Satanic Cults are Superfluous When We Have Islam
If you ever get the urge to chop off the breasts of wanton women, and then rape and murder them, there is a better way to do it than to join a Satanic Cult: become a Muslim and avoid the jail sentence if you are caught. I was 38 years old in 1983 when I first heard of the Ripper Crew (1), a satanic cult convicted in the grisly torture, rape, and murder of a number of women in Chicago, Illinois in 1981 and '82. One of the cult members was executed in 1999 and the other three received life sentences.
While there are relatively few instances of genuine Satanic ritual abuse in our country, they do exist and when offenders are caught they are duly punished. However had these followers of Satan known that our justice system makes allowances for Muslims who commit the same crimes they would not have gone to prison. What is a crime for a cult is a religious virtue under Islam. Judges who have neither read The Satanic Bible
Of course, anyone who has read my article The Fine Line Between Religion and Cult knows that Islam is the only so-called “religion” that calls for the death of those of conflicting beliefs. In this regard it is not different than a Satanic cult.
Muslim Husbands are Allowed to Rape their Wives
But as long as judges believe that Islam is a religion then whatever is duly considered a crime if committed under the auspices of a cult will instead be acceptable religious practices under Islam. For example, if a Satanic cult member sexually abused and assaulted his ex-wife then he would go to jail; not so if he merely converted to Islam - we recall the case of a New Jersey judge who ruled that a Muslim woman's ex-husband had the right to rape her because her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs (2).
Although this ruling was later overturned (3), the ex-husband did not go to jail. That is to say, he was merely told: don't rape your ex-wife anymore. A follower of Satan rapes an ex-wife - goes to jail - a Muslim does it - is politely asked not to do it again.
In the US Muslims are Free to Attack those who Insult Islam
Imagine that you are a Christian and you go to a Halloween party wearing a funny Satan costume. A Satanist asks you to remove the costume - you refuse - he attacks you - does he go to jail? Don't bother answering - in every state of the Union, the attacker is immediately arrested and goes to jail.
OK now - same scenario except you are wearing a funny Mohammed costume and a Muslim asks you to remove the costume - you refuse - he attacks you - does he go to jail? Don't bother answering - because it is impossible to tell what would happen in any state of the Union - what we do know is that in Pennsylvania Muslims don't go to jail for attacking anyone who insults Muslims (4).
Likewise in any confrontation between Muslims and infidels you can put money on it that the infidel will come out with the short end of the stick.
Islam Must be Declared a Dangerous Cult
Unless we have a Constitutional Amendment declaring Islam to be a dangerous cult and must be treated the same as we treat Satanists, we will have more and more of these kinds of cases. Who knows how a future US Supreme Court might rule in order to be sensitive to Muslim sensibilities.
Go to any community in the United States which has a few Muslims: You will see them petitioning for building permits for mosques but the capacity of those buildings will be a hundred times larger than needed by the community. They are expecting more Muslims to come. Many more. Be prepared for a dirty war.
ENDNOTES
(1):
Wikipedia, Ripper Crew
Ripper Crew or Chicago Rippers was a satanic cult and organized crime group composed of Robin Gecht (who once worked for the serial killer John Wayne Gacy) and three associates (Edward Spreitzer with brothers Andrew and Thomas Kokoraleis). They were suspected in the disappearances of 18 women in Chicago, Illinois in 1981 and '82.
(2):
Creeping Sharia, 7 Aug 2010, New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law
A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.
Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.
According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:
“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”
In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
(3):
FoxNews, 5 Aug 2010, Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge's Ruling
Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."
The woman's lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles' ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering "international law or Shariah Law" in their rulings.
"Those who don't want the bill to pass say, 'there's really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'" Donnelly said.
"Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said 'Shariah law.' But I think it's indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope."
(4):
Godfather Politics, 29 Feb 2012, Judge Says Ok to Beat Someone Attacking Islam
Last October, atheist Ernie Perce wore a zombie Muhammad costume to a Halloween event. Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim, confronted Perce about his costume, told him it was offensive and then started to beat him. The attack was caught on video.
Elbayomy was arrested and charged with assault. At the trial, there was testimony presented by an officer who witnesses the attack along with the video. Judge Mark Martin, then dismissed the case against Elbayomy and lectured Perce about the sensitivities of the Muslim culture...
