In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 11 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber.
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
Why does it matter how secular they are when large parts of the US are deeply christian?
Again why are Muslims bad but Christians good?
Because the deeply Christian elements of the US are still more secular than the "deeply religious" Muslims that would be coming from overseas. The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated. No one worries about them being an insular -- must less, hostile -- presence in the country.
One of your Republican candidates recently said that the bibles trumps the supreme court. Your going to have a hard time convincing me that a religious Muslim is going to hold a more radical view then "God's law beats American law". Oh and remember that post I made earlier about armed militia's opposing the government? I'm willing to bet a fair few of those will describe themselves as Christian.
How about we deport all Christians, ban all Muslims and just build a country of Atheists. No worried about secular there.
The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated.
Would you say they share "the american values"?
Depends upon how tightly you want to define the term. I certainly wouldn't suggest that a strict orthodoxy is required. But let's face it: the religious Christians in the US are quintessential red-blooded Americans. They clearly do share American values.
While heroin and prescription opioid abuse has been skyrocketing in suburban and rural areas of the U.S. in the last decade, needle exchanges and other “harm reduction” programs for drug users are far less available in these areas than in cities, according to a study published Thursday.
In the face of outbreaks of HIV among intravenous drug users in Indiana and elsewhere, scientists wanted to measure the availability in different states of needle and syringe exchanges, which have been shown to cut the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C.
Needle exchange programs allow intravenous drug users to drop off used needles and obtain sterile needles and syringes. By discouraging the use or sharing of dirty needles, the programs have been shown to slow the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Researchers from Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine in New York; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, SID and TB Prevention; and the North American Syringe Exchange Network in Tacoma, Washington issued a survey to the 204 needle exchange programs in the U.S.
Of the 75 percent of exchanges that responded, 69 percent were located in urban areas, 20 percent in rural areas and 9 percent in suburban areas.
In addition, only 37 percent of all needle and syringe exchanges located in rural areas were equipped with naloxone, a medication that can reverse the effect of opioid overdoses. That’s compared with 57 percent of exchanges in suburban areas and 61 percent of exchanges in urban areas.
On December 11 2015 08:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
Why does it matter how secular they are when large parts of the US are deeply christian?
Again why are Muslims bad but Christians good?
Because the deeply Christian elements of the US are still more secular than the "deeply religious" Muslims that would be coming from overseas. The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated. No one worries about them being an insular -- must less, hostile -- presence in the country.
One of your Republican candidates recently said that the bibles trumps the supreme court. Your going to have a hard time convincing me that a religious Muslim is going to hold a more radical view then "God's law beats American law". Oh and remember that post I made earlier about armed militia's opposing the government? I'm willing to bet a fair few of those will describe themselves as Christian.
How about we deport all Christians, ban all Muslims and just build a country of Atheists. No worried about secular there.
Yeah, he did say that, and I disagree with him. Regardless, it was just a statement that is shared by a minority in the country. The implementation and integration of Islam into the laws of Muslims nations is far more than just a statement: it's a fact. So suggesting that Christianity and Islam are equivalent on that point is rather disingenuous.
On December 11 2015 07:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
On December 11 2015 08:20 KwarK wrote: [quote] Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
I am actually an adult. Maybe you should cdf.
I think killing innocents to further political goals is contrary to American values. An awful lot of Americans seem prepared to do it though. That's the problem with defining what is and is not American, it's entirely subjective.
I believe we shouldn't be letting people who set up bombs to fight the Syrian government enter America. But in terms of values, their activities in terms of exercising their rights to fight a tyrannical government could not conform more strongly with the founding fathers. Likewise an awful lot of people on your side of the aisle would proudly exclaim that they would kill for America.
By my definition of America we should let in peaceful, liberal and democratic Muslims. But equally by my definition of America the actions of a lot of American veterans are profoundly unAmerican. I'm sure you'd disagree but that's the problem. Yours is the party most closely ideologically aligned with the Sharia-law adhering Muslims in terms of xenophobia, militarism, the worship of violence as a means of achieving ideological goals and the belief that they are a chosen people.
I think Sharia law is unAmerican. I think the same about you when you say we should keep Muslims out.
First and foremost, I haven't said that we should keep all Muslims out. I agree that "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" Muslims should be allowed in. All that I am doing is pointing out the obvious: there clearly is a large number of Muslims who do not fit the definition of being "peaceful, liberal, and democratic" as a consequence of their views on what their faith requires of them. Because of this, why wouldn't a sane, western, liberal nation view Muslims with an added degree of suspicion and tailor its immigration policies accordingly? The issue is as simple as that.
Is the population of the peaceful/liberal/democratic Muslims that want to enter the US larger or smaller than the population of the non-peaceful bad kind?
Yep. I haven't seen anything to suggest that there are more violent than peaceful Muslims. The bigger question is the extent to which they are sufficiently secular.
Why does it matter how secular they are when large parts of the US are deeply christian?
Again why are Muslims bad but Christians good?
Because the deeply Christian elements of the US are still more secular than the "deeply religious" Muslims that would be coming from overseas. The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated. No one worries about them being an insular -- must less, hostile -- presence in the country.
One of your Republican candidates recently said that the bibles trumps the supreme court. Your going to have a hard time convincing me that a religious Muslim is going to hold a more radical view then "God's law beats American law". Oh and remember that post I made earlier about armed militia's opposing the government? I'm willing to bet a fair few of those will describe themselves as Christian.
How about we deport all Christians, ban all Muslims and just build a country of Atheists. No worried about secular there.
Yeah, he did say that, and I disagree with him. Regardless, it was just a statement that is shared by a minority in the country. The implementation and integration of Islam into the laws of Muslims nations is far more than just a statement: it's a fact. So suggesting that Christianity and Islam are equivalent on that point is rather disingenuous.
The integration of Islam into Muslim law is irrelevant because we are talking about immigration into the US where US law counts.
If your reason behind wanting to ban all Muslims (and you did very much state that) is merely that they could possibly disrespect US law then maybe you should pay more attention to the religious christian part of the US that is disrespecting US law instead of shouting xenophobic ramblings to people looking to escape the horrors of a war that may well never end.
The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated.
Would you say they share "the american values"?
Depends upon how tightly you want to define the term. I certainly wouldn't suggest that a strict orthodoxy is required. But let's face it: the religious Christians in the US are quintessential red-blooded Americans. They clearly do share American values.
American values have been perverted beyond belief by the "One nation under God" crowd and Jefferson would be spinning in his grave. The same Jefferson that took a razor blade to his bible to cut out all the Harry Potter shit so he could explain Christian values to Indians without having to get into all the expanded universe lore about who begat who. America was founded as a secular nation and what has happened since then has been an absolute tragedy.
4 years ago Muslims are the second more educated demographic in the US and are mostly democrats. 6 out of 10 want to adopt the American way of life. Only 5% have a favorable view of Isis or terrorists groups.
I guess everything changed and they all became super into religious laws and terrorism for no real reason. Or it's all bullshit made up by scared xenophobes. The simple fact is the majority of violence in this country isn't caused by Muslims.
The deeply religious Christians in the US are pretty much fully assimilated.
Would you say they share "the american values"?
Depends upon how tightly you want to define the term. I certainly wouldn't suggest that a strict orthodoxy is required. But let's face it: the religious Christians in the US are quintessential red-blooded Americans. They clearly do share American values.
No, don't backtrack.
You clearly said "muslims don't like/defy american values". After that you went on telling us how irrelevant it is to clarify on "american values", and that's where we at.
You don't get to deny definition of the term if it suits your argument, to then go ahead and tell me that "deeply religious christians" share "american values" based on how i might define them.
I suspect an awful lot of "quintessential red-blooded Americans" as xDaunt describes them would answer the same way if you phrased the questions in the right way. Tell them about the African nation of Moumbombo and how the minority Muslim government there were oppressing the majority Christian population. Tell them about the brave rebels fighting against the Government and how they are trying to make a Christian nation that adheres strictly to the laws of Moses. Ask if the United States should send military aid to those noble Christian warriors.
I think ISIS are pieces of shit and that anyone who supports them is wrong. I also think the only reason most of xDaunt's party don't support ISIS 110% is because ISIS worship the wrong kind of sky fairy. If this were a story about the Alawites oppressing Christians then the narrative would be very, very different, even if the actions by the oppressed groups were identical to the actions of ISIS, right down to the sex slaves and beheadings.
My group would feel identically about both, xDaunt's would be arming ISIS.
A prominent Democratic congresswoman and Senate candidate said Thursday that up to 20 percent of Muslims want to establish an Islamic caliphate and would use "terrorism" to achieve that goal.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez said Muslims seeking a caliphate are willing to use terrorism and violence to impose their views on the Western world.
“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible," Sanchez said on "PoliticKING with Larry King."
“They are not content enough to have their way of looking at the world, they want to put their way on everybody in the world,” she said. “And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”
I think that many of the people who are preoccupied with expressing their outrage over Trump's comments on Muslims and his proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration are missing the fact that there is a large number of people on both sides of the aisle (potentially a plurality) who understand and agree with the practical considerations behind Trump's proposal. I'll be the first to say Trump's proposal carries with it some degree of discriminatory effect and adverse branding. Would it be material or significant? I don't know. But consider the following.
A nation's immigration policy should not be run like a charity. It should be run for the benefit of the nation. Specifically, the immigration policy should be set up such that it admits as many of the people who will best benefit the nation as can be reasonably absorbed. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the proposition that immigration must have limits to the numbers of persons who enter to ensure proper assimilation.
The United States enjoys the distinction of being a premier (arguably, the premier) immigration destination in the world. The US does not have a problem attracting immigrants. Therefore, the US can afford to be highly selective in choosing the best immigrants to let in.
With all of this in mind, why should the US admit Muslims at all? I have no idea where Sanchez gets her numbers from above (they seem high to me), but I don't think that anyone would dispute that Muslims, as a whole, present a greater risk for terrorism than other groups -- particularly in today's climate. No one can dispute that Muslims are more insular and less likely to assimilate than other groups. There very clearly is a high degree of disconnect between the values of many Muslims and traditional Western-liberal values (just look around at the surveys showing what percentage of Muslims want some form of Sharia law). Why bring in members of a particularly problematic group when the US has many other options for whom to accept as immigrants?
The point that I am making is that Trump's comments, as politically incorrect as they are, do have substantive policy considerations behind them.
It comes down to what Americans want America to be. There are plenty of insular unambitious countries who see no value in anything alien but America's ideological roots are elsewhere. But it's up to Americans, they live there. If they can convince enough people that only those who the incumbents judge as worthy can join them based on their own narrow criteria then that is their prerogative. I'll argue against that though, I think America is better than that.
So the US should tolerate honor killings, FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates etc in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? This is liberalism gone insane.
Yes, clearly as a liberal I am in favour of FGM, sharia law, death to homosexuals and apostates. You caught me. Thanks for participating in the conversation, you truly added value with that.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to stand up for liberal principles then you will necessarily have to criticize Islam and at least concede the dangers of bringing in people who would sooner piss on your values and tend not to assimilate well. You can't end up tolerating intolerance and that's the problem with your diversity argument.
Yeah come to the metro Detroit area and say Muslims don't assimilate well.
On December 11 2015 10:03 KwarK wrote: I suspect an awful lot of "quintessential red-blooded Americans" as xDaunt describes them would answer the same way if you phrased the questions in the right way. Tell them about the African nation of Moumbombo and how the minority Muslim government there were oppressing the majority Christian population. Tell them about the brave rebels fighting against the Government and how they are trying to make a Christian nation that adheres strictly to the laws of Moses. Ask if the United States should send military aid to those noble Christian warriors.
I think ISIS are pieces of shit and that anyone who supports them is wrong. I also think the only reason most of xDaunt's party don't support ISIS 110% is because ISIS worship the wrong kind of sky fairy. If this were a story about the Alawites oppressing Christians then the narrative would be very, very different, even if the actions by the oppressed groups were identical to the actions of ISIS, right down to the sex slaves and beheadings.
My group would feel identically about both, xDaunt's would be arming ISIS.
Lets be clear, nobody here needs to actually state over and over that they don't support ISIS, their actions or views. That's, i assume, a given.
The stupid thing to do though, is somehow draw a connection from ISIS to Islam, and then generalize.
That's like me looking at KKK, drawing a connection to christianity, and then generalize by saying all/many americans are straight out radical terrorists, dangerous to any society.
It's just not how it works.
edit: that being said, as nyxisto might remember, i'm not for mass immigration either. I do think that to some extend, people should share the values of the country that they moved to. But for that, integration is sufficient, not assimilation. In the end, i don't give a shit if a muslim thinks that a woman is worth less than a man (they usually don't, but it's a misconception often heard), as long as he doesn't act on that.
The same way i don't care if someone like kim davis exists, but as soon as he acts on her beliefs rather than the law, she should be fired.
On December 11 2015 10:03 KwarK wrote: I suspect an awful lot of "quintessential red-blooded Americans" as xDaunt describes them would answer the same way if you phrased the questions in the right way. Tell them about the African nation of Moumbombo and how the minority Muslim government there were oppressing the majority Christian population. Tell them about the brave rebels fighting against the Government and how they are trying to make a Christian nation that adheres strictly to the laws of Moses. Ask if the United States should send military aid to those noble Christian warriors.
I think ISIS are pieces of shit and that anyone who supports them is wrong. I also think the only reason most of xDaunt's party don't support ISIS 110% is because ISIS worship the wrong kind of sky fairy. If this were a story about the Alawites oppressing Christians then the narrative would be very, very different, even if the actions by the oppressed groups were identical to the actions of ISIS, right down to the sex slaves and beheadings.
My group would feel identically about both, xDaunt's would be arming ISIS.
Lets be clear, nobody here needs to actually state over and over that they don't support ISIS, their actions or views. That's, i assume, a given.
The stupid thing to do though, is somehow draw a connection from ISIS to Islam, and then generalize.
That's like me looking at KKK, drawing a connection to christianity, and then generalize by saying all/many americans are straight out radical terrorists, dangerous to any society.
It's just not how it works.
I get accused of supporting ISIS every time I try to explain that non violent Muslims, even non violent Muslims sharing Rubio's brand of idiocy, fall under religious freedom. The irony being that those who shout it the loudest are not people like me who are secularists but rather people who feel their own brand of religious law might be threatened by Islam.
On December 11 2015 08:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] You think inviting people into a country who don't share those values (and potentially never will) is a good way of furthering those values? That's the trap of multiculturalism.
Homosexuals could easily be defined at contrary to good Christian morals and family values and subjected to an immigration ban (and indeed they were). The problem with the argument that "they don't share our values" is it assumes firstly that the values in question are virtuous and secondly that they are universally desired.
If Muslims were a pack of rabid murderers then we could agree but they're not. Hell, a lot of ISIS have less blood on their hands than American soldiers. I'm not saying that we should start importing ISIS obviously, just that we can't definitely state that killing innocents to further political goals is unAmerican given recent American history.
It's nowhere near as clear cut as we would like it to be. What is virtuous for one person is not for another. Hell, look at this graphic video of a suicide bomber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z7PoVMNyfI
Oh please. You're better than this. Argue the issue like a big boy. For the purposes of your useless straw man argument, you're going to be hard pressed to find a group that clearly opposes American values as much as Sharia-law adhering Muslims.
The problem is that people who are disagreeing with you have a different understanding of what "American values" are in the first place.
Have to agree on the the meaning of the term before people can argue about how close or far any particular group is from it.
No, we really don't have to agree on a precise definition of "American values" in this case. It's a complete red herring for the conversation at hand because, regardless of whatever we agreed the definition was, Sharia law clearly falls way outside of it.
I'm not pro Sharia law. I'm pro secular law. It's your group that wants America ruled according to religious doctrines, not mine. I think secular law is the only law compatible with American values, your lot want to put the 10 commandments in the court room.
Give me a break. Equating the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse is not the same as codifying religious values. It's not even close.
Neither have any place in a court room. Stop trying to implement religious law in America. It's un-American. You're un-American. We should ask that question whenever people try to enter the United States. Even if they're US citizens returning from holiday or business. Hell, we'll make it even more clear cut. "Do you think the 10 Commandments should be enshrined into the American legal system?". Anyone who says yes is an un-American religious zealot and should be barred from entry. They can go back to wherever their people originally came from.
Like I said, start arguing the issue like a big boy. Quit bringing up ridiculous and baseless strawman arguments that are both 1) completely unrelated to the issue at hand, 2) inconsistent with my posting history. Your post is just one big dishonest dodge of the real issue. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But don't bring irrelevant shit up.
You're not getting this.
You think that all Muslims should be stopped.
I am fine with the immigration of moderate religious people, I am prepared to tolerate the immigration of non violent religious zealots on the grounds of religious liberty and I think the systems we already have in place in immigration (ie no conspiring violent revolution) cover the issues with the violent zealots. They shouldn't be allowed in but there again, they already aren't. This is a non issue.
You think that a Muslim Marco Rubio should be barred from entry from the United States.
I think that while Marco Rubio's beliefs are incompatible with a secular state (and also with basic logic) they fall under religious liberty until he goes beyond beliefs and starts bombing abortion clinics.
Your own party is the one saying that God's law should be followed before the laws of man, trying to this day to discriminate against any group it can based on religious texts and denying science. Yours is the party of religious persecution, yours is the party of Sharia law. You know how last page I was shitting on Carson? That's how I feel about religious fundamentalism. The reason I don't talk so much about Sharia law in the United States is because Sharia law is not a thing in the United States and your party has yet to support a candidate who espouses it. Right now you're sticking to strictly Christian extremists.
Muslims are not incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. Barring Muslims on the basis of their faith is incompatible with American values, America was founded with religious liberty. I do not support religious law, you do. I support American freedom which is why I'm opposing you on this one.
cdf
And here we get to the root of the issue. All of you enlightened atheists are so blinded by your overall intolerance for religion in general that you utterly fail to appreciate the differences between the religions, thus you fail to incorporate those differences into your arguments and positions. And you people are supposed to be the masters of nuance -- not I. All I see is one post after another that either insinuates that there is no difference between Islam and Christianity or, such as in the post above, outright equates the two. It's so dishonest that it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Yeah, keep trying to convince people that Christians in the US are no different than Muslims abroad. The historical record -- from the Enlightenment to the implementation of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK -- strongly suggests otherwise. To suggest that Christians are no more secular than Muslims as a whole is an outright lie.
It's also fun to think about what 5% of Americans will happily agree to supporting. Muslims in America may be Muslims but they're also Americans with everything that implies. There is a pretty high benchmark for "well yes, they said that and that's horrifying but we knew that already" when dealing with Americans.
If anything xDaunt should take pride in 5% of American Muslims saying something really dumb when polled. Winning that cultural victory. 2% of Americans believe that America fought France in the revolutionary wars while 3% think it was China, Russia or Mexico. 19% weren't sure. 18% said that the sun orbits the earth. To put that in perspective, if we assume a representative sample then only a quarter of American Muslims who believe the sun orbits the earth also support ISIS. Even among the idiot crowd they're outliers.
Barack Obama has ordered officials to draw up an urgent new plan to strengthen background checks on gun buyers without the approval of Congress.
The president has asked his advisers to complete a proposal and submit it for his review, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said.
“The president has directed his team in short order to finalise a set of recommendations on what more the administration can do on its own to save lives from gun violence, and those recommendations will include making sure we do everything we can to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including those expanded background checks,” Jarrett told a national gun violence vigil in Washington.
After the mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon in October, Obama indicated he was looking for ways to boost gun laws without a vote in Congress.
On Thursday, the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, said the review that Jarrett referred to had been under way for “the past couple of months” but claimed there was now increased appetite for fresh reform attempts among the US public in the recent weeks.
“These are essentially recommendations that the president has asked for from his staff based on their review of available executive authority,” Earnest told reporters on Thursday.
“The working assumption of this ongoing review is that Congress hasn’t acted and that’s been the source of immense frustration on the part of the president,” he added. “So given the congressional inaction, the question that’s been raised is what more can the Obama administration do, and that’s the substance of this review.”
White House officials have said they are exploring closing the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.
EPT
