I Bet You'll Agree With Evangelist Pat Robertson on This Topic!

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone use religion as a basis for being an American?

Haven't we learned anything?

 

[Lakhota]

Crazy asshole Pat Robertson isn't worth 8 minutes of my life regardless of what he said.

 

[Coyote]

Nope. Don't agree at all.

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I Bet You'll Agree With Evangelist Pat Robertson on This Topic!

You'd lose that bet.

Robertson is just as ignorant and hateful as you and other like-minded rightists.

Why do you call a desire to preserve the non-Muslim way of life and maintain peace in America ignorant and hateful?

It's ignorant and hateful because it's predicated on a fallacy, the errant perception that all Muslims are 'the same,' that the acts of a tiny minority of Muslim extremists is 'representative' of all Muslims, and the aberrant interpretations of the Koran 'representative' of all Islam.

Millions of Muslim Americans are part of American society, where no one is seeking to compel a 'Muslim way of life.' To infer that isolated, anecdotal incidents and statements by deranged extremists reflect the beliefs of all Muslims is ridiculous and inane.

There is nothing to 'fear' from Islam; indeed, your fear and hatred of Muslims is completely unwarranted, as Islam does not pose a 'threat' to America – where the same cannot be said of your ignorance and hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then just do the math. "There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world's population, making Islam the second-largest religion." (Pew Research)

Now let's just say for shits and giggles that 0.5% of them are radicals. That would mean there are 8,000,000 radical Muslims in the world. Really? Think so?

Seeing how a bedrock principle of Islam, not disputed by any of the 5 schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, is that the penalty for apostasy against Islam is death, it follows that every adherent of Islam is a radical.

Screw this fictional 0.5% proportion that you concocted out of thin air. If you believe that someone who rejects Islam should be put to death, and to be a Muslim you have to believe that just like to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus rose from death, then you are a radical prepared to kill someone who insults your faith.

Yet another example of the ignorance and hate common to many on the right.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It's ignorant and hateful because it's predicated on a fallacy, the errant perception that all Muslims are 'the same,'

It's always interesting to watch an argument based on principle run against the non-compliance of reality. What will the proponent do, stick to principle or acknowledge reality?

All Muslims are not the same. All Nazis are not the same. All Al Queda members are not the same. What kind of basis for argument is that? Nazis all held true to a particular philosophy, just like Muslims do. Some Nazis lived their lives true to their philosophy and others didn't. Do you give the skinhead who wants to date your daughter a pass if he's not out there actively killing Jews but believes that Jews should be sent to the ovens? Look, he's not the same as those SS camp guards who actually did send Jews to the ovens, he's different.

You apparently don't hold people accountable for their beliefs, just for their actions. OK. Other people though do attach significance to beliefs. They find it entirely defensible to hate a Nazi for believing that Jews should be sent to the ovens and to hate a Muslim for believing that all apostates to Islam should be put to death. They don't actually require a Muslim to have killed an apostate in order to feel it legitimate to condemn them.

that the acts of a tiny minority of Muslim extremists is 'representative' of all Muslims, and the aberrant interpretations of the Koran 'representative' of all Islam.

What happens when Islam reaches some threshold in a society, a threshold well below majority status? Society begins to accommodate the demands of Muslims and Muslims drop their facade and become more honest about their positions:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.​

Millions of Muslim Americans are part of American society, where no one is seeking to compel a 'Muslim way of life.'

And the mugger leading you into the dark alley hasn't actually mugged you while he's leading you deeper into the shadows. Then he mugs you. Too late for you.

American Muslims still don't have the critical societal mass to compel change though CAIR is most certainly punching above its weight class in terms of influencing the behavior of American institutions, politicians and individuals. How many news organizations in America published the Danish Cartoons? There was a huge amount of public interest and all news organizations ignored that interest in order to appease American Muslims. That's a pretty impressive show of influence on the part of American Muslims. That influence will only grow as their community in America grows.

The UK is an excellent example of what is in store for America as Islam grows.

Data point #1:

POLICE are understood to have confiscated a collection of porcelain pigs from the front window of a woman's house in the same road as Leicester's main mosque following a complaint from local Muslims that the display was offensive.​

Data point #2:

A headteacher has defended her decision to ban books which contained stories about pigs from some classes in case it offended Muslims.

The literature has been removed from classes for under-sevens at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, West Yorkshire.​

There is nothing to 'fear' from Islam; indeed, your fear and hatred of Muslims is completely unwarranted, as Islam does not pose a 'threat' to America – where the same cannot be said of your ignorance and hate.

Why not? Point us to a society where the Muslims are not European and which replicates the attitudes of Western Civilization.

You have nothing to fear from a house fire, see, your house IS NOT ON FIRE at the moment. Don't pay any attention to little Billy in the burn ward and the fact that his parents died in a house fire. That's different. Right now your house is not on fire and that means it will never, ever be on fire. Be at ease for a liberal has spoken and has used liberal logic, which is the best kind because it always returns happy results and never has to answer to reality.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Then just do the math. "There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world's population, making Islam the second-largest religion." (Pew Research)

Now let's just say for shits and giggles that 0.5% of them are radicals. That would mean there are 8,000,000 radical Muslims in the world. Really? Think so?

Seeing how a bedrock principle of Islam, not disputed by any of the 5 schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, is that the penalty for apostasy against Islam is death, it follows that every adherent of Islam is a radical.

Screw this fictional 0.5% proportion that you concocted out of thin air. If you believe that someone who rejects Islam should be put to death, and to be a Muslim you have to believe that just like to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus rose from death, then you are a radical prepared to kill someone who insults your faith.

Yet another example of the ignorance and hate common to many on the right.

Excellent refutation there. Can you send me info on the "Liberal School of Logic" that you attended for I would love to master this technique of yours "Refutation by assertion and vacuous condemnation."

Arguments based on substance, evidence, and reason are so passe.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nope. Don't agree at all.

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

This is an interesting mindset to watch as it plays out. Nowhere in the world do Muslim communities earn a good reputation. To a liberal this is of no consequence.

What's important is the liberal exhibiting to all that he is tolerant. What does it mean to be tolerant? It means that one has no standards that one is willing to defend, that one cannot be judgmental. To be judgmental is to be boorish and declasse.

Can a liberal point to another Western nation which has a Muslim community which earns top marks for having actually IMPROVED the society of that Western nation and then argue that we should be emulating what that Western nation has done? No, they can't. That though doesn't matter because all non-liberal critics simply don't understand what it is that they're witnessing.

The liberal doesn't really care about what is in the best interests of his own society, he cares about projecting an image of himself to his peers. He's entirely comfortable with using public policy as the means to boost his own self-image as a tolerant person. That's what counts.

 

[Mojo2]

Nope. Don't agree at all.

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

Because you have no recourse if they want more than you are happy to give.

The situation in the world today borders on the fantastic.

Never before in history has one civilization allowed large numbers of those who come from an alien, and immutably hostile situation, to settle deep within that first civilization”s borders.

Never before have the members of one civilization failed to investigate, and even willfully refused to investigate, or to listen to those who warn about, the consequences for all non-Muslims of the belief-system of Islam.

In history, the phenomenon of the Barbarians at the Gates is hardly new. Those barbarians lay siege; if they win, they enter in triumph. Should they lose, the advanced civilization survives.

But never before have the gates been opened, to an entering force that has not even been identified or understood.

Never before have the inhabitants of the by-now vulnerable city made efforts not to recognize, or realize, what they have done, and what they have undone.

That demographic intrusion shows no signs of diminishing. The systematic building of mosques and madrasas, paid for by Saudi Arabia, everywhere in the Western world, helps to make the conduct of Muslim life easier.

Western populations have been trained to make much of “celebrating diversity” and “promoting difference” and constructing, on a base of militant but unexamined pluralism, an edifice of legal rights and entitlements. These rights, these entitlements, this militant pluralism are exploited by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism.

Nor do they accept the individual rights of conscience and free speech, the legal equality of men and women, and of religious and racial minorities, recognized, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Their current claim to support pluralism is based on the need to protect, and increase the power of, the Muslim umma, or Community, within the West, until such time as that umma no longer needs to pretend to have any interest in Western pluralism and Western values.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/01/fitzgerald-islam-for-infidels-part-one

That is why not.

 

[Mojo2]

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

This is an interesting mindset to watch as it plays out. Nowhere in the world do Muslim communities earn a good reputation. To a liberal this is of no consequence.

What's important is the liberal exhibiting to all that he is tolerant. What does it mean to be tolerant? It means that one has no standards that one is willing to defend, that one cannot be judgmental. To be judgmental is to be boorish and declasse.

Can a liberal point to another Western nation which has a Muslim community which earns top marks for having actually IMPROVED the society of that Western nation and then argue that we should be emulating what that Western nation has done? No, they can't. That though doesn't matter because all non-liberal critics simply don't understand what it is that they're witnessing.

The liberal doesn't really care about what is in the best interests of his own society, he cares about projecting an image of himself to his peers. He's entirely comfortable with using public policy as the means to boost his own self-image as a tolerant person. That's what counts.

By Jove, you've hit the nail on it's head!

Brilliant!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How long before all Women are Subjugated in Sweden?

 

[Mojo2]

The rightwing NO nothings always have to have a boggy man, in the past it was Blacks an Jews taking over their western white christian "kulture"

So, tell us which part of the Dar al Islam are you from that you refer to our culture, whether referring to the Right Wing or to Blacks or to Jews or to our "western white christian" culture as a foreigner would.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The rightwing NO nothings always have to have a boggy man, in the past it was Blacks an Jews taking over their western white christian "kulture"

How is it that you Progressives have this contrived "War on Women" boogy man, yet you support Islam simultaneously? Do you want women to be oppressed again in America?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Not our decision, but the first point is crucial; Muslims & anarchists, and most Arabic faiths are not "leftist".

Anarchists are as far left as you can be.

There is very little distinction, if any at all, between anarchists and Libertarians.

There's a huge one, it's fact it's what separates us. Thomas Paine takes the Libertarian point of view. Read the highlighted part in particular:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

A Libertarian is aware the the lack of a state is a power vacuum that leads to localized civil war among the dissolved regions.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

So you want to listen to someone who claims he saw a 900 foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma?

 

[Mojo2]

It's ignorant and hateful because it's predicated on a fallacy, the errant perception that all Muslims are 'the same,'

It's always interesting to watch an argument based on principle run against the non-compliance of reality. What will the proponent do, stick to principle or acknowledge reality?

All Muslims are not the same. All Nazis are not the same. All Al Queda members are not the same. What kind of basis for argument is that? Nazis all held true to a particular philosophy, just like Muslims do. Some Nazis lived their lives true to their philosophy and others didn't. Do you give the skinhead who wants to date your daughter a pass if he's not out there actively killing Jews but believes that Jews should be sent to the ovens? Look, he's not the same as those SS camp guards who actually did send Jews to the ovens, he's different.

You apparently don't hold people accountable for their beliefs, just for their actions. OK. Other people though do attach significance to beliefs. They find it entirely defensible to hate a Nazi for believing that Jews should be sent to the ovens and to hate a Muslim for believing that all apostates to Islam should be put to death. They don't actually require a Muslim to have killed an apostate in order to feel it legitimate to condemn them.

that the acts of a tiny minority of Muslim extremists is 'representative' of all Muslims, and the aberrant interpretations of the Koran 'representative' of all Islam.

What happens when Islam reaches some threshold in a society, a threshold well below majority status? Society begins to accommodate the demands of Muslims and Muslims drop their facade and become more honest about their positions:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.​

Millions of Muslim Americans are part of American society, where no one is seeking to compel a 'Muslim way of life.'

And the mugger leading you into the dark alley hasn't actually mugged you while he's leading you deeper into the shadows. Then he mugs you. Too late for you.

American Muslims still don't have the critical societal mass to compel change though CAIR is most certainly punching above its weight class in terms of influencing the behavior of American institutions, politicians and individuals. How many news organizations in America published the Danish Cartoons? There was a huge amount of public interest and all news organizations ignored that interest in order to appease American Muslims. That's a pretty impressive show of influence on the part of American Muslims. That influence will only grow as their community in America grows.

The UK is an excellent example of what is in store for America as Islam grows.

Data point #1:

POLICE are understood to have confiscated a collection of porcelain pigs from the front window of a woman's house in the same road as Leicester's main mosque following a complaint from local Muslims that the display was offensive.​

Data point #2:

A headteacher has defended her decision to ban books which contained stories about pigs from some classes in case it offended Muslims.

The literature has been removed from classes for under-sevens at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, West Yorkshire.​

There is nothing to 'fear' from Islam; indeed, your fear and hatred of Muslims is completely unwarranted, as Islam does not pose a 'threat' to America – where the same cannot be said of your ignorance and hate.

Why not? Point us to a society where the Muslims are not European and which replicates the attitudes of Western Civilization.

You have nothing to fear from a house fire, see, your house IS NOT ON FIRE at the moment. Don't pay any attention to little Billy in the burn ward and the fact that his parents died in a house fire. That's different. Right now your house is not on fire and that means it will never, ever be on fire. Be at ease for a liberal has spoken and has used liberal logic, which is the best kind because it always returns happy results and never has to answer to reality.

 

[Mojo2]

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

So you want to listen to someone who claims he saw a 900 foot Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma?

Want to try that again, Billo?

 

[Billo_Really]

Want to try that again, Billo?

My bad. I was thinking of Oral Roberts.

 

[Coyote]

Oh, so you want more Muslims in America?

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

This is an interesting mindset to watch as it plays out. Nowhere in the world do Muslim communities earn a good reputation. To a liberal this is of no consequence.

Untrue.

What's important is the liberal exhibiting to all that he is tolerant. What does it mean to be tolerant? It means that one has no standards that one is willing to defend, that one cannot be judgmental. To be judgmental is to be boorish and declasse.

Can a liberal point to another Western nation which has a Muslim community which earns top marks for having actually IMPROVED the society of that Western nation and then argue that we should be emulating what that Western nation has done? No, they can't. That though doesn't matter because all non-liberal critics simply don't understand what it is that they're witnessing.

The liberal doesn't really care about what is in the best interests of his own society, he cares about projecting an image of himself to his peers. He's entirely comfortable with using public policy as the means to boost his own self-image as a tolerant person. That's what counts.

Meh.

All you can resort to is a bunch of lofty fallacious insults and talking points.

Look at Muslim communities in the US.

 

[Mojo2]

Sure - why not? I don't care what their religion is. If they are willing to come, obey our laws, work hard and make a life for themselves - why not?

This is an interesting mindset to watch as it plays out. Nowhere in the world do Muslim communities earn a good reputation. To a liberal this is of no consequence.

Untrue.

What's important is the liberal exhibiting to all that he is tolerant. What does it mean to be tolerant? It means that one has no standards that one is willing to defend, that one cannot be judgmental. To be judgmental is to be boorish and declasse.

Can a liberal point to another Western nation which has a Muslim community which earns top marks for having actually IMPROVED the society of that Western nation and then argue that we should be emulating what that Western nation has done? No, they can't. That though doesn't matter because all non-liberal critics simply don't understand what it is that they're witnessing.

The liberal doesn't really care about what is in the best interests of his own society, he cares about projecting an image of himself to his peers. He's entirely comfortable with using public policy as the means to boost his own self-image as a tolerant person. That's what counts.

Meh.

All you can resort to is a bunch of lofty fallacious insults and talking points.

Look at Muslim communities in the US.

What about them?

They are insular. They needn't change much in order to live here. Halal restaurants and groceries and butchers. And these businesses provide conveniently low bars for employing newly arrived Muslims without papers, by the way. And in this way these individuals can exist here indefinitely.

And with growing numbers of constituents in those communities they can sue for greater muslim representation in government and Shariah courts and all kinds of things.

So, yeah.

What about those communities?