Neither Christianity nor Judaism requires that they behead anyone that doesn't convert to their religion, Islam does.

Grow up!

Harbitude

Harbitude is the opposite of dhimmitude.

Develop some harbitude and become a harbi with attitude!
So what is a Harbi? Are YOU one?

A Harbi has no rights, not even the right to live.
...and, you maybe a harbi without even knowing it!
Harbis are people who jihadists judge to be 'at war with Islam', though they don't have to do anything aggressive towards Moslems, their mere existence is a sufficient insult to Allah to justify their extermination.

Islam divides people into two antagonistic groups - Moslems (collectively known as the Ummah) versus Kaffirs (aka Kufr, Kuffars, Infidels or non-believers).

Kaffirs are subdivided further - Jews and Christians who accept the supremacy of Islam are known as Dhimmis, and are allowed to live as second-class citizens, provided they pay the extortionate Jizya (infidel tax) to their Moslem masters. However the Jews must be exterminated eventually before world Islamic domination can be achieved. Christians will then be kept as s***es, since somebody has to do the work, and all parasites needs hosts.

The state of being a submissive Dhimmi is known as Dhimmitude.

Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans and members of all other 'non-Abrahamic' religions, together with secularists, and those Jews and Christians who do not accept Muslim domination, are regarded as Harbis - targets of war.
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/harbitude-harbis-with-attitud...

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

'WHY GOD IS IN THE DECLARATION BUT NOT THE CONSTITUTION'
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02/why-god-is-in-the-declaration-but-not-the-constitution/

No country venerates its “Founding Fathers” like the United States. Academics, legislators, judges, and ordinary citizens all frequently seek to validate their opinions and policy prescriptions by identifying them with the statesmen who led America to nationhood. It is not surprising, therefore, that debates about the role of religion in the United States are infused with references to the faith of the Founding Fathers and to the two greatest documents they gave to the fledgling republic: the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. People across the religious spectrum, from the most devout believers to the most committed atheists, look to these documents for support. Yet the blessings they offer are mixed. The Declaration contains several references to God, the Constitution none at all. The reasons for this variation reveal a great deal about the founding principles of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence is an apology for revolution. Support for a complete break with Great Britain was growing stronger week by week in the spring of 1776, both in the Continental Congress and in the thirteen colonies at large. On June 7, 1776, a resolution advocating independence was presented to Congress by Richard Henry Lee of the Virginia delegation. Four days later Congress appointed a committee of five delegates to draft a document explaining the historic separation it would soon be v****g on.

The resulting Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and edited by his fellow delegates, contains a theory of rights that depends on a Supreme Being, not man, for its validity. The Declaration states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is possible to see in these words an affirmation of the Founders’ religious faith, but God-given rights had less to do with theology in the summer of 1776 than they did with r*******n.


In stating that people’s rights were given to them by their creator, the Continental Congress endowed those rights with a legitimacy that knows no parallel in mortal sources. What God has given to man is not enjoyed at the sufferance of any monarch or government. Liberty is the inviolable birthright of all. The right of revolution proclaimed by the Declaration flows directly from this notion of inviolability: it is to secure people’s divinely endowed and unalienable rights that governments, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” are established. The people consequently have the right and indeed the duty to alter or abolish a form of government that becomes tyrannical.

The Declaration contains several other references to a higher power. The introduction states that the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” entitle the American people to a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. In the conclusion, Congress appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for the rectitude of its intentions and professes its “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” In each case, reference to a deity serves to validate the assertion of independence.

The genius of the Declaration is the inclusive way the divine is given expression. The appellations of God are generic. Adherents of traditional theistic sects can read the words “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge,” and understand them to mean the god they worship. The claims made on numerous Christian websites attest to this. Yet opponents of dogma read those same words and see an embracive, non-sectarian concept of divinity. This is no small testimony to the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers. All Americans could support the Revolution and independence. All can regard their rights as unalienable, their liberty as inviolable.

Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution contains no reference to God. At first, this may seem odd. Why did the men who drafted the Declaration invoke a Supreme Being several times, while the men who drafted the Constitution did not mention a higher power even once? Only six individuals signed both documents, so it could be hypothesized that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention that convened in Philadelphia in 1787 were a different and less religious group then the delegates to the Continental Congress, or perhaps that the delegates to the Continental Congress were savvy freethinkers cynically manipulating people’s belief in God to win support for their o*******w of British rule. Neither explanation holds water. Some of the Founders were conventional Christians and some were not, but the belief in a deity implied in the Declaration was sincere and likely universal among the delegates to both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. And a belief in the possibility of divine favor was held by even some of the least religious Founders. So, again, why no invocation of God in the second major founding document?

The threefold answer lies in the stated purposes of the Constitution, its religious neutrality, and the theory of government it embodies. Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a r*******n to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that its purposes are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are wholly secular objects; religious references are extraneous in a document drafted to further them.

Eighteenth century America was religiously diverse, and by the time of the Revolution religion was widely viewed as a matter of voluntary individual choice. The Constitution acknowledged these realities and, unlike contemporary European political orders, promoted no sect and took no position whatsoever on theological issues. There is no state religion and Article VI of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The First Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The absence of references to a deity in the Constitution is consistent with the strict religious neutrality of the entire document.

The Constitution established a strong national government to replace the relatively feeble Confederation Congress created by the Revolutionary-era Articles of Confederation, but the Constitution is hardly a document glorifying top-down power. On the contrary, the theory of government underpinning the United States Constitution is popular sovereignty. The government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not from an assembly of elders, not from a king or a prelate, and not from a higher power. The stirring opening words of the Preamble, “We the People of the United States,” make it clear both who is establishing the government and for whose benefit it exists. There is no consent required beyond the will of the people for the people to govern themselves.

This view that the Constitution is a bold assertion of popular sovereignty is often countered by pointing out how elitist some of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were and how allegedly undemocratic the document they drafted was. Only the members of the House of Representatives were initially chosen directly by v**ers. Senators were to be chosen indirectly by state legislatures, and the President by e*****rs appointed by the state legislatures.

This criticism confuses an admittedly elitist preference for government by the able with a theory of power emanating from above. The Constitution not only rejected monarchy, but all forms of hereditary privilege and arbitrary rule. It established fixed rules that delimited the powers of the governors, not the rights of the governed. It is to the citizens and the states, not to the executive, that legislators are answerable. The source of all legislative and executive power can be traced, directly or indirectly, to the people.

And in the early years of the American republic, the people in question were deeply suspicious of power. There was considerable opposition to the Constitution as initially drafted, both in the state conventions called to ratify it and among ordinary Americans. Opponents believed that a centralization of authority would lead to tyranny and argued either for outright rejection or, at a minimum, for amendments to limit the powers of the new government and safeguard liberties. In such an anti-power environment, few Americans wished to see their new rulers claim, as European rulers did, that their authority was divine in origin. In creating a political order based on popular sovereignty, the Founding Fathers thus turned prevailing European political theory on its head. In place of the divine right of monarchs, the Declaration asserted the divine rights of all men, and both the Declaration and the Constitution source the legitimacy of political rule exclusively in the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution do not therefore represent competing views of the existence of a Supreme Being or its role in American political life. They are two sides of the same coin. When read together, the Declaration and Constitution tell us that the people’s rights are divine in origin, sacred and unalienable, while governments are human in origin, answerable to the people and dependent entirely on their consent.

Homestead wrote, "Neither Christianity nor Judaism requires that they behead anyone that doesn't convert to their religion, Islam does."

And yet the 3.3 million Muslims living in the US are not going around beheading anyone that doesn't convert to their religion. Perhaps it is because they understand their scripture in ways that allow them to live in peace with their neighbors, just as most Christians and Jews do likewise. Would you have them be more unfriendly in their interpretations? Do you not want to love your neighbor?

Homestead wrote, "In twenty years there will be enough Muslim v**ers in the U.S. to elect the President!"
In the spirit of snarkiness, I reply, many on OPP say a Muslim has already been elected POTUS.
As to the cases you listed (not that I looked at them, but I get the gist), They are just cases, whether through insufficient time or greater immunity, where the perpetrators were not seduced by our American decadence into being good neighbors. What is the solution? I think an element would be for Americans to be better neighbors.

The Jews tried being better neighbours to the N**i's, they even v**ed for Hitler.

How'd that work out for them?

As I said, you want to wallow in your ignorance and play stupid.

Many people, of many societies, have done the same, it didn't work out well for them either.

Why don't you try educating yourself?

Three Stages of Jihad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_468896&feature=iv&src_vid=-SoXs0_rHY&v=ERou_Q5l9Gw

Why don't you try listening to ex-Muslims that embraced Islam for most of their lives?

Interview With Walid Sheobat at 700 Club
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtvhtK8Ol98

Why I Left Jihad ? Ex-Muslim militant Speaks Out - Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie_aYc6GPcc

Story of 3 former Islamic Terrorists accepting Jesus Christ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIOIG-mlE8

Ex-Muslim man tears apart the "Religion of Peace" and abuses the prophet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3sA004xlQ

Islam-Ex Muslim., Allah is a Gangster, watch this you will leave Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl641IFO10g&ebc=ANyPxKrtpbvRzoN_Zbw1pktwRHo4ydYtXamMRFKb-Das0Xqa2vfGvJemF8WljlsxfoOL17p7DnFwX52P6pp60GRZCX47mNrfCg

Prominent American Muslim, Umar Lee, leaves Islam: "We were lied to"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/prominent-american-muslim-umar-lee-leaves-islam-we-were-lied-to.html

Muslim Leader Admits Islam Not a Religion of Peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=64V09tTIjR4

Regarding, "The Jews tried being better neighbours to the N**i's, they even v**ed for Hitler." The Jews tried being good Germans. Hitler denied them that possibility. Any Jews who v**ed for Hitler had probably not read Mein Kampf. In the situation we are talking about, who would be the Jews, who would be the Germans, who would be Hitler?
Spelling it out:
Jews = Muslims
Germans = Americans
Hitler = someone who speaks d******ely, someone who stokes fear of a minority, someone who stokes hatred of a minority

Austria v**ed to make Hitler Chancellor of Austria by 98%.

They did that because no one looked into who Hitler was and what he stood for.

All they had to go on was what was printed in the news papers and broadcasted over state media.

And your right, they never read Mein Kampf, just as you refuse to view videos posted by those who are trying to educate people on Islam.

A lot of those people are former Islamists themselves.

That's like the Jews ignoring ex-N**i's trying to expose the dangers of N**ism in the 1930's.

But, I'm sure there were a lot of people like you that defended the N**i's because, they were a minority and learning the t***h about them would be bigoted.