Do atheists outnumber radical Muslims in the U.S.A.?

Posted by johnpe1 6 years ago to Government
130 comments | Share | Flag

if our atheists received the same honor as radical Muslims,
would terms like faith, supernatural, omniscient
and omnipresent be outlawed? -- j
.
SOURCE URL: http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/dhs-plan-to-ban-offensive-terms-wont-stop-terrorism/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years ago
    I agree with the author in that Sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. I fully support requiring any potential immigrant to sign a statement where they agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land - period. Those who aren't willing to sign aren't welcome to enter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
      AND folowers of Islam believe the Constitution is the LAW of the United States ... understand what Sharia is and is not before going ballistic:
      https://www.quora.com/What-do-educate...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years ago
        Sure, they can believe that the Constitution is the law of the land now, but ask them which they prefer and they will say Sharia every time. Sharia dictates corporal punishment for adultery, homosexuality, theft, marital disputes, appropriate attire, etc. and all according to a judicial system run by religious personnel - a stark contrast to the secular court system under the Constitution with elected judges, a jury of peers, and a First Amendment right to speech and belief. I simply state the facts: the two are mutually exclusive.

        BTW, I've talked to Muslims, including an ex-PLO propagandist. He was very honest in what the Qu'ran says and it's compatibility with Western laws and thought. I also spoke with an Iranian family who was desperately trying to leave - even twenty years ago. The wife had put makeup on and two boys - not even teenagers - slashed her face with razor blades held between their knuckles. Were those boys punished? No. They were applauded.

        Want a more recent example? Not more than 90 miles from my home a seven-year-old and ten-year-old stripped a mentally handicapped five-year-old girl naked in a laundry room and peed all over her while a fourteen-year-old videotaped the entire thing. All three perpetrators were Muslim refugees. And with kids that young doing those things, you know what is being taught certainly isn't respect for Constitutional authority.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -3
          Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
          Error in logic by generalization with a small sampling... you are quoting an ex-PLO propogandist (terrorist therfor former radical)?

          https://www.quora.com/Sharia-law-stat...

          Sharia law is not forced upon anyone : https://www.quora.com/What-do-Muslims...

          http://www.virtualmosque.com/islam-st...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGaO3... for attitudes here in the US.

            Try this one as well - based on a Pew Research poll of more than twenty Muslim nations: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

            I think another very pertinent fact is this: of the FBI's terrorist watch list, how many of the top 10 are Islamic? Nine - the other being a Black Liberation Army member convicted of killing cops. Extend that to the rest of the top 100 and you'll find that more than 90 are also Islamic.

            If you look at the terrorist group watchlist, the entire top 10 is Islamic and more than 90 of the top 100 are Islamic.

            You go ahead and tell yourself it's a minority who are radicalized and who support terror bombings, but that's not the issue. The issue is the sovereignty of the Constitution vs Sharia among Muslims. And the fact is that a Muslim can not go against his/her religion and subordinate Sharia to any other system of government - even the Constitution. To me, that's an incredibly dangerous mindset to the rest of us.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago
              ok all Islamic belivers are terrorists, thats your stance ,,,, how many on watch lists are male? does that mean all males are terrorists?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                Now you're descending into idiocy and straw man arguments. The question is whether or not Sharia can coexist with the Constitution. They can not, as both claim jurisdiction over the same matters with punitive authority. You are further asserting that the vast majority of Islamic followers are peaceful and respect the Constitution. I have demonstrated by referring to polls in their own countries that they hold Sharia to be more important than the Constitution, and I have demonstrated by pointing to not only history but current terror watch lists that Islam is anything but a religion of peace.

                As I said, you are welcome to bury your head in the sand and ignore 1500+ years of history and the warnings of the intelligence community. I'm not interested in following such an example. I make my conclusions based on facts and empirical evidence. If it weren't right there in the Qu'ran, and if there wasn't 1500+ years of history, my own conversations with eyewitnesses, etc., I'd be willing to entertain the notion that these acts were the acts of outliers. But the scales have been tipped too far in one direction for me to rationally conclude with you that such is the case.

                Does that mean that I view all Muslims as being out to actively undermine basic human rights? Nope. But having studied their religion and its violent history, I also can not conclude that the Islamic faith is tolerant of other religions - let alone the natural rights recognized and protected by the Constitution. It certainly means I'm not going to be leaving my five-year-old alone with an Islamic refugee.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years ago
    Don't think so...those terms can be used with things not mystical...ex., faith means: confident, supernatural means: we don't know what the hell it is!...laughing
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years ago
    Why would most atheists go through the B.S. by pronouncing their lack of religion. To at least a third to a half of the persons in this country it would automatically mean that they were not, nor could they ever be, a good person. Radical Muslims, on the other hand only seem to proclaim their views while in the midst of slaughtering others. So...how will you ever know?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 6 years ago
    As an atheist, while I enjoy having debates with theists, I would never attempt to make their beliefs or religions illegal. Even if I were an anti-theist, I would be hard pressed to do that. My objective in my debates is to come to a better understanding for the parties present. Either one side or the other puts forth convincing arguments to change belief or we agree to disagree. However, now we are both better informed on what the other side believes. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty 'I want to believe as many true things and disbelieve as many false things as possible'. Because only then can I make the best choices in my life.

    Sorry, went off on a tangent. I think many Christian theists are afraid if the atheists were somehow able to become the majority, that they would attempt to do what the Christians are guilty of doing by insinuating their religious beliefs into lawmaking. That atheists would start a purge all of religions from the country. I will concede that I would attempt to remove it from government by abolishing any laws that have a religious basis for their enactment, but what you believe as long as it doesn'the infringe on any one else's safety and wellbeing is fine by me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years ago
    The numbers don't matter, but court decisions do. Atheists have set the bar relatively low, succeeding at easily having many Christian symbols removed from public property and barring the use of terms like "Merry Christmas." Oddly, not too many Atheists seem to get upset at a Menorah on public grounds, but that's for another time.

    Why were these articles removed? Because the Atheists were offended, feeling they constituted a message that the government demands you become Christian, disrespecting their choice to be faithless.

    Radical Muslims will likely see the path laid before them by Atheist court victories, and will follow it to have anything they feel disrespects their religion banned. Before you say "so what," think for a minute. Besides the symbols of other faiths, there a lot of publicly displayed items they can argue are offensive. Extreme Islam considers the depiction of the human form (not just of Muhammad) as a form of idolatry, which has resulted in the destruction of many works of art in countries in which they have control. Would they be successful demanding the destruction of many of the nation's statues and art, as offensive to Islam?

    There's a long list of things that a progressive, activist court could grant radical Muslims based on the principle those things are offensive to their faith. It would start with public properties, but could, if made law, extend to even private commercial venues.

    Many would say the institution of Islamic "blue laws" like many Christian-imposed laws now off the books is unlikely. I, for one, am not so sure, as progressives see Islam as a weapon to bludgeon those who don't fear the power of the state, planning unashamedly to use them as a means to an end as they have the LGBT community.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
    (Watch me get blasted for this) -
    In the USA an atheist has the same "right" to practice his non-religion as an Isamic person (or Christian) has to paractice thier religion.

    However, neither the atheist, Muslim, Christian or Jew has any right to infringe on anothers ability to practice their own religion.

    (Radical Muslims are not the same as the majority of the Isamic world, just as Jim Jones and even Westboro are not representative of all Christians.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 6 years ago
      I agree with you basically, EXCEPT that when a religion says "kill the infidels", all the adherents to that religion have two choices:

      1) Silently agree with it and either do the killing themselves OR allow others to do it for them

      OR
      2) Disavow that part of the religion.

      I think the majority of muslims fall into the first category. If they want me to accept them, they need to be in category 2.

      I am the one who will get blasted for being politically incorrect !!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
        option 3

        actually you are incorrect and the comment "kill the infidels" is taken out of context : http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-i...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 6 years ago
          I did read the link above. Of course its written by someone who is trying to protect islam. Not to say its wrong, but I have seen passages that refer to killing the non believers, so at this point I would have to research it further.

          If the muslims are so peace loving, why do the huge majority of them not come down hard on the terrorists, but seem to just sit by while the terrorism goes on. Makes me think that they are OK with the terrorism as long as some other muslim does it.

          Also, as I understand it, muslims themselves are often killed by terrorist actions. That should really upset living muslims. Why is there so little outcry.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -3
            Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
            It is against the koran to kill anyone except in self defense ... "to kill one human is to kill all of humanity" ... what is scary is the lack of press coverage ofthe outrage within the Islamic community over the highjacking of the religion by the nut cases. The outrage is there but just quickly covered and glossed over.

            I did what you are talking about, I looked at both sides with open eyes and understood the oftquoted religionofpeace site and others are ridiculous hatemongers. Wait until they accuse factual statements about ISlam and the Koran to be Taqiyya (another term the hatemongers have bastardized lol.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years ago
      however, the first amendment requires that the u.s.
      government NOT use its power to help or hurt anyone's
      practice of any religion -- and they sure are doing just
      that with the preferential protection and importation
      of muslims and the shoving of others aside. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
        I am not sure where you believe the govt is hurting the ability of an atheist to practice their non-religion? I also don't see where Christians or Jews are not able to practice their religion. In fact if yu attempted to forbid a synagogue from being built. the government would protect the Jewish rights as well. Similar to the current situation, many in the founding colonies wanted to treat Catholics ( and Mahamedan) second class citizens without the ability to vote etc. Fortunately, the founding fathers were intelligent enough to understand that freedom of religion meant they ability to practice religions that the majority may not agree with.

        "[He] sais “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
        — Thomas Jefferson, quoting John Locke, 1776
        "

        I would argue that we treat people sneaking over our borders "preferentially". We mistreat Australians, Eastern Europeans and numerous other nationalities.

        An Australian muslim would have a very difficult time in our immigration process because they are Australian. The preferential treatment seems to be to people from areas "at risk" economically and politically.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 6 years ago
          I was not addressing our government's treatment of
          atheists, though I could. . atheists have been ridiculed
          rather roundly since I was a kid and chose that route.
          from Madalyn Murray O'Hair to the freedom-from-
          religion taunts which adorn the airwaves these days,
          there have been references upon references which
          routinely diminish the stature of atheists here. . my
          point is simply that muslims are getting a free ride,
          these days, in not having to "push" their religion 'cuz
          our government is doing it for them. -- j
          .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
            actually you could "try".... atheists many times were attempting to force their "non-religion" beliefs onto religious people .... I see no Government endorsement of Islam over any other religion or "non-religion", only the freedom to believe as you wih without Government intervention.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 6 years ago
              but we're being forced by the government to bend over
              backwards to avoid offending muslims -- with the military
              compelled to remove words like jihad and radical muslim
              from all documents, for example ... it's rampant! -- j
              .
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                You shoudn't offend any religion unless you fully understand that religion. Tiy can, but you seem ignorant. That being said people offend and insult followers of Islam every day ... radical Islamists are not all of Islam and Jihad is incorrectly defined by many radical Islamists and non Islamic people : http://www.justaskislam.com/50/could-...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by rbroberg 6 years ago
                  I am not sure if it is a translation difference, but in the standard English, it does not make sense to say a religion can be offended. A person can be offended due to a perceived (real or unreal) threat to his or her beliefs about religion, but does it offend religion when an atheist or pagan denies it? In light of this, therefore, I do not believe a religion as such can be offended. The one foreseeable assumption that makes it possible to offend a religion is if members of that religion have an exclusive relationship with God. Do Muslims believe this?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                    No Islamic ebliever believe that all followers of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity etc) are followers of the same God (alalh) therefor it is not exclusive to Muslims
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by rbroberg 6 years ago
                      Then it would be appropriate to draw attention to the fact that an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. would receive the same protection under US Law as a follower of the Abrahamic religions. What allows such practice to occur without conflict? According to the right wing, it is that these religions follow Christian or Abrahamic law. According to the left wing, it is that these religions represent distinct but equal cultures and not supernaturalism. According to Libertarians, it is the non-aggression principle. According to the Objectivists, it is the refusal to initiate the use of physical force. According to your statements above, which attempt to draw a clear line between radical and non-radical Muslims, and this Objectivist principle, it would be most probable that tolerance of the Muslim religion might increase when more Muslims (or anyone) are explicit in their acceptance that initiation of the use of physical force is always wrong.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 6 years ago
                        "tolerance of the Muslim religion might increase when more Muslims (or anyone) are explicit in their acceptance that initiation of the use of physical force is always wrong."

                        Well said indeed.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years ago
                          number6 posted a link, above, where the Quran is
                          quoted with similar non-aggression words. . isn't it
                          odd that the practices of many of them differ with that? -- j
                          .
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                            The problem is that the Qu'ran isn't a holy book like the Torah or Bible where every verse has equal weight or credibility. I've read the Qu'ran, and once you get past every other sentence being "peace be upon him" or "there is no god but Allah", the first part of it really isn't that bad. But the Qu'ran is a book of precedence where the chronologically later passages override earlier passages, and it becomes more violent and less tolerant the further in one reads - just like Mohammed himself. It's the passages in the last half of the Qu'ran that are the ones actually practiced by most Muslim nations - with regional idiosyncrasies based on which flavor (Sunni, Shia, Baath, Wahab) and government style.

                            I have to disagree, however, with the notion that somehow the Qu'ran does not authorize the killings and enslavement of infidels. It absolutely does and those passages fall late in the book, giving them precedence. It is also known that Mohammed himself often came into villages and butchered dozens of people himself - giving them the opportunity to convert to Islam or die. With that kind of a leadership image and the absolute fixation upon the man himself, it is no wonder that even modern Muslims want to literally take up that sword, as it is glorified not only in their heritage, but in their everyday teaching.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago
                              Im glad you can read arabic and I commend you for reading the Koran .... Islamic scholars tend to completely disagree with your assesment
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                                Your sarcasm is noted, but I don't believe that BS that one can only understand the Qu'ran by reading it in Arabic. I'm actually fluent in Greek and I understand the notion of cultural nuance in language, so I'm not naive enough to believe an English translation is perfect, but even if 10% is a little fuzzy, the other 90% is pretty clear. And when you've had that other 10% confirmed by an actual Muslim who does read Arabic...

                                And I would like to hear from you about the actual history of the man revered above all others in Islam: did Mohammed personally kill dozens if not hundreds of "infidels" with his own sword? Do you deny that happened? Do you deny that Islam has been perpetrating war on the rest of the world for more than 1500 years? Remember, many Islamic scholars also deny the reality of the Holocaust, so I'm not real big on taking them at their word...
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago
                                  I deny that Mohammed killed thousands of "innocents" ... In battle DEFENDING people were killed. (as they have been in Christianityas well.)
                                  I would also submit that Islam has defended itself for 1500 years and that some "Islmaic Scholars" deny the holocaust is aireelevant tot he discussion (as is the statement that some Christian scholars deny the holocaust and some people deny the Holodomor.)
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • blarman replied 5 years, 12 months ago
                          • -1
                            Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                            I agree and the problem is when people lend credence to the radical elements bastardization of the Koran by attacking all of Islam.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 6 years ago
                              and yet nearly any negative statement about islam
                              is taken as "an attack on all of Islam." . why so? -- j
                              .
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                                The reason seems to be that by generalizing statements and saying ALL of Islam supports terror and all of Islam is violent and ALL of Islam is (insert whatever negative you want here) you make the argument defensive form the start. If you say the Islamic terrorists are ____ there would be no argument of defensive posture.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago
                                  but I don't generalize my statements ... I guess it's enough
                                  that if anyone generalizes, then the whole class must
                                  "stay in" at the end of the school day! -- j
                                  .
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                        Qur’an 2:257: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.”

                        “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah” [Quran 9:61].

                        “Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” [Quran 2:193]

                        “…if any one slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it would be as if he slew the whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” [Quran 5:35]

                        “From whose tongue and hands the people (an-nas: irrespective of Muslims or non-Muslims) are safe.” [Musnad-i-Ahmad, #6762; narrated by Abdullah ibn Amr]

                        The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by livefree-NH 5 years, 12 months ago
                          In a Muslim country, the punishment for apostasy is death. To me, "apostasy" is not a crime (because I am atheist) and I would be offended that someone was being executed for, basically, being like me.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by rbroberg 5 years, 12 months ago
                            There are a number of questions that arise from the above, one of which would be: What constitutes "spreading mischief in the land"? Which can be broken down into what is "mischief" and what is "the land". I presume the answers vary depending on the original language and views of the interpreter... and more than their respective Jeopardy hints.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago
                            or for aligning with a religion besides islamism....... -- j
                            .
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago
                              incorrect statement of fact ... Islam accepts other religions and does nit call for conversion of others.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by livefree-NH 5 years, 12 months ago
                                After this followup, I checked some more, and I stand by my original statement. You might want to look at here, as one example: "According to Abdul Rashied Omar, the majority of modern Muslim scholars continue to hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostas... -- Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago
                                they are sure portrayed differently from that. -- j
                                .
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                                  It's not merely a portrayal. They aren't even tolerant of their own people who take a moderate/tolerant stance (personal witness to me from another Muslim family).

                                  In addition, that intolerance is the whole basis of ISIS. ISIS is based on an entirely Qu'ranically supported interpretation of Islam that wants everyone - including other Muslims - to live by strict Sharia. And they use that interpretation themselves to justify their lust for killing and rape. Are all Muslims like that? No. But many of their own Islamic scholars fail to condemn this interpretation as being wrong - they just gloss over that part because of where it leads. But ISIS isn't the only group who takes this stance - they're just the ones the American media fixates on. Saudi Arabia supports strict Sharia, they just don't go around in force killing and raping people and invading other nations. Iran doesn't do it themselves, they just support others who do it on their behalf. Iraq wasn't a stranger to funding outside terror groups prior to its overthrow. Syria has been doing it for more than 70 years with its support of the PLO and Hezbollah. Or look at the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Or the Phillippines and Moro. Look at Pakistan and their fight with India over Kashmir. It isn't as if this is an isolated incident or an outlier. There is significant and sustained fundamentalism all over the world. To paint this as fringe behavior is simply to ignore the sheer volume of not only history but current events.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Eyecu2 6 years ago
                  I am sorry but as long as they are killing and trying to kill, they deserve NOTHING but to be killed in response.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                    And I would agree that the radical Islamists should be treated that way, because that is what they believe ... ALL of Islam should not be treated the same way
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 6 years ago
                      those you speak of, especially those who chose to come to other countries are eiher on the side of their new country or not. Easy choice. They can drop a dime or do the time. just like anybody else. I look and see gangbangers in drag.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 6 years ago
                      I believe in the Golden Rule. If a Muslim is willing to let me live the way I do, I'm willing to let him alone as well. The problem is that most Muslims, unfortunately, aren't willing to live and let live: https://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg. That's a huge problem IMHO.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -1
                        Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                        Your statement : " Muslims, unfortunately, aren't willing to live and let live" is factually incorrect.

                        An opinion piece is not a fact.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                          Did you view the video? That was an opinion poll conducted in more than twenty Muslim nations asking about basic tenets of Islam and it showed that more than half - not a minority - take stances which are incompatible with "live and let live". It wasn't an outsider's opinion, it was them representing their own beliefs and application of those beliefs.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 6 years ago
                          he said "most muslims" and that's probably an
                          exaggeration, but a common feeling these days. -- j
                          .
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
                            It is certainly an exaggeration and compounds the problem by giving more power to the radical terrorsts who attempt to highjack the Islamic religion
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                              Have you read about the history of the Islamic religion? Ever since they started they have been all about conquest of the rest of the world. You can barely read about a major war since 800 AD that didn't involve them. The Crusades were a response to Islamic invasion of the Middle East. If not for the Spanish Inquisition, that entire nation would have succumbed to the Moors. If not for the 200 at Sparta, Greece would have been overrun and invaded by Muslims. Contrary to the romanticization by Disney and others, most pirates from the 1600's on were Muslims who would enslave their shipping conquests! The best thing that happened to the Western world has been the ongoing battles between Sunni and Shia which allowed the rest of the world to leave them to infighting for a few decades. Our invasion of Iraq allowed the Shia sect to explode in that region to where now even the Saudis (Wahab) are fearful.

                              If you want to believe our president who says that Islam is a nation of peace, you do that. Just don't try to sell me that line of crap. I'm a meerkat - not an ostrich.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Dobrien 6 years ago
          Blah blah blah "the preferential treatment seems"
          How wishy washy.
          The preferential treatment is to bring in people who have no interest in assimilating into our culture!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
            and THAT is an idiotic sweeping generalization .. how about Muhammed Ali, Kareem abdul Jabbar off the top of my head .. did they assimilate.into the USA culture?

            The non assimilating immigration issue includes the Spanish speaking people who dont want to assimilate and any other group that does not want to assimiliate (including Islamic believer who do not want to)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Dobrien 6 years ago
              Idiotic? Off the top of your head ?They were both born in the USA.1st named Cassius Clay the 2nd Lew Alcindor. And Please the Spanish people don't want to assimilate give me a break, I'll take a hard working Mexican illegal over an Obama authorized Somali, Syrian, Middle East Moslem. I have seen crowds of 100,000 + Muslims burning our flag chanting "death to America" countless times in the last 36 years. I have never seen any anti-American protests of that nature from Mexico.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 6 years ago
              That's not a case of not wanting to and most do realize the need to speak the language to get ahead in the case of the Latinos. Often it's a case of being told by the do gooders(sociology types) and those who want to keep control both our government and Latino Organizations. It was no different when places like Little Italy and Chinatowns, Little Ireland etc. were formed as each wave came in. over the last 150 some years. Those that assimilated zoomed to the top and of course made previous immigrant waves somewhat jealous. As late as the 1950's immigrant to Oregon from Arkansas and Oklahoma were known as CIO's and CIA's each letter pronounced for California Improved Oakies and Arkies. Dust Bowl refugees for the most part. Way behind recent immigrants from other countries. The story was if they left Okie/Arkie land an 8th grade graduate they would go to nineth grade in Californa and the next year moving to Oregon fit in with the 7th grade. Most families over some generations pulled them selves up the ladder BUT in Oregon the big trap was the welfare system. I recall kids coming t school and taking off with the parents on prolonged hunting trips. Welfare had bought them new pickup trucks. No point in working.
              The next wave soon after I left high school were the hippie generations and tree huggers meaning pot growers. And so it goes. Some take centuries to assimilate and it is damn difficult when there is no encouragement and a lot of negative influences with the government leading the way in that respect.

              But none except Californians came with the attitude of recreating what they had left until th Islamics. Like the Pinoys though most were working to return 'home' when they retired. They weren't out to kill the local population. If you noticed real close look at the one from the LA Airport today that well may have been one of the 40% or so who converted but have been in North America for a hundred to two hundred years.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 6 years ago
      Despite the belief by the religious, 'atheist' just means without a belief in god. Then, since it is just a lack of belief where there is no positive belief to be countered, the idea of 'atheism' which is a hypothesis as to the non-existence of a nothing is brought up which would be irrational except that many positive statements are made by religions which believe in the existence of various gods so that some atheists find it necessary to counter those positive statements. I do not bother with that but do bother with the nonsense you spout about some kind of practice of an atheist's non-religion. Most atheists probably do not give their non-god related beliefs much thought until some theist knocks on the door to introduce you to Jesus whom somehow you have never heard of before. Then you are put on the spot by those others who make sure you know that they are somehow married to Christ. Why is it so important to try to convert an atheist? I just got a hand written letter from a woman who said she did not find me at home and wants to introduce me to Jesus. The last Jehovah Witness, who stopped by twice, after some discussion and when he was leaving, I told him I like talking to him. That must have been too much for him, he has never returned.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
        Islam does NOT believe in c=forced conversion :

        "In Surah Al-Bakarah (Chapter 1) Quran says

        Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.


        In Surah Kafiron (Chapter 109), Quran says

        1 - Proclaim, (O dear Prophet Mohammed - peace and blessings be upon him), “O disbelievers!”. 2 - Neither do I worship what you worship. 3 - Nor do you worship Whom I worship. 4 - And neither will I ever worship what you worship. 5 - Nor will you worship Whom I worship. 6 - For you is your religion, and for me is mine."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 6 years ago
          Are you nuts? Why would I need such crap in my memory? Pick on some believer, there may be a few on this forum.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ number6 6 years ago
            no .... just well read and not prone to ignorant ideas with zero substance.

            Its not in my memory, its in my debate folder (lol) ... I was raised Catholic and really dont support any religion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Dobrien 6 years ago
              Except islam
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago
                I dont support Islam, I hust attempt to refute lies from ignorant "experts" so the disocurse can be less abut hatred of all of Islam and more about solving the radical Islamist problem......
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 12 months ago
                  So let's get to the root of the matter and I'm going to start a new sub thread up above for this....How do we fix the problem..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago
                    The way to fix it is actually quite simple. They need to change and accept fundamental human rights, such as the equality of the sexes, the right to believe what one wishes and to have that right respected by others who believe differently, the right to be tried by a jury of peers, the right to common defense before the law, the rights of women to be equal to men in a court of law, and more.

                    Basically, they need to abandon Islam. Hmmm... Maybe this isn't so simple after all.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Defended itself." I see. So it's called defending one's self to you when one arms up tens of thousands of soldiers, tramps them over to a neighboring country, and invades. Or when they just roam around their own countryside forcibly converting every hamlet and village to Islam even when they are fine how they are. Tens of thousands of Coptic Christians, Bedouins, and others all died while in their own villages because Mohammed's forces and his followers were "defending themselves". That's how you want to paint it.

    You're an Islamic sympathizer. You will refuse to admit to the past 1500 years of history and you have no problems attempting to shift the blame. You are unwilling to recognize reality for what it is. I have no use and no tolerance for such. Adieu.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 6 years ago
    That could very well possibly be. Add iup the number of athiests

    I used the Pew studies and crossed it with others.

    63% of the muslim popululation are immigrants, comprising about 1 % of the population. Athiests 3% and Agnostics 4% with 23% unafilliated. meaning 77% are affiliated of which 76 of the population are not Islamic.

    How to handle it? No one has improved on George Washington's solution made when addressing the Quakers request not to be taken in the armed services as combatants. George invited respect for minoirities but required they live by the law of the land and wondered if there wasn't a middle ground. Sure enough Quakers became Medics.

    The first conscientous objector to win The Medal Sgt Desmond Dross in 1919. It's not awarded by religious affiliation. Four Canadians also.were recipients.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years ago
    The real question is why is the government promoting such an idiocy? Even if you hate Trump, you've got to believe he wouldn't foist such insanity upon the nation, and you couldn't say the same for Mrs. Clinkton.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 11 months ago
      I don't have to believe that. To me a socialist is a socialist is a socialist What is the difference the venom between snake one and snake two?

      The danger is in having a one party system of government that sets all the rules allowing only their members to hold the top offices - and those that vote for them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 6 years ago
    They won't for long - if they even do now - unless we stop Obama's plans to keep importing them. And that includes tightening our Southern border with Mexico.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 12 months ago
    Sure. At least officially listed unaffiliated and/or agnostic and atheists to and by quite a bit. Anyone can be radicalized. Some would point to the Soviet Union as proof. But I would argue that being highly collectivist/statist is a religion with the Collective in the place of a deity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 11 months ago
      All of them have a father figure and cohorts in an exempted class including the entities known as collectives. That is the Diety or one of them.

      Secular Progressives go after atheists seeing easy converts however....athiests are more likely to be objectivists and immunized against the twin dieties of Yoda Yakoff and Soros.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years ago
    Terms like "free-thinker", "reason", and "brights" are not outlawed, although maybe "brights" should be outlawed. j/k. My point is we're a pluralistic society. As an atheist, I do not want "faith" outlawed. Banning it would not honor atheists.

    We have a natural right to be wrong about things. Radical religionists, including Islamists, do want reason banned. But I think I'm right, and they're wrong about this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years ago
      the problem is that rationality leads to predictability,
      and many don't want to be that. . I was purely rational
      for 20 years and got over it ... in order to marry and
      make a family. . what I got was a family of 2 plus a good
      dog. . but appreciating the quirks of a bunch of
      interesting people is worth it -- worth bending out of
      shape a little. . but I would still like to ban "preventative,"
      just for spite! -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by $ number6 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You guys always crack me up ... the discussion always gets back to "You are Obama, or You are Hilary or You are a Muslim sympathisizer" .. dnt discuss the opposing view just attack the other person. Its also funny how so many can HATE and believe that is the answer. Lets blame ALL blacks in America for the crme problem while we are at it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo