Agreed. But as we’ll discuss below, old Christian habits are coming back.... You’re right, the Taliban are a magnitude worse than the Christian Taliban. However, the theme is the same in my opinion .... using religious texts to impose a sort of theocracy. Essentially say only their version of Christianity is the right one. However I’m still going to call them the Christian Taliban. I’m sure you well aware of the recent abortion law that was discussed in Texas.... death penalty for anyone involved in the abortion. That’s where modern Evangicaosln is headed right now... Right, but certain Christians are gaining a lot of power that want to impose some sort of modern day theocracy on all in the US. Separation of church and state.... nah... Not being able to buy liquor on Sunday is one thing.... but being able to discriminate based on your religious spookles is something else....
Pakistani Muslims don't know what's in the Quran. Dude, I've been around hundreds of them. Pretty much all South Asian Muslims know how to read transliterations of the Quran and just mouth of jiberish while having no ****ing clue what they are saying. Ask any other South Asian Muslim poster here. Again, when right wing organizations make arguments for why Muslims shouldn't immigrate here, they use multiple arguments. One of those arguments is using Islamic texts to point to incompatibilities with constitutional law or Western values in general. That SPECIFIC argument holds no merit when many other religions textually are incompatible with our systems also. When you bring up how many Muslims in war torn poor autocracies are less secular, that is a completely different argument and has more validity. Howerver given that we already have a heavy merit based immigration system from Muslim regions, we already only select the more secular educated ones. There are multiple arguments right wingers use to not want Muslims to immigrate here. The textual based "Islam isn't compatible with the constitution" is the easiest one to dismantle.
But which religion is trying to push their morality and the ability to discriminate in the US? Christians, that’s who.
Some but largely not happening bro. Show me the Muslim majority country with a better track record than modern America and we will talk.
A pretty unfortunate characterization of those who have interest in their careers and in the economic well being of their families. But, it isn't the first time. Oh, and there's plenty of bees. I saw some in my yard just the other day.
A predictable post from someone who doesn't make 8 figures and never will, but pretends he does because he carries a plantation mentality. Capitalism is great until a certain point, and then it works against you.
You're assuming something not in evidence. In the article, Gorka is quoted saying "The hijab is a requirement of the religion of Islam. It is part of Sharia law. Sharia law does not comport with the U.S. Constitution." He does not explain how many Muslims immigrating to the US believe in a literal interpretation and application of Sharia. You layered that on. Since he lacked an argument, I went and found some (here is my link again). Those arguments also did not rely on some surveys about what Muslims believe. The one I link looks specifically at the 5 crimes of the hudud (where I'm totally out of my depth, because I really don't know Islam that well, so I don't know how meaningful this choice is), saying its "easy to prove" how application of these 5 rules are incompatible. Ironically, the article then describes the counter-arguments the author encountered from Muslims that said 'but the proofs required are impossibly high so you'd never see the punishments in practice.' Which is the same argument you make for the Jews -- yeah, the text is there, but they don't really practice it that way. The author dismisses that argument, saying the point is that the text is there, regardless of how it is practiced in real life. Don't want to make you responsible for the argument of some random blogger. I'm not saying the desire of Muslims for Sharia-based law is going to cause no problems. I'm just saying the argument I'm hearing from the anti-Sharia set that the textual evidence demonstrates that Sharia law does not comport with the Constitution is invalid. It's a bad argument. It is as meaningless as me pointing out that Deuteronomy doesn't comport with the Constitution.
It is bro. Religious freedom law bro. Discriminatation is ok if your interpretation of your holy book says its so. Apparently your pursuit of happiness supersedes someone else if it interferes with your religious spookles.... How about we talk about it being the Christians and not the Muslims in the US imposing their own sharia law on everyone. It’s the Christians moreso than the Muslims who care about what’s going on in your bedroom in the US.
Not sure what you are on about. Just saying that it is odd you pick on Christianity when Abrahamic religions aren't accepting of gays in general. Guessing this is what you are talking about. You should see the Muslim countries that ban homosexuality and stone people to death for it. I have experience living in one and they are the progressive ones and just have random murders of gays and not state sanctioned killings, but they certainly aren't tolerant of pride marches and people who walk different. Modern America has come a long way and most Christians just want to be left alone and don't care what you do and who you do it with. You are really showing us that you have some kind of bone to pick with Christians. Is there a traumatic experience behind it?
I view all religions as equally as nonsense. I’m saying Christians are the bigger boogeyman in the US. Muslims have no power in the US, Christians do. Evangelicals clearly don’t want to just be left alone.... they want to legally discriminate based on their own interpretation of the Bible. Apparently Jesus never hung out with the lepers, prostitutes, and society’s undesirables to them... the son of god never washed the feet of strangers....
Jesus! 70% of Muslim countries have blasphemy laws. 30% have apostasy laws. Do we have either of those here? Lighten up, Francis.
Wow, you're just full of all kinds of projection. I might agree with your second sentence. Your first sentence is ridiculous. Here's a life lesson for you: if you have enough money to live the life you want, you're rich. The particular level doesn't matter.
That's not actually the same argument, a high level of proof and unenforced aren't the same thing, the most notable difference being what happens to people who are either ignorant or choose not to lie? And as happens to foreigners, where they are raped, upon telling their authorities will be charged with adultery by admission because of how their laws function. The ignorant, nor the honest will be punished under scenario 2, whereas under scenario 1, only the knowledgeable liar will escape punishment (the resulting corrupt culture is inevitable) So you're incapable of understanding nuance? They've held a large majority for an extended period, and yet.....the most free nation on earth. The west generally views religion as benign, holding bad ideas for bad reasons is something we allow as part of a general idea of western civilisation, religions especially old ones are rife with those, but its certainly not unique to religion, however where islam separates itself is that it not only holds significantly more of those bad ideas held for bad reasons, but it has a high rate of those beliefs leading directly to bad behaviour. From criticism leading to jail time, death fatwas, and terrorist attacks (Rushdie and Charli Hebdo being the two most famous, but not by any stretch alone), how they treat apostasy, the rapes and grooming gangs in the UK, we can draw a straight line, beliefs for reasons leading to behaviour. Whereas the worst case happening with christians is that some of them dont want to be forced to do things? (OMG some baker didn't want to make a cake) Meanwhile the neighbour to the north fined someone $60k for refusing to call a man and a woman.... One doesn't need a god to lean towards a shitty regressive belief system. What some evangelicals think is also a red herring, there are authoritarians in almost every group, a minor number are inevitable, and there's no evidence of any trend whatsoever that they're heading towards a majority that wish to impose their beliefs above and beyond the civic method, nor have they ever. They accept the government can make the laws, the courts decide, and they aren't going to kill you for drawing a picture of jesus. It's not a race thing either, coptic christians don't commit terror attacks, whilst the "white country" with the most terror attacks by some margin is Russia, and that's home grown. And if you don;'t believe me, allow me to borrow this idea from someone else, let's propose a contest, you dedicate time to criticising islam, i'll do so with any other religion on earth that you choose, the people on this forum (maybe clutch can help, he can get the word out) promote this so as many people become aware of what we're doing, we'll publish our identities and locations, so people know whose actually doing it. And then let's see which one of us has our lives impacted. (PS i wouldnt really let you do this, because everyone is aware what would happen)
John Hinderaker wonders if Omar is simply not smart: What is striking about Omar’s tweet is that there is no angle from which it makes sense. She implies that President Bush said something comparable to her “some people did something” riff, but the implied analogy is nonexistent. Bush vowed to destroy the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Omar suggested that the terrorist attacks were of little consequence except insofar as they prompted an alleged backlash against Muslims–by President Bush, presumably. The two statements could hardly be more different. In fact, the only thing they have in common is that they include the word “people.” Can Congresswoman Omar be so dimwitted that she thought others would see this as a clever parallel? Yes, I think she may be. There have been a number of occasions when Omar has said and done things that led me to wonder whether she is a person of unusually limited intelligence. Today’s tweet is very much in that category. This afternoon, I happened to talk with someone who worked in the Minnesota House of Representatives during the brief time when Omar represented a district there. He said that she was widely regarded as an “idiot”–that was the term he used–who was unable to understand proposed legislation or to participate coherently in committee proceedings. Then as now, her only shtick consisted of complaining about imagined discrimination against Muslims. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/have-we-been-overestimating-omar.php
She said some people did something and it wasn't clear whom she was referring to but the right jumped on it that she was referring to the 9/11 hijackers. Meanwhile they ignore this:
Equally bad... Despite 2001 Promise, Donald Trump Made No 9/11 Donations in Year After Attack, Audit Finds "We didn’t find evidence that he contributed a single cent," comptroller says. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nyc-audit-finds-donald-trump-donations-911-months/story?id=42801444
