CDZ Christian Hate Groups

[Coyote]

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

Yes, and you've provided examples, like the following:

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values.

We also had implemented policies to regulate and control who got in, supported assimilation goals, and at various points banned immigration for years as well. We also deported many. It isn't 1720 any more.

You mean like the Chinese Exclusion act and other xenophobic measures? I don't consider that to be a particularly proud moment in our history. That doesn't mean however I believe in utterly unregulated immigration either.

Doesn't matter whether you personally feel proud about it. We also heavily restricted immigration from 1920 to 1965, which allowed the assimilation of the millions who poured in from the 1880's to 1910. Yes, it takes that long for assimilation to take hold. We are under zero moral obligation to take anybody in, nor allow any immigrant to remain, either. We take in far, far more than our 'fair share'; the pro-refugee bleeding hearts need to start sniveling about all those other countries out there to start taking them in. there are plenty of Muslim countries Muslim 'refugees' can go. They aren't' our problem.

I disagree. We have a moral obligation to take in those less fortunate, who wish to come, work hard, and make a new life for themselves. Not in unlimited numbers, but the moral obligation is there. That applies to any religion. We do not, fortunately, exclude immigrants or refugees on the basis of religion and I hope that never comes about. People who's ancestors found a new life here are quick to slam the door.

It's arguable as to whether it is our problem or not....our actions in Iraq began the destabilization that led to the rise of ISIS. We bear some ethical responsibility.

 

[320 Years of History]

Agreed, but common sense doesn't prevail with the open border/hillaryobama crowd, so, we remain racists and bigots.

Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.
― René Descartes​

Or as W.C. Fields said,

"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ”​

 

[Picaro]

I disagree. We have a moral obligation to take in those less fortunate, who wish to come, work hard, and make a new life for themselves.

No, we don't, and never did. We have the right to control our borders, and we have the right to not let in more people when we are struggling to care for those already here. Economic 'refugees' aren't an moral obligation, and as I said there are many other countries out there, they can assume their moral obligations.

Not in unlimited numbers, but the moral obligation is there.

no, it isn't, by any standards.

That applies to any religion.

No, it doesn't; that's just a gimmick slogan.

We do not, fortunately, exclude immigrants or refugees on the basis of religion and I hope that never comes about.

Islam is a political ideology; we can and should exclude them.

People who's ancestors found a new life here are quick to slam the door.

Take that slogan to Islamic countries, and see if it sells there.

It's arguable as to whether it is our problem or not....our actions in Iraq began the destabilization that led to the rise of ISIS. We bear some ethical responsibility.

The actions of Saddam Hussien are Iraq's problems; we bear no responsibility for his actions, nor ISIS; we honored our defense agreements with surrounding states. It's their own fault they preferred to degenerate into mindless savagery; nobody made them do it, and they reaped what that sowed. So did Syria. The UN and Obama declared those of the Christian religion were not 'refugees', after all, so you're not being honest about 'not excluding refugees on the basis of religion'. We do it all the time. What you really mean is Muslims should be at the front of the line.

 

[jasonnfree]

Deny same rights -- like being against same sex marriage or being against men that identify as women using women's restrooms and locker rooms.
How far away is saying "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God" is from saying "Kill the fags"? I suspect speaking out about the sinfulness of homosexuality gets many christian groups labeled as Hate Groups.

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

 

[Coyote]

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

I disagree. We have a moral obligation to take in those less fortunate, who wish to come, work hard, and make a new life for themselves.

No, we don't, and never did. We have the right to control our borders, and we have the right to not let in more people when we are struggling to care for those already here. Economic 'refugees' aren't an moral obligation, and as I said there are many other countries out there, they can assume their moral obligations.

When we talk about refugees, we aren't talking about economic migrants. We are talking about refugees that are usually fleeing horrific conditions - persecution, war, etc. Let's keep our terms clear. We clearly disagree on whether the US has an ethical obligation to help them. There are many other countries out there that ARE assuming their moral obligations far in excess of their capacity to absorb and fund it: Turkey, Lebenon, and Jordan have taken the vast majroity of them.

Not in unlimited numbers, but the moral obligation is there.

no, it isn't, by any standards.

Well, we clearly disagree there.

That applies to any religion.

No, it doesn't; that's just a gimmick slogan.

It's a fundamental principle of our nation.

We do not, fortunately, exclude immigrants or refugees on the basis of religion and I hope that never comes about.

Islam is a political ideology; we can and should exclude them.

Just because a few bigots decided a couple decades ago that they hated Islam and therefore Islam is all-of-a-sudden not a religion does not make a 1700 year old faith "not a religion". That's a dangerous path to follow for any religion, not mention ridiculous.

People who's ancestors found a new life here are quick to slam the door.

Take that slogan to Islamic countries, and see if it sells there.

So are you trying to say we should model our culture and policies on those countries with the most restrictive policies and who are among the worst violators of human rights?

It's arguable as to whether it is our problem or not....our actions in Iraq began the destabilization that led to the rise of ISIS. We bear some ethical responsibility.

The actions of Saddam Hussien are Iraq's problems; we bear no responsibility for his actions, nor ISIS; we honored our defense agreements with surrounding states. It's their own fault they preferred to degenerate into mindless savagery; nobody made them do it, and they reaped what that sowed. So did Syria. The UN and Obama declared those of the Christian religion were not 'refugees', after all, so you're not being honest about 'not excluding refugees on the basis of religion'. We do it all the time. What you really mean is Muslims should be at the front of the line.

We bear responsibility for the dissolution of Iraq into factional fighting and the rise ISIS amidst a failed state. A dictator was all that held Iraq together, and our leadership and it's sycophants hadn't a clue about what they were doing.

"...The UN and Obama declared those of the Christian religion were not 'refugees'.."

Where did they claim that they were not refugees? Syrian Christians are clearly refugees. I think you are confusing things. At the time, they said Christians weren't included as those suffering from "genocide" (neither were non-Sunni Muslims)...in fact I think only Azidi's were but that might have changed. You don't have to be a victim of genocide to be classified as a refugee.

 

[Coyote]

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

That doesn't seem to be reflected in real life. Muslims have been living in this country for centuries. They have no problem assimilating or honoring "our" laws, which, as Americans are "their" laws and their birth rate is no higher here than any other group.

 

[jwoodie]

I think it requires a bit more than that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

You seem to equate commercial nonparticipation in a gay wedding with mass murder. How very thoughtful of you.

 

[OldLady]

More like calling for discrimination of homosexuals in housing, jobs, adoption, calling for criminalization of homosexuality. Spreading hate through deliberate disinformation, such as equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or indirectly encouraging violence. For example, look at Gary DeMar, founder of the Christian non-profit "American Vision". He's calling for a more theocratic governance for the US and the death penalty for practicing "sodomites". Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg likewise called for criminalizing homosexuality. The Family Research Institute, Paul Cameron - called for criminalizing homosexuallity in America and claimed he was just fine with Uganda's proposed bill to execute homosexuals.

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate.
That is entirely disproven by the Muslims living in this country.

 

[Coyote]

I think it requires a bit more than that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

You seem to equate commercial nonparticipation in a gay wedding with mass murder. How very thoughtful of you.

You must not have read my post

 

[jwoodie]

I think it requires a bit more than that - such as "kill the fags" or calling for measures which deny them the same rights as others - freedom from discrimmination.

You seem to equate commercial nonparticipation in a gay wedding with mass murder. How very thoughtful of you.

You must not have read my post

Don't you consider refusal to bake a gay wedding cake or cater a gay wedding to be discrimination? Don't you consider discrimination to be an expression of hate? Don't you consider this type of (Christian) hate to be the equivalent of Muslim hate? Don't you think that killing gays is just another form of discrimination against them?

If not, why not?

 

[Brynmr]

If Fox media and presidential candidate Donald Trump among others insist we add to an act of terrorism and hate, a religious qualifier, then is it not fair that we call out Christian hate organizations. There are many of them and just like any other religion they claim to be the followers of God here on earth. It's unclear whether God hates the same people as no clear hate list has arrived from the heavens recently?

Consider for instance 'American Family Association' who are boycotting Target because Target has expressed a well founded American principle of tolerance for diversity. Our preamble has no place in religious hate groups. Hate is an exception in so many areas of society. It's often unclear who to hate at any given time or historic epoch. Hate also varies in intensity and location.

So in fairness to hatred of all sorts, let's all make sure we tag people properly. Your thoughts?

Well first of all, Christians aren't terrorizing the West. Islam is and btw the Christian god isn't the same god as the the Islamic god. We need to keep that straight.

Secondly, just because the 'American Family Association' wants to defend traditional values, this doesn't make it a hate group. Your claim that it is violating tolerance is a misrepresentation of what they're doing. It's a straw man argument.

And finally, hating something isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be a positive that motivate one to good actions against evil - against others who are causing terrible suffering.

 

[Brynmr]

Just because a few bigots decided a couple decades ago that they hated Islam and therefore Islam is all-of-a-sudden not a religion does not make a 1700 year old faith "not a religion". That's a dangerous path to follow for any religion, not mention ridiculous.

Islam does in fact resemble a political ideology much more that it does a religion though I would label Islam the world's biggest cult. The religious element is tiny compared to the political and social aspect of the doctrine.

And btw, I'm not a bigot and neither are others who see through Islam's thin veil of religion. Our understanding of Islam comes from reading it's doctrine and it's history. Islam is like no other religion. It's different and it's not at all dangerous to know it's true nature and to expose it. It's dangerous not to, as we continually see around the world.

 

[Brynmr]

Don't you consider refusal to bake a gay wedding cake or cater a gay wedding to be discrimination? Don't you consider discrimination to be an expression of hate?

Let's look at the definition of discrimination:

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing



'Yes' to your first question and 'not necessarily' to your second. It depends on how we are defining 'discrimination'. The bakery had no intention of treating people unfairly. Their choice was a kind of discrimination based on their own beliefs not on an unfair treatment of their clientele. And we discriminate all the time - nothing wrong with that as long as it's not an unfair treatment. Discrimination is good for us and good for society. We need it. Same with hate. Hate is merely a strong dislike of something. It's often good for us to strongly dislike some things. What you're trying to do here is control the narrative by using a narrow definition of 'discrimination' and applying it unjustly to the bakers of the cake. Your reasoning is: hate is bad, discrimination is hate, therefore discrimination is bad. Doesn't work like that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Koshergrl, ??? if anything they are the extreme opposite of open and free societies.

The link below was in another thread, but it is relevant here too.

Here’s how right-wing Christians share the blame for the massacre in Orlando

.

I read the link, but I don't understand how you can believe right wing Christians should share the blame for the massacre in Orlando.

because they have been told to say that

independent thought and reason has been thrown out the window

with the average leftist

 

[Brynmr]

If you don't like the christians' attitudes about homosexuality, then you probably won't like to live in America under a hillary presidency, since she intends to roll out the welcome mat for muslim refugees in far greater numbers than obama even. You might even have get one of those nasty noisy guns to defend yourself.

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate.
That is entirely disproven by the Muslims living in this country.

Not so. The good American Moslems are good in spite of Islam not because of it. They are in fact bad Moslems according to the teachings of Islam. Your argument can be easily reversed by focusing on the Moslem terror cells in America.

 

[Coyote]

No she doesn't, numbers will still be quite small, refugees will still require the same lengthy vetting and anyone entering this country will have to obey our laws. That's the part you guys keep skipping. Vetting may not be 100% perfect - but it's worked well over all so far.

How do you do lengthy vetting of people from the middle east? Ask their governments to send copies of their birth certificates, finger prints, and criminal background checks? How about testing them for disease? Not a chance. Let's say they all are disease free and not criminals or jihadists for sake of argument.

Neither of us are involved in the process, but given that it's worked well so far, I have no problem with it. The only way to have 100% guarantee is to have a police state...is that what you want? Refugees are given a medical examination before they enter the country.

What good does it do our country to bring them here? They don't speak the language, have different values than ours. Their women have many more children than the women in our country do. More children equals more schools to be built, more teachers, more special programs for learning English etc and so on. We have Americans in need, including the homeless, many of whom are veterans. It's said that each refugee will initially cost the taxpayers $20,000 the first year. I would rather see an American in need receive that help.

Actually, there's a lot of misconception there.

We are a country built on immigrants who arrived without English and with different cultural values. So what? They became Americans.

Studies have shown family size is dependent more on prosperity and education levels then on culture and by the next generation, even the first, family sizes are no different than those of native born Americans.

I don't believe this is a zero-sum problem - that if we help one group, the other group loses support. We should and must help veterans and homeless, and we should and must help refugees. We can do both. Many refugees are also sponsored by groups such as churches etc. who likewise work to end homelessness and help veterans. For them, they are not mutually exclusive.

We don't need a police state to control our borders. Just enforce the laws. As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate. They have many children too. Good luck thinking we won't go the way of Europe if we get stuck with 4 or 8 years of hillary, who will be worse than obama on muslim immigrants. Betcha billary and hill don't allow syrian refugees anywhere near their house in NY. Wanna bet? Same with all the open boarder crowd.

As far as muslims, common sense dictates that we don't allow any more to come here. They obviously honor no other laws but the ones outlined in the koran, so they will never assimilate.
That is entirely disproven by the Muslims living in this country.

Not so. The good American Moslems are good in spite of Islam not because of it. They are in fact bad Moslems according to the teachings of Islam. Your argument can be easily reversed by focusing on the Moslem terror cells in America.

I doubt it's "inspite of". There is plenty of material in the Quran emphasizing tolerance, charity, forgiveness and peace.

 

[Coyote]

Just because a few bigots decided a couple decades ago that they hated Islam and therefore Islam is all-of-a-sudden not a religion does not make a 1700 year old faith "not a religion". That's a dangerous path to follow for any religion, not mention ridiculous.

Islam does in fact resemble a political ideology much more that it does a religion though I would label Islam the world's biggest cult. The religious element is tiny compared to the political and social aspect of the doctrine.

And btw, I'm not a bigot and neither are others who see through Islam's thin veil of religion. Our understanding of Islam comes from reading it's doctrine and it's history. Islam is like no other religion. It's different and it's not at all dangerous to know it's true nature and to expose it. It's dangerous not to, as we continually see around the world.

Then perhaps your understanding is a shallow one? It's only been in the past couple of decades that folks are claiming it's "not a religion". It's certainly not much different than Judaism or Christianity - more similar than different.

 

[Brynmr]

Not so. The good American Moslems are good in spite of Islam not because of it. They are in fact bad Moslems according to the teachings of Islam. Your argument can be easily reversed by focusing on the Moslem terror cells in America.

I doubt it's "inspite of". There is plenty of material in the Quran emphasizing tolerance, charity, forgiveness and peace.

Those peaceful earlier verses were abrogated by the more violent later verses.

 

[Coyote]

Not so. The good American Moslems are good in spite of Islam not because of it. They are in fact bad Moslems according to the teachings of Islam. Your argument can be easily reversed by focusing on the Moslem terror cells in America.

I doubt it's "inspite of". There is plenty of material in the Quran emphasizing tolerance, charity, forgiveness and peace.

Those peaceful earlier verses were abrogated by the more violent later verses.

Not entirely - that's a misunderstanding of "abrogated".

Myths About "The Verse of the Sword" | Qur’anic Studies

 

[Brynmr]

Just because a few bigots decided a couple decades ago that they hated Islam and therefore Islam is all-of-a-sudden not a religion does not make a 1700 year old faith "not a religion". That's a dangerous path to follow for any religion, not mention ridiculous.

Islam does in fact resemble a political ideology much more that it does a religion though I would label Islam the world's biggest cult. The religious element is tiny compared to the political and social aspect of the doctrine.

And btw, I'm not a bigot and neither are others who see through Islam's thin veil of religion. Our understanding of Islam comes from reading it's doctrine and it's history. Islam is like no other religion. It's different and it's not at all dangerous to know it's true nature and to expose it. It's dangerous not to, as we continually see around the world.

Then perhaps your understanding is a shallow one? It's only been in the past couple of decades that folks are claiming it's "not a religion". It's certainly not much different than Judaism or Christianity - more similar than different.

I used to think Islam was a kind of Christianity without pews. Islam is nothing like Christianity nor are their 2 gods and 2 prophets. Entirely different. It's only been the past few decades that Islam has been on the rise and attacking our way of life. We have had to do catch up and we have. Many of us have spent years reading up on Islamic theology and law.