Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“Should europe tolerate islam?”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?
In the above case, it would not be a matter of the society excluding a religion, but of the religion excluding itself. The rules of the game would be (and are) up front, apparent. There is no secret. A religion that imposed itself would be justly repudiated. If the religion pushed matters to more than intellectual repudiation, that unfortunate situation would result in its forceful suppression.Any free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
Any free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
I hope you can see that this man with the name "the society" alias "Thomas Jefferson" was a man who paved the way for everyone who displaces people. This sentence is criminal stupid. Racism pure. Fundamentalism pure. Contempt for mankind.
So go ahead and tell us all about what you would been if born in those days instead of the present: a Big Giant Social Justice Warrior, right? lol lol lol
And, we can note nobody can find anything wrong with that statement.
You're still a crank.
Any free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
I hope you can see that this man with the name "the society" alias "Thomas Jefferson" was a man who paved the way for everyone who displaces people. This sentence is criminal stupid. Racism pure. Fundamentalism pure. Contempt for mankind.
So go ahead and tell us all about what you would been if born in those days instead of the present: a Big Giant Social Justice Warrior, right? lol lol lol
About 50 years before Tom Jefferson was born lived "The Old Fritz" (King Friedrich II) in Prussia. Fritz was fascinated from the enlightenment - although he was an absolute ruler. But he called himself "the first servant of the state". It's said one day some people watched a caricature of him. He came and liked to know what the people were looking at. Then he saw the caricature and called from the back "You have to hang it higher so everyone is able to see it!". When they realized now that the king personally spoke with them they answered with a joyful applause and shouted "Long live the king!". When I would had to live in this time of history then to be one of his dogs could had been a good choice.
And, we can note nobody can find anything wrong with that statement.
You're still a crank.
I was very astonished when I heard the first time in my life that Charly Chaplin was not the lovely US-American I always thought he was. Your nation banned this Brit. So let me say: A nation which hates Charly Chaplin (bad man) and loves Donald Trump (good man) is indeed a mystery to me.
I can’t believe you are trying to make case that somehow slavery in America was somehow betterAny free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Thomas Jefferson...he was a slaver owner right?
UInlike Muslim slavers, he never subjected hi male slaves to full frontal castration. If you think you can make a moral equivalency argument between Americans, where the importation of slaves outlawed within a mere decade or so after its founding, and gone in another 6 decades, with Islam's history, ore the treatment of them at any time, you will lose badly.
The Peanut Gallery can also note how few blacks there are in the ME today, after many centuries of trading in African slaves. That's because the Arabs murdered them all, and still do when they outlive their 'usefulness'.
I can’t believe you are trying to make case that somehow slavery in America was somehow betterAny free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Thomas Jefferson...he was a slaver owner right?
UInlike Muslim slavers, he never subjected hi male slaves to full frontal castration. If you think you can make a moral equivalency argument between Americans, where the importation of slaves outlawed within a mere decade or so after its founding, and gone in another 6 decades, with Islam's history, ore the treatment of them at any time, you will lose badly.
The Peanut Gallery can also note how few blacks there are in the ME today, after many centuries of trading in African slaves. That's because the Arabs murdered them all, and still do when they outlive their 'usefulness'.
That is truly pathetic. As to blacks in the ME...ever checked out Egypt? Libya? Morocco?
Again, you ignore the reality of slavery in America. It was no better than in the Arab world. Trying to make the case that it was some how any degree above is patently ignorant.I can’t believe you are trying to make case that somehow slavery in America was somehow betterAny free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Thomas Jefferson...he was a slaver owner right?
UInlike Muslim slavers, he never subjected hi male slaves to full frontal castration. If you think you can make a moral equivalency argument between Americans, where the importation of slaves outlawed within a mere decade or so after its founding, and gone in another 6 decades, with Islam's history, ore the treatment of them at any time, you will lose badly.
The Peanut Gallery can also note how few blacks there are in the ME today, after many centuries of trading in African slaves. That's because the Arabs murdered them all, and still do when they outlive their 'usefulness'.
That is truly pathetic. As to blacks in the ME...ever checked out Egypt? Libya? Morocco?
Have you? There is no doubt "AMERICAN SLAVERY" was brutal-----actual
chattel slavery. The black slave was disposable property. In fact THAT was the church position for millennia------bit it was also the shariah position for more than 1000years. To some extent----the misery of slavery was dependent on the
whim of the owner. In Islamic law----a slave that CONVERTS to islam ----is in far better position than one who does not. Acceptance of Christianity----as far as
I can tell-----did not do the American slave any "LEGAL" advantage. Getting back to blacks-------in arab societies BLACKS are disparaged. Try to live with fact, COYOTE DEAR------avoid that wishful thinking thing. -------in fact---BLACKS are disparaged thruout the UMMAH
Again, you ignore the reality of slavery in America. It was no better than in the Arab world. Trying to make the case that it was some how any degree above is patently ignorant.I can’t believe you are trying to make case that somehow slavery in America was somehow better"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Thomas Jefferson...he was a slaver owner right?
UInlike Muslim slavers, he never subjected hi male slaves to full frontal castration. If you think you can make a moral equivalency argument between Americans, where the importation of slaves outlawed within a mere decade or so after its founding, and gone in another 6 decades, with Islam's history, ore the treatment of them at any time, you will lose badly.
The Peanut Gallery can also note how few blacks there are in the ME today, after many centuries of trading in African slaves. That's because the Arabs murdered them all, and still do when they outlive their 'usefulness'.
That is truly pathetic. As to blacks in the ME...ever checked out Egypt? Libya? Morocco?
Have you? There is no doubt "AMERICAN SLAVERY" was brutal-----actual
chattel slavery. The black slave was disposable property. In fact THAT was the church position for millennia------bit it was also the shariah position for more than 1000years. To some extent----the misery of slavery was dependent on the
whim of the owner. In Islamic law----a slave that CONVERTS to islam ----is in far better position than one who does not. Acceptance of Christianity----as far as
I can tell-----did not do the American slave any "LEGAL" advantage. Getting back to blacks-------in arab societies BLACKS are disparaged. Try to live with fact, COYOTE DEAR------avoid that wishful thinking thing. -------in fact---BLACKS are disparaged thruout the UMMAH
“Should europe tolerate islam?”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?
A truly ignorant and ridiculous question.
Islam has been part of Europe for centuries, no more or less ‘tolerated’ than Christianity or Judaism.
The notion that Islam is somehow ‘foreign’ or ‘alien’ to Europe is as wrong as it is bigoted.
Any free society is obliged to 'live and let live' regarding religions. When a religion has principles that are contrary to the rest of that society, intellectual campaigns pointing out differences and perceived errors should also be able to be presented. Society protecting a religion from criticism should not be tolerated.
"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry-
A saner, more practical response is Jefferson's solution to such social problems:
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
The Founders were quite fond of deportation.
Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.
Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
I hope you can see that this man with the name "the society" alias "Thomas Jefferson" was a man who paved the way for everyone who displaces people. This sentence is criminal stupid. Racism pure. Fundamentalism pure. Contempt for mankind.
So go ahead and tell us all about what you would been if born in those days instead of the present: a Big Giant Social Justice Warrior, right? lol lol lol
About 50 years before Tom Jefferson was born lived "The Old Fritz" (King Friedrich II) in Prussia. Fritz was fascinated from the enlightenment - although he was an absolute ruler. But he called himself "the first servant of the state". It's said one day some people watched a caricature of him. He came and liked to know what the people were looking at. Then he saw the caricature and called from the back "You have to hang it higher so everyone is able to see it!". When they realized now that the king personally spoke with them they answered with a joyful applause and shouted "Long live the king!". When I would had to live in this time of history then to be one of his dogs could had been a good choice.
And, we can note nobody can find anything wrong with that statement.
You're still a crank.
I was very astonished when I heard the first time in my life that Charly Chaplin was not the lovely US-American I always thought he was. Your nation banned this Brit. So let me say: A nation which hates Charly Chaplin (bad man) and loves Donald Trump (good man) is indeed a mystery to me.
I bet soup is a mystery to you.
... Islam is alien to EUROPEAN ETHOS …
... Islam is alien to EUROPEAN ETHOS …
Do the words "Aristotle" and "the interpreter" say something to you?
I wasn't talking about your underwear.Depends. ...
In any free country, any religion may be criticized. Any country where a religion cannot be criticized is not free.
who cares
the Europeans have crapped in their own bed
f em
who cares
the Europeans have crapped in their own bed
f em
no man is an island......
