CDZ Islamification of The West

[jc456]

so the statement is still valid that why do people who have a washed up country, want to come to other countries and make them washed up like where they left? I do have issues with progressive failures. moving one's failed culture to another's world to fail theirs is unimaginative.

Why'd the pilgrims come to Plymouth Rock?
Why'd the Irish immigrate?
Why'd the Italians immigrate?

They should've stayed in their washed up countries, right?

Why'd the pilgrims come to Plymouth Rock?
Why'd the Irish immigrate?
Why'd the Italians immigrate?

To start a fair and free country. To prosper and live in peace. Not to end up in the same mess they left. Why is it these style iimmigrants wish to transform our country to the likes of the one they left?

Do you know the constitution and immigration laws?

 

[Arianrhod]

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

If I say, "the devil made me do it", does that make my action right if I am lopping off heads?

If you truly believe it, do you see it as "right"?

I believe the head loppers think they are doing it in the name of Allah and they think it is right. I do not believe in Allah as my God and I do not believe they are right in their head lopping ways.

Emphasis mine. See, that's a little different (or just clearer) than your initial statement. It's not what's objectively right or wrong (every human culture proscribes murder in at least a general sense), but what the perp believes is right or wrong.

No one gets up in the morning and, like a cartoon villain, announces "Today I will DO EVIL - BWAHAHAHAHA!"

It's their belief - however twisted - that what they're doing is for the greater good.

You know that line about staring into the abyss? If Westerners allow themselves to become as narrow and vengeful as the extremists they fear, they become - at least in their thinking - as counterproductive as the extremists.

I have clearly explained my position no one else here has any confusion my language, context, syntax or intention. Sorry but I am not here to discuss semantics.

You actually clarified your position in Post #674, and I appreciate that.

 

[Tilly]

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the thread, but that's the position of the OP, and several people here.

Because we have already taken in enough.

I didn't realize there was a cap. Do you know how many millions of English, Irish, Dutch, Danish, German, Italian, Russian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Mexican and Cuban immigrants we've taken in?

No, and it's completely irrelevant to the OP.

It's precisely relevant if you have any understanding of American history, and specifically related to nativists' fears of immigrants for the past 200 years. (And how unfounded they ended up being).

The op is about islamification.

 

[jc456]

nor is not knowing what the argument is actually about. Which party is currently fighting for the rights of islamics?

Any party fighting for the rights of all U.S. citizens under the Constitution is a party fighting for "islamics".

FYI, "Islamics" isn't a word.

woahhhhh there, who said anything about US citizens here. You've jumped the road. Bringing islamics into this country is not bringing in US citizens. so, do you wish to try again?

Did you know that U.S. citizens are not the only group that have rights under the constitution?

not if they're not here.

Well if they're not here, then I'm not sure what the discussion is about when you bring up the issue of Americans and rights.

I stated the libs were fighting for a group of people who suppress women's rights and on the other hand in the US fight for women's rights. its hypocritical? Yes.

 

[Arianrhod]

There is no doubt a problem in the Muslim community with extremism.

It does not follow that we should wholesale reject refugees fleeing from said extremism.

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the thread, but that's the position of the OP, and several people here.

Because we have already taken in enough.

I didn't realize there was a cap. Do you know how many millions of English, Irish, Dutch, Danish, German, Italian, Russian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Mexican and Cuban immigrants we've taken in?

No, and it's completely irrelevant to the OP.

Why?

 

[jc456]

The trouble is, I see the same lack of tolerance here that is attributed to the Muslims. If we value our rights and freedoms then they must exist equally for all members of our society as long as they follow the laws of our country.

Once you start placing restrictions on those rights, based not on individual actions, but on beliefs or percieved beliefs, then you endanger the entire foundation of our country.

Exactly. It's a bit difficult to take Christian criticism of Islam seriously when so many of them cheered on Donald Trump's statement that he'd put a ban on all Muslims entering the country.

Talk is cheap, head lopping is death.


There is a difference.

How many Muslims in the U.S. are running around lopping off heads?

You're correct, there is a difference.

well two shot up a bunch of Californians. isn't death still death whether they have a head or not?

Especially killing people who gave gifts and were kind to the individuals shooting them. wow. just wow. I still can't believe it.

 

[Arianrhod]

The op is about islamification.

Which is a nonsense word made up by people looking for media attention to foment fear. Reading this thread, it seems they're succeeding.

If your country had truly been "Islamified," you'd be wearing a burka and not allowed to post on this board.

 

[jc456]

The op is about islamification.

Which is a nonsense word made up by people looking for media attention to foment fear. Reading this thread, it seems they're succeeding.

If your country had truly been "Islamified," you'd be wearing a burka and not allowed to post on this board.

and that is the fight eh? to keep it ours.

 

[Arianrhod]

well two shot up a bunch of Californians.

As compared to how many other Californians shot up other Californians that day, and how many of them were Islamic terrorists?

 

[Arianrhod]

The op is about islamification.

Which is a nonsense word made up by people looking for media attention to foment fear. Reading this thread, it seems they're succeeding.

If your country had truly been "Islamified," you'd be wearing a burka and not allowed to post on this board.

and that is the fight eh? to keep it ours.

Shadow-boxing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't defend "any and all things" Islamic. I defend freedom of religion and tolerance for other faiths, how ever much we may dislike them. I also oppose broadbrushing all members of a faith as is often done when discussing religion.

The trouble is, I see the same lack of tolerance here that is attributed to the Muslims. If we value our rights and freedoms then they must exist equally for all members of our society as long as they follow the laws of our country.

Once you start placing restrictions on those rights, based not on individual actions, but on beliefs or percieved beliefs, then you endanger the entire foundation of our country.

I know what the automatic answer is going to be: but they're endangering OUR society, rights and values. No. They aren't unless they are committing criminal acts and in that case, it's up to the legal process to sort that out like any other criminal. This is an age-old argument that has come up with every major immigrant influx into the U.S. and yet, here we are, stronger than ever in our ethnic diversity and shared values.

Your admitting that Islamic societies are built upon intolerance for anything but Islam was good enough for me.

I found such candor refreshing, as many who lend themselves to the Islamic agenda do so without knowing anything at all about what they are supporting rather than doing so knowingly.

 

[jc456]

well two shot up a bunch of Californians.

As compared to how many other Californians shot up other Californians that day, and how many of them were Islamic terrorists?

why does that matter are you saying that justifies it? really?

 

[jc456]

The op is about islamification.

Which is a nonsense word made up by people looking for media attention to foment fear. Reading this thread, it seems they're succeeding.

If your country had truly been "Islamified," you'd be wearing a burka and not allowed to post on this board.

and that is the fight eh? to keep it ours.

Shadow-boxing.

still our fight eh?

 

[Coyote]

I don't defend "any and all things" Islamic. I defend freedom of religion and tolerance for other faiths, how ever much we may dislike them. I also oppose broadbrushing all members of a faith as is often done when discussing religion.

The trouble is, I see the same lack of tolerance here that is attributed to the Muslims. If we value our rights and freedoms then they must exist equally for all members of our society as long as they follow the laws of our country.

Once you start placing restrictions on those rights, based not on individual actions, but on beliefs or percieved beliefs, then you endanger the entire foundation of our country.

I know what the automatic answer is going to be: but they're endangering OUR society, rights and values. No. They aren't unless they are committing criminal acts and in that case, it's up to the legal process to sort that out like any other criminal. This is an age-old argument that has come up with every major immigrant influx into the U.S. and yet, here we are, stronger than ever in our ethnic diversity and shared values.

Your admitting that Islamic societies are built upon intolerance for anything but Islam was good enough for me.

Where did I say that?

I found such candor refreshing, as many who lend themselves to the Islamic agenda do so without knowing anything at all about what they are supporting rather than doing so knowingly.

Again, where did I say that?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

......Which places your continuous defense of any and all things Islamic in their proper context.

You do so knowing that it will lead to a destruction of freedom of religion and tolerance.

So, tolerating Islam in western nations will lead to the destruction of freedom of religion?

How?

Tolerating the ultimate intolerance is not actually furthering tolerance.

It is simple abetting intolerance.


As Islam grows and spreads, tolerance diminishes. Islam is all ABOUT intolerance, since it was created as a quasi-religious totalitarian political system that wages continual war on all other ways of life.

Are you arguing against freedom of religion?

Since you admitted that wherever Islam prevails such freedom disappears, I will leave that to you.

 

[Coyote]

All religiously governed societies are built upon intolerance - I can't think of one that is truly egalitarian in nature or where all are truly equally tolerated, because there is one group that is the "right group".

 

[jc456]

All religiously governed societies are built upon intolerance - I can't think of one that is truly egalitarian in nature or where all are truly equally tolerated, because there is one group that is the "right group".

then what are the islamic folks fighting against?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

All religiously governed societies are built upon intolerance - I can't think of one that is truly egalitarian in nature or where all are truly equally tolerated, because there is one group that is the "right group".

.......and as Islam continues to grow in Europe , then European countries will be governed by religious intolerance eventually.

 

[Coyote]

......Which places your continuous defense of any and all things Islamic in their proper context.

You do so knowing that it will lead to a destruction of freedom of religion and tolerance.

So, tolerating Islam in western nations will lead to the destruction of freedom of religion?

How?

Tolerating the ultimate intolerance is not actually furthering tolerance.

It is simple abetting intolerance.


As Islam grows and spreads, tolerance diminishes. Islam is all ABOUT intolerance, since it was created as a quasi-religious totalitarian political system that wages continual war on all other ways of life.

Are you arguing against freedom of religion?

Since you admitted that wherever Islam prevails such freedom disappears, I will leave that to you.

Answer the question - are you arguing against freedom of religion? In other words, is "tolerance" in western countries reserved for only approved religions (assuming all are acting lawfully)?

As far as freedoms - that is less dependent on religion than it is on many other factors such as governance, stability, education, culture etc. Business Insider posted a list of "Least Free" countries, and it includes non-Islamic as well as Islamic majority countries: The 15 least free countries in the world I think anytime religion begins to interfere with government freedoms begin to diminish for minorities - I'm an advocate of strict seperation between religion and governance.

If Islam is "all ABOUT" intolerance that is not universally shared among it's adherents who's views vary depending on where in the world they live.

 

[Tilly]

All religiously governed societies are built upon intolerance - I can't think of one that is truly egalitarian in nature or where all are truly equally tolerated, because there is one group that is the "right group".

.......and as Islam continues to grow in Europe , then European countries will be governed by religious intolerance eventually.

We already have that to some degree, with the misogynistic sharia courts stripping women of their human rights.