1,500 police officers in Cologne during this upcoming New Year's Eve

[Boxlicker101]

These were the first Catholics who came to America, and they were certainly not fleeing persecution: https://www.britannica.com/topic/conquistador-Spanish-history

Later, there were missionaries, but they weren't fleeing persecution either. Those included in your link remained in Europe, rather than coming to America.

 

[srgreene]

... At least in America, we give lip service to the idea of religious tolerance. We don't allow the church to get power from the state to aid in persecuting others. Some Muslim-majority countries do, and so did Catholic-majority countries like Ireland and Spain.

And if you want to experience firsthand the Catholic attitude towards non-Catholics, try walking into a Catholic church with a camera, or visiting a monastery without putting a special costume on your wife.

It would be highly inappropriate for (particularly a young) woman to visit a monastery dressed in anything other than a "special costume". The attitude that you would likely encounter if you did has nothing to do with you not being Catholic- it has everything to do with your disregard for the sensibilities of the monks. They too have hormones.

Moreover, it says quite a bit more about you than about Catholics that you look at that and consider it evidence of "Catholic attitude towards non-Catholics". I doubt a Catholic woman would receive a lessor response- in fact, I suspect just the opposite. You would encounter a similar attitude if tempted Buddhist monks in that manner. Gad, you are a limited person.

Oh, and in America, we give more than lip service to the idea of religious tolerance. The law does not discriminate on the basis of religious persuasion- that is far more than "lip service".


P.S. I don't have a wife.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Do you make an exception to this for Islam? Should Muslims be given every bit of protection as every other religion?

Won't you run into problems if Trump tries to start a "Muslim Registry?"

Immigration is a set of laws. He can't just deny access to Muslims without running into these laws, which are tied into the idea that the law "does not discriminate on the basis of religious persuasion."

You've just ranted for several posts about how evil Islam is, and how you support the idea of not allowing them to come into our country. How is that not discrimination on the basis of religion?

Oh, and in America, we give more than lip service to the idea of religious tolerance. The law does not discriminate on the basis of religious persuasion- that is far more than "lip service".

 

[srgreene]

Do you make an exception to this for Islam? Should Muslims be given every bit of protection as every other religion?

Won't you run into problems if Trump tries to start a "Muslim Registry?"

Immigration is a set of laws. He can't just deny access to Muslims without running into these laws, which are tied into the idea that the law "does not discriminate on the basis of religious persuasion."

You've just ranted for several posts about how evil Islam is, and how you support the idea of not allowing them to come into our country. How is that not discrimination on the basis of religion?

I would not be comfortable with a registry of Moslem US citizens, and I am virtually certain it is not going to happen.

Constitutional, protections of course, apply to US citizens, or perhaps US persons. They do not apply to foreigners. Perhaps I could have been more clear about the provisions of the Constitution applying to Americans, but I assumed everybody knew that.

Frankly I do not consider Islam to be a religion. It is simply one of many supremacist ideologies, albeit one that assumed the dross of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is no more a religion than is the KKK, and rather more discriminatory practices against half of humanity- viz. women- than the KKK ever dreamed of being. Particularly with the example of Europe in mind, Americans should be very careful about allowing immigration of people who endorse an ideology that, in its canon, contains an imperative to reign supreme over those who do not accept their beliefs.

As the Roman lawmaker, Cicero, noted:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”


Like most Americans, you appear to assume that since America is a great nation, she will always be so. I make no such assumption.

Finally, 'Flower, I notice you claim I "ranted" about the evils of Islam. I also noticed you could not bother to contend with the issues I raised. As such, I consider your perspective to amount to nothing more than mindless invective.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well, then, declaring Islam not a religion certainly solves your problem.

I would not be comfortable with a registry of Moslem US citizens, and I am virtually certain it is not going to happen.

Constitutional, protections of course, apply to US citizens, or perhaps US persons. They do not apply to foreigners. Perhaps I could have been more clear about the provisions of the Constitution applying to Americans, but I assumed everybody knew that.

Frankly I do not consider Islam to be a religion. It is simply one of many supremacist ideologies, albeit one that assumed the dross of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is no more a religion than is the KKK, and rather more discriminatory against half of humanity- viz. women- than the KKK ever dreamed of being. Particularly with the example of Europe in mind, Americans should be very careful about allowing immigration of people who endorse an ideology that, in its canon, contains an imperative to reign supreme over those who do not accept their beliefs.

As the Roman lawmaker, Cicero, noted:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”


Like most Americans, you appear to assume that since America is a great nation, she will always be so. I make no such assumption.

Finally, 'Flower, I notice you claim I "ranted" about the evils of Islam. I also noticed you could not bother to contend with the issues I raised. As such, I consider your perspective to amount to nothing more than mindless invective.

 

[srgreene]

Well, then, declaring Islam not a religion certainly solves your problem.

I said quite a bit more than that I do not consider Islam to be a religion. People may reasonably differ in their opinions in that regard.

But once again, you elect to ignore the ideas presented so that, remaining in your shallow comfort zone, you do not have to deal with unpleasant ideas or realities. You have shown yourself determined to avoid the threat that Islam- and mass immigration of its adherents- poses to a free and pluralistic society. Instead, you prefer to cavil and demean. Works for people like you, I guess.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It doesn't pose a threat at all. The only threat is from radical terrorists who use Islam as an excuse. But Islam itself and Muslims in the millions? Not concerned. I'm much more concerned about the lax gun laws in the US that would allow people on terrorist watch lists to get their hands on guns.

The US has its very own homegrown terrorists like Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh. Is the entire US to be condemned because of them?

You're just a typical Islamophobe who cannot distinguish between the radicals and the rest of Muslims over the world.

In terms of immigration, of course I'm concerned about terrorists, particularly from certain countries. But to extend that to thinking we're opening the floodgates to masses of swarming Muslims with evil intent is wrong. To conflate their radical insanity with Islam per se, as you are trying to do, is wrong and a form of religious discrimination.

I said quite a bit more than that I do not consider Islam to be a religion. People may reasonably differ in their opinions in that regard.

But once again, you elect to ignore the ideas presented so that, remaining in your shallow comfort zone, you do not have to deal with unpleasant ideas or realities. You have shown yourself determined to avoid the threat that Islam- and mass immigration of its adherents- poses to a free and pluralistic society. Instead, you prefer to cavil and demean. Works for people like you, I guess.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Why should we limit ourselves to English Catholics? Spain was and is part of Europe also, and people from there, such as Cortez and Pizarro and Junipero Serra, came as conquerors and enslavers and, yes, genocidists.

Because Spain's conquests in the Americas quickly became irrelevant in North America, specifically the US. Typically when Yanks say 'America' they mean the USA. The Yanks conquered Spanish America and so politically their contribution is minimal.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because Spain's conquests in the Americas quickly became irrelevant in North America, specifically the US. Typically when Yanks say 'America' they mean the USA. The Yanks conquered Spanish America and so politically their contribution is minimal.

Just when I thought you couldn't prove yourself to be a bigger fucking moron....

 

[srgreene]

It doesn't pose a threat at all. The only threat is from radical terrorists who use Islam as an excuse. But Islam itself and Muslims in the millions? Not concerned. ...

You're just a typical Islamophobe who cannot distinguish between the radicals and the rest of Muslims over the world.

In terms of immigration, of course I'm concerned about terrorists, particularly from certain countries. But to extend that to thinking we're opening the floodgates to masses of swarming Muslims with evil intent is wrong. To conflate their radical insanity with Islam per se, as you are trying to do, is wrong and a form of religious discrimination.

Laughably ignorant- or would be if the consequences were not so deadly. It's not simply those "radicals"- its the word of the sacred texts of Islam. Not all Moslems embrace or act upon all of its teachings, but the ideological underpinnings of Islam support the most horrendous treatment of "kuffars".

Yes, 'Flower, what could go wrong with a nation, a society, and a civilization, by bringing in millions of people who adhere to an ideology that holds that:

- parents will not be held culpable for the murder of their children (per Reliance of the Traveller, the classic manual of Sharia Law, which specifically exempts "a father or mother for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring"). According to Islamic tradition, this stems from the Koran in which a child was killed during Mohammad's "Night Ride" because the murderer knew the child would be a shame to his parents- gad, what a pathetic excuse for a "religion").

-- requires, as a matter of “religious” obligation, that Moslem women “draw their cloaks close round them” (Koran 33:59)

– condones the execution of people guilty of adultery (Bukhari 83:37 Note: Bukhari is one of the authoritative compilers of the hadiths). There are many other hadiths that confirm this one, and, according to Islamic history, a “frisky goat” ate the leaf on which a verse "revealed" to Mohammad required the same, but since the verse was lost, it didn't make it into that monstrosity known as the Koran.

– Moslems may by right own slaves (as Mohammad did) per the edict of their “god” (e.g. Koran 33:50, which could be interpreted as applying only to Mohammad, but hey, he was the role model for all men. I suggest this has something to do with the fact that slavery continues in the Islamic world today. Mohammad also sold slaves, quite clearly giving license other Moslems to own them).

- commands the faithful to “kill the infidel wherever you find them” and to “fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone” (Koran 2:191-193).

– obliges the death penalty for apostasy (“Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him” - Bukhari 89:271)

– commands its followers to reign supreme over the infidel: “Fight those who believe not in Allah*nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth ...*until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.*(Koran 9:29* (jizya is a special tax applied only to non-Moslems.)

Well you submit, 'Flower. While I hope not to be presented with the choice, I would prefer to die free. One way to minimize the probability that I- or my descendants- will be presented with that awful choice is to keep millions of people who believe such evil twaddle out of my country. I do welcome their victims who survive their slaughter.

If that's not enough for you, try learning a little history. Tens of millions slaughtered in the Moslem invasion of India. What you see in Europe today- which should give any American pause- is simply the tip of the iceberg.

 

[about_average]

Frankly I do not consider Islam to be a religion. It is simply one of many supremacist ideologies, albeit one that assumed the dross of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is no more a religion than is the KKK, and rather more discriminatory practices against half of humanity- viz. women- than the KKK ever dreamed of being.

Then by your standard neither Judaism nor Christianity are religions either.

Either that or you've never read the bible.

 

[srgreene]

Then by your standard neither Judaism nor Christianity are religions either. Either that or you've never read the bible.

Your comment is so lacking in specificity as to preclude an intelligent exchange of views.

For one thing, I have not specified a standard by which to distinguish religions from other belief systems. By the way, I have read the Bible: certainly no expert, but I have read it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Because Spain's conquests in the Americas quickly became irrelevant in North America, specifically the US. Typically when Yanks say 'America' they mean the USA. The Yanks conquered Spanish America and so politically their contribution is minimal.

What irrelevant? Spain ruled a vast empire in South and North America, including a large part of what is now the United States. They began before settlement the Jamestown colony and continued until a century after the American Revolution. I realize some people erroneously refer to the US as if it encompasses two entire continents, but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate that error.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

yes, this is why I did not respond before, when I saw the "Don't try and palm off that twaddle about the majority of Muslims being good people." I knew you'd go off on a rant.

Personally, I'm an atheist. In my private views, I detest all religions. I don't go on about it, because, duh, it's the world we live in, and I respect people's rights to be religious.

I don't think you would want me to list a hundred reasons why Christianity needs to stay in people's churches and minds, and belongs absolutely nowhere else, least of all in public discourse, least of all in politics.

I perceive the Fundies of our own country as much more of a radical threat to me than Islamic terrorists.

I have as much problem with Muslims as I do with any religion, probably more with Christians of the US than anyone else. They voted for Trump in huge numbers after all, which makes them dangerous and insane in my view. They have already done way more damage than you imagine is coming at you from Islam.

You don't like Islam; I get it. Don't expect to jump on this bandwagon.

The bigger problem is this: the millions of Muslims who come here, and (supposedly) hold these views--so? They're not threat to me unless they start trying to enact them into public policy, which is why I loathe the Christian Right. They are the ones trying to break down the separation of Church and State. If the evil Muslims ever find a way in, it will be because the Fundies have paved the way. I want religion OUT OF public policy and discourse.

No Muslim has ever tried to push their views on me; Christians have and continue to do so. They want to make the US a Christian state, in my opinion, and they see Trump as their leader, so I view him as way more dangerous for that reason.

Laughably ignorant- or would be if the consequences were not so deadly. It's not simply those "radicals"- its the word of the sacred texts of Islam. Not all Moslems embrace or act upon all of its teachings, but the ideological underpinnings of Islam support the most horrendous treatment of "kuffars".

Yes, 'Flower, what could go wrong with a nation, a society, and a civilization, by bringing in millions of people who adhere to an ideology that holds that:

- parents will not be held culpable for the murder of their children (per Reliance of the Traveller, the classic manual of Sharia Law, which specifically exempts "a father or mother for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring"). According to Islamic tradition, this stems from the Koran in which a child was killed during Mohammad's "Night Ride" because the murderer knew the child would be a shame to his parents- gad, what a pathetic excuse for a "religion").

-- requires, as a matter of “religious” obligation, that Moslem women “draw their cloaks close round them” (Koran 33:59)

– condones the execution of people guilty of adultery (Bukhari 83:37 Note: Bukhari is one of the authoritative compilers of the hadiths). There are many other hadiths that confirm this one, and, according to Islamic history, a “frisky goat” ate the leaf on which a verse "revealed" to Mohammad required the same, but since the verse was lost, it didn't make it into that monstrosity known as the Koran.

– Moslems may by right own slaves (as Mohammad did) per the edict of their “god” (e.g. Koran 33:50, which could be interpreted as applying only to Mohammad, but hey, he was the role model for all men. I suggest this has something to do with the fact that slavery continues in the Islamic world today. Mohammad also sold slaves, quite clearly giving license other Moslems to own them).

- commands the faithful to “kill the infidel wherever you find them” and to “fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone” (Koran 2:191-193).

– obliges the death penalty for apostasy (“Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, then kill him” - Bukhari 89:271)

– commands its followers to reign supreme over the infidel: “Fight those who believe not in Allah*nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth ...*until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.*(Koran 9:29* (jizya is a special tax applied only to non-Moslems.)

Well you submit, 'Flower. While I hope not to be presented with the choice, I would prefer to die free. One way to minimize the probability that I- or my descendants- will be presented with that awful choice is to keep millions of people who believe such evil twaddle out of my country. I do welcome their victims who survive their slaughter.

If that's not enough for you, try learning a little history. Tens of millions slaughtered in the Moslem invasion of India. What you see in Europe today- which should give any American pause- is simply the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It doesn't pose a threat at all. The only threat is from radical terrorists who use Islam as an excuse. But Islam itself and Muslims in the millions? Not concerned. I'm much more concerned about the lax gun laws in the US that would allow people on terrorist watch lists to get their hands on guns.

The US has its very own homegrown terrorists like Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh. Is the entire US to be condemned because of them?

You're just a typical Islamophobe who cannot distinguish between the radicals and the rest of Muslims over the world.

In terms of immigration, of course I'm concerned about terrorists, particularly from certain countries. But to extend that to thinking we're opening the floodgates to masses of swarming Muslims with evil intent is wrong. To conflate their radical insanity with Islam per se, as you are trying to do, is wrong and a form of religious discrimination.

Tell that to Charlie Hebdo or the citizens of Brussels or of Cologne. Not all Muslims are terrorist, but enough are that we should be suspicious.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Tell that to Charlie Hebdo or the citizens of Brussels or of Cologne. Not all Muslims are terrorist, but enough are that we should be suspicious.

We just need to put them all in her neighborhood.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Not all males, especially white males, are psycho mass shooters, but enough are that we should be suspicious.

What is it about men as a race that they love violence and killing? Why does America have so many men raping, murdering, mass killing?

I'm way more likely to get assaulted by an American male walking down my neighborhood street than an "Islamic terrorist"

QUOTE=Boxlicker101;82872936]Tell that to Charlie Hebdo or the citizens of Brussels or of Cologne. Not all Muslims are terrorist, but enough are that we should be suspicious.[/QUOTE]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not all males, especially white males, are psycho mass shooters, but enough are that we should be suspicious.

What is it about men as a race that they love violence and killing? Why does America have so many men raping, murdering, mass killing?

I'm way more likely to get assaulted by an American male walking down my neighborhood street than an "Islamic terrorist"

QUOTE=Boxlicker101;82872936]Tell that to Charlie Hebdo or the citizens of Brussels or of Cologne. Not all Muslims are terrorist, but enough are that we should be suspicious.

[/QUOTE]


Why do you use those exclamation points around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?

 

[BotanyBoy]

What is it about men as a race that they love violence and killing?

Men aren't a race smarty pants.

You go to school in Alabama or some shit?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Deflection. Go shoot a deer

Men aren't a race smarty pants.

You go to school in Alabama or some shit?

 

[phrodeau]

Why do you use those exclamation points around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?

Those are quotation marks. Wipe your screen once in a while.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Well my goodness I don't know anymore.

Dump says the Russian hacking didn't take place. His lackeys say facts don't matter anymore (er, except the ones they like?)

Dump praises Alex Jones who says Sandy Hook was a hoax.

By Trump standards, I can't be sure


QUOTE=Boxlicker101;82899032][/QUOTE]


Why do you use those exclamation points around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?[/QUOTE]

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well my goodness I don't know anymore.

Dump says the Russian hacking didn't take place. His lackeys say facts don't matter anymore (er, except the ones they like?)

Dump praises Alex Jones who says Sandy Hook was a hoax.

By Trump standards, I can't be sure


QUOTE=Boxlicker101;82899032]

Why do you use those quotation marks around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

In this regard, he might be as dishonest as Hillary, who denies having anything to do with classified material.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Aw, the little Trumpsters are still clinging to Mommy. Dont leave us, Hillary, please don't go!!


QUOTE=Boxlicker101;82907392]Why do you use those quotation marks around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

In this regard, he might be as dishonest as Hillary, who denies having anything to do with classified material. [/QUOTE]

 

[phrodeau]

Why do you use those quotation marks around Islamic terrorist? Are you trying to say that, Like Obama, you don't believe they exist?

In this regard, he might be as dishonest as Hillary, who denies having anything to do with classified material.

Now that is dishonest. Hillary never said she didn't handle classified material.