View Full Version : Slovakia is pretty tough on Islam...
It would appear that they're actually doing what a lot of countries are wishing...
"The predominantly Christian country of Slovakia passed a law on Nov. 30 that effectively bans Islam as an officially recognized religion, which also blocks Islam from receiving any state subsidies for its schools, reported Reuters"
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/christian-slovakia-passes-law-ban-islam
While I am not a fan of Islam, at all, this sets a dangerous precedent.
I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion.
I will say that if the billion plus Muslims in the world would reform and start policing their own; there would not be so much reactionary backlash.
thepatriot2705
12-10-16, 17:44
While I am not a fan of Islam, at all, this sets a dangerous precedent.
I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion.
I will say that if the billion plus Muslims in the world would reform and start policing their own; there would not be so much reactionary backlash.
One could make a case that Islam is nothing more than a political ideology.
Im pretty sure that Islam is the only 'religion' people really have a problem with.
MountainRaven
12-10-16, 17:48
One could make a case that Islam is nothing more than a political ideology.
Im pretty sure that Islam is the only 'religion' people really have a problem with.
Not true.
Every religion has its politically active element that seeks to bring their version of God's kingdom to the earth.
LOL. Wonder how long before CAIR or some other Islamist org is going to complain. Irony: the religion that preaches intolerance towards other belief system gets its panties in a bunch when someone does the same against them.
This would be a dangerous precedent if it happened in the USA or any other world leader. Not sure if the world looks towards Slovakia for leadership.
One could make a case that Islam is nothing more than a political ideology.
Im pretty sure that Islam is the only 'religion' people really have a problem with.
The problem is any religion when practiced as a theocracy vs an individual choice. We called them the "dark ages" for a reason, problem is there are some parts of the world still stuck in theirs.
You could take one of the most pacifistic religions in the world, like Buddhism or Mormonism, and once you make them the law of the land where people can be punished for not practicing them correctly, you quickly end up with a less than benevolent belief system.
This is the main problem in the middle east, unfortunately we seem more concerned with upsetting mostly secular muslim states than addressing the real problems.
SeriousStudent
12-10-16, 18:25
The problem is any religion when practiced as a theocracy vs an individual choice. We called them the "dark ages" for a reason, problem is there are some parts of the world still stuck in theirs.
You could take one of the most pacifistic religions in the world, like Buddhism or Mormonism, and once you make them the law of the land where people can be punished for not practicing them correctly, you quickly end up with a less than benevolent belief system.
This is the main problem in the middle east, unfortunately we seem more concerned with upsetting mostly secular muslim states than addressing the real problems.
</end thread>
That should be engraved on a plaque.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. My mother had Slovak ancestry, and she was one tough cookie. (My other half, so help me God, is Irish.)
MountainRaven
12-10-16, 19:21
The problem is any religion when practiced as a theocracy vs an individual choice. We called them the "dark ages" for a reason, problem is there are some parts of the world still stuck in theirs.
You could take one of the most pacifistic religions in the world, like Buddhism or Mormonism, and once you make them the law of the land where people can be punished for not practicing them correctly, you quickly end up with a less than benevolent belief system.
This is the main problem in the middle east, unfortunately we seem more concerned with upsetting mostly secular muslim states than addressing the real problems.
Buddhism in Japan during (and immediately prior to) the Warring States Period was quite prone to violence. Until the daimyo and shogun put an end to them, anyway.
good for them more countries should do this until all the islamic countries allow freedom of religion
even so called modern ones go preach Jesus on a street corner in Dubai ! OH WAIT you cant !
While I am not a fan of Islam, at all, this sets a dangerous precedent.
I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion.
I will say that if the billion plus Muslims in the world would reform and start policing their own; there would not be so much reactionary backlash.
Ahem... You do know that the United States doesn't have "officially recognized religions" and doesn't subsidize religious schools? Just sayin... ;)
Ahem... You do know that the United States doesn't have "officially recognized religions" and doesn't subsidize religious schools? Just sayin... ;)
I think I touched on that with "I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion".
Nationalism for a lot of these East European countries can go a lot of different ways.
From a positive kind to outright war/persecution with no attempt to separate wheat from chaff.
While I understand the frustration and dont want refugees in America, this can lead to some Kristallnacht shit.
I also wonder why all these rich Muslim countries havent taken in the first batch.
I also wish Muslims would be mature enough to understand that rocking the boat in some of these places can lead to some severely negative backlash.
A billion Muslims in the world and they cant police their own.....
and eventually they will wish they had.
I think I touched on that with "I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion".
Nationalism for a lot of these East European countries can go a lot of different ways.
From a positive kind to outright war/persecution with no attempt to separate wheat from chaff.
While I understand the frustration and dont want refugees in America, this can lead to some Kristallnacht shit.
I also wonder why all these rich Muslim countries havent taken in the first batch.
I also wish Muslims would be mature enough to understand that rocking the boat in some of these places can lead to some severely negative backlash.
A billion Muslims in the world and they cant police their own.....
and eventually they will wish they had.
Agreed.
Singlestack Wonder
12-12-16, 14:29
good for them more countries should do this until all the islamic countries allow freedom of religion
even so called modern ones go preach Jesus on a street corner in Dubai ! OH WAIT you cant !
+10....
Not true.
Every religion has its politically active element that seeks to bring their version of God's kingdom to the earth.
The difference being that the politically active elements aren't always acknowledged or even allowed by the religion they claim to be a part of.
Example: The Crusades were "blessed" by the Pope, despite the fact that there's nothing in the Bible instructing Christians to go out and take over other countries.
The same can't be said for any of the actions of Islam as they pertain to other cultures, governments, and religions, as they're all allowed, forgiven, and even encouraged by the Quran.
The older I get, the more I realize Islam is different in that it's incompatible with any other form of government, as it's its own form of government when fully established. I believe that using the word "religion" to describe Islam is disingenuous and misleading - it's not really a religion (or rather, not only a religion), it's a entire lifestyle that encompasses everything from government to social constructs to religion. Perhaps if we viewed it like that, it'd be easier to get to the core issue.
WickedWillis
12-13-16, 11:44
Freedom of and freedom from religion are one of a billion things that make this Country great. Let them worship whomever they like, just do it peacefully.
The difference being that the politically active elements aren't always acknowledged or even allowed by the religion they claim to be a part of.
Example: The Crusades were "blessed" by the Pope, despite the fact that there's nothing in the Bible instructing Christians to go out and take over other countries.
The same can't be said for any of the actions of Islam as they pertain to other cultures, governments, and religions, as they're all allowed, forgiven, and even encouraged by the Quran.
The older I get, the more I realize Islam is different in that it's incompatible with any other form of government, as it's its own form of government when fully established. I believe that using the word "religion" to describe Islam is disingenuous and misleading - it's not really a religion (or rather, not only a religion), it's a entire lifestyle that encompasses everything from government to social constructs to religion. Perhaps if we viewed it like that, it'd be easier to get to the core issue.
I guess they took Matthew 28:19 too literal.....
I think I touched on that with "I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion".
Nationalism for a lot of these East European countries can go a lot of different ways.
From a positive kind to outright war/persecution with no attempt to separate wheat from chaff.
While I understand the frustration and dont want refugees in America, this can lead to some Kristallnacht shit.
I also wonder why all these rich Muslim countries havent taken in the first batch.
I also wish Muslims would be mature enough to understand that rocking the boat in some of these places can lead to some severely negative backlash.
A billion Muslims in the world and they cant police their own.....
and eventually they will wish they had.
The Slavs are very familiar with pogroms.
I have to agree, its a slippery slope. Muslims now, then Jews, then Catholics.
This morning on Fox and Friends Franklin Graham was talking a bit about this in light of the Christmas/holiday season. I said if someone said "Happy Hanukah" to him, he would say it back. If someone said "Merry Kwanzaa" to him, he would say it back. He implied there is too little of the "live and let live" mentality in regard to all faiths in the US.
WickedWillis
12-13-16, 11:51
This morning on Fox and Friends Franklin Graham was talking a bit about this in light of the Christmas/holiday season. I said if someone said "Happy Hanukah" to him, he would say it back. If someone said "Merry Kwanzaa" to him, he would say it back. He implied there is too little of the "live and let live" mentality in regard to all faiths in the US.
I completely agree with that as well.
I guess they took Matthew 28:19 too literal.....
There is this old testament goody: Jeremiah 48:10 - “A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed!"
Bernard used this as a justification for the Second Crusade - Ephesians 6:11-17 - "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against the flesh and blood... Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace...taking the shield of faith...and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God."
The difference being that the politically active elements aren't always acknowledged or even allowed by the religion they claim to be a part of.
Example: The Crusades were "blessed" by the Pope, despite the fact that there's nothing in the Bible instructing Christians to go out and take over other countries.
The same can't be said for any of the actions of Islam as they pertain to other cultures, governments, and religions, as they're all allowed, forgiven, and even encouraged by the Quran.
The older I get, the more I realize Islam is different in that it's incompatible with any other form of government, as it's its own form of government when fully established. I believe that using the word "religion" to describe Islam is disingenuous and misleading - it's not really a religion (or rather, not only a religion), it's a entire lifestyle that encompasses everything from government to social constructs to religion. Perhaps if we viewed it like that, it'd be easier to get to the core issue.
This is the sore spot for me. Having my president (Bush or Obama) telling me that Islam is a peaceful religion? That's over the line. Like it or not, you just endorsed a socio-religious system that's incompatible with our Constitutional Republic. That ain't your call as POTUS to make. If you want to say "Islam is recognized as a religion by many people worldwide, but how that religion is practiced by individuals and groups determines whether it's compatible with our Constitutional Republic", I'm good with that. Making a blanket declarative statement about an entire religion as POTUS is not only wrong, it gives carte blanche to those radical adherents who will then hide behind that statement while plotting evil and unlawful acts.
I'm not down with that. :mad:
While I am not a fan of Islam, at all, this sets a dangerous precedent.
I like America. Shall make no law respecting religion.
I will say that if the billion plus Muslims in the world would reform and start policing their own; there would not be so much reactionary backlash.
I disagree.
It is the Constitution that sets a dangerous precedent.
All these freedoms that were written into the Constitution were put there by men who implicitly assumed that the people of the United States would be sane men, of European Christian ancestry. Only property-owning men could vote, and the notion that only 2 hundred years later you'd have Mohamedans getting citizensip let alone voting would have made them vomit/laugh.
The Constitution is a document. A piece of paper. It has nice principles, but those principles work for certain people, and do not for others.
We can see this with the disastrous experiments in "democracy" in Muslim majority countries. If democracy doesn't work in their countries, the reverse will also not work.
Not to get too far into it, but freedom of religion is fine when you aren't dealing with hostile death cults. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect someone's right to use arms to kill you as part of their soup kitchen jihad. The 1st doesn't cover Islam.
Slovakia's approach is a baby step in the right direction.
I'm surprised Serbia hasn't done something similar. Those guys are some Muslim killin' fools.
I'm surprised Serbia hasn't done something similar. Those guys are some Muslim killin' fools.
Well, Serbs are justifiably hesitant to do anything because they know that the US government is bought and paid for by Saudi $$$, and will go to bat for their masters whenever the House of Saud snaps its fingers.
They were bombed when they tried to defend their people against Muslims in Bosnia (and Bin Laden himself was on the ground there with his mujahadeen) and bombed again when they tried to do so again in Kosovo.
Hopefully things change come January, but we will see.
I disagree.
It is the Constitution that sets a dangerous precedent.
All these freedoms that were written into the Constitution were put there by men who implicitly assumed that the people of the United States would be sane men, of European Christian ancestry. Only property-owning men could vote, and the notion that only 2 hundred years later you'd have Mohamedans getting citizensip let alone voting would have made them vomit/laugh.
The Constitution is a document. A piece of paper. It has nice principles, but those principles work for certain people, and do not for others.
We can see this with the disastrous experiments in "democracy" in Muslim majority countries. If democracy doesn't work in their countries, the reverse will also not work.
Not to get too far into it, but freedom of religion is fine when you aren't dealing with hostile death cults. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect someone's right to use arms to kill you as part of their soup kitchen jihad. The 1st doesn't cover Islam.
I think you are doing it wrong. Sadly the first amendment DOES apply to hostile death cults. That is why we have had the American Nazi Party, The American Communist Party, The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, Black Panthers, Black Israelites and too many other hate based, violent as hell groups to name.
This is because our nation does NOT have "thought crimes", or at least it didn't before we adopted "hate crime" laws. So you are free to believe any screwed up thing you wish, but when you turn those beliefs into actions that violate the law THEN you are a criminal and your beliefs are no longer protected.
Examples are Christians who blow up abortion clinics, you can believe anything you want about abortion, but you can't engaged in criminal activity because of your beliefs. Same as Muslims with pressure cooker bombs, same as white supremacists murdering ZOG guys.
The whole FF "couldn't have imagined Islam" is the same sort of horseshit as the "FF couldn't have imagined machine guns."
Also these aren't rights granted to citizens by the government that can be taken away, the Bill of Rights is a list of rights the government CANNOT touch. The idea that the Constitution sets a "dangerous precedent" is so amazingly offensive I don't know where to start.
Additionally, not all of the FF were Christians, quite a few were Deists. One of the FF, Thomas Jefferson was actually very, very specific on this issue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I think you are doing it wrong. Sadly the first amendment DOES apply to hostile death cults. That is why we have had the American Nazi Party, The American Communist Party, The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, Black Panthers, Black Israelites and too many other hate based, violent as hell groups to name.
This is because our nation does NOT have "thought crimes", or at least it didn't before we adopted "hate crime" laws. So you are free to believe any screwed up thing you wish, but when you turn those beliefs into actions that violate the law THEN you are a criminal and your beliefs are no longer protected.
Examples are Christians who blow up abortion clinics, you can believe anything you want about abortion, but you can't engaged in criminal activity because of your beliefs. Same as Muslims with pressure cooker bombs, same as white supremacists murdering ZOG guys.
The whole FF "couldn't have imagined Islam" is the same sort of horseshit as the "FF couldn't have imagined machine guns."
Also these aren't rights granted to citizens by the government that can be taken away, the Bill of Rights is a list of rights the government CANNOT touch. The idea that the Constitution sets a "dangerous precedent" is so amazingly offensive I don't know where to start.
Additionally, not all of the FF were Christians, quite a few were Deists. One of the FF, Thomas Jefferson was actually very, very specific on this issue.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The FF could have imagined Muslims, having had to fight them and try to get back captured slaves from the Muslim slavers, but they could not and did not imagine a country that was beholden to a Muslim royal family, mass non-European and openly hostile immigration. The USA had explicit laws for a hundred plus years stating that immigration had to maintain the ethnic/demographic status quo, rather than fill itself with hostiles.
The Slovaks are on the right path. All this freedom and rights to the enemy is a suicide pact. Choose survival over blind obedience to a piece of paper that the enemy will not respect.
What the hell is the point of giving compassion to an enemy that would not give you the same in return? It is suicidal. It's irrational.
MountainRaven
12-13-16, 21:42
The FF could have imagined Muslims, having had to fight them and try to get back captured slaves from the Muslim slavers, but they could not and did not imagine a country that was beholden to a Muslim royal family, mass non-European and openly hostile immigration. The USA had explicit laws for a hundred plus years stating that immigration had to maintain the ethnic/demographic status quo, rather than fill itself with hostiles.
The Slovaks are on the right path. All this freedom and rights to the enemy is a suicide pact. Choose survival over blind obedience to a piece of paper that the enemy will not respect.
What the hell is the point of giving compassion to an enemy that would not give you the same in return? It is suicidal. It's irrational.
Welcome to the United States of America.
You're welcome to leave any time you like.
Welcome to the United States of America.
You're welcome to leave any time you like.
If current trends continue, welcome to the United States of Islamic America. But at least you'll have the Constitution. Too bad your rulers will adhere to Sharia. I look forward to your Visa application to Eastern Europe.
MountainRaven
12-13-16, 21:49
If current trends continue, welcome to the United States of Islamic America. But at least you'll have the Constitution.
I'd like to see your numbers.
But at least you'll have hyperbole.
brushy bill
12-13-16, 22:00
LOL. Wonder how long before CAIR or some other Islamist org is going to complain. Irony: the religion that preaches intolerance towards other belief system gets its panties in a bunch when someone does the same against them.
This X 1000. I learned everything I needed to know about Islam 9/11.
Shariah might fly in Europe and maaaybe Canada but in America people dont like being told what to do.
Islam is not so well accepted here except by black dudes doing long hauls in prison.
This is a country where we put bacon on bacon.
Roll about 5 MOA into the wind
brushy bill
12-13-16, 22:06
I'd like to see your numbers.
But at least you'll have hyperbole.
I think Benito is referring to info like this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
Plus, with the desire to maximize the influx of Syrian immigration the point is pretty clear. Not seeing how it qualifies as hyperbole...YMMV.
I think Benito is referring to info like this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
Plus, with the desire to maximize the influx of Syrian immigration the point is pretty clear. Not seeing how it qualifies as hyperbole...YMMV.
Bingo. Thank you for that.
Awaiting to see if evidence sways anyone's views though.
Shariah might fly in Europe and maaaybe Canada but in America people dont like being told what to do.
Islam is not so well accepted here except by black dudes doing long hauls in prison.
This is a country where we put bacon on bacon.
Roll about 5 MOA into the wind
That's cute.
Is that why the POTUS is a Muslim? Or best case a "Christian" who sympathizes more with Muslims than Christians or other victimes of Islam.
Is that why every town has mosques and various Muslim associations in universities, Muslims in every noo and cranny of the government?
Look, I love the LARP-ey idea of Americans standing up to Sharia in the streets, but it ain't gonna work like that. Death by a thousand cuts. Americans (like Canadians and Europeans) can't/won't even stand up against Muslim hordes who come in and rape their women and children on New Year's Eve and in organized sex slavery rings. What makes you think that they will do so when there are even more Muslims, with more power?
You gotta stop these things early, like cancer. The longer you wait, the worse your prospects.
Remember, we just narrowly averted electing Hillary, and thus 4 more years of even higher Muslim immigration, which in conjunction with Mexican immigration, would guarantee perpetual Democrat victories, and thus guaranteed Sharia.
Extending In-group treatment to Out-groups is insane. The Constitution ought not to apply to hostiles. You don't survive by treating invaders like fellow members of your tribe. It is simply a guaranteed losing strategy.
Ask the black man from Reading Rainbow for the answers to some of these questions.
I do not have the answers aside from if nobody messes with me I am good to go.
I voted how I voted and did my part and shall continue to do so.
The FF could have imagined Muslims, having had to fight them and try to get back captured slaves from the Muslim slavers, but they could not and did not imagine a country that was beholden to a Muslim royal family, mass non-European and openly hostile immigration. The USA had explicit laws for a hundred plus years stating that immigration had to maintain the ethnic/demographic status quo, rather than fill itself with hostiles.
The FF also had slaves, later Americans really did a number on the indians and the US military deliberately infected black servicemen with syphilis without telling them as part of an "experiment."
Had we truly lived up to the Bill of Rights "as written" we could have avoided a lot of that. I think you know from past discussions that I'm hardly the designated CAIR representative. Islam is one of my least favorite beliefs globally. But here's the thing, we shouldn't let anyone change us.
Bad enough that 9-11 terrorists successfully eroded many American freedoms and changed the way everyone in America flew a plane. Things like the Patriot Act paved the way for any US citizen to have their rights undermined if the investigating agency was willing to label them a "terrorist." In a lot of way, Islam WON on 9-11, they cost Americans some of their rights.
So I really hope you understand if I'm not willing to budge very much on the First Amendment any more than it's already been abused. So given the way we do things, we DO have to be very careful about who we let into the country and who we grant citizenship to. Wholesale immigration from areas culturally hostile to our country is a damn good way to bring foreign wars to our shores. So I really do get that.
But at the same time, the Constitution absolutely IS the Constitution and it isn't what YOU or anyone else says it is, it's what it says and nothing more or less. And the final word on religion was taken care of a long time ago.
Once again, really can't believe I'm having THIS debate...here. It's depressing.
MountainRaven
12-14-16, 00:25
I think Benito is referring to info like this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
Plus, with the desire to maximize the influx of Syrian immigration the point is pretty clear. Not seeing how it qualifies as hyperbole...YMMV.
Wow.
By 2050, a whopping 2.1% of the US will be Muslim according to those estimates.
That means that 97.9% of the US won't be Muslim according to those estimates.
2.3% of Japan is Christian today. 2.4% of Slovenia is Muslim today. 3% of Canada is Muslim today. It's estimated that about 4.7% of Saudi Arabia is Christian today. Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - is 9.87% Christian.
So the idea that 2.1% of the US population will force Shari'a law on the US isn't just hyperbolic, it's hyper hyperbolic.
Wow.
By 2050, a whopping 2.1% of the US will be Muslim according to those estimates.
That means that 97.9% of the US won't be Muslim according to those estimates.
2.3% of Japan is Christian today. 2.4% of Slovenia is Muslim today. 3% of Canada is Muslim today. It's estimated that about 4.7% of Saudi Arabia is Christian today. Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - is 9.87% Christian.
So the idea that 2.1% of the US population will force Shari'a law on the US isn't just hyperbolic, it's hyper hyperbolic.
I think the concern isn't what percentage will be Muslim, but what kind of Muslims we will get.
If they are "mostly" true refugees leaving the arab world because "it sucks" and they just want to be able to buy coffee at the grocery store without getting bombed, grumble about the immodesty of American women, pray to Mecca and otherwise live a peaceful life then fine. Open a business and maybe I'll even support it if you aren't doing crap like advocating sharia law for the US.
But if even 10% of that 2% population is of the Tsarnaev / Farook / Hasan variety, THEN we are going to have lots and lots of problems. And I think that is the major concern that reasonable people are expressing.
Slovakia did not do anything specific against Islam. They just set minimum number of registered followers (Slovak citizens) required to officially recognize religion. Recognized religion can build temples and open schools. Not recognized cants. Applies equally to Islam and to Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster (hint: both do not meet required membership threshold).
BTW Please do not learn about "Eastern European nationalism, racism and xenophobia" from CNN and similar fake news outlets. Thank you very much in advance!
brushy bill
12-14-16, 09:07
Wow.
By 2050, a whopping 2.1% of the US will be Muslim according to those estimates.
That means that 97.9% of the US won't be Muslim according to those estimates.
2.3% of Japan is Christian today. 2.4% of Slovenia is Muslim today. 3% of Canada is Muslim today. It's estimated that about 4.7% of Saudi Arabia is Christian today. Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - is 9.87% Christian.
So the idea that 2.1% of the US population will force Shari'a law on the US isn't just hyperbolic, it's hyper hyperbolic.
Point is that 2% = about 8 Million people. Combine that with the fact that they are making up essentially half of all incoming refugees, and, as Steyr Aug pointed out, you have potential for a lot of problems. Of course, if you don't think there is a higher propensity for this group to perpetrate terrorist acts, then rock on.
Wow.
By 2050, a whopping 2.1% of the US will be Muslim according to those estimates.
That means that 97.9% of the US won't be Muslim according to those estimates.
2.3% of Japan is Christian today. 2.4% of Slovenia is Muslim today. 3% of Canada is Muslim today. It's estimated that about 4.7% of Saudi Arabia is Christian today. Indonesia - the largest Muslim country on the planet - is 9.87% Christian.
So the idea that 2.1% of the US population will force Shari'a law on the US isn't just hyperbolic, it's hyper hyperbolic.
I think we'll have to press 2 for English and read the second line on forms before we have Sharia. Just sayin...
Look, I love the LARP-ey idea of Americans standing up to Sharia in the streets, but it ain't gonna work like that.
Well, here is what I know. History has proven that when itcomes to the nut cutting Americans don't run to other countries, we take matters into our own hands and fix things. We don't cut and run. It ain't there yet. Apparently it was in your country, annnnnd you left. So please don't talk smack about my fellow Americans may or may not do, okay?
The FF also had slaves, later Americans really did a number on the indians and the US military deliberately infected black servicemen with syphilis without telling them as part of an "experiment."
Had we truly lived up to the Bill of Rights "as written" we could have avoided a lot of that. I think you know from past discussions that I'm hardly the designated CAIR representative. Islam is one of my least favorite beliefs globally. But here's the thing, we shouldn't let anyone change us.
Bad enough that 9-11 terrorists successfully eroded many American freedoms and changed the way everyone in America flew a plane. Things like the Patriot Act paved the way for any US citizen to have their rights undermined if the investigating agency was willing to label them a "terrorist." In a lot of way, Islam WON on 9-11, they cost Americans some of their rights.
So I really hope you understand if I'm not willing to budge very much on the First Amendment any more than it's already been abused. So given the way we do things, we DO have to be very careful about who we let into the country and who we grant citizenship to. Wholesale immigration from areas culturally hostile to our country is a damn good way to bring foreign wars to our shores. So I really do get that.
But at the same time, the Constitution absolutely IS the Constitution and it isn't what YOU or anyone else says it is, it's what it says and nothing more or less. And the final word on religion was taken care of a long time ago.
Once again, really can't believe I'm having THIS debate...here. It's depressing.
I love you man, strictly in a non-Navy way.
The FF also had slaves, later Americans really did a number on the indians and the US military deliberately infected black servicemen with syphilis without telling them as part of an "experiment."
Had we truly lived up to the Bill of Rights "as written" we could have avoided a lot of that. I think you know from past discussions that I'm hardly the designated CAIR representative. Islam is one of my least favorite beliefs globally. But here's the thing, we shouldn't let anyone change us.
Bad enough that 9-11 terrorists successfully eroded many American freedoms and changed the way everyone in America flew a plane. Things like the Patriot Act paved the way for any US citizen to have their rights undermined if the investigating agency was willing to label them a "terrorist." In a lot of way, Islam WON on 9-11, they cost Americans some of their rights.
So I really hope you understand if I'm not willing to budge very much on the First Amendment any more than it's already been abused. So given the way we do things, we DO have to be very careful about who we let into the country and who we grant citizenship to. Wholesale immigration from areas culturally hostile to our country is a damn good way to bring foreign wars to our shores. So I really do get that.
But at the same time, the Constitution absolutely IS the Constitution and it isn't what YOU or anyone else says it is, it's what it says and nothing more or less. And the final word on religion was taken care of a long time ago.
Once again, really can't believe I'm having THIS debate...here. It's depressing.
Well said.
Slovakia kept it simple: "A majority of us are uncomfortable with Islam, and we like our little country just the way it is." :D
MountainRaven
12-14-16, 16:16
Point is that 2% = about 8 Million people. Combine that with the fact that they are making up essentially half of all incoming refugees, and, as Steyr Aug pointed out, you have potential for a lot of problems. Of course, if you don't think there is a higher propensity for this group to perpetrate terrorist acts, then rock on.
So far, it seems that you're much more likely to be murdered by some registered Democrat who can't get laid than to be killed by someone who prays five times a day facing East. And you're more likely to be struck by lightning than either.
Worrying about infinitesimal possibilities is how we got our ineffectual surveillance state. And conveniently the basis for tyrants to seek an end to Constitutionally protected rights from 1 through 27.
I think we'll have to press 2 for English and read the second line on forms before we have Sharia. Just sayin...
Yup. Your grandkids will need to be fluent in Spanish to be employable in an Inuit fishing village in Alaska long before Shari'a might become the law of the land.
polydeuces
12-15-16, 08:01
Arent they usually called Hesus and Maria? That should balance things out bit me thunks....
(Meant in a very non judgemental ethno-neutral non gender biased sustainable gluten free organic way all the while celebrating all our differences)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.