country.

Are there not Christians in Chad?
Are there not Christians in Egypt?

There is Hatred in our Hearts and we must stop this now.

If a man is stubborn in sin and has known the scripture we don't care, so far he says he is a Christian that is all.

I am yet to come to a full comprehension of your write up here

@mrpataki
when will you rest

i can see that your pic speaks volumes about you

I-man, your thesis should be reproduced and become compulsory texts for everyone muslim or non muslim. Such is the thoroughness and objectiveness of your write up.

Here are a few quotable quotes:

I-man:

Islam is thus beautiful and peaceful, only while speaking from the serene and secure confines of the Western world.

We are not surprised that most of those who beat the "islam is beautiful and peaceful" drums of propaganda are safely esconced in western nations. Let those who live in Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon . . . tell us just how "beautiful and peaceful" islam really is. It is easy to see "peace" in islam when you live in London's liberal society.

I-man:

A muslim reliably informs you that eating sausages is wrong for Muslims but insists that the question of killings is up to Allah to judge the killers.[/b]This is a gross misplacement of moral priorities. [b]If the same stringent attitude towards pork is taken towards violence,Muslims,as they are notorious for not eating pork,will be notorious for their peaceful nature.

What could i add to this, succintly put!

From my mailbox!

[size=13pt]1) Generally speaking Muslims demand respect but are completely unwilling to reciprocate. They feel free to engage in the worse forms of racism, homophobia and religious bigotry yet demand seemingly endless tolerance and genuflection from the kafir. They demand complete freedom to worship as they see fit in western countries, to build gigantic mosques, to engage in missionary activities amongst their hosts, yet in most Muslim countries similar activity by non-Islamics would see them locked up and tortured. The worst example of which can be found in the land of the two mosques, where even to own a bible or pray with friends in your own home will lead to arrest, lashes, imprisonment and deportation. Where is the condemnation of this from Muslims in the UK? Australia? the US? Barely a whisper. Get your own house in order and give thanks to your prophet that you have the good fortune to live in a peaceable, secular European nation which is far sighted enough to tolerate the deeply worrying and at times violent behaviour of it's Muslim minorities.[/size]

Europe, and USA are not muslims countries and yet they permitted muslims migrants to carry out their religion, and build mosque but if you dare preach or if you are caught with a bible in any muslim countries, you will be tortured and infact you must be lucky to be alive.

I don't think muslims and christians are worshipping the same God.

There is a lot of evil and satanic things about this so called Islam, which is causing them to be violent and murderous.

We need a lot of Christians who will evangelise to these demonic muslims in the northern part of Nigeria so that they can repent, because these so called muslims are pulling Nigeria backward.  Human life does not matter to them any more.

They claim islamic religion talks about peace but there is a verse in the quran that tells them to fight against non muslims. These verse is what the so called fundamentalist muslims use as an excuse to carry out suicide bombings.

Honestly everything about Islamic religion is demonic.

God have mercy.

Take a look at this so called Islamic religion and what it has done to the African continent.

First, this Satanic Arab butchers came to Northern Africa, conquer the continent, kills all the black people, occupy their land, turn it to an Arabic land, they also force others to accept this satanic religion and then they spread to other parts of Africa.

Otherwise, why would someone in his right frame of mind, want to practise Sharia law and they want people in the Southern part of Nigeria to work and pay tax which the federal government, will give to their demonic governors as budget.

Enough is enough, we have to eradicate this satanic religion from the African continent, if we really want peace to reign, and if we want to progress and if we want God to bless the continent.

They claim to worshiping god and they practise all sorts of witchcraft including worshipping moon and using their so called quran for all manner of demonic purposes.

They also carry out all manner of demonic sacrifices.

focused said
"Why would the Northern muslims prefer going to learn Arabic than going to proper school ? Knowing fully well that Arabic language is not their mothers tongue."

why would you as a southerner or whatever , erner christian you are, preferred to go and learn English?
definitely you are oblivious to the fact that arabic is being studied in proper schools and in institutions of higher learning.

Mr focused you need to focus on the fact that english is not your mother toungue
could you please tell the forum what is your own mother tongue!? 

focused:

Take a look at this so called Islamic religion and what it has done to the African continent.

First, this Satanic Arab butchers came to Northern Africa, conquer the continent, kills all the black people, occupy their land, turn it to an Arabic land, they also force others to accept this satanic religion and then they spread to other parts of Africa.

Otherwise, why would someone in his right frame of mind, want to practise Sharia law and they want people in the Southern part of Nigeria to work and pay tax which the federal government, will give to their demonic governors as budget.

Enough is enough, we have to eradicate this satanic religion from the African continent, if we really want peace to reign, and if we want to progress and if we want God to bless the continent.

They claim to worshiping god and they practise all sorts of witchcraft including worshipping moon and using their so called quran for all manner of demonic purposes.

They also carry out all manner of demonic sacrifices.

So you think that only Islam is demonic and satanic, you need to study History and  learn about all the atrocities commited by the Christian Religion on African Continent and in the rest of the world.
yes you are right enough is enough, we have to eradicate all satanic religion from the African continent especially those that are intolerant to Indigenous African belief systems if we really want peace to reign; and if we want to progress.

@focused

FYI USA is not a christian state either 

according to Kuns, dont beleive me do your research

The crusaders fought against oppression by Islam.
Go read the books.
They gave an eye for an eye just like the touts in Onitsha did after Igbos were killed in the north.
They didn't take up arms unprovoked.
Then again wasn't the crusades way back in the 15 or 16th century.
How much longer before Islam shades it's violent ways?
shall we wait another 700 years for them to catch on?

davidylan:

From my mailbox!

[size=13pt]1) Generally speaking Muslims demand respect but are completely unwilling to reciprocate. They feel free to engage in the worse forms of racism, homophobia and religious bigotry yet demand seemingly endless tolerance and genuflection from the kafir. They demand complete freedom to worship as they see fit in western countries, to build gigantic mosques, to engage in missionary activities amongst their hosts, yet in most Muslim countries similar activity by non-Islamics would see them locked up and tortured. The worst example of which can be found in the land of the two mosques, where even to own a bible or pray with friends in your own home will lead to arrest, lashes, imprisonment and deportation. Where is the condemnation of this from Muslims in the UK? Australia? the US? Barely a whisper. Get your own house in order and give thanks to your prophet that you have the good fortune to live in a peaceable, secular European nation which is far sighted enough to tolerate the deeply worrying and at times violent behaviour of it's Muslim minorities.[/size]

And why do they keep trooping to the west.
If Islam is so peaceful why are plenty of their women escaping and begging for assylum in the West?

why are the men coming in droves when allah had already prepared them a paradise on earth free of Christians,Jews and loose women wearing bikinis ?

Why are the American embassies filled with Muslims wanting an opportunity to escape the land that Mohammed walked on?

Hypocrites!

nwando:

The crusaders fought against oppression by Islam.
Go read the books.
They gave an eye for an eye just like the touts in Onitsha did after Igbos were killed in the north.
They didn't take up arms unprovoked.
Then again wasn't the crusades way back in the 15 or 16th century.
How much longer before Islam shades it's violent ways?
shall we wait another 700 years for them to catch on?

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

The origin of the word may be traced to the cross made of cloth and worn as a badge on the outer garment of those who took part in these enterprises. Medieval writers use the terms crux (pro cruce transmarina, Charter of 1284, cited by Du Cange s.v. crux), croisement (Joinville), croiserie (Monstrelet), etc. Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication. The wars waged by the Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; in the north of Europe crusades were organized against the Prussians and Lithuanians; the extermination of the Albigensian heresy was due to a crusade, and, in the thirteenth century the popes preached crusades against John Lackland and Frederick II. But modern literature has abused the word by applying it to all wars of a religious character, as, for instance, the expedition of Heraclius against the Persians in the seventh century and the conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne.

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.
CATHOLIC ENYCLOPAEDIA

did the other infidels oppressed christianity or chritendom?

Mr idinrete since you are so "knowledgeable"
where did Christ ask his people to kill others on his behalf?

Quote the link to your posts.
It is so irritating when murderous Muslims use the crusades as their excuse to kill forgetting that nothing about the crusades were in line with Christs teachings and we are talking hundreds of years ago.

Mohammed on the other hand taught about killings and killed many innocent men raping their wives and stealing their property and Muslims are still doing that today since they must follow his footsteps.
I hope you understand that now.

Violence is core Islamic teaching.
We thank God many Muslims are not following the footsteps of Mohammed,he was a violent violent man.
That's all I'm saying.

First to Mr coco :

You said :

" In every religion there are people who decide to interpret their god and his so call words the way they see fit it does not make it right."

Answer : Islamic religion supports violence. In the latter part of Sura, there is a verse which says that : Muslims should fight against people of the scripture (thats is Christian) until they are subdue and until they come to recognise Islam as the only true religion and recognise their satanic Mohammed.

Cathlics take it to the extreme by saying unless yr husband or wife are dead you can not marry again what i want to know is god who is so all knowing, he can see the future shouldn,t he have seen this would be a problem in modern times?

Answer : Monogamy is the uniform teaching of the bible. No man or woman have any right to marry another wife or husband while the spouse is alive. Anyone who does that is committing adultery. Whether they are catholics or which ever denomination they belong to, monogamy is the uniform teaching of the bible. The only case where you can marry, is when the spouse is dead. So what God have joined together , let no man put asunder.
Islamic religion however permits polygamy and polyandry. hmmm??

seventh day adventist choose to obey the sabeth to the full they do not spent money sun down friday to sun down saturday.

Well I don't know about that. Certainly I cannot comment.

Islam is beautiful and peaceful, it is not about what people choose to do. Life is not ours to take however only Allah can judge those who choose to do this.

If you say, Islam is beautiful, why is that whenever anybody criticises Islamic religion, the next thing they do is kill the person or vandalise their property or resort to all form of violence. Islam actually suppport violence. Islamic religion is a satanic religion. Violence is supported in your Quran. It is there written boldy in your Sura 9:5. If you (muslims) believe in God like you claim, which I doubt, why not let God judge anybody who blaspheme his name. Do you have to resort to violence?. This is the first time things like this is happening in Nigeria and I don't think it will be last either.
Look at what happened because of a cartoon about Mohammed in Demark and Muslim Northerner use that as an excuse to kill so many people and burn as many houses as they can lay their houses upon.


Can we Africans, irrespective of religious beliefs love one another and stop this killings. Why are my black brothers and sisters so defensive about all these Arabs who came into the African continent to take blacks as slaves and they are one of the greatest racist??

To Idinrete :

Get your facts right, USA AND EUROPE is a Christian country

Even Middle East is not a muslim country after all, because we do have great Christians in a country like Iran and Iraq before this satanic Islamic revolution. Christianity have been existing in Africa before our fore father went into Idolatry and before these satanic Islamic people brought their religion.

I want to see an end to all these killings by these Northern muslims. I think they should abolish this Sharia law and enforce a proper law that respect human right to free speech and sanctity of human life.

Enough is enough.

focused:

To Idinrete :

Get your facts right, USA AND EUROPE is a Christian country

Even Middle East is not a muslim country after all, because we do have great Christians in a country like Iran and Iraq before this satanic Islamic revolution. Christianity have been existing in Africa before our fore father went into Idolatry and before these satanic Islamic people brought their religion.

I want to see an end to all these killings by these Northern muslims. I think they should abolish this Sharia law and enforce a proper law that respect human right to free speech and sanctity of human life.

Enough is enough.

I swear to jesus, allah, mohammed, jehovah et al that i wasn't gonna post any more but you have to be the dumbest person alive.
Read your own post again please, , sit down,put your reading glasses on AND READ IT. Now weep nigga, WEEP.

focused you can be serious at all.
your name does not depict what is coming from you. you must have been intoxicated when typing that trash you posted.

DIOS and IDINRETE,

Whhich part of focussed's post is drawing your ire? That USA and EUROPE is (was) a christian coutrny?

OK. Let me help him out! USA was founded on purely christain principles which unfortunately they have tried to wash away according to recent happenings and frequent changes to their constitution. The earliest presidents of the USA where noble men who supported very deep christain virtues. Cross-check that yourself. The one I know of, Abraham Lincon was mudered by the Jesuits (soldiers of the pope) because they saw that he was a pain in the neck to them. There were several undue intereference from the office of the pope of Rome because the constitutions of the USA is at co mplete variance with the tenets of the Vatican.

We all know that Europe is not a single country.

Back to the topic. We are saying that the architects of the Christianity is Christ. He never supported violence. The nly incident where violent occurred was when he was to be apprehended by his murderers. To that he told Peter: He who kills by the Sword shall de by the Sword and he took the ear of the person who was affected and put it back. Despite the situation, he never lost his powers. H just had to submit du to his mission on earth.

The architect of Islam is Mohammed. We all know the rest. MO supports violense, forceful subjugation. Islam itself means suppression, submission and hence, you are told that you should kill anyone who does not admit to allah (a false god) who was already in existence before MO was born; you are told to exterminate if an Infidel mocks muslims or allah,

So what are we talking about? We draw therefore two main inerences:

1. We do not worship the same God
2. The god of the muslims cannot be the true peaceful, loving God the Christians know.

Many thanks,

To Idinrete :

Before responding to your post, I had to read what I have posted over and over again.

The only mistake I have made was referring to Europe as a country. Obviously Europe is not a country but a continent.

Idinrete, I want you to go and make your research very well, USA is founded on Christian principles and that makes it a christian country. Check out the whole continent of Europe as well, the countries in Europe are all founded on Christian principles.

I did not insult you in my post and I am surprise at your insulting response.

Now Idinrete or whatever you call yourself, if you know you cannot discuss things intelligently or argue logically without abusing me or insulting me or using all manner of dirty language on me. I will appreciate if you don't ever respond to my post.

You are the greatest thrash, because if you are not, you will respond intelligently.

I think insist that Islamic religion is a cult, where they practise all sorts of demonic activities. God have mercy !

To Dios :

It is very clear you cannot discuss things intelligently. It is very clear you do not have a proper home training. I did not insult you, why are you raining insult on me . The only mistake I made in my previous response was calling Europe a country. Obviously Europe is not a country but a continent.

You are the most nasty human being on earth. You and your entire generation are the dumbest person on earth.

I will appreciate if you don't respond to my post again.

I STILL INSIST ISLAM IS A SATANIC RELIGION. PERIOD.

firstly Mr Focused I apologise for stating that you were intoxicated but what you posted is a trash

Dear Cgift
America was not, is not and will never be a christian country.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
 
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.


RELIGION
An Overview
Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .'' 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.
  Scholarly Commentary .--The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,'' 6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.'' 7   
''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.'' 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9   
This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12   
  Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion .--Before considering the development of the two religion clauses by the Supreme Court, one should notice briefly the tests developed by which religion cases are adjudicated by the Court. While later cases rely on a series of rather well-defined, if difficult-to-apply, tests, the language of earlier cases ''may have [contained] too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.'' 13 It is well to recall that ''the purpose [of the religion clauses] was to state an objective, not to write a statute.'' 14   
In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.
Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court's decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court's 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ''coercion'' for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29   
Justice O'Connor has suggested that it is inappropriate to try to shoehorn all Establishment cases into one test, and has called instead for recognition that different contexts may call for different approaches. Supp.1 For example, the Justice proposes that cases involving government ''speech'' on religious topics be judged by an endorsement test that would invalidate government actions only if a reasonable observer would perceive the action as an endorsement or disapproval of religious belief. Supp.2   
Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .--One value that both clauses of the religion section serve is to enforce governmental neutrality in deciding controversies arising out of religious disputes. Schism sometimes develops within churches or between a local church and the general church, resulting in secession or expulsion of one faction or of the local church. A dispute over which body is to have control of the property of the church will then often be taken into the courts. It is now established that both religion clauses prevent governmental inquiry into religious doctrine in settling such disputes, and instead require courts simply to look to the decision-making body or process in the church and to give effect to whatever decision is officially and properly made.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Why are people afraid of christianity?