DescentBB

...and an influential muslim at that:

he's right, if you actually think about it. It isn't about whether the word is describing them properly, it's about suggesting that the religion needs to be 'moderated'.


By the way, for amusement on St Patrick's Day, look up Trumps 'Irish Proverb' gaffe.

By Lukas Mikelionis | 7:02 am, March 17, 2017

Teachers at a primary school in Sydney, Australia have been threatened with beheading and other violence from young Islamic students, prompting one of them to quit her job.

Students as young as those in Year 5, according to the Daily Telegraph, are making the violent threats and pressuring others to read the Koran at Punchbowl Public School in Sydney...

https://heatst.com/life/australian-teac ... ehead-her/

callmeslick wrote:...By the way, for amusement on St Patrick's Day, look up Trumps 'Irish Proverb' gaffe.

It's a little more complicated than what you think. It's not Nigerian, it's not Irish and it's not a proverb either. So once again Trump trolls the net and picks the first thing he finds that makes him sound great.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... on-the-web

NS, I'd love to know what you think we should be doing about Islam. You keep posting this stuff like wallpaper and yet never comment with what you would believe to be satisfactory "solutions" or "remedies" that would either solve the problem you keep posting about or would make you happy in your safe zone. Do you want to kill all Muslims? Do you want to keep them totally out of the Western world? What?

Heat Street, the site for NS recent link about violent students is a NewsCorp libertarian front based in the US, with ZERO connection to Australia past Rupert Murdoch. The story cited is NOT to be found in the legitimate Aussie press. And no, another tabloid owned by Murdoch, the sole reporter of this in Australia doesn't count as legitimate. Geez, NS, give it a rest. Obsessing over this sort of hyperventilating tripe isn't or can't be healthy.

Fake Islamophobia news aside, I'd still like to hear NS's "solution" to this "supposed" issue, or any issue concerning Islam he keeps posting about. If not, this thread will be deleted for a lack of constructive discussion and input by the OP.

Tunnelcat wrote:I'd still like to hear NS's "solution" to this "supposed" issue, or any issue concerning Islam he keeps posting about

The solution is simple AWARENESS of the problem. In order to address a problem, one must first be aware of it.

I hate to say it but, vigilance is warranted when it comes to "true believers" in islam.

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:I'd still like to hear NS's "solution" to this "supposed" issue, or any issue concerning Islam he keeps posting about

The solution is simple AWARENESS of the problem. In order to address a problem, one must first be aware of it.

I hate to say it but, vigilance is warranted when it comes to "true believers" in christianity.

Now read this slowly and tell me just how wrong it is.

Nightshade wrote:The solution is simple AWARENESS of the problem.

Ferno wrote:I hate to say it but, vigilance is warranted when it comes to "true believers" in christianity.

Now read this slowly and tell me just how wrong it is.

Well, you and TC seem to be concerned with Christians' behavior- so aren't you watching them too?

Being concerned that Christians are going to attack or kill you is a bit silly compared to the real concern that islamists that take the word of mohammed as law.

Check it out:

Personally I'm far more frightened by fundamentalist Christianity than fundamentalist Islam, given that a good chunk of our country is being run by adherents of the former.

Nightshade wrote:Being concerned that Christians are going to attack or kill you is a bit silly compared to the real concern that islamists that take the word of mohammed as law.

Dahahaha. Again, you completely miss the point. Or maybe it's your cognitive dissonance kicking in. You should get out of that echo chamber you've put yourself into.

But tell me, what religion were the people who executed terrorists attacks in the same country as they were born in? you know, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Massachusetts...

But the question is…did they commit those acts in the name of religion?

As to Erdogan, he implies that there is no “moderate” Islam, but has also committed his country to fighting “radicals”.

See the error?

yes, but do you see that he's saying that Islam is Islam.....there is no 'moderate' or 'extreme' Islam. Just a freaking religion. That there are radical elements within the Islamic populace, as there are in the Christian populace, the Hindu populace, the atheist and agnostic populace isn't some sort of hypocrisy, it is separating human behavior from the nature of a religion as good, bad, right or wrong. Get that?

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:I'd still like to hear NS's "solution" to this "supposed" issue, or any issue concerning Islam he keeps posting about

The solution is simple AWARENESS of the problem. In order to address a problem, one must first be aware of it.

I hate to say it but, vigilance is warranted when it comes to "true believers" in islam.

What kind of vigilance? How far do we go? Do we force Muslims who already live in this country to follow Christian laws or do we allow them a little leeway to follow their own teachings as separate group? How much leeway is too much? Creating laws that are actually put on the books? Do we allow certain neighborhoods or areas to allow themselves to be governed by local Sharia Law, which I'm sure is one of your fears? With that thought, if we as a nation decide we don't want that line crossed, and I'm guessing that we probably don't, what do we do about it if Muslims try to force their laws upon us? Wholesale deportation to kick them out of the country?

With that in mind, let me ask you this NS. Do you think most Americans, especially women and most Christians, would just sit back and allow any sort of Sharia Law to be forced upon any of our citizenry who are not Muslim? I'm pretty sure that most people would be quite vocal, and sometimes violent, in their opposition to any implementation of Sharia Law. It would be a cold day in hell before most red-blooded American women and Christians would even allow that to occur. I know I sure as hell wouldn't put up with it and I'd be quite violent about it. We must remember this, when someone immigrates to this country, they should be free to practice their religion as they see fit, there is no religious test for citizenship. But they must practice their religion within our framework of laws. Our laws must supersede their laws. If they don't like it, they are free to go back to their country of origin.

Spidey wrote:But the question is…did they commit those acts in the name of religion?

As to Erdogan, he implies that there is no “moderate” Islam, but has also committed his country to fighting “radicals”.

See the error?

Who doesn't?

Do you see anyone going: "In the name of nothing!!"?

Tunnelcat wrote: What kind of vigilance? How far do we go? Do we force Muslims who already live in this country to follow Christian laws or do we allow them a little leeway to follow their own teachings as separate group?

Everyone should follow the SAME law- AMERICAN law (which is the law of the land in the USA.)

Tunnelcat wrote:Do we allow certain neighborhoods or areas to allow themselves to be governed by local Sharia Law, which I'm sure is one of your fears? .

Absolutely not. There shouldn't be a separate set of laws for religious communities. There /CAN/ be local laws passed by the municipality (ordinances) that are voted on by the community constituents of course- but they must not infringe upon FEDERAL LAW nor the Constitution of the United States (infringing upon any rights protected by our founding document.)

THIS goes for ANY community, muslim or NOT.

Tunnelcat wrote:Our laws must supersede their laws. If they don't like it, they are free to go back to their country of origin.

Exactly right. The problem is- many muslims see sharia law superseding any existing national law or rights protected by those laws. They seek to conquer all lands for islam (along with all of humanity.)

Want to see this in our country?:



I don't.

Imagine if it were Christians demanding people be punished by the STATE for blasphemy. Would you stand for it?

I want to be able to wear these T-shirts if I wanted to and not fear for my life:



Christians will give you dirty looks but do you think they'd ever chase you down, stone you or rape you for wearing it?

Imagine if it were Christians demanding people be punished by the STATE for blasphemy. Would you stand for it?

There are Christians who demand exactly this right now.

Christians will give you dirty looks but do you think they'd ever chase you down, stone you or rape you for wearing it?

Try it in Alabama.

Who have conveniently decided to try and create their own police force.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ice-force/

"NO ONE EXPECTS THE ALABAMA INQUISITION!"

Ferno wrote:Who have conveniently decided to try and create their own police force.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ice-force/

"NO ONE EXPECTS THE ALABAMA INQUISITION!"

They're just following the examples shown to them by their Islamic counterparts in England for example:



Police in the UK have arrested two men who are said to be part of a vigliante group calling themselves the ’Muslim Patrol’. Clips posted on Youtube show the youths walking around East London confronting people and telling them to obey Sharia law.

Lol, your bank has its own “Police Force” I don’t see anybody shaking in their boots thinking they might move onto the streets and start enforcing corporate law.

Any state sanctioned “security force” (which is what it should be called) would only have jurisdiction on church grounds, and could only enforce state and local laws.

Such a security force would also have the right to enforce the church rules, such as no smoking or other rules, the same way the guard at the local bank can make you remove your hoodie. (dumbest rule ever)

Since there are no “Christian” laws on the books to enforce, there is no problem there, and those people posting on that secular humanist site sound like idiots.

But saying all of that, there are some constitutional/legal issues with the church having a “police force” and should simply use the correct terms to avoid problems.

hmmm, the fact they didn't even spell sharia correctly might be a tell that you've found bogus 'news' yet again.

Nightshade wrote:

Ferno wrote:Who have conveniently decided to try and create their own police force.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ice-force/

"NO ONE EXPECTS THE ALABAMA INQUISITION!"

They're just following the examples shown to them by their Islamic counterparts in England for example:



Police in the UK have arrested two men who are said to be part of a vigliante group calling themselves the ’Muslim Patrol’. Clips posted on Youtube show the youths walking around East London confronting people and telling them to obey Sharia law.

The difference here is, they were arrested, and the people in alabama pushing this won't be.

Every time I show you that christians are pulling this crap, you do this. Every time.

Keep that bovine-level cognitive dissonance going.

It's starting to look like the only way you'll change your mind is when you see someone you care about get hurt by them.

callmeslick wrote:hmmm, the fact they didn't even spell sharia correctly might be a tell that you've found bogus 'news' yet again.

Right. Ever looked up the number of different ways 'Kadaffi/Quadaffi/Khadafi's name has been spelled over the years?

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote: What kind of vigilance? How far do we go? Do we force Muslims who already live in this country to follow Christian laws or do we allow them a little leeway to follow their own teachings as separate group?

Everyone should follow the SAME law- AMERICAN law (which is the law of the land in the USA.)

I agree with you completely. You live here, you follow our laws.

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:Do we allow certain neighborhoods or areas to allow themselves to be governed by local Sharia Law, which I'm sure is one of your fears? .

Nightshade wrote:Absolutely not. There shouldn't be a separate set of laws for religious communities. There /CAN/ be local laws passed by the municipality (ordinances) that are voted on by the community constituents of course- but they must not infringe upon FEDERAL LAW nor the Constitution of the United States (infringing upon any rights protected by our founding document.)

THIS goes for ANY community, muslim or NOT.

Believe it or not NS, there has already been instances of a city accommodating a particular religion, in this case, a Hasidic Jewish community in Borough Park, Brooklyn, New York. They were given an allowance for special religious laws to supersede certain municipal laws for criminal enforcement. So unfortunately, a precedence has now been set. Since this has been allowed for one religion, it's probably not a stretch that some predominately Muslim neighborhoods would also want an allowance so that they could enforce Sharia Law locally. The Supreme Court may even side with Muslims for the aforementioned reason that since New York has already given that accommodation to the Jewish religion. But say if we as a nation don't want any form of Sharia Law allowed, EVER, what do we do about those other religions which have already been accommodated? Take it back? Have painted ourselves into a legal corner?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3

Tunnelcat wrote: Believe it or not NS, there has already been instances of a city accommodating a particular religion, in this case, a Hasidic Jewish community in Borough Park, Brooklyn, New York.

Yes, and it was absolutely wrong to do so. Enforcing (forcing, rather) others that do not adhere to your religion to follow some religious law should be out of the question. I hope there is some way of reversing this before we have so many eggshells to tiptoe over that nothing will be left of our freedom (to NOT have some religion forced upon us.)

I like how TB has now sunk to citing Putin's special little mouthpiece.

And the fact that as soon as I pointed out that there was a Christian Church trying to create their own special police, all he could do is point the finger at Muslims again.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:hmmm, the fact they didn't even spell sharia correctly might be a tell that you've found bogus 'news' yet again.

Right. Ever looked up the number of different ways 'Kadaffi/Quadaffi/Khadafi's name has been spelled over the years?

not by the Muslim community.

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote: Believe it or not NS, there has already been instances of a city accommodating a particular religion, in this case, a Hasidic Jewish community in Borough Park, Brooklyn, New York.

Yes, and it was absolutely wrong to do so. Enforcing (forcing, rather) others that do not adhere to your religion to follow some religious law should be out of the question. I hope there is some way of reversing this before we have so many eggshells to tiptoe over that nothing will be left of our freedom (to NOT have some religion forced upon us.)

Too late. It's already set a precedence. It can't be taken back that easily.