Multiculturalism and Sharia

[Stephanie]

. what gets me is how the left/libs/dems can OVERLOOK how women, homosexuals etc are TREATED in any of these Muslim countries. yet they want to believe they will come here and automatically change to our ways of living. How many honor killings have we seen here in our country and they are rising all the time. they cut off peoples body parts if they believed they told a lie. stone women to death. it's just sickening to have these elected asses lecturing us on how Islam is a Religion at all. I see it more as a CULT. you people better wake up to this Democrat party. they have been BOUGHT by Muslims/Islam AND you are now seeing the after affects being brought down on YOU.
Did anyone hear the medias report on this below? they tried to slip in without you all knowing about it. wake the hell up

SNIP:

House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam
Lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech.
December 29, 2015
Robert Spencer

December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others with House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.”

all of it here:
House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

 

[Wry Catcher]

What Stephanie does not understand - well I don't have the time to outline all of that - is that we were conceived and dedicated to be a pluralistic society

[A pluralistic society is a diverse one, where the people in it believe all kinds of different things and tolerate each other's beliefs even when they don't match their own]

"all men are created equal" and yet many in our society have rejected this fundamental ethos of our nation based on the color, language, religion or politics of others.

 

[Stephanie]

this sums thing very well in my book. but if you OPPOSE any of this. you are BEAT over the head about how you are: unchristian, Islam_phobia , hates BROWN people, fears others not like them Blaaa blaaa blaaa. it's really past time for the people to WAKE up to these elected Asses who are doing this to us while you are watching American Idol. VOTE out these progressives and NO MORE like Hillary, Bernie the commie loving old fogies

snip;.



Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism
Candidates, Congress, and the public are concerned about how Muslim refugees may affect national security. They should also consider how refugees will affect our culture.
By Mitch Hall
For the past few months, the question of admitting tens of thousands of Syrian refugees has rocked the American political landscape, and predictably the issue has been remarkably polarized.

Many on the Left
including both Democratic presidential candidates, have advocated for a massive domestic resettlement effort, while those on the Right favor either granting asylum only to Christian refugees or admitting no refugees.

On February 3, Congress joined in the debate through a public hearing hosted by the Senate’s Homeland Security Committee. The hearing, which analyzed Canada’s plans to screen and admit 25,000 Syrian refugees, invoked the testimony of both Canadian and U.S. experts, including U.S. border officials. This scrutiny of our northern neighbor’s refugee plans is evidently Congress’s attempt to check for flaws in the Canadian system (which could result in potentially violent migrants living dangerously close to the United States) and to better understand whether the Obama administration’s vetting program will be effective.


The Senate’s hearing comes hot on the heels of terrorist acts perpetrated by Middle Eastern immigrants across the globe, which have seriously complicated the conversation on Syrian refugees.

Last month, for instance, an Islamic State operative from Syria killed 10 Western tourists through a suicide bombing in Turkey, and on New Year’s Eve a group of 1,000 confirmed Arab and North African asylum-seekers robbed and sexually assaulted literally hundreds of women in Cologne, Germany. Even in the United States, the federal government recently arrested two Iraqi-born refugees, in Sacramento and Houston, for plotting with terror groups and lying about their activity.

As the hearing demonstrated, the controversy surrounding refugees in America has focused almost entirely on the potential threat to national security, and the possibility—or probability, rather—of ISIS capitalizing on open borders to plant insurgents into the country.

While these points are undoubtedly legitimate and signify cause for concern, the potential cultural implications of a large-scale Muslim migration into the United States have, on the whole, been relegated to the sidelines of the national conversation. This part of the discussion is equally important, however, because it exposes how open borders are quite contrary to liberal Americans’ own values and interests.

A Culture Antithetical to American Values
According to available statistics, the vast majority of Syrian refugees that have been admitted to the United States since 2011 are Muslim, and given the fact that only about 10 percent of all global refugees are Christian, it’s safe to infer that the majority of refugees settling in other parts of the globe are also Muslim.

Many liberals have apparently forgotten how marginalized groups are treated in the majority-Muslim countries of the Middle East.


In their rush to appear as compassionate champions of Syrian refugees, many liberals have apparently forgotten how marginalized groups are treated in the majority-Muslim countries of the Middle East. According to a report by the World Health Organization in 2013, rates of domestic violence are the highest by far in the Muslim countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.

It’s only been within the past 15 to 20 years that women have gained access to political rights and offices in some of these countries, yet despite this, women are still openly harassed in public, completely undermined by many of their states’ legal systems, and severely restricted from basic civil rights, particularly the freedoms of choice and expression. Incredibly, it’s still not uncommon for young women to be forced to marry someone who rapes or assaults them—a reality that stems from regional religious and cultural views of honor.

Gays have it even worse than women. Homosexual behavior and LGBT expression is either illegal or severely restricted in all countries of the Middle East besides Israel, and punishments include lifelong imprisonment or execution. Indeed, Israel is the only country in the region that recognizes same-sex marriage, provides for adoption by same-sex couples, and allows gays to serve in the military. As for transgender individuals, the Left’s darling new minority group? Only Israel, Iran, and Syria provide legal recognition for changes in gender identity.

Is it really the progressive thing to do to grant indefinite sanctuary to individuals who are committed to such fundamentally different ways of life?
Recent events in Europe show that incoming refugees are not so quick to abandon their native cultural attitudes. Last month, gay refugees in the Netherlands had to be moved to separate facilities after other refugees attacked them, and across Europe facilities are being built specifically for LGBT refugees because of at least a hundred reports of assault.

The Cologne attacks clearly demonstrate that many refugees have no qualms assaulting and robbing women, and several other European countries have been dealing with a spike in rapes in migrant-heavy areas for the past several years. This has lead some, like Norway, to institute classes at asylum centers teaching refugees how to treat women properly.

While this may help prevent further attacks, it likely won’t be that easy for refugees to conform to Western cultural standards so quickly. After all, many have grown up in extremely patriarchal societies where any scantily clad woman is understood to be a prostitute and even the slightest display of skin is taken as an invitation for sex.

Is it really the progressive thing to do to grant indefinite sanctuary to individuals who are committed to such fundamentally different ways of life? This is a question that liberals—especially women and gays—should ask themselves before jumping into the open border abyss.

A Potential Long-Term Problem

all of the article here:
Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism

 

[American_Jihad]

What Stephanie does not understand - well I don't have the time to outline all of that - is that we were conceived and dedicated to be a pluralistic society

[A pluralistic society is a diverse one, where the people in it believe all kinds of different things and tolerate each other's beliefs even when they don't match their own]

"all men are created equal" and yet many in our society have rejected this fundamental ethos of our nation based on the color, language, religion or politics of others.

from San Francisco Bay Area HA HA ROLMAO you silly stupid man, look what those BEASTS are doing to the EU and the world, wake the fuck up...

 

[Agit8r]

Whether some cultures are better than others can only be determined by comparing and contrasting them.

Jacobin Reason: Contrasting abortion stance of 11 GOP Candidates -- 11 Sharia Governments

 

[American_Jihad]

Maher to Gloria Steinem: Why Isn’t Anti-Woman Sharia Law a Bigger Feminist Issue?
byJosh Feldman| February 5th, 2016

Bill Maher spoke with iconic feminist Gloria Steinem tonight about a cause he thinks more feminists should care about: radical Islamic law.

He brought up how horribly women are treated in the Muslim world and asked why it isn’t a bigger feminist issue. Steinem argued that it actually is, pointing to feminists in Muslim nations attempting to push reforms.

She said that “all monotheism is a problem,” but Maher jumped in to say that Islamic nations are particularly horrible to women and bad on women’s rights.

...

Maher to Gloria Steinem: Why Isn’t Anti-Woman Sharia Law a Bigger Feminist Issue?

 

[bripat9643]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

 

[bripat9643]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

 

[bripat9643]

"...define the Left...."

The Left: those who do not agree with the Founders, e.g., a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

 

[MaryL]

Sharia law is mixing church and state. It is anti-constitutional. Palin and simple. Opps, Plain and simple.

 

[Stephanie]

Sharia law is mixing church and state. It is anti-constitutional. Palin and simple. Opps, Plain and simple.

You were doing ok until that ending. too bad because you wiped out it making any sense good grief. you let your hate for someone ruin your life?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sharia hates multiculturalism almost as much as the OP does.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Left would say that they do agree still but they aren't Libertarians or Anarchists. They also live in a vastly more complicated world than the Founders did.

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

My people invented those...

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit. The left is hostile to all of those ideals. They've proved it over and over and over again.

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

My people invented those...

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler invented freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government?

 

[skye]

Why are we even talking about the Middle Ages? and Sharia Law?

Pleazzzzzzzzzze

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Times change but they aren't hostile just what you aren't, somewhat realisic and caring of others.

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

My people invented those...

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler invented freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government?

They invented what we defeated and rejected.

 

[bripat9643]

They are hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government. "Caring" means taking money from the people who earned it to give to their favored deadbeat constituents. There's nothing "realistic" about spending like there's no tomorrow and trying to destroy the energy industries that drive America's economy.

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

My people invented those...

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler invented freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government?

They invented what we defeated and rejected.

But they were your people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your dogma doesn't interest me.

I know. You're hostile to freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government.

My people invented those...

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler invented freedom, individualism and limited Constitutional government?

They invented what we defeated and rejected.

But they were your people.

Nope.