CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[saveliberty]

And I think you have presented a very skewed and unrealistic view of Christians, Christianity, and the degree that Christians use the Christian faith to control government.

I have been part of, participated in, and been in leadership and management positions in Christian organizations all of my quite lengthy life. There are a few fanatics out there as there are in all groups. These people would use government inappropriately for their purposes. But they are in too small a demographic--a demographic that is significantly shrinking over time--to be a problem.

It's interesting that you use the term "inappropriately" in light of the fact that you, like most dominionists, do not believe in the separation of Church & State.

CDZ - Of the Church and State

You, and many other Christians, support encroachment into public settings by the predominant religion (your faith). You support tacit public endorsement of faith by putting religious expressions on public building, using public lands for religious displays during holidays, and pushing for (Christian) prayers to be offered in schools.

I don't find muslims scarier than I do dominionists.

But we should be aware that if you give the Mullahs power, they will almost always install and enforce Sharia law. And that is just a fact as witnessed by history.

So how is that different from people who push to display the 10 commandments in the court room?

Further, Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims.

So what is Sharia Law to me?

And you just violated just about every concept of the CDZ by telling me what I believe, what I am, what I support. I suggest that you please edit your post.

Foxfyre makes a valid claim, perhaps it can be edited to reduce the personal, while still making the points? A lot of us are new to this concept Foxfyre, bear with us.

 

[GaryDog]

And I think you have presented a very skewed and unrealistic view of Christians, Christianity, and the degree that Christians use the Christian faith to control government.

I have been part of, participated in, and been in leadership and management positions in Christian organizations all of my quite lengthy life. There are a few fanatics out there as there are in all groups. These people would use government inappropriately for their purposes. But they are in too small a demographic--a demographic that is significantly shrinking over time--to be a problem.

It's interesting that you use the term "inappropriately" in light of the fact that you, like most dominionists, do not believe in the separation of Church & State.

CDZ - Of the Church and State

You, and many other Christians, support encroachment into public settings by the predominant religion (your faith). You support tacit public endorsement of faith by putting religious expressions on public building, using public lands for religious displays during holidays, and pushing for (Christian) prayers to be offered in schools.

I don't find muslims scarier than I do dominionists.

But we should be aware that if you give the Mullahs power, they will almost always install and enforce Sharia law. And that is just a fact as witnessed by history.

So how is that different from people who push to display the 10 commandments in the court room?

Further, Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims.

So what is Sharia Law to me?

And you just violated just about every concept of the CDZ by telling me what I believe, what I am, what I support. I suggest that you please edit your post.

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

 

[saveliberty]

Jewish women in most ALL countries have full secular rights and it's OPTIONAL to void the religious marriage contract. Not an Orthodox woman in the Western countries forced to remain in a marriage because of a religious contract. HER choice how to deal with the fall-out (if any) of jilting the religious authority. Plenty of other rabbis would remarry her without voiding the Ketubah.. Don't ask me how I know..

How do you know? ...

Ah skip it, seems reasonable that modern allowances have been made.

 

[saveliberty]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

 

[flacaltenn]

100% of Muslims would be a huge stretch and isn't supported by any poll I have seen. However, a majority of Muslims across the world, shielded by an anonymous poll, still believe Sharia is the revealed word of God/Allah and should be the law of the land. Publically, Mudda is probably right that close to 100% would say that as ramifications for speaking against the Qu'ran can be quite terrible.

View attachment 75448
Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

But as for Christians, all we have to do is look at our laws in a predominantly Christian country to know that those who would have the secular law reflect Biblical law are in short supply.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but the last poll of U.S. Muslims I saw, about 40% said they would support Sharia as the law of the land. About 12% of those would support the most extreme version including execution for blasphemy, etc.

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

"Rational" strikes me as an attempt to justify bigotry.

Well, that certainly lays down the gauntlet.

Support the most bigoted, intolerant ideology on the planet that has war against all other ideologies built into its very fabric, or be called a bigot.

What an Orwellian choice. I guess I'll be the bigot, and you can be the double plus good unbigot, then.

It's a religion that incorporates a wide variety of beliefs and practices that differ around the world. It incorporates many of the same tenants and rules and intolerances as it's two related religions - they all have a shared ideology. They all have texts that call for some pretty crappy behavior and considerable intolerance as well as calls for good behavior and tolerance. The problem - in my opinion - is not the actual theology, but what followers choose to take from it, and that choice is what seperates the ancient world from the modern world. A rational view would realize that, and would attack the practices and beliefs that go against modern principles of tolerance and equality and support the ones that work towards tolerance and equality. A rational view would recognize extremism for what it is, and find ways to marginalize it so it doesn't affect vulnerable people with its propoganda. A rational view recognizes that not all Muslims believe the same and that they represent many different cultures.

Any religious prescription for morals and life that is so ambiguously written that it ALLOWS the constant creation of hateful militant groups would not be a very good religion.

Except it's not "constant" - it's relatively recent and it's driven by many many factors beyond just religion. It's also not unique - Christianity has undergone similar upheavels and "hateful" militancy through it's history. These religions along with Judaism, are unique in that they have written texts (do any others?) that are very old, have been written by multiple authors, often long after the deaths of the major players, reinterpretted by religious-political powers and through many languages. They are full of contradictions. That means it isn't that difficult to pick and choose your message if you are so inclined and it's why so many crazy cults and militant groups can spring up. I don't think that makes it a bad religion because there is also much good in each.

But here's the deal -- I don't hate Islam. I hate the Arab cultures and values that have taken those ANCIENT world concepts and BROUGHT them into the MODERN world. The fact is that successful Arab nations are built around tyrannical authority and INFUSED with theological baggage. When TYRANTS control the politics -- they always abuse the "religious" part of their authority. Happened to Christians before as well when STATE -SPONSORED Inquisitions and crusades were mounted. NONE of that would have happened without state sanction.

And with that I fully agree!

And TODAY -- a large portion of the Muslim extremism that we are worrying about are state supported PROXIES for clashes WITHIN the Arab culture. Iran supporting Hamas in Gaza and proxies in Syria is a good example of Arab Imperialism.. They all want to kill each other essentially.

Now that SHOULD in principle make the US and EU IMMUNE to this constant carnage. But because the THEOLOGY is mixed with the POLITICAL --- These militant Jihadists that are making the news DAILY with senseless killings and violence are pissed at their FORMER Arab leaders whom they see as PUPPETS of Western influence. And of course our stupid destructive efforts to "democratize" the Arab world. We took multiple swats at the bee hive. And so the West (and Israel and moderate Arab countries) are the prime targets.

Truth.

The only reason the militancy and violence have not been "constant" in the Arab world is that in MODERN history, Arab lands fell under the jurisdiction of outside powers. Thomas Jefferson went to war with the Barbary Pirates who were terrorizing sea lanes and taking hostages to Tripoli..

The US does have a unique situation in that Islam has a chance to thrive in secular Western Societies. But it must be isolated from the perverse abusive Islam that exists today in the world. . And THAT is where "Islamaphobia" stems from. A righteous concern to isolate ourselves from chaos and violence. It protects the American Islamic community as well to do so.

So doing something as stupid as the Europeans have just done -- would never be tolerated here. We need to COMPLETELY vet refugees from Arab violence. OR BETTER -- provide safe zones and representation for them in the Mid East UNTIL we can sort them out.

Why that has not happened --- is a crime. Should have been UN administered safe zones in Syria 2 years ago...

 

[GaryDog]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

 

[saveliberty]

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

Yet you prefer here versus there, which shows a preference for the way we do things. All be it flawed in your opinion.

 

[GaryDog]

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

Yet you prefer here versus there, which shows a preference for the way we do things. All be it flawed in your opinion.

I don't think "Hey, we're better than Pakistan!" should be on our travel brochures. Do you?

 

[Ravi]

So, your reaction against intolerance is, intolerance?

Is that what I said or what you want it to mean? Sounds to me like I am trying to get a working model to solve a problem, while maintaining Constitutional rights.

You said some compromise needed in western values to deal with this problem.

That western value being tolerance, not?

If not, what is the western value that you would compromise then?

There's the Melting Pot history, restricting religion, invasions of privacy and so on. I am not keen on compromise with these, but we are looking at any viable option and debating them.

Personally, I think the measures we have in place are working pretty well and should continue. I would not support any measures restricting religion - I think that would hit hard at a core principle of our country - more so than invasions of privacy.

I think where there needs to be more focus though, is on the less obvious things. Extremists like ISIS are adept at using social media to target vulnerable people - in particular, children. It's heart breaking to listen to parents who's children have been stolen by ISIS and most had no idea until it was too late. Once they've been to Syria, then their return is much more problematic for security.

I think the emphasis should be less on refugees where the vetting is among the best (nothing is perfect) and more on what is happening to our kids at home.

There is not a single person on the National Security Council, the CIA, or the FBI who will say we have ANY process in place to vet Syrian and or any other refugees Obama wants to bring in. That's saying there are NO measures in place to do that.

That isn't remotely true.

 

[flacaltenn]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

Closing businesses on Sunday or curtailing liquor sales til noon are not really comparable to slaying converts or stoning marital infidelity. In fact, if you TRY IT -- it's actually charming. Makes you THINK about using the powers of govt to accomplish whimsical and arbitrary things like that. Like legislating that everyone wears plaid on Tuesdays.

And as long as that is a LOCAL CHOICE -- I'm tolerant.. I guess you are not.. Most inconvenienced I've ever been was on biz trips to GERMANY. Where I spent a whole Sunday and about 60 train miles trying to find a pair of shoelaces.. And THAT is likely NOT really a religious edict. They do it because they can..

 

[saveliberty]

That isn't remotely true.

Some officials, including FBI Director James Comey, worry there are what Comey has called "gaps" in the vetting process. Experts say U.S. intelligence in Syria isn't very good, because the U.S. lacks much of a presence on the ground. So there's no way to compile a thorough watch list of possible terrorists from Syria against which refugees can be checked. Administration officials are briefing governors and members of Congress about the process, but lawmakers may try to pass legislation calling on the administration to suspend its refugee resettlement efforts.

4 Things To Know About The Vetting Process For Syrian Refugees

The FBI director has concerns...

 

[flacaltenn]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

And as my last act on this Earth, I would not be OK with FORCING a doc to kill me against their principles or judgement because of fear of the law. That's as bad as the alternative IMHO..

 

[GaryDog]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

And as my last act on this Earth, I would not be OK with FORCING a doc to kill me against their principles or judgement because of fear of the law. That's as bad as the alternative IMHO..

I live in Oregon where we have right to die laws, and at no point is any doctor forced to do anything.

 

[flacaltenn]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

And as my last act on this Earth, I would not be OK with FORCING a doc to kill me against their principles or judgement because of fear of the law. That's as bad as the alternative IMHO..

I live in Oregon where we have right to die laws, and at no point is any doctor forced to do anything.

Really.. So it's NOT the same as an bakery owner telling a gay couple he's not comfortable with doing business and getting his pants sued off? Betcha there's already a lawsuit somewhere..

 

[Foxfyre]

And I think you have presented a very skewed and unrealistic view of Christians, Christianity, and the degree that Christians use the Christian faith to control government.

I have been part of, participated in, and been in leadership and management positions in Christian organizations all of my quite lengthy life. There are a few fanatics out there as there are in all groups. These people would use government inappropriately for their purposes. But they are in too small a demographic--a demographic that is significantly shrinking over time--to be a problem.

It's interesting that you use the term "inappropriately" in light of the fact that you, like most dominionists, do not believe in the separation of Church & State.

CDZ - Of the Church and State

You, and many other Christians, support encroachment into public settings by the predominant religion (your faith). You support tacit public endorsement of faith by putting religious expressions on public building, using public lands for religious displays during holidays, and pushing for (Christian) prayers to be offered in schools.

I don't find muslims scarier than I do dominionists.

But we should be aware that if you give the Mullahs power, they will almost always install and enforce Sharia law. And that is just a fact as witnessed by history.

So how is that different from people who push to display the 10 commandments in the court room?

Further, Sharia Law only applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims.

So what is Sharia Law to me?

And you just violated just about every concept of the CDZ by telling me what I believe, what I am, what I support. I suggest that you please edit your post.

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

Had he addressed my post, I would not have complained. I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with what I say or making their best argument that they believe refutes mine. I relish that kind of exchange.

I do take exceptions when words are put into my mouth--as you did here--or I am accused of belonging to an unattractive group or wanting or believing or fearing whatever when there is nothing in my post that says or suggests that.

How do you get that "I fear mullahs" when I did not say or suggest anything of the sort?

How do you draw the conclusion that my postion is that "the U.S. should not be a secular state" when I said or suggested nothing about that in my post?

I prefer a discussion that doesn't invite a food fight. Hope you understand and please have a pleasant evening.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Proper vetting is an essential first step, yet both the head of the FBI and Homeland Security have said this is not possible with people coming from certain parts of the world, including Syria, for example.

A great many of the migrants entering Europe over the last couple of years were not vetted, had no papers, or had several sets of forged papers, and they were allowed in anyway, even though Isis admitted to using the migrant crisis to flood Europe with thousands of operatives. So we'll see how that turns out.

Another issue is that multiculturalism provides an environment in which fundamentalism can flourish unchecked and hidden from view. This approach to immigration seems to simply encourage a lack of integration and to produce divided societies where the intolerant beliefs you mention can be reinforced by likeminded people and not be as exposed to challenge as they should be.

In the UK 23% of Muslim women speak little or no English, a complete barrier to integration, and a quarter of Muslims want some parts of the U.K. to be governed by sharia law. Over half think homosexuality should be illegal in the UK. Living in a society within a society means that such views are not successfully challenged. Add to this the fact that they can watch non stop Arabic / overseas tv / internet channels, send their kids to islamic schools, have separate Islamic centres for socialising etc etc, and it's easy to see how integration, and exposure to more tolerant views as the norm, can be kept to a minimum, if desired, and even if it isn't particularly.

And no doubt this approach provides a great environment for the Isis terrorists we've welcomed into Europe to remain under the radar, and also fosters the 'them and us' attitude that plays a role in yet more radicalisation of the young. The recent ICM poll also found that 66% of UK Muslims would not inform the authorities if someone close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathisers, ie those likely at the beginning of the process of their radicalisation.

Also, the vast majority of people entering Europe during the migrant crisis have been fighting age angry males. Under the auspices of multiculturalism, these young men will inevitably find themselves in areas where there are high concentrations of Muslims, many of whom are not well integrated in the first place. Not very sensible, IMHO.

Multiculturalism, IMHO, has led to the development of what Trevor Phillips (commenting on the recent ICM poll on UK Muslims) calls a "‘chasm’ and that this has developed "between the attitudes of many British Muslims and their compatriots, driven by their adherence to their faith."

What to do? IDK. Phillips has outlined a strategy he thinks would be successful, I'll post more on that later, assuming the thread remains civil but basically it seems to consist of dismantling the infrastructure of multiculturalism to some degree (for which the champion of the term islamophobia in the UK has been vilified - as an islamophobe - of course. Oh the irony ).

ICM Unlimited | ICM Muslims survey for Channel 4

The issue is globalization, not multiculturalism. I don't understand why you fixate on the ideas of inclusion and multiculturalism. These things are not forces in and of themselves. They are the tools of globalization, the tools of civilization, which simply means techniques by which very diverse groups of people can coexist without killing each other. They are not terribly successful technoiques. Globalization is the force behind it all and globalization is good for business. Whether globalization will succeed or not or if the terrorists will kill it remains to be seen. It's astonishingly ironic. You are fighting for the same thing the terrorists are. You both want to kill globalization. That's why they were so obsessed with the World Trade Center. It was the symbol of globalization. The EU is the ultimate symbol of globalization now, and if it has to pull back on its intended purpose because of a bunch of freaking primitives, we all lose.

 

[Elvis Obama]

This thread is about three types of hate, yes three. The first two are in the title, the third will be that which will most likely display itself in the thread. The CDZ rules state the title should not be inflammatory, this title implies two opposing positions exist. I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society. I am hoping we do not get a display of how opposing views on a subject let hate of the opposition get in the way of working together. Much the same as why we have hate blocking a better world outside the CDZ. I hope that is clear and folks can stay on topic.

The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, and as long as that is true, there will be Islamaphobia. This has nothing to do with people and everything to do with culture. Islamic culture was once the greatest and most vibrant culture on the face of the earth, then they suffered setbacks which caused them to regress and stagnate. Their culture remains locked in that backwards spiral, despite the efforts of the more advanced people in these cultures to promote modernity. We'll take their doctors and software engineers into our culture, but their goat herders? That's cultural suicide.

There is nothing to do with backwards people except to manage them. Right now our efforts to manage them have been hamstrung by our dependence on their oil and the interference of rogue powers like Russia and China. Islamaphobes just make the whole process harder. We should call them what they are, a retrograde culture, and neither hate them for their primitivism, nor pretend their primitivism isn't real (No, see, they're waving purple fingers! The must be democratic!).

 

[Foxfyre]

No he didn't. He accurately quoted you, first of all, then he raised some very valid points about the hypocrisy of your statements.

How do you square fear of "mullahs" with your position that the U.S. should not be a secular state?

Unless you are here and now repudiating your prior statements.

I tease pillars a lot, but it is she. Mullahs are in the ME for the most part and they do have tremendous sway with the populous. As far as the US secular state comment, we have been around over 239 years, still no theocracy here. Seems your "fears" are at least equally unfounded.

While I'm certainly grateful to be an atheist in the U.S., and not some middle eastern theocracy, I certainly don't agree that my fear of Christian dominion is as equally unfounded as some fanciful sharia takeover in Oklahoma. We have state laws that force certain business to close on Sundays. Due strictly to religious reasons, we didn't have marriage equality for the fist 237 years of our republic. We don't have right-to-die laws in almost all states due primarily to religious dogma.

We are very much affected by the superstition of the few.

Closing businesses on Sunday or curtailing liquor sales til noon are not really comparable to slaying converts or stoning marital infidelity. In fact, if you TRY IT -- it's actually charming. Makes you THINK about using the powers of govt to accomplish whimsical and arbitrary things like that. Like legislating that everyone wears plaid on Tuesdays.

And as long as that is a LOCAL CHOICE -- I'm tolerant.. I guess you are not.. Most inconvenienced I've ever been was on biz trips to GERMANY. Where I spent a whole Sunday and about 60 train miles trying to find a pair of shoelaces.. And THAT is likely NOT really a religious edict. They do it because they can..

The Texas Blue Laws were once almost comical. When the people convinced the legislature that the arbitrary no sale of anything non essential on Sunday was disadvantaging people who only had Sunday to shop, they amended the law so that businesses could choose Saturday or Sunday as the day to not sell non essential items. And so when visiting friends in Texas and I needed a pair of panty hose to attend Sunday services, I go to the 7/11 on Saturday. I was advised that Sunday was their day to sell panty hose and they could not sell them to me on Saturday.

And in Kansas, on Sunday we could buy every ingredient you need to make a cookie, but you could not buy cookies already made either in the bakery or off the shelf.

But blessedly that was when the federal government stayed out of local issues and it was the people themselves who applied pressure to their respective legislatures to get rid of these kinds of silly rules. And they did. No protests. No blood shed. No unpleasantness of any kind.

Once the state edicts were removed, any individual community could have whatever rules they wanted about closing on Sunday or anything else like that.

That is the way government is supposed to work.'

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is nothing to do with backwards people except to manage them. Right now our efforts to manage them have been hamstrung by our dependence on their oil and the interference of rogue powers like Russia and China. Islamaphobes just make the whole process harder. We should call them what they are, a retrograde culture, and neither hate them for their primitivism, nor pretend their primitivism isn't real (No, see, they're waving purple fingers! The must be democratic!).

You said that they are a primitive, backwards culture (with which I agree), but also said that "Islamophobes" make the whole process harder.

Any insinuation that their primitive culture is actually objectionable in any way only elicits calls of "Islamophobia", so I'm not sure I understand your point.

 

[Coyote]

That might be the poll referenced in this article: Trump Calls for Ban on Muslims, Cites Deeply Flawed Poll

I'm skeptical of it. Pew on the other hand has a solid reputation for it's methodology.

No, the poll I'm thinking of had absolutely nothing to do with Trump or anything he has said or quoted. But I know quite a few Muslims around here, and the ladies, though imminently talented, personable, and lovely to be around, all wear the traditional hijab. Every single one of them. That would be housewives, managers, store clerks, nurses, doctors, etc. And that absolutely reflects Sharia.

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

But ALL Christians I know do not wear crosses. ALL Muslim women I know do wear the hijab. That's the difference.

There is nothing wrong it it. Some are quite beautiful. But it does reflect an obedience to Sharia law just as the Christian cross usually reflects that the person is Christian.

But others here will tell you they know Muslim women who do not wear hijab. How does their choice of wardrobe affect your life?

It doesn't. I know and associate with numerous Muslim people in our area and ALL the women without exception do wear the hijab. I can't speak for anywhere else. It does not affect my life at all. But the only reason I brought it up was to illustrate the degree that Sharia law affects their lives which was the topic of discussion when I brought it up.

I have to admit, if I Muslim woman does not wear a hajib, I have no idea whether or not she is Muslim (I don't tend to ask)...same with Jewish men who do not wear a kippah...

But the thing is; all your online presence is already being recorded, by either apple, or amazon, or microsoft...

So the problem is not about recording them,
but about accessing them...

Could be me as an older American adjusting, or it could be we need to defend the Constitution better. For now, I am on the protect end.

I think your concern is valid...what are we willing to sacrifice for security?

A secondary question....how much of other people's rights and freedom are people willing to sacrifice?

That's my concern with any measures that single out a broad group.

It's a fine line and no easy answers.