Are Muslim Immigrants Humble Guests Or Aggressive Invaders

Are Muslim Immigrants Humble Guests Or Aggressive Invaders

With all the uproar about how the world is changing to conform with the demands of immigrant Muslim demands, I felt it was the right time to make a statement. Feel free to distribute this article as you wish.

There are many examples such as creating special time slots for swimming pools and sports games, and the rescheduling of university exams because they were on a Sunday, which was a time for Muslim prayers.

What about the rights of the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and other various religions who had no objection to taking the exam on a Sunday yet had to rearrange their lives to suit the Muslims. This is Canada, not a Muslim country but a Christian one. They do not make exceptions for the Jews when some events are held on a Saturday, their holy day.

Europe is even worse, although Australia is standing up to a degree. With all the animosity that is brewing, we must consider some very important facts about the religion of Islam.

The koran, like other religions, teaches the basic morals and good ethics required to be a decent human being. One very important principle is Adab. This very profound quality of character that must be cultivated covers too many english words to describe, but the basic principle is good conduct. Adab teaches how to be a good guest conforming to the rules of the host and culture.

Adab is a main tenet of the Islamic tradition and the demands that the guests are making on the host countries are in total opposition to its principles: Respect your host, respect all beings, do not disturb others in their way of life.

The importance of adab is beautifully summed up in the words of Ibn A’rabi, the greatest of Sufi saints and teachers, when he said; “100% of your spiritual growth is dependent on your adab.”

Anyone who does not follow or agree with this principle, or would follow the muslim tenet that everyone must be converted to Islam or die, is not coming as a guest but rather is coming as an invader to conquer people in another land.

The point I would like to make is that immigrants either conform to the customs, laws and culture of the host country or be treated as invaders and deported. Anyone who goes to another person’s home or another country and says; you must do it my way, should be treated as an invader, if not simply as too rude to be welcome in your home.

Since the changes being demanded concern religious regulations, such actions could be compared to a form of Jihad, a religious war. You generally do not grant citizenship and bestow all the benefits of citizenship to an invader who has declared war on you, but that is exactly what is happening in so many generous democratic countries.

I am not saying that anyone should not have the right to live as they choose, but rather that if you elect to emigrate to another country, you should know and accept and adapt to the new environment you have chosen to live in. For example, you do not take a trip to the Antarctic to see the penguins and pack only bermuda shorts and a t-shirt.

You know what you are getting into, and if you want it to be like home, then do not go where life is different, unless the entire purpose of your trip is to change the place you are going to. Again this is the behaviour of an invader, not a guest.

I call upon all non-muslim countries in the world to join together and adopt the attitude that every citizen or visitor should be allowed religious freedom, but anyone who demands a change of the way a country and its citizens function in favor of a newly arrived guest should be deemed an enemy infiltrator, establishing a position inside the country to which an attack is being planned. We were here first!

We must learn from history. How many countries have been invaded by the British and other European countries. Look what has happened to the indigenous people, they were massacred. History is repeating itself, but I hope that this time we can wise up and prevent the inevitable.

Of course no country will take affirmative action for the simple reason that they are very scared of violent repercussions, and rightfully so. This valid fear itself justifies my point.

Why is it that the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and many other religions who have immigrated do not make demands on the host country to change the way the hosts live? Another more important question is why no changes have been made to accommodate those religions?

The reason is very simple, they do not pose the threat of violence if the host country does not conform. Here again we have further evidence that these are not grateful guests but rather violent aggressors, which need to be put in their place for the sake of the natives of the land.

I am asking all Muslims to be respectful guests and respect the rules of the host country who has welcomed you, provided you with a better quality of life, the benefits, services and privileges that come with having a western passport, and stop asking your generous hosts to change the way they live. This is very poor adab and will return bitterness and hatred, as you can see.

This article may sound like I am trying to incite non-Muslims against Muslims, and that may happen of course, but rather, my goal is to bring peace and harmony to our world.

We should all have the right to live as we choose, and if your way means that other people cannot live the way they want, and have been living for hundreds of years, then something is very wrong with your way.

The greatest supporters of this article should be Muslims who simply want to live a better quality of life in a new country, peacefully. It is they who are suffering the most by the radicals making unreasonable demands. A person should not be hated because they are born into a religion or wear a head scarf. But they are, simply by association to the radicals. This is unjust to everyone and is caused by the people who are demanding so called justice and freedom to live as they choose.

I am asking Muslim immigrants globally who are integrating peacefully in their new home to reject the demands of the fanatics and entreat the those who are demanding changes to back down and fit in, or go back to where they came from.

We should welcome with open arms any guest who immigrates and wants to share their culture as they settle in their new home. I am not saying to reject all Muslims, but only those who demand that the host country and people change the way they live.

If this article insights some fanatic to kill me, I am very happy to die as a martyr, just in case they are right and I get a plethora of perpetual virgins, I just hope they are all young and gorgeous. However, I would even be satisfied with the koranic promise of the Beautiful Eyes. Yes, that is the truth, the koran does not promise any virgins.

The gift to the martyr is Hur al Ein, the Beautiful Eyes. But no one knew what that meant, so men, as men do, translated that into something more enticing. Please refer to this article for my understanding of The Beautiful Eyes

May all people on earth be happy and stop telling other people how to live and what to change so they can have it their way. The world is not Burger King!

http://entrepreneurmonk.com/are-muslim-immigrants-humble-guests-or-aggressive-invaders/

About these ads

Comments

  1. Who set off the bombs at Boston? Christians, Satanist or Muslims?
    Same question for airplanes on some Sept. day…

    You can say Muslims are not a threat. I could be PC & go along with you, but it would be a lie being pushed on us. We see ourselves as tolerant. When someone calls us racist for opposing higher taxes, many retreat. And so with Muslim immigrants, are we racist or intolerant to oppose them becoming neighbors? Or are we aware of a threat that has been declared to and against us? Call them radical clerics, but there are many of them that have declared jihad against Israel & the US. (and most western nations)

    There are over a billion Muslims in the world. If only a small percentage are radical, that still adds up to a substantial threat to any individual they unite against. A million or millions of jihadists worldwide. Our “safety” in the US is distance. Most are thousands of miles from us & lack the means to travel here & bring weapons to then attack us. So who advocates making it easier for them in the name of tolerance?

    • “And so with Muslim immigrants, are we racist or intolerant to oppose them becoming neighbors?”

      YES.

    • Mathius says:

      You can say Muslims are not a threat.

      Yes. I can say that.

      Because Muslims are not a threat.

      The people who are a threat are extremists who just so happen to be Muslim. Similarly, there are extremists who happen to be Jews and more than a few who happen to be Christian.

      The human brain is a remarkable machine, but at core, it is a pattern recognition engine. Sometimes this misfires. That’s how you wind up with this kind of nonsense. There aren’t a ton of Muslims around. The only Muslims you hear about at the crazy minority. But you never hear about the rest, and you rarely meet them personally. Therefore, the only indication of “Muslim-ness” you have is “crazy” and “dangerous.” Therefore, your brain – that remarkable pattern recognition engine – links the two: Muslim = dangerous.

      But, at the same time, you have tons of interactions with Christians. So when a Christian, say, kills 77 people in order to establish a “Christian Europe,” your brain says “nope.. I know lots of Christians, that’s not typical.” And your brain doesn’t form the link.

      And that, sir, is how you wind up with a head full of stereotypes and racism.

      And so with Muslim immigrants, are we racist or intolerant to oppose them becoming neighbors?

      Yes.

      Yes you are.

      The only reason you might not be considered racist is that Islam is not a “race,” per say. But you are certainly a bigot.

      Or are we aware of a threat that has been declared to and against us?

      No, you’re a paranoiac.

      Some tiny faction of the 1.4 BILLION Muslims worldwide are crazy, and you think the guy trying to buy the townhouse up the block is out to get you. That’s called a persecution complex.

      Call them radical clerics, but there are many of them that have declared jihad against Israel & the US. (and most western nations)

      There are many Christians who want to declare war against Islam and Iran/SA/etc, too.

      There are over a billion Muslims in the world. If only a small percentage are radical, that still adds up to a substantial threat to any individual they unite against. A million or millions of jihadists worldwide.

      There are over a billion Muslims Christians in the world. If only a small percentage are radical, that still adds up to a substantial threat to any individual they unite against. A million or millions of jihadists Christian terrorists worldwide.

    • Who dropped bombs on innocent people in Iraq?

      Oh, yeah – Christians.

      • Mathius says:

        No, no.. they (might have maybe possibly) had “weapons of mass destruction related programs and activities.” We really had no choice, you see?

        Meanwhile, my history is a little fuzzy. Can you remind me which country is the only one to have ever utilized nuclear weapons, and what religion the leader of that country and the vast majority of its population was? I bet it those bloodthirsty Muslims, wasn’t it?

      • Do you mean the United States? Per our POTUS, we are not a “Christian Nation”.
        (and please take a breath mint)

  2. Bill Maher went after Islam Friday night on his HBO show “Real Time.”

    With the Nigerian Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of teenage girls to sell into slavery, the Sultan of Brunei establishing the repressive Sharia law in his country and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree being rescinded by Brandeis University, Bill Maher pointed his finger at Islam as a major problem in the world today.

    “Islam is the problem, correct. All religions are the problem, but especially this one,” the ardent atheist Maher told some of his liberal guests who were offended by his attacks on the faith.

    Earlier in the discussion of Islam, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza argued that “there’s a civil war in the mind of the liberal.”

    “On the one hand you’re a defender of individual rights and minorities and if this were the Catholic Church, you’d be all on it,” he explained. “But on the other hand you’re committed to multiculturalism and Islam is a victim and we don’t want to make the Muslims feel bad. And so these two impulses have got to be brokered, one against the other. And that’s why there is a protection of Islam. The problem isn’t the Muslims. The problem is all the multiculturalists on campus who protect and defend them.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/bill-maher-islam-is-the-problem/#ixzz31VVWV4zz

    Boy, does it put a bad taste in my mouth when Bill Maher & I even partially agree….

    • Who enslaved the blacks?

      Oh, yeah – Christians.

      • Mathius says:

        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Lev 25:44-46

      • Mathius says:

        Ah, hell.. let’s have some fun with it, shall we?

        When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Ex 21:20-21

      • Mathius says:

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

  3. Mathius says:

    This is Canada, not a Muslim country but a Christian one.

    False.

    Canada is not a Christian country. Like the US, Canada has no official religion.

  4. Mathius says:

    Oy Gevalt!

    I need to go lay down for a bit after reading this horseshit.

    I’ll leave it to Black Flag to eviscerate you. This seems right in his wheelhouse.

    But, for my part, I especially like how you complain about Muslims not wanting to take a test on Sunday and asking for the date to be changed, but in many places in the US, it’s still illegal to buy alcohol on Sundays. Your myopic lack of perspective is simply astounding.

    • Mathius,

      When a group of people want blood of the innocent, it is easy to point to a small group that does evil, label them in a way that encompasses a huge mass that you want blood from, and attack all of them.

      Worked for Hitler, too.

      • Mathius says:

        I’m not convinced that the “average Christian” wants the blood of the Muslims any more than the reverse is true. I certainly believe there are factions within both groups where this is true, however.

        But I suspect that, mainly, the case is that the “average” American Christian is more afraid of Muslims (and their effect on “their” society) than they are desirous of extracting blood.

        That is, Anita, LOI, Gman, et al, are more scared than they are bloodthirsty.

        The result may be the same, however.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I don’t think my comments qualify for your childish labeling. I have stated facts that are indisputable. I brought up how Muslim women are treated like slaves, you think it’s OK based on you comments and bringing up scripture. You might think it’s OK but I don’t. That’s one part of their religious culture that I would not want mt kids around, if you think it’s OK that’s up to you. If your to babble on about bigotry, get your facts straight first.

          • Mathius says:

            I brought up how Muslim women are treated like slaves,

            SOME!

            SOME Muslim women are treated like slaves.

            See this, right here, is exactly the point. You’re lumping all Muslims together. There are 1.4 BILLION of them, and they are NOT all treating women like slaves.

            I brought up how Muslim women are treated like slaves, you think it’s OK based on you comments and bringing up scripture.

            The point of bringing up the scripture is to point out that any view of Islam condoning such viewpoints can be leveled squarely back at Christians. Your religion 100% as much (and a solid argument could be made that it’s even worse) condones treating women like chattel.

            The point – the overarching point – is that it’s about WHO the members are. It’s not about what their particular religion is. It’s about the fact that some subset of any given population is going to be crazy – especially when they’re poor, under-educated, and under the thumb of an aggressive foreign power.

            You might think it’s OK but I don’t.

            I most certainly do not think it’s ok.

            That’s one part of their religious culture that I would not want mt kids around

            It’s your religious culture too. I cited several references.

            You just ignore it.

            Just like 99% of Christians ignore it.

            Just like 99% of Muslims ignore it.

            Yet you consider it a part of “Muslim culture” but not “Christian culture.”

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Go to Saudi Arabia and the you will see first hand what I’m talking about, until you get a proper education on the matter, ther is no point trying to talk about it, because you know nothing about reality.

              • Not for nothing, but how does how Muslim women are treated in Saudi Arabia have anything to do with the issue at hand in terms of Muslims moving to the US?? How is it that the fact that women are treated poorly in any other area of the world under the guise of Islam can be extrapolated to mean that all Muslims moving to the US want the right to treat women here in the same fashion?

                Albeit I’m a bit low on coffee at the moment, but not following your “logic”….

              • Mathius says:

                I second what Buck said.

                Especially the part where he put “logic” in quotes.

          • Black Flag® says:

            Gman

            WRONG, old friend.

            Muslim women are not treated as “slaves”.

            Just like a lot of Christian women, there is lots of spousal abuse – but that is NOT a Muslim thing, it is a human thing, since MILLIONS OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN have suffered this abuse, too.

            I will help you understand the Muslim home.

            First, you have to understand that the first culture to give rights to women was the Islamic culture – way before anyone, including Christians – with Mohammed denouncing his tribe for insulting a woman in their presence with the words “And whom among you has not been born by a woman!?!?” He gave them property rights, divorce rights, and right to press grievances against their husbands and anyone who had harmed them.

            In a Muslim home, the woman is queen. Absolute dictatorial power. It is her home, period.
            What her man does outside of the home is his, but in the home – absolute, no question, its hers.

            There are great benefits to the arrangement by the way. I know.

    • Mathius,

      PS: As once was said by Mark Twain

      Once an idiotic idea takes hold in a person’s head, it is astounding how difficult it is for that idea to be dismissed.

      The idea that Islam is some threat works perfectly for the status quo power.

      • Mathius says:

        The thing that gets me is that, yes, there is a whole boat load of crazy in Islam. Metric tons of it.

        But no more than in Christianity.

        The parallels are flawless.

        And yet, somehow, Christians can sit there with a straight faced and denounce Muslims as murderous savages while simultaneously patting themselves on the back.

        I have never been able to get my head around the human proclivity for this behavior.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Mathius, that’s because in our cerrent times, Christaons aren’t doubt evil after screaming Jesus is great before they kill unarmed innocent people. Christaons aren’t killing Muslims, just because they are Muslims. Muslim’s. Mainly the radicals are doing just that to Christains in numerous countries like Egypt, Syria, and many in Africa.

          The extremists give the whole group a bad name. Not much different than the likes if Pelosi and Obama calling Tea Party members of being racist. There is much ignorance in both examples

          • Mathius says:

            I always love how you qualify that “in our current times.” Because that conveniently excludes from the discussion the Inquisition and the Crusades. It omits the generations – centuries – where Jews were subjugated. It ignores the KKK. It ignores that the Nazis couched their genocide in Christian terms. It ignores that the pope refused to denounce the Nazis. It ignores that slavery and Jim Crow were blessed by by Christianity, couched in Christian terms, justified in its holy books, and practiced by Christians.

            But yes, by all means, let’s stick to the “current times.”

            Because, these days, there are no examples of Christian terrorism or extremism.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    :cool:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Funny people, those who demand Sharia Law in another country. Those same funny people treat their women like slaves. But womens rights are only important if they want to have an abortion, or maybe, when the Left Wing decides it’s important. Because they don’t say shit about how poorly Muslim women are treated. Why? It don’t fit their narrative or…they are afraid of getting blown up LOL :) Funny people, those innocent Muslim, but all religions have their faults, just not all religions blow up innocent people everyday. Yep, Funny people those Muslim’s are :roll:

      • Mathius says:

        Because they [the "left wing"] don’t say shit about how poorly Muslim women are treated.

        Wow, you’re is full of extra-strength bullshit today, aren’t you?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Just stating facts Mathius. The Left Wing MSM rarely speaks about the plight of Muslim women, to include slamming a recent movie on the subject to the point it wasn’t shown in many places because of the opposition. I have no issues with the average Muslim, I have even shared dinner with a Muslim family while in S.A. But, there are many who are demanding special treatment in what are generally non-Muslim countries where the Muslims moved too. This is undeniable and very well documented in numerous countries, including the US. However, when it occurs, the MSM is silent.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            For the record, I didn’t care for the article. The author is a little off on his assessments, and I don’t agree with them either. :)

          • Mathius says:

            The Left Wing MSM rarely speaks about the plight of Muslim women

            I think you’re confused.

            We don’t share you lunatic Islamophobia, so we don’t spend all day screeching about it. “The Left” is, absolutely, against the oppression of women for any reason – and this includes under fascist theocracies.

  6. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    • Mathius says:

      Of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. [...] But, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

      -10 points if you know who said this.. I think it might surprise you

      Anita, you’re being attacked! You’re being attacked! You’re being attacked! You have to defend yourself! Those liberals aren’t being patriotic and their cowardess is leaving you vulnerable! You’re under attack!

      • I believe that would be Goering.

        • Mathius says:

          There are a surprising number of excellent quotes by Nazis..

          Lunatics or not, they sure did seem to have a really good handle on human psychology.

          • And propaganda….

          • They were astounding, aren’t they.

            They openly explain to anyone how it works – use it as they said they would – you’d expect people to wake up – but, nope, they fall right into line.

            Then it is repeated again and again, yet LOI and his ilk still don’t get it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

        How many of us have blamed government for actions that have pushed us to war, only to be chided as Conspirarcy Theorists. :roll:

      • Jokes on you, bro. I was calling out the peaceful Muslims.

        • Mathius says:

          Calling them out on what, exactly?

        • Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb of the Cairo-based al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institutions, said the abductions “completely contradict Islam and its principles of tolerance.”

        • In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country, the Jakarta Post published an editorial Wednesday condemning the Boko Haram leader for “wrongly” citing Islamic teaching as his excuse for selling the abducted girls into slavery.

        • The joke is on you, Anita and LOI and others who simply refuse to read.

          So mired in a mindset, no matter what will be said by whomever will never make a difference to you.

        • Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti has condemned Nigeria’s Boko Haram for its kidnapping of more than 200 schoolgirls and described the group as “set up to smear the image of Islam”.

          Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh said the movement, which says it wants to establish a pure Islamic state in northern Nigeria, was misguided.

          His remarks came as religious leaders in the Muslim world, who rarely comment on militant violence, joined in denouncing Boko Haram’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, for saying Allah had told him to sell off the kidnapped girls as forced brides.

          “This is a group that has been set up to smear the image of Islam and must be offered advice, shown their wrong path and be made to reject it,” Sheikh told the Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat in an interview published on Friday.

          “These groups are not on the right path because Islam is against kidnapping, killing and aggression,” he said. “Marrying kidnapped girls is not permitted.”

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I heve said my opinion on the article, don’t agree that all muslim’s are evil bad people, but I will always have the memories of the millions of Muslim’s who took to the streets in the Middle East to celebrate the 911 attacks. Maybe they were just the dumb Muslim’s ?

            But, I have said in the past, Bin Laden wouldn’t have done 911, because his sect of Islam forbids killing innocent women and children. But, I’m just a conspiracy theorist. :)

            I often wonder just how fast some people wouldn’t sell their home and move if they were suddenly in a neighborhood of Muslim’s or blacks or just simply the very small minority. My guess would be most people, including Mathius, Buck and you. I can’t be surrounded, too rural. :)

            • Mathius says:

              I often wonder just how fast some people wouldn’t sell their home and move if they were suddenly in a neighborhood of Muslim’s or blacks or just simply the very small minority.

              I live where I live because it is a nice neighborhood with nice houses, nice people, nice schools, and a good mix between suburban and rural. It is safe, relatively affluent, and clean. I do not live here because of the color of the skin of my neighbors, nor their religions.

              I would move if the neighborhood changed in a sense which conflicted with the above. My entire neighborhood could be converted to black gay Muslims and I wouldn’t bat an eyelash. That is, unless they start letting their yards get overgrown – then it might be time to move out.

              • This sounds more of culture differences, than racial.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, it is cultural, but many would be labelled as racist, that is inevitable.

                Mathius, the makeup of your neighborhood is slways subject to change. I grew up in a very similar situation, things are very different now, and flight is occurring. When a culture that brings crime with it, people leave. Mostly white, they would be deemed racist by the MSM, wrongly, I might add. Another thing Mathius, saying that Christains dropped the first atomic bomb, implying it was an act based on religion, is totally absurd. It was an act of war, which was not a religious war. Blame governments for their actions instead of conveniently passing the buck because it don’t fit your left wing government is great ideology. :)

              • Mathius says:

                Perhaps. But not 100% “cultural” per say. I’m fine with different cultures provided they don’t compromise the safety, and general niceness of my community. If they want to speak other languages, wear different clothes, eat different foods, pray to different gods, whatever – that’s all fine – that’s their business.

                But if they want to drag race on my street, or harass my kid for being different from them, well then that’s the kind of thing I would object to. If there’s crime or loud music at night. If there’s someone telling my wife she needs to wear a burka, then you bet I’d be looking into moving. Is that “cultural”?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                No Mathius? Your just as intolerant and racist as the rest of us. You know not one wit about Islamic culture, yet you claim we are bigots. You have NEVER lived in a Musl country, yet I’m a bigot for telling the truth, you are the worst kind of bigot, one who knows nothing about how bad of one you are.

              • Black Flag® says:

                AH, Gman, be careful.

                Perhaps Mathius has not lived with Muslims, but I have, and I am no Muslim.

                I have lived with them, loved them and been loved by them. The depth of their culture is way beyond the meager Western one you live within.

              • Mathius says:

                You know not one wit about Islamic culture

                That’s news to me.

                I’ve known more than a handful of Muslims in my time.

                I’ve read the Koran cover-to-cover.

                I’m confused why you think there is such a thing as “Islamic culture” when there are Muslims living in pretty much every culture on the planet. What is “Christian culture”? What would such a thing even mean?

                You have NEVER lived in a Musl country

                True. In fact, despite visiting a handful of foreign countries, I’ve never lived anywhere other than the US.

                yet I’m a bigot for telling the truth

                You’re a bigot for assuming that “Muslims” all share the culture of some f***ed up hellhole you happened to visit.

                A Muslim is an INDIVIDUAL. A Muslim is a HUMAN BEING. He is more than just a religion. Some are evil and some are kind and some are nice and some are mean and some are charitable and some are greedy and some are murderers and some are peaceful.

                Some Muslims blew up a building. Some Muslims engage in terrorism. Most don’t.

                You are a bigot, sir, for acting like the rest of the them are deserving of being painted with the same brush.

                one who knows nothing about how bad of one you are.

                I’m still not quite clear on why I’m a bigot because I don’t think all Muslims are bloodthirsty savages, but ok.

                I’m not quite clear how I’m racist for not caring if Muslims want to move into my neighborhood.

                But ok, whatever you say..

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Flagster, I have as well, and fully know that a vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. I have ALWAYS been firm and clear on that. But I also know what they believe and live. My interpretation of Saudi’s is from personal experience. Women are not equal there, by any stretch of the imagination. That is but one country, others are quite the same.

                I don’t have an issue with Muslim’s at all, they can live as they chose. I don’t think the hard core Saudi’s would be welcome here. We don’t live that way. It’s not how they live that’s the subject, it’s if/when they demand we live their way. It’s happening in many places, and worthy of discussion.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gman,

                Women aren’t equal here, either, and neither are the men….

                You are placing a bar above others that you – in your own culture – cannot achieve. You condemn them for failure, yet, forgive yourself for the same failure.

                A government’s action upon its people is not a measure of a culture. So what if their culture claims “religion” gives them a reason for it, but because your culture gives other – but equally sick reasons – they are more wrong then you??

              • Black Flag® says:

                Gman,

                I can’t think of a more radical Muslim nation then Morocco. Hell, they went to war with France for independence to achieve it (remember the lesson I preach, when you kill the indigenous self-determination group, all you get left over is the extreme radicals?)

                Can you imagine what I was thinking, going to my lady’s family in Morocco for the first time -

                I, I non-Muslim, and “not married” in their eyes (as you know my principles about what is and what is not “marriage”), a heathen by every definition in their religion – and to boot, her father was an ambassador to a European country, and her brothers were officers in the Moroccan air force – fairly high profile mess I was walking into.

                I steeled myself for a lot – and absolutely none of it came true.

                I was embraced as a brother to her brothers and a son to her mother. Her father was indifferent, but tolerant – and fortunately was not around much at all (he had 3 other wives).

                This wife lived in luxury – as is the custom, what one wife gets, all wives get – so she wanted for nothing, and was pretty happy with the arrangement.

                It was fun, joyous and nowhere did I go did I feel out of place, condemned, or hated. I was welcomed, tolerated and accepted.

                And here you are, in a “supposedly” free country, doing exactly the opposite, claiming as a reason that they do the very thing you claim they do – but do not.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Flag, Saudi and Morocco are vastly different. You completely misunderstand my position and my argument with Mathius. No problems, it get right in time :)

      • Mathius says:

        There’s no point in posting this. People who are anti-Muslim don’t want to see it and they won’t believe it or register the point. They will always live in a world where Muslims are either evil or silently complicit.

        • If you have decided I am a racist, then yes, there is no point. You have tried & convicted me for expressing my opinion. I decided on this post because V.H. made a remark about the events In Tennessee, that we were not getting the whole story. She lives there. I think she is a honest & fair minded individual that participates here because she has an open mind & wants to explore other viewpoint.

          She is brave enough to say she might be wrong, but still put herself out there. I am trying to do the same, but calling me a racist is does not enlighten.

          • Mathius says:

            If you have decided I am a racist, then yes, there is no point.

            Technically I’ve convicted you of bigotry. Islam isn’t a race, so you can’t be “racist” against it.

            You have tried & convicted me for expressing my opinion.

            Yes. Because your opinion is abhorrent and, in a better society, would get you socially ostracized for it.

            I think she is a honest & fair minded individual that participates here because she has an open mind & wants to explore other viewpoint.

            That is also my general opinion of the lady. However, I have not seen her write anything on this today.

            I am trying to do the same

            No you’re not.

            You’re saying that a failure on their part to conform constitutes, essentially, an act of war on their parts. You’re saying that them asking for religious consideration is terrible, but you ignore completely that Christians get almost all of the cookies. You ask if they’re “humble guests” when they’re not guests, but EQUAL citizens.

            You say “anyone who demands a change of the way a country and its citizens function in favor of a newly arrived guest should be deemed an enemy infiltrator, establishing a position inside the country to which an attack is being planned.” I can hardly think of a more un-American standpoint when this entire country was formed by layer upon layer of immigrant wave changing and molding the culture. They’re not here to “attack” anyone. They’re here to forge new lives, and you are treating them like “the enemy,” and that’s abhorrent.

            “I am not saying to reject all Muslims, but only those who demand that the host country and people change the way they live.” So they can come here.. but they have to change everything about themselves to be just like us, so that they don’t upset me. Otherwise, out they go, those “enemy” “aggressive invaders.” How dare they!

            We were here first!

            Yea, so were the Native Americans.

            I swear you could take the world Muslim out of your comments, replace it with Irish, and it would fit right in with the early 1900′s.

            but calling me a racist bigot does not enlighten me.

            Calling a spade a spade does not enlighten the spade either, yet it does not make it any less true.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              LOI didn’t write the article, he brought if up for a nice discussion on the issue and you went batshit crazy calling everyone bigots, then agreed with the premise of the article by saying you would not tolerate Muslim’s telling your wife to cover her head. Mathius, you took what could have been a nice discussion ant turned into your personal “you right wingers are all bigots” vendetta. Want to start over :)

              • Mathius says:

                Well, it seems that you are correct at least about one thing. LOI didn’t write the article so I will retract and thoroughly apologize TO HIM for my comments directed at him for “his” article. I redirect those comments at the idiot who did write it.

                My comments toward you and Anita, however, are perfectly intact.

                “you right wingers are all bigots” vendetta.

                I don’t believe I said that.

                Want to start over

                No. What you said is still abhorrent. I stand by my statements.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                What would that be? That I won’t accept people coming into my community and demanding a abide by their beliefs? If that’s it, I stand by it, I will not stand for anyone, Muslim’s included, combining into my neighborhood an yelling me how to live, period. If they demand women cover their face, fuck them and their beliefs, if they don’t make demands of that nature and just live side by side, why would thst be a problem?

  7. Neither.

    They are people.

    • Mathius says:

      Are you trying to tell me that people are defined by more than just their religion and that some subset of any large enough population is likely to be crazy enough to go around making trouble for other people up to and including murdering those with whom they disagree?

      No, I don’t believe it!

      • No, classifying people into groups is always an error.

        All human action is individual. It is always an error to create abstracts about human action into concepts of “we”, “us”, “country” or anything else.

        • Mathius says:

          “Us” verse “them” is how we are wired from an evolutionary perspective. It’s hard for people to fight through their clannish nature and see “the other” as a complex system of individuals.

          It’s far easier to just say “Muslims” and be done with it. Even when they do break it down, they are only willing to go so far as “evil” and “complicit.”

        • If people IDENTIFY themselves in a certain way, is it wrong to reject their self label? If I call myself American or Christian, should you reject those “classifications”? If a person or group identifies themselves as Muslims & seek to build a Mosque, what should we call them?

  8. .

  9. Interesting…………

    • The most interesting aspect I see on here,is how easy it is to throw around labels.

      Bigot, anti-semetic, phobias (especially those), ass hat, idiot etc…and these are not thrown around in fun most of the time.

      And it is interesting to see how easy it is to label someone in disagreement. When this happens,simply stay out of the argument.

      • Mathius says:

        Bigotry must be called out. Always and forever, it is an imperative of a healthy society that it cannot be tolerated.

        Don’t want to be called a bigot? Don’t do or say bigoted things.

        LOI, Anita, Gman and (probably) others are, sorry to say, but flatly: bigots. You could call them Islamophobes if you prefer, but the truth is the truth. This is not idle name-calling, but a hard statement of fact.

        My people were once the subject of such bigotry. I will not stand idly by and watch others be subjected to the same.

        • Hmmmm:
          big·ot·ry
          [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
          noun, plural big·ot·ries.
          1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

        • Proud bigot here!

          Come join the club, Matt. Yes, kicking and screaming. You’re a bigot for being intolerant of my view.

          I could, and do coexist with peaceful Muslims on a daily basis. They have not made me change my lifestyle in the least.

          I have no tolerance for the members and leadership or distant aquaintances of AlQuida, Hamas,Muslim Bros, etc., or any foundation or other organization who contributes to terrorism or this violent global jihad. Weird, why are they all Muslim?

          And you guys know that. Call me what you want.

  10. @ Mathius…….you posed an interesting tangent above. You like where you live because the neighborhood is to your liking….you like a,b,c,……therefore, you choose to live there. You do not care of the color of your neighbor’s skin nor his religious preference. But, if things changed from a, b,c you would move. Which brings to mind the difference, if any, between culture and race. As long as your a,b,c was being serviced or adhered to,you are ok…..but when your a,b,c starts changing, then you are not ok. ( If I read you correctly ).

    Now,certain races carry certain culture changes. So, if a cultural aspect changes your a,b,c….unkempt lawns, for example, you would change your location. Or if a particular culture, that does not fit your a,b,c, changes the schools or the parks,etc….you would consider a change.

    Is this not the same as intolerance?

    • Yes, he’s a bigot.

      • by stealth

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Same as ever, your group did this and that while ignoring that the same can be said on the other group, it got totally away from the actual question the article posed. It’s far easier to take the “your a bigot” road than look at the question objectionately.

          On to the subject, notice Christains aren’t moving to the Middle East . I wonder why? Maybe because the Muslims persecute them over there? Yea, that’s it, but we must ignore that fact because that factual knowledge makes us bigots for just knowing it. Oh thos tolerant Lefties, what a joke that is!

      • !!!!

    • Mathius says:

      I don’t think so. I don’t think “tolerance” is about letting the neighborhood go to hell. Unsafe, uncared for, noisy, dirty, harassment. These aren’t about culture or race. These are about having a nice community.

      Anita trotted out the tired old trope that I’m “intolerant of intolerance” and therefore a “bigot” myself. But she (and others) espouse hatred, misanthropy, and an instance on lumping people together whereas Buck, Flag, and I espouse treating people like individuals, understanding, and a complete lack of fear-mongering or hatred.

      Along the path that they are trodding, a few stops down the road is a call for Muslims to be exterminated for the benefit and security of the Christian race. Just a little further down that road, the talk ends and action begins and the Muslims are rounded up and herded off to camps. We’ve seen this show before – I know where it ends.

      Does “intolerance of intolerance” technically meet the definition of intolerance? Sure, maybe, in some fashion of circular reasoning. But that’s really irrelevant. If she wants to play semantic games, that’s your prerogative. It doesn’t change the fact that thinking that Muslims are evil or inherently violent is bigotry.

  11. The koran, like other religions, teaches the basic morals and good ethics required to be a decent human being. One very important principle is Adab. This very profound quality of character that must be cultivated covers too many english words to describe, but the basic principle is good conduct. Adab teaches how to be a good guest conforming to the rules of the host and culture.

    Adab is a main tenet of the Islamic tradition and the demands that the guests are making on the host countries are in total opposition to its principles: Respect your host, respect all beings, do not disturb others in their way of life.

    The importance of adab is beautifully summed up in the words of Ibn A’rabi, the greatest of Sufi saints and teachers, when he said; “100% of your spiritual growth is dependent on your adab.”

    Anyone who does not follow or agree with this principle, or would follow the muslim tenet that everyone must be converted to Islam or die, is not coming as a guest but rather is coming as an invader to conquer people in another land.

    • sarcasm noted……..but we do know how to do this.

      • I’m glad the sarcasm came through on this medium…difficult to accomplish at times…

        • It was your smiley face and the fact that I know you are against the death penalty…..but the smiley face did it.

          • However, none the less, we will execute you here.

            • I knew you didn’t like us city folk out there, but didn’t realize that was a capital offense!

              • You are welcome, Buck. We love city folk out here. Come on down and breathe fresh air. ( DO NOT go to Houston for that ). We wave Texas flags here……say yes sir/maam or no sir/maam////open car doors for ladies, hold their chairs for them, open doors for them, and we can compliment our women without fear of sexual harassment….the sun always rises in the East, sets in the West, and the hero always gets the girl and rides off into the sunset.

                We love Yankees down here…..and I can prove it. There are literally tens of thousands of you down here and you do not go home….you stay. The most popular saying among New Yorkers that come here……”We may not be Texan, but we got here as fast as we could”.

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t approve, personally, of the death penalty. That said, I don’t understand why is has to be so complicated. After what happened in OK, I don’t see why the method of execution is to insert the convict into a bomb-proof room rigged with ANFO. Cleanup should be easy – just pour him out. And there’s roughly 0% chance of a “botched” execution.

        • You are right about that…I can come up with quicker and no pain ways. Pretty simple actually. Hanging is much quicker and painless, for crying out loud. But that is considered barbaric. In reality the French had this one correct…..there is never a botched execution using a guillotine. Instant, painless….even a gift wrapped basket for the head.

          • Mathius says:

            You never know what’s going on inside the head (however briefly) of a decapitated person. I think a ‘sploding is probably the most instantaneous-guaranteed option available.

            • But far more messy….however…..what is going on inside the head of a person on guillotine when he hears the release……” Oh shit”…….then it is over.

  12. Anthony Kimery reported in Homeland Security Today last week that “the threat of ‘homegrown’ and foreign jihadist groups and individuals plotting mass casualty attacks on U.S. soil has not weakened, despite degradation of al-Qaida Central (AQC). … Authorities said there is an exceptionally ‘heightened concern’ regarding intelligence that the successful radicalization of Muslims and new converts to jihad in the U.S. and throughout the West who’ve been involved in mass casualty plots and plotting has resulted in inspiring of a legion of ‘inspired’ new jihadists, many of whom are ‘quite willing’ to carry out mass casualty attacks, including suicide martyr attacks.”

    This is a direct result of the huge influx of whole Muslim communities from jihad areas and nations into the U.S. since 9/11. The Obama administration is importing whole Muslim communities from Islamic countries like Somalia. The “diversity” immigration numbers are doubling, tripling in some months.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/why-are-we-importing-jihad-invaders/#Lh98Ejy1OBcDSvAW.99

  13. Matt,

    Without cheating, tell me your description of a Muslim terrorist.

    • Mathius says:

      A terrorist who happens to be Muslim.

      • Beat me to that same line…

      • Whatever. You’ve depicted them in the past and here today too I think, as under educated, poor, love starved, and whatever other labels you’ve given them. This wiki shows they are anything but that. It also show that many of them don’t even follow Islam until they get mixed in with the jihad groups. So those that want to settle here have cash and are well educated. We’ve been through the vocabulary before, Jihad, Fatwa, Caliphate,Taquia, Dhimmitude. You tell me, how I’m supposed to welcome Muslims when I can’t differentiate between the radicals and the peacefuls. Please stay on the line of thought with Muslims, since Christians, Jews, etc. don’t promote the beheading of non believers.

        • You do realize that the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t promote the beheading of non-believes either, correct?

          But let’s give Christians a break. Please let me know how I’m supposed to welcome Jews when I can’t differentiate between the radicals (those who will throw stones at me for driving on Saturday for instance) and the peacefuls. Do you see any problem with this question?

          • Yes, I understand that. Last I checked I still have my head and I live 10 minutes from Dearborn.

            • Yet you still seem to fear Muslim immigrants because you can’t tell the difference between the radicals (very small minority) and everyone else. Do you ask the same question when it comes to other groups?

              • What other groups…groups I said…practice beheading?

              • But Muslims (as a whole) don’t practice beheading, so I don’t see your point.

              • Mathius says:

                Did you know that there’s a group that practices Black-on-White murder? There’s only one group that does that specific crime, and that’s BLACK PEOPLE.

                Now, I know, I know, not all black people practice Black-on-White murder, but some do.

                And that scares me.

                And, it’s extra problematic that I can’t tell a “good” black person from a “bad” black person, you see?

                So, umm… I don’t want any black people moving into my neighborhood,

                But that doesn’t make me racist!

                In fact, you’re the racist for thinking that I’m racist and not tolerating my intolerance!

              • My point is that I do not welcome radical Muslims. But when they blend in so well, how can I differentiate between radical and non? I can’t. My only option is to profile and watch my back. Sorry.

              • Black Flag® says:

                My point is that the rest of the world do not welcome radical Americans

                But when they blend in so well, how can I differentiate between radical and non? They can’t.

                So, they, like you, exercise Group Punishment – attack the innocent because, hell, God will find His own, right?

                Their only option is to profile and take out any American or who supports them out.

                Gee, they are just like you, Anita!

              • Mathius raises a great example — and to your answer, I guess Mathius’ only option is to also profile against all black people (you know, just in case they happen to be one of the small minority who practice black-on-white murder).

              • Mathius would just as well get killed than profile, please!

              • Black Flag® says:

                The stop all Americans! They have killed and massacred far more than any other group!

              • BF supports and in fact welcomes radical Muslims

              • Black Flag® says:

                Only a brain warped ideologue thinks that, Anita.

                You support attacking the innocent merely because of the group they are assigned.
                That’s the fact here.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Yours is a simple case of a typical ideologue.

                What you do to others is excused.
                When they react to what you do, you condemn them.

              • So then I’m supposed to welcome all Muslims?

              • Black Flag® says:

                Do you welcome ALL Christians?

              • Yes, since they have not threatened me.

              • Black Flag® says:

                Oh, my dear Anita,

                Millions of Christians have threatened you – but because you are of the same “heart”, you ignored it, forgave it, and went on with your life.

                Billions of Muslims have not threatened you. But you ignore it, condemn them and want to kill or imprison them.

                Perhaps the rule should be:
                “Treat them like you wish to be treated, as an individual”

  14. Wow! And, I am not even involved!

    LOI, I would like to suggest that everybody, that’s EVERYBODY who has commented here on this topic, READ the following……To me, it is the last word on the subject. I’d like to see how many agree.

    http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf

    • And, read the WHOLE damn thing!!!!! Ten pages is not too much, trust me. Takes about seven minutes.

      • OK, I’ve read it & it’s a good speech. I think he would give a different on today. That one was aimed at his run against Wilson? And the Pen. German American Party was trying to impact the vote & then the US policy regarding Germany. What speech would he give if large numbers of Germans were immigrating & trying to keep their national identity? He covered some of that, but I think he would be shocked at what we have become as a nation.
        In his day, radical Islam would have been hunted to near extinction…Another speech

        http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/uk_politician_arrested_for_quoting_churchill_could_face_2_years_in_prison.html

        • Yep, read about that Brit. Notice at the bottom of the Roosevelt thing, it was for the Progressive party. My, how progressives have changed. As a Neanderthal, I stand firmly with the “Bully” President. Sometimes things are just “right” and cannot be improved on. If people think there are problems today, just you wait till the helicopters lift off the roofs of the American embassies in Iraq and the Stan. Then we will be dealing with millions of refugees from these backwater pest holes. Guess what love for democracy they will bring with them?

  15. Sedgewick says:

    There are a lot of very good points being made here. It is a great discussion.

    I am only a student of religion. I was born and raised in the middle of a Christian/Catholic family in a community state and country mostly populated by Christians. I am thus more familiar with Christianity, though I have not been indoctrinated into the church goer lifestyle. I feel this allows me to see things more objectively, and because of my relative ignorance, I often see religion with an almost child-like honesty. And I try to take an honest thorough and reasoned approach when understanding religions.

    I recommend everyone do the same.

    For example, if you read the bible, recognize that it was not originally written in English, and instead read from an interlinear bible, taking into consideration the development and meanings of Latin, Greek, and especially Hebrew. You will start to see things like feet being describes as like pillars. Feet do not look like pillars. Legs do. The Greek word means lower extremity and includes both feet and legs. When translated into English, it became feet. What may have originally described a man with strong legs, now describes someone with platform boots.

    If you dig deeper, you can see there are Hebrew phrases being preserved in Greek texts along with other trans-literary anomalies regarding etymology and meanings, etc. If you never dig, and only listen to a church tell you what it means, you’ll probably miss things.

    Consider the history and development of all the religions. Note the same people, integration of lessons and cultures, bloodlines, symbolism, languages, ideas, etc, etc, etc,. Take any religion and list all references stories, parables, or lessons otherwise regarding spirituality or instruction on behavior, well being, practices/rituals/customs, etc.

    Then do the same thing with various other religions.

    Compare them, and any time there is something the same/similar from two or more lists, put them on another list unto itself. Now, when examining that list, forget all these things come from different cultures and belief systems, and simply ask what it all means.

    It defines godliness relative to human nature, ..says we’re all family

    …Now, compare that defined godliness to the world we live in. What does it say? To me, it says that we got lost somewhere and built a world that appeals to our ugly side.

    From that perspective, issues with mosques seem trite and odd, …especially in a place intended to function differently, and that is full of people who worship a man who preached the Golden Rule, …not to mention the mosque also teaching about his ministry.

    The bible doesn’t say to hate and fear Islam. Why would it if Islam teaches about Jesus’ ministry? If the conflict didn’t come from The Holy Bible or Koran, where did it come from?

    • Mathius says:

      Amen! Sing it, brother.

      I would attend your sermon anytime.

      —-

      Semi-related to the above. Islam was particularly aware of the problems inherent in translation. Thus, the only “official” Korans are in Arabic and any translations are “commentaries.” So the only way you can read the Koran is in Arabic – and no translator can stand between you and the world of Allah – and interesting idea.

      Additionally, per Islam, any conflicts between the Koran and the Bible are due to human error introduced in the oral tradition or the translation of the Torah/Bible.

      It’s a pretty clever way of handling it. So when things happen like two different dates for the last supper, or two stories for the creation of humans, it’s not the fault of the book or of God/Allah, but rather people who just made small cumulative errors over time.

      Nifty.

    • Sed,

      To me the main point is “The importance of adab is beautifully summed up in the words of Ibn A’rabi, the greatest of Sufi saints and teachers, when he said; “100% of your spiritual growth is dependent on your adab.”

      Anyone who does not follow or agree with this principle, or would follow the muslim tenet that everyone must be converted to Islam or die, is not coming as a guest but rather is coming as an invader to conquer people in another land.”

      There is a link above & hands down, most terrorist acts are committed by radical Islamist. A man from Homeland Security in the WND link asks if we are importing jahidists? After Boston, how can it be wrong to ask that question? If they build a Mosque in my neighborhood, I will ask them & their priest about adab. As they assimilate, our mutual trust and friendship is likely to grow. If their children assimilate, trust will reach new highs. If their children do not assimilate, daughters wed in forced marriages, I might be a poor choice as a neighbor.

      • Mathius says:

        hands down, most terrorist acts are committed by radical Islamist

        Depends on how you want to define terrorist.

        I imagine you could find more than a handful of people living in Iraq / Afghanistan who would argue that a foreign government flying drones above their heads and dropping bombs with impunity, and killing a not-insubstantial number of bystanders might also constitute terrorism.

        But, no, no, that couldn’t be..

      • Sedgewick says:

        I don’t dismiss your point that it is something to watch. I think you bring a very valid point to the table. I also like you teaching me about the concept of Adab. Thank you.

        Might I suggest that if a Muslim(or whoever) community springs up in your town, showing warmth and hospitality could earn you special consideration or worthiness of Adab from their perspective. And thus develops a stronger community.

        You attract more bees with flowers and honey than you do with vinegar and smoke.

        If they’re a radical, their attitude will show it, and it won’t take long to identify any groups popping up. Judge them by their works. If you show them warmth which they reciprocate and are respectful to the community, you know they are regular folks with righteous intent. If they act like pricks, ….

    • Black Flag® says:

      Sed,

      It comes from the age-old human disease called “Almost like Me”.

      No one condemns Hindus, though they machine people in India and blow up planes – why? Because they are different enough.

      But if you are “almost” like me, yet not quite “me”, I focus on the slim difference of why “you” are “wrong” and I am “right” – and you the same back. When then get into a serious fight.

      Jews/Christians/Islam are all the same. They all have the same religious roots – Abraham.

      The core difference: Jews believe Christ has not yet come and they are waiting.
      Christians believe Christ has come and will come back again
      Muslims believe Christ has come and has come back and there ain’t going to be any more.

      The rest is, more or less, the same between all of them.

  16. Ahaa! Buck, you, you…hyp, ooops no need for that. I can’t fear radical Muslims because I fear they’ll behead me. I’m a bigot. But you fear people who carry guns. WHAT?

    • I don’t fear people who carry guns. Where have I ever said or implied this to be the case?

      You can fear radical Muslims, but it is wholly irrational to fear all Muslims, or question the motives of all Muslims immigrating to the US, etc….

      • OMG! Thank You!. Other folks today, ahem, won’t allow the thought to be in their mind that I can in fact welcome Muslims.

        you are too anti gun ;)

        • I am not anti-gun. I am anti- the 2d amendment means I can own and carry any type of weapon anywhere at anytime and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on this right…

          See the difference?

          • Nope…..but I am a Texan. We carry everything….. :smile:

            • Remember, the question down here is not having a weapon…..the criteria is proper sight picture and leading the target properly…..if you cannot do that…you do not need to own a weapon. Pretty simple, actually.

  17. Mathius says:

    Black Flag,

    I do so enjoy when we’re on the same side.

    ::stifles nose bleed::

    When I disagree with you, you’re the most insufferable know-it-all who ever lived. Arguing with you is like arguing with an oak tree. For all the good it does anyone, I might as well have bashed my head against a cinder block for hours on end. You’re smart enough and knowledgeable enough that I have to work hard to beat you down and, even then, it’s like whack-a-mole as you refuse to admit that you’re beaten and I just.. keep.. trying.. agh! The Futility and Frustration of it!

    ….

    Yet… when we are on the same side, and I can watch that magnificent process working on someone else.. someone who is deeply wrong.. and well out of their depth… well, it’s a thing of beauty.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Ah, old friend and foe Mathius,

      So contemplate this:

      When you are on the receiving end of being beaten by an old oak branch, think:

      “Maybe I am the subject of that magnificent process ON ME, and I am deeply wrong and out of my depth… that oak tree is trying to tell me something, I think…”

      • Mathius says:

        [Maybe] I am deeply wrong

        I am rarely wrong..

        and out of my depth

        And I am never out of my depth. Even against the likes of you.

        that oak tree is trying to tell me something, I think…

        Certainly, but that doesn’t mean the oak tree is right.

        When you are on the receiving end of being beaten by an old oak branch

        I don’t recall ever being on the receiving end of such a beating. More than once I’ve had a very energetic duel against that old oak branch.. and I’ve certainly taken a few lumps here and there (as have you!).. but a “beating”? Never.

  18. Prove it BF. When have Christians threatened me?

    • Anita…..wrong question…..think about it and ask again,…

      • Uh, Why do radical Muslims threaten me?

        • Black Flag® says:

          Muslims don’t threaten you. Billions of them preach non-violence and acceptance.

          The ones that do threaten you is in a direct response to your government’s action – and they, like you, suffer the same human disease of Group Punishment.

          Since you proclaim YOU select your government (you like to vote and claim this right?), they argue YOU made this government that is attacking and killing their children. Their argument has a lot of merit, since they use YOUR argument about your vote.

          Since this is YOUR government, that YOU choose, YOU are at fault for killing their children.

          • Alright. If I break down my wall, can you guarantee I’ll keep my head?

          • And your claim doesn’t explain the Muslim v Muslim viloence

            • Anita, I can explain Muslim vs Muslim violence but before I do, you must understand that where BF and Mathius are both coming from as far as Muslim and Radical Muslim….they are two sects within Islam…..and you must accept that there are two sects or my explanation will not be understood. But there is a HUGE division in the Muslim world right now that the West ( and the West is not just the United States ) does not understand nor want to grasp. It is deeply rooted in history back to the 700′s.

  19. It is really fun to stand on the side…I am neither Muslim nor Christian…..I follow no religion. No, I am not an atheist…I really do not know where I come down, actually. I often wonder where that is? It cannot be hell, I do not believe that exists. I do not believe for I have not seen it. Same for heaven…..Well, maybe hell, I have been there, it is called Vietnam….if that is the case, I have to believe in heaven, for I already live there……

    It is interesting how all this works out…..so….when all of you decide that you want to go to heaven, call me. I know the way.

    :::ducking::::

    • And, if you don’t believe that, then ask DPM…….he is no longer in Mathius’ basement. That is a cleverly placed hologram.

    • Mathius says:

      It cannot be hell, I do not believe that exists.

      Interestingly, heaven is hotter than hell.

      Link.

    • Mathius says:

      I do not believe for I have not seen it.

      That’s a silly reason.

      I have not seen Pluto, but I believe it exists.

      The reason I do not (and you should not) believe in Hell is that there is zero evidence for it. Not that YOU haven’t seen it, but that NO ONE has ever seen it. NO ONE has ever seen anything to suggest its real.

      And, anyway, I personally find the idea of a lake of fire and eternal damnation contradictory with the idea of a loving creator.

      Not that I believe in a loving creator either, mind you.

      • LOL…you are a hoot…….but it goes with my realist attitude…..you have seen plenty of pictures of Pluto. They exist everywhere. Therefore, it exists. I have seen “renditions” of hell ( you know, the horned guy and his minions )….I have seen “renditions” of heaven ( you know, the guy at the big gate sitting on a cloud )….I do not know if there are souls and I do not know if there is after life. I have not been there. To take things by faith simply because someone wrote something that has been interpreted over centuries….sorry. can’t do that either. I need to see it, hear it, feel it (sensory), touch it and talk to it. It must answer in a loud intelligible voice and not the voices that you hear all the time. ( You know, those squeeky little voices in your head that comes with grog ).

        As to hell…well, I cannot testify to its existence or non existence….I have not seen it. Others may have, I do not know. Is there evidence of it….I don’t know….have not seen any of it so far.

        One religion that I became familiar with in my travels was Buddhist. Very interesting philosophy, not at all unlike Islam, the original. But that is another chapter.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    The actual subject of the article, which is not uncommon in Britain, France and Germany, now in Italy. http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/05/girls-fined-wearing-swimsuits-offend-muslims/

    This is the crap I’m against in this country. I could care less about how people live as long is it isn’t forced on me. Why is that so bad?

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Flagster, Been to Saudi, saw how they lived, that was in 1990 so things may have changed. Then, women were 2nd class (if that) citizens with little or no rights. Now ????
    That don’t change all the documentation that comes from all the foreign reports about this. However, that’s wasn’t the subject of the discussion in the beginning, despite how Mathius perverted it.

    • Black Flag® says:

      Gman,

      I will assume you didn’t live with them – you were sequestered in an ex-pat community for the most part, right?

      So, you didn’t “live” with them. You do not know how they live in their homes.

      They are a different culture with different norms – what you think is “2nd class citizen” is merely you placing your distorted world-view upon them.

      From my experience, most women do not want to change this about their culture. They far prefer the ruling the home then a mere transitory “rights” that men may have outside of the home.

      I will tell you, there are no “rights” in the home. The woman holds all of them, and the men none of them.

      As Western culture leaks into these countries, I’m sure there will be conflicts of this arrangement – women demanding more “outside” rights, but not wanting to give up “inside” rights – and men resisting the former and fostering a fight inside for the latter.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What I saw and as told by the elders, is what I have stated. Many had many wives as well. Women could not be seen without being covered, couldn’t drive, vote or be in public without their man (or designated other). Iran is different, Kuwait is also different. I don’t really care how they live, what I saw was nice people who just wanted what I want, to be free to be themselves and left alone. I got no issues ( I have said this way too many times here) with Islam. That was never the subject to begin with. Strange how people get stuck on something that is not relevant, but it happens I guess.

      • But if a woman wants to challenge that? Is there a Saudi equivalent of the ACLU? or, do we just let them have their own little culture and comment on their “quaint” ways. . Somebody once argued that point with me about a place called Germany circa 1933 to 1945.

        Don’t get me wrong, I am not for going to war to change anyone’s internal culture. They are stuck with it until they decide to change it.

        The Roosevelt thing again for those who missed it.

        http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf

    • Black Flag® says:

      Gman,

      There was an old movie that I forgot the name to, had Jane Fonda in a role as a diplomat’s wife.

      They go to a Muslim country to negotiate some deal.
      A meeting is set up, attended also by the wives. The Muslim wives show up covered head to toe, and walk behind their husbands, while Fonda is western dressed and walked beside her husband.

      The Muslim diplomats dismiss the wives to another room so that the “men can talk!”.

      Fonda and the other wives go into a small room, and when the door closes, the Muslim women take off their drab and are dressed … like her! “We just wear those outside…”, and quizzed Fonda on why she walked beside her husband… “Can he not stand by himself and you have to hold him up….?”

      And they start talking about the trade deal.

      Fonda is stunned, and the Muslim wives explain: “Well, he THINKS he runs things out there, but I will tell him what to do or do not, and whether this deal is good or bad”.

      Later, her husband is upset – the whole meeting he had had nothing to do with the trade deal – just idle chatter about everything else. Fonda explains what she learned, and what had happened and that she negotiated the deal. Her husband was stunned and didn’t believe her.

      The next day the deal was signed, under the terms Fonda had negotiated.

      …That is pretty close to how it works…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Hanoi Jane? Not sure her and anything Hollywood is a good example of things, but your experience is greatly important to what you believe is true, even if it may only exist in one or two sect’s of Islam. They are not all the same, and sadly, seem to like killing one another. Reminds me of Chicago in many ways. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just live in peace?

      • I think that is called a movie and a Jane Fonda movie at that. It is more or less the way Hollywood thinks the world works. The reality looks more like this, for those who can stomach looking at it.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Health/victim-acid-attack-commits-suicide/story?id=16011971

      • Well, isn’t that wonderful-BF, I have no problem with people living as they choose-but I find it a little weird that the man who so forcefully pushes the ideas of freedom -simply ignores that these woman have no choice. If they find they do not like the laws-then what? because we aren’t talking social norms here-we are talking LAWS.

        • They probably have more choice and more power then you do.

          Remember, V.H., what you see on the news – no matter the story – are always the EXCEPTIONS.

          There is nothing newsworthy about the normal.

          You are so bound into what you read, infer it applies broadly, and then form opinions based on these “exceptions” called news stories.

          Before you begin to condemn billions of people, perhaps you should actually go and learn about them and live among them before you do.

          • “They probably have more choice and more power then you do.”

            Based on what? Individual action or laws

            I understand your argument that normal isn’t newsworthy-I don’t believe that the vast majority of any group beats their wives or kill their children. People are people and most love and protect their family. That isn’t the point of any of these discussions. The point is how our cultural differences will effect our laws and our communities.

            If you want to see evidence of these problems-they are easily seen in many western countries.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA, Lots of nasty weather out there. Stay safe!

  23. gmanfortruth says:
    • There is plenty of cover left for him. They (the press corps) will throw their bodies in front of the various committees to prevent the savior from going down.

      Someday I have to write a piece about how Religion has been replaced by worshiping various POS who will bring about “fundamental change”. Or of course the new Earth Mother Goddess the greenies love.

  24. While I usually stay out of these kind of debates, I feel I must comment. Mathius, I find our labeling of others as racist, bigots, etc. highly offensive and a prime example of the use of PC to silence your opposition. I would never stoop to calling people racist or bigots over discussing a topic such as this. No one has taken any overt action here. I am sure that everyone when in the presence of another nationality or creed would show tolerance and acceptance as long as it was mutual.

    People by their very nature are tribal. It is a fundamental defense mechanism that is instantly present when meeting or passing anyone of a different tribe. In most cases this defense is lowered after a few milliseconds of rational thought. But it is still there no matter how hard anyone tries to overcome it. Try as hard as you can but when walking through an airport, your reaction is different for a man in Arab dress than it is for his twin brother in a US Army uniform. The reaction may only be fleeting but it is there. This does not make you a bigot or a racist, just human.

    As for the Arab/Muslim culture, there are 1400 years of history that well documents its aggressiveness to its neighbors. They invaded the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, India, eastern and western Europe. Europe finally counterattacked with the Crusades. Both were bloody and inhumane. Since then Europe and much of the west have been intimidated by the Arab/Muslim countries. One only needs to look at the riots spawned by the Danish cartoons, the marches in England to support the death of Rusdie, and our own President’s rush to imprison the film maker after Benghazi. All are acts of intimidation are fostered and fomented by the imams to control the masses of Muslims. That intimidation is working as seen by the incremental introduction of Sharia Law in England and other western countries. Matt to imply that we are bigots/racists/etc. because we resist such is bullying tactics.

    BF, prior to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, I do not recall bombing any Muslim country. Yes we interfered in Iran but that’s not bombing. Yes we developed and bought oil from the Middle East thus making them rich. Boo Hoo. Yes we support Israel, one small patch of dirt, a fraction of Arab/Muslim controlled territory, and less than the amount promised to the Jews following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In fact our actions in Bosnia and Kuwait/Iraq were in support of Muslims. Prior to 9/11, we suffered through 30 years of terrorist attacks by Muslims against Americans and did little in response. Most such attacks were just pin pricks in the side of the wooly mammoth. 9/11 drew real blood and finally required a response. The Muslim radicals, while small in percentage are not small in numbers. Furthermore as demonstrated by the cheering crowds after 9/11, they take support and sympathy from millions more of “peaceful” Muslims.

    BF your quotes of Muslims condemning the abduction of the girls is fine and about time. After universal condemnation around the world, they finally find their voices. Are they sending troops to Nigeria to find the girls and punish the offenders? Or is this just lip service? As for Christians keeping slaves, yes we did but we bought them from whom? Could it have been Muslims? What culture/religion still supports slavery? Is it the Christians? I had ancestors and several relatives who fought to end slavery in this country. Some lost their lives, some were wounded, some POW’s. The issue is settled. I am tired of it being constantly brought up to show how bad this country was/is. That is total BS.

    SK, I read TR’s comments and agree with them. I wish that we could get rid of all the hyphenated-American terms. That goes for Black, Latino, German, Slavic, Asian, ….. All should be banned from the American lexicon. I am tired of first this or thats. I care not whether candidates for office are Latin, female, Black, Indian, or Orangutan (my species). I do care what they stand for and I resent be called a racist or bigot because I disagree with a particular individuals stance.

    • I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals’ belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women’s most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.

      It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it.

  25. @ BF…….you need to explain this statement better for me…..”The ones that do threaten you is in a direct response to your government’s action – and they, like you, suffer the same human disease of Group Punishment.”

    You are making it sound like the US and its policies are directly responsible for radical Islamic movement. If you think this, I will have to throw the penalty flag here. The radical Islamic movement was around before the US was a thought in George Washington’s pants.

    • D13,

      Yes, that is precisely what I am saying – though it is not “just” the US, but together with other Western Colonial Powers (France, Britain)

      In their colonies, and where the US replaced them as the “new” colonist power, the means to maintain control was and is to smash any indigenous self-determination movement.

      The result is violent suppression. This suppresses of all the moderates, leaving only extremists who use this suppression as a rallying point to their extremist cause.

      So, absolutely, by suppressing self-determination, the US creates its own extremists who rise against them.

      • Actually, the first extremist movement happened against Mother Russia in the 17th Century…Russia is/was considered a Western Power by definition. When the Persian Empire fell, and I know you understand this but others do not, Western Colonization started looooooong before the US was around….the birth of the extremist movement ( Radical Islam,extreme Islam ) started with the first colonization. I will agree that the US supplanted the others as the US grew in power but the extremists and the jihads and the Radicalization began long ago with the Kharijites….the radical arm of Islam vying for control after the death of Muhammad. The Kharijites had a violent, politicized notion of Islam, and committed frightful massacres as a result. Their view was that God would reveal the true leader of Islam on the battlefield and that any Muslim who did not obey the religion exactly as the Kharajites understood it was an apostate and can be and should be killed. They made war on every other Muslim who did not follow their exact version of Islam. At one point, they even assassinated Ali, the fourth Caliph. Their objective was to exterminate any competing version of Islam. I know that you understand that there was a huge civil war following the death of Muhammad and it splintered the Islam/Muslim people

        I have no argument that the US, with its hegemony, exacerbated the problem but the extremists have existed for centuries. Even after the Kharijites were sort of put down after a couple of centuries, they still exist under a different name.

        However, it does not have to be actual suppression…it is how suppression is interpreted. The acceptance of Western culture by locals is considered suppression. If a tradition changes, it is considered a suppression. So, if a Muslim woman wears a pair of jeans, that is considered oppression because without the introduction of a Western culture that would not be there. I do not agree with that connotation but that is how I see it. And, the family that I lived with for awhile said the same thing, even though they watched Western movies. No one makes them watch or listen or wear clothes but because the “choice” is there is considered suppression.

    • Not true, D13.

      Though everywhere has extremists, they are naturally suppressed at home when the local people see no purpose in supporting them to further self-determination – that is, when moderates lead.

      When the moderates are destroyed, extremists are all that remain.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What is sad is that the Extremists give a bad name to their own. Much like Obama and his minions are making all Liberals look like fools, we know that some liberals are not fools, but still, many people feel that way. Today’s Muslim extremists are going unchecked, I think because good Muslim’s may be afraid to speak out against them. Us white folks have bad apples too, as do blacks. Maybe that could be a discussion later, how to put extremism in check and keep it there? :)

        • Mathius™ says:

          I think because good Muslim’s may be afraid to speak out against them.

          Seriously?

          Are you serious about this?

          How many times have I posted TONS of links about Muslims against terrorism, or Muslims for women’s rights? Take approximately 10 seconds and google it. There is exactly zero excuse in the modern age for someone to belive that “Muslims are afraid to speak out.” They are screaming to the heavens and you, and people like you, keep insisting that they’re silent.

          It’s bullshit.

          Knock it off.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Yes, they speak out here in the US, but are quite quiet in their home countries. And I will not knock anything off, you quit pretending that the subject matter is not happening when I can give 100s of links as well. Grow up already

        • Mathius™ says:

          Maybe that could be a discussion later, how to put extremism in check and keep it there?

          Education.

          Lots of it.

          Tons of it.

          For free.

          For everyone.

          For everywhere.

          As much as a person can consume.

          Ongoing education.

          Continuing education.

          Post-graduate education.

          Quality education.

          Smaller class sizes.

          Better teacher training.

          More school funding.

          And all of it for free, paid for by the public tax payer, and provided as a societal good.

          And not just here.

          Everywhere.

          It would cost a fraction of what our military costs.

          It would cost a fraction of what our prisons cost.

          It prevents drug abuse.

          It prevents unwanted pregnancies.

          It prevents criminal behavior.

          It increases worker productivity.

          It prevents extremism.

          It is, in short, the silver bullet for pretty much everything that’s wrong with this planet.

          ….

          But, no. We’d rather spend money on wars and prisons and force young people into immense debt just when they’re most vulnerable.

          ::sigh::

  26. @ Mathius…..I have a penalty flag for you as well but will have to address it a little later….but I fear that you are like Buck and his minions on “selective enforcement”…..basis your statements yesterday, I think that you use the definition of bigotry selective as well. I will, however, explain myself a little bit later…..I have never had kidney stones before and had one this weekend….have a doctor visit to make today…..I would not wish that pain on anyone…….except Jane Fonda.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    @Mathius, if your finished with your “everyone is a bigot” fit, let’s try this again. This time I will simplify the basic meaning of the article and skip all the fluff and poor examples.

    Example #1: 5 Muslim families move into your neighborhood. They are well off, drive nice vehicles, take care of their property. They are polite and and return kind greetings when presented with them. These folks are no problem and welcome in any neighborhood. I think you would agree with me on that, yes? :)

    Example #2 5 Muslim families move into your neighborhood. They are well off, drive nice cars and take care of their property. The openly and loudly demand that women cover themselves in their presence. The demand forcefully that there will be silence during their prayer times. They demand that the local grocery stores and fast food restaurants remove all pork products. (I use these examples because I have read where it has happened) These folks are a problem and NOT welcome in any (almost any) neighborhood. Do you agree with me on this point?

    As per the article Example #1 would be humble guests and Example #2 would be invaders. I don’t see where there is any bigotry being shown here. I can give a third example, but that wouldn’t apply to the article. What say you O Liberal one?

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      The reason #2 is not welcome is because #2 is an asshole.

      Not that he’s Muslim. That’s he’s an asshole.

      He’s not a “humble guest” because he’s not a “guest.” I don’t own the community. I don’t own the street. I don’t own the grocery store. HE owns his house. He is not a “guest.” He is a resident, a citizen, and EQUAL to me. He is not an “invader.” This is his home, too.

      I do not need to approve of his choices because they are his choices to make.

      If he starts making absurd demands, that makes him a jerk. And I am free to ignore his jerkishness.

      If he starts harassing people, that is why we have police and restraining orders, and Big Government.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I see, base life on assumptions, stick head in sand and pretend it is not what it is. OK, Fairly typical of today’s Liberal ideology. :D

        • And G, what should I do about the Christians moving to my town and demanding bars and stores close on Sunday?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Are they doing that, or are you living in the past again. Wrongs done in the past not mean wrongs done tomorrow are magically OK. If it’s happening, tell them to pound sand. I’m against blue laws as much as you.

            Here’s the issue, when Muslim’s make demands that non Muslims adhere to their religious beliefs, which is actually happening in many places, is it acceptable, No, can you link an incident that you claim above? I can link many concerning the Radical Muslim’s. I will use radical as that is who are the ones doing it, not the majority of Muslims, just to clarify.

            • Umm…sure, lets just gloss over all the wrongs done in the past. The blue laws are already on the books – this is why you don’t have radical Christians screaming to impose them; but they sure are vocal about maintaining these laws.

              Now, with respect to Muslims demanding laws be enacted to protect/support their religioius beliefs, as Mathius so eloquently stated (a first for Mathius!), the problem is: Not that he’s Muslim. That’s he’s an asshole. The fact that they happen to be Muslim is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand; otherwise, you would need to be coming down equally as hard on radical Christians with their blue laws and radical Jews with their requests for accommodations for Saturday, etc. etc. etc.

              • My mistake — it was DPM who said that, not Mathius. Which explains why it was stated so eloquently!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m not glossing over the past at all, there are no blue laws where I reside or where I resided before. There were no blue laws in Virginia when I lived there many years ago. If they exist and are not wanted, then apparently the election process is a failure, because according to most folks here, elections solve those problems.

                As for DPM’s blurb, he misses the fact that all he demands I mentioned are religious demands, so it’s easier to stick his head in the sand and ignore that. Is the example one of an asshole, yes, but he is a radical Muslim asshole and him being Muslim is pertinent to the subject matter of this thread, whether you chose to bury your head in the sand next to him is your choice.

              • I simply can’t wrap my head around :) your idea of what is equivalent.

              • VH — you criticize Muslims for advocating laws based on their religious beliefs, but support Christians doing the exact same thing. How is this not equivalent?

              • I do-really-I support people passing laws based on the basics of democracy used within the framework of a Republic. I’d like to ask you a question Buck and saying neither isn’t an answer :) . You live in a Country that is as of now anyway majority Christian-would you prefer that it was a majority Muslim or Islamic which ever word is correct.

                Then I want you to look at the fact that we have been a majority Christian since our founding and in all that time the Christian majority have not created a theocracy. Yet, many Countries with a majority Muslim population is based on a theocracy. Why is that?

              • Honestly, I wouldn’t care at all if the country happened to be comprised of a majority of Muslims. So long as that majority didn’t go around cramming their religious-based laws down my throat and kept in mind the importance of (i) majority rule with respect/safeguards for minority rights, and (ii) separation of church and state.

                While we technically may not live in a theocracy, you continue to ignore the many examples of religious-based Christian laws in the US. Case in point, blue laws.

              • That’s a pretty big “So long as”

                Do you have any reason to believe that they wouldn’t based on the realities you see around the world?

                And could you give me a list of all these religious based laws of which you speak. Blue laws-can’t buy liquor one day a week -is the only one I can think of..

              • I have every reason to believe they wouldn’t — from personal experience.

                You left public indecency and gay marriage off your list…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Also prostitution. :)

              • I didn’t leave them off my list-I don’t consider them religious based or solely based on religion-Indencency-don’t care- if you want to posit that only religious people have a problem with people running around naked, screwing and marking their spot in public-okay.

                As far as gay marriage-it is certainly a religious belief that homosexuality is a no no. But when it comes to public policy there are Christians that are against it and Christians that support it. There is also thousands of years of mankind where people didn’t have gay marriage and it wasn’t just because of religion.

                So I don’t know Buck-I’d say Christians as a majority in the west have furthered the ideal of freedom. While the Muslims as a majority have not.

              • Mathius™ says:

                V.H.

                But when it comes to public policy there are Christians that are against it and Christians that support it.

                But isn’t that entirely the point?

                There are some “bad” Christians who are foisting their views on the rest of us and some “good” Christians who aren’t. By the exact same logic, there are some “bad” Muslims who are foisting their views on others and some “good” Muslims who aren’t.

                Yet, people here seem to be suggesting that Muslims are inherently evil in trying to foist their views on us while giving Christians a free pass. Shouldn’t both groups be held to the same standards? Either Muslims AND Christians are both “bad” about oppressing the rest of us, or neither is band and it’s just that SOME subset of each are jerks.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Nobody will argue the point you make, that there is bad in all sides. You have had hundreds of days to make that a point of discussion, but mostly, it’s only an issue when an article like this pops up.

                Let me be clear, you are a liberal media brainwashed parrot who goes into attack mode when your liberal world view is challenged. I have heard exactly as you an Zbuck speak on MSNBC and NBC. Not a shock with our current education system that parroting you favs happen.

              • No, First of all it depends on ones definition of bad-you seem overly sure that you are right, something you complain about in other people :)

                Second -this shouldn’t be a discussion of religion-religion is simply made up of people -and all people have their beliefs about policy based on something.

                Third-this is about different cultures and about governmental systems.

                Fourth-Muslims have shown themselves to be partial to theocracies.

                Fifth-You cannot make all cultural differences equivalent-unless you really believe that objecting to gay marriage[especially when most people would support civil unions } with killing gays. Or arguing that woman shouldn’t sell their bodies as if they are a commodity to treating woman as if they are slaves.

                Sixth-You guys talk like people are suggesting that we deport all the muslims from the country or that people hate all muslims or are afraid of all muslims-this is not the case-people are saying that we should look at the reality of the world and use that information to inform our immigration policy.

              • “I’d say Christians as a majority in the west have furthered the ideal of freedom.”

                And I would say they are furthering your ideal of freedom. But when Muslims (or any other group) request certain laws are changed to accommodate their beliefs, they are immediately deemed intruders trying to establish an Islamic theocracy?

                Not to rehash the whole debate about gay marriage, but I am still waiting for someone to clearly explain how a law banning marriage between two men (or two women) has nothing to do with religion…

              • So what is your complaint that my idea of freedom interferes with your idea of freedom. Guess what we the people, means we the people. And neither of us is on the freedom is all that matters bandwagon so please stop with the condemnation.

                So lets look at reality-once people are here, their opinions matter , so I am cautious, not bigoted, but cautious when it comes to immigration.

                I’ve explained it numerous times-you simply disagree or dismiss it because you have decided your bottom line. Well so have I and my reasons are based on my reasoning, the fact that my religion agrees is a plus.

              • Would you be equally as ‘cautious’ if a group of evangelical Christians moved next door? Or orthodox Jews? Or how about gay men?

              • I don’t care if a Muslim moves next door-Buck-I have no problem with diversity-I know you’ve made up your mind but seriously are you reading my posts. I would however be concerned if my whole community was Muslim, or black, or even gay. Because then, in all probability my community wouldn’t just change it would become controlled by a different culture-and pretending that it wouldn’t is denying reality.

  28. “I am not saying that anyone should not have the right to live as they choose, but rather that if you elect to emigrate to another country, you should know and accept and adapt to the new environment you have chosen to live in. For example, you do not take a trip to the Antarctic to see the penguins and pack only bermuda shorts and a t-shirt.

    You know what you are getting into, and if you want it to be like home, then do not go where life is different, unless the entire purpose of your trip is to change the place you are going to. Again this is the behaviour of an invader, not a guest.”

    Just curious … is this how the genius who wrote this article felt about the invasion of North America by Europeans?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes he did, one more reason I didn’t like the article.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I will never understand why it is so hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea that America is a nation of immigrants created in alternating layers like a delicious lasagna.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers

%d bloggers like this: