Should europe tolerate islam?

[grbb]

I once read http://americanbikersunitedagainstj...mic-deceit-taqiyya-kitman-tawriya-muruna-etc/

And there are several opinions.

One of it that yes, it should.

Let the muslims believe whatever they want to believe. It's their right. France would stop becoming a free society if it starts meddling with others' people' opinion.

I partially agree with it.

The problem is, France, is a democratic country. The opinions of your fellow citizens will affect how you live.

Imagine if suddenly a large number of people wants to prohibit porn or to stone porn stars. It will be the law of the land.

Another issue is consistency. If germany or france tolerate islam, should they also tolerate nazism and white supremacism? Same logic. If you tolerate one and not the other, you're in the same shit.

What happens is we have an imbalanced secularism. A violent ideology end up being protected because their adherence simply complain too much about how they are being oppressed. A more moderate ideology, like capitalism, is freely attacked and ridiculed.

So what do you think?

 

[BULLDOG]

I once read http://americanbikersunitedagainstj...mic-deceit-taqiyya-kitman-tawriya-muruna-etc/

And there are several opinions.

One of it that yes, it should.

Let the muslims believe whatever they want to believe. It's their right. France would stop becoming a free society if it starts meddling with others' people' opinion.

I partially agree with it.

The problem is, France, is a democratic country. The opinions of your fellow citizens will affect how you live.

Imagine if suddenly a large number of people wants to prohibit porn or to stone porn stars. It will be the law of the land.

Another issue is consistency. If germany or france tolerate islam, should they also tolerate nazism and white supremacism? Same logic. If you tolerate one and not the other, you're in the same shit.

What happens is we have an imbalanced secularism. A violent ideology end up being protected because their adherence simply complain too much about how they are being oppressed. A more moderate ideology, like capitalism, is freely attacked and ridiculed.

So what do you think?

I think it's time for you to put down the bong. I know you think that is a cool OP now, but after you sober up, it might not seem as cool. NEVER POST WHILE YOU ARE STILL HIGH.

 

[grbb]

Another path, which also have some positive, can also be chosen. Countries are sovereigns. That means, it's your country. No body can tell you how to govern yourself. You cannot force Arab not to favor islam. You cannot force the japanese to change their national curiculum. Nor would any country force you to tolerate any religions.

If large number of french people do not like islam and wants to prohibit it, it may be right or wrong, but no body can change that.

Another path is simply moderation.

Which one is best?

1. Tolerate islam, and consistently also tolerate racism, nazism, or any supremacist ideologies
2. Prohibit islam or put restrictions on it
3. Choose moderate path
4. Bend over backward to accommodate your neighbor jihadists?

What do you think germany and french should do?

Anyway, here is a post from islamic stackexchange. It is said that muslims must vote for muslim leaders no matter what. Even if the muslilm leaders are corrupt.

 

[grbb]

I once read http://americanbikersunitedagainstj...mic-deceit-taqiyya-kitman-tawriya-muruna-etc/

And there are several opinions.

One of it that yes, it should.

Let the muslims believe whatever they want to believe. It's their right. France would stop becoming a free society if it starts meddling with others' people' opinion.

I partially agree with it.

The problem is, France, is a democratic country. The opinions of your fellow citizens will affect how you live.

Imagine if suddenly a large number of people wants to prohibit porn or to stone porn stars. It will be the law of the land.

Another issue is consistency. If germany or france tolerate islam, should they also tolerate nazism and white supremacism? Same logic. If you tolerate one and not the other, you're in the same shit.

What happens is we have an imbalanced secularism. A violent ideology end up being protected because their adherence simply complain too much about how they are being oppressed. A more moderate ideology, like capitalism, is freely attacked and ridiculed.

So what do you think?

I think it's time for you to put down the bong. I know you think that is a cool OP now, but after you sober up, it might not seem as cool. NEVER POST WHILE YOU ARE STILL HIGH.

What's wrong? I am not high.

 

[Taz]

I once read http://americanbikersunitedagainstj...mic-deceit-taqiyya-kitman-tawriya-muruna-etc/

And there are several opinions.

One of it that yes, it should.

Let the muslims believe whatever they want to believe. It's their right. France would stop becoming a free society if it starts meddling with others' people' opinion.

I partially agree with it.

The problem is, France, is a democratic country. The opinions of your fellow citizens will affect how you live.

Imagine if suddenly a large number of people wants to prohibit porn or to stone porn stars. It will be the law of the land.

Another issue is consistency. If germany or france tolerate islam, should they also tolerate nazism and white supremacism? Same logic. If you tolerate one and not the other, you're in the same shit.

What happens is we have an imbalanced secularism. A violent ideology end up being protected because their adherence simply complain too much about how they are being oppressed. A more moderate ideology, like capitalism, is freely attacked and ridiculed.

So what do you think?

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

 

[TNHarley]

As long as it doesnt conflict with current law or someone elses rights, why give a shit?

 

[hobelim]

Another path, which also have some positive, can also be chosen. Countries are sovereigns. That means, it's your country. No body can tell you how to govern yourself. You cannot force Arab not to favor islam. You cannot force the japanese to change their national curiculum. Nor would any country force you to tolerate any religions.

If large number of french people do not like islam and wants to prohibit it, it may be right or wrong, but no body can change that.

Another path is simply moderation.

Which one is best?

1. Tolerate islam, and consistently also tolerate racism, nazism, or any supremacist ideologies
2. Prohibit islam or put restrictions on it
3. Choose moderate path
4. Bend over backward to accommodate your neighbor jihadists?

What do you think germany and french should do?

Anyway, here is a post from islamic stackexchange. It is said that muslims must vote for muslim leaders no matter what. Even if the muslilm leaders are corrupt.

What should they do? Learn to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, life and death..... and then make a decision.

You have to choose clean to be cleansed, you have to choose right to become righteous, you have to choose truth to become truthful, you have to choose good to become good.

If you choose unclean you become unclean, If you choose wrong you will be wrong, if you choose false you will become a false person, if you choose evil you will become evil.

Those who choose death die.

Those who choose life live.

 

[grbb]

As long as it doesnt conflict with current law or someone elses rights, why give a shit?

I mostly agree. You have a good point.

The thing is, we are dealing with people that give some shit on what you do even if you don't violate their right. And they can enforce those idea on you even without having to break any laws.

For example:

Is Indonesian Muslim being Lied to by Al Maidah 51?

Here, some muslims claim that muslims must vote for muslim governor. Some tried to further clarify whether that is absolute or is there some leeway. The muslims there are near anonymous and say, yes. It's those muslims own words. Not mine.

Now, imagine if a corrupt muslim governor compete against normal governor. Those muslims would "have to" vote for a corrupt governor because their religions say so. That'll turn your country into a corrupt country.

This will hurt your interests, if not your right.

This same problem may happens on any religion and any ideology. You got to kow tow a little bit to liberalism when there are many liberals voting bloc. You got to kow tow a lot to capitalism when there are a lot of capitalists.

So what?

But here's the kick. It's not you who decide, and it's not even the voters who decide. Sometimes it's decided by judges.

Most muslims are against secularization.

Here, in Indonesia, a governor, Ahok, is jailed, for saying that people are being lied to by using Al Maidah 51. So we no longer have democracy, where everyone can give their opinion and "let the voters" decide.

We have restriction of freedom of speech, where some opinions are prohibited.

An evil incompetent governor can get elected not by making citizens happy. They can get elected by making ulama happy. The ulama will then tell muslims to elect their choice. Those who disagree is sent to jail for "blasphemy".

Not sure how your democracy can handle that. Not in normal way. Not if you keep allowing people or refugee that contribute nothing and can vote just as good as normal citizens.

It's something to think about.

I basically agree with your position. But to think that you shouldn't worry, is not practical.

 

[Votto]

I once read http://americanbikersunitedagainstj...mic-deceit-taqiyya-kitman-tawriya-muruna-etc/

And there are several opinions.

One of it that yes, it should.

Let the muslims believe whatever they want to believe. It's their right. France would stop becoming a free society if it starts meddling with others' people' opinion.

I partially agree with it.

The problem is, France, is a democratic country. The opinions of your fellow citizens will affect how you live.

Imagine if suddenly a large number of people wants to prohibit porn or to stone porn stars. It will be the law of the land.

Another issue is consistency. If germany or france tolerate islam, should they also tolerate nazism and white supremacism? Same logic. If you tolerate one and not the other, you're in the same shit.

What happens is we have an imbalanced secularism. A violent ideology end up being protected because their adherence simply complain too much about how they are being oppressed. A more moderate ideology, like capitalism, is freely attacked and ridiculed.

So what do you think?

I think it's time for you to put down the bong. I know you think that is a cool OP now, but after you sober up, it might not seem as cool. NEVER POST WHILE YOU ARE STILL HIGH.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[grbb]

The question boils down to, should we "tolerate intolerance".

Should you?

I don't know the answer. I got many muslim friends and I like to see a world where people are judges mainly by his productivity, not his group or race. However, many muslims want to judge others based on their group.

This guy wants muslims to be nice to ISIS and wants to kill an Indonesian governor. The governor is now in jail for saying people are being lied to by using religion (as it's not obvious)

Libertarianism is fine. But if countries have to compete with one another I do not see huge problem having some country having harsh stand on some group of people. People belonging to that group can simply go somewhere else. If no countries want to accept them, may be they should ask themselves, why countries think they're problematic.

 

[zaangalewa]

… The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

God-given laws are obsolete in all democracies. Example: Every Muslim has the right to eat "halal" - but he has no right to force anyone else to eat "halal" - also not another Muslim.

Reason: All modern democracies are children of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

 

[Taz]

… The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

God-given laws are obsolete in all democracies. Example: Every Muslim has the right to eat "halal" - but he has no right to force anyone else to eat "halal" - also not another Muslim.

Reason: All modern democracies are children of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

When Muslims are the majority in Germany, you'll all be eating halal. You can thank Angela.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

We see what happens with the Democrats.
They ignore our constitution.
When the Muslims get a large enough voter base they will also start ignoring the laws and start appointing Judges who will help them.
Sharia Laws are not compatible with democracy.
They are not fooling around, they mean it

 

[zaangalewa]

… The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

God-given laws are obsolete in all democracies. Example: Every Muslim has the right to eat "halal" - but he has no right to force anyone else to eat "halal" - also not another Muslim.

Reason: All modern democracies are children of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

When Muslims are the majority in Germany, you'll all be eating halal. You can thank Angela.

Do you really expect an answer on such a stupid hate-filled sentence?

 

[Taz]

… The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

God-given laws are obsolete in all democracies. Example: Every Muslim has the right to eat "halal" - but he has no right to force anyone else to eat "halal" - also not another Muslim.

Reason: All modern democracies are children of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

When Muslims are the majority in Germany, you'll all be eating halal. You can thank Angela.

Do you really expect an answer on such a stupid hate-filled sentence?

You just did answer me. Something about how you call the truth names.

 

[zaangalewa]

… The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so Islam and sharia law should be allowed in the US, not just tolerated.

God-given laws are obsolete in all democracies. Example: Every Muslim has the right to eat "halal" - but he has no right to force anyone else to eat "halal" - also not another Muslim.

Reason: All modern democracies are children of the renaissance and the enlightenment.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

When Muslims are the majority in Germany, you'll all be eating halal. You can thank Angela.

Do you really expect an answer on such a stupid hate-filled sentence?

You just did answer me. Something about how you call the truth names.

 

[Taz]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Zaan is drinking early in the day. But then again, once Muslims are the majority in Europe, they'll be no more booze. So drink up! Prost!!

 

[zaangalewa]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Zaan is drinking early in the day. But then again, once Muslims are the majority in Europe, they'll be no more booze. So drink up! Prost!!

You use now the typical Commie-strategy. Nearly the same strategy use Nazis. This strategy will end with my death, because you (or one of your combatants) will kill me in the end, if your defamations will not be successful. A boring stupid form to "argue". Criminally.

 

[Taz]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Zaan is drinking early in the day. But then again, once Muslims are the majority in Europe, they'll be no more booze. So drink up! Prost!!

You use now the typical Commie-strategy. Nearly the same strategy use Nazis. This strategy will end with my death, because you (or one of your combatants) will kill me in the end, if your defamations will not be successful. A boring stupid form to "argue". Criminally.

WHOA!!! Go easy on the Schnapps!!

 

[zaangalewa]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Zaan is drinking early in the day. But then again, once Muslims are the majority in Europe, they'll be no more booze. So drink up! Prost!!

You use now the typical Commie-strategy. Nearly the same strategy use Nazis. This strategy will end with my death, because you (or one of your combatants) will kill me in the end, if your defamations will not be successful. A boring stupid form to "argue". Criminally.

WHOA!!! Go easy on the Schnapps!!

It's not my problem nor the problem of anyone else in the world, how you are able to justify your perverted form to live in the eyes of god. But let me tell you: There are other ways to live.