The Common Denominator: Islam

[NYcarbineer]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

 

[Kondor3]

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Typical Liberal hyperbull.

But we can work to create legislation that recognizes Islam as a hybrid cultural-political mechanism disguised as a religion, and, therefore, not to be treated in the same fashion at-law as other far less volatile and far less violence-prone religions.

Islam is a cancer, and entirely and completely incompatible with The West - a poison pill that we would do well to recognize as such.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Typical Liberal hyperbull.

But we can work to create legislation that recognizes Islam as a hybrid cultural-political mechanism disguised as a religion, and, therefore, not to be treated in the same fashion at-law as other far less volatile and violence-prone religions.

Islam is a cancer, and entirely and completely incompatible with The West - a poison pill that we would do well to recognize as such.

Then you agree with the idea that we should amend the Constitution so we can ban Islam.

At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

 

[Kondor3]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

 

[Pogo]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

Then we'd have people claiming "Islam isn't a religion but atheism is".

How far we've come.

 

[Pogo]

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Typical Liberal hyperbull.

But we can work to create legislation that recognizes Islam as a hybrid cultural-political mechanism disguised as a religion, and, therefore, not to be treated in the same fashion at-law as other far less volatile and far less violence-prone religions.

Islam is a cancer, and entirely and completely incompatible with The West - a poison pill that we would do well to recognize as such.

Didn't you just turn around and agree with what you started by calling "hyperbull"?

I don't see a difference except euphemistically.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Beside some Neanderthal moron....you....who has suggested that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

Then we'd have people claiming "Islam isn't a religion but atheism is".

How far we've come.

Did you mention atheism?

Just put your foot in your mouth again:

"Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union out on Tuesday. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority."
There Are 13 Countries Where Atheism Is Punishable by Death - The Wire

 

[Pogo]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

Then we'd have people claiming "Islam isn't a religion but atheism is".

How far we've come.

Did you mention atheism?

Just put your foot in your mouth again:

"Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union out on Tuesday. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority."
There Are 13 Countries Where Atheism Is Punishable by Death - The Wire

..... and??

Are you just unaware that there are those among us who would maintain that "atheism is a religion"? Here's an entire thread about that myth. Therefore I noted the irony that given the idea expressed above of also redefining Islam into not-a-religion, if such wackularity were to actually stick we would end up, presumably as a collective, declaring that one major world religion isn't a religion at all, while simultaneously the absence of one particular modality of many religions, IS a religion.

How in the wide world of **** is that "foot in the mouth"?

On the contrary, it would bring the delicious irony of using the base dynamic of atheism -- denial that a concept exists -- and applying it to deny that an entire religion exists.

Is all of this over your pointy little head?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Beside some Neanderthal moron....you....who has suggested that?

You did with this thread.

 

[Kondor3]

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

I show you the legal device by which such objections will be swept aside, if-and-when that becomes a necessity.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I seem to recall that after the Fort Hood shooter claimed 13 lives while shouting Allahu Akhbr and later claiming that he did it for jihad against infidels, the government publicly announced that the act was solely an act of "disgruntled workplace violence."
An advisor to the president is a member of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the Muslim Brotherhood. Anyone in or outside of the government that speaks out against Islam, is branded an Islamaphobe.
Republicans and Democrats alike are afraid to speak out against Islam for fear of being branded the same.
The USA needs a new third political party that stands up to Islam and its adherents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...At least you're honest about it compared to the rest of the phonies in this thread, including the OP.

I doubt that the Constitution would need to be amended.

It would only require Federal -level legislation which re-classifies the way in which Islam is viewed at-law.

If it is no longer (or not purely) a religion - at-law - then a variety of Constitutional issues evaporate.

lol, so you think, you actually think, that we could persecute peaceful Muslims by passing a law that declares their religion not to be a religion.

Then we'd have people claiming "Islam isn't a religion but atheism is".

How far we've come.

Did you mention atheism?

Just put your foot in your mouth again:

"Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union out on Tuesday. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority."
There Are 13 Countries Where Atheism Is Punishable by Death - The Wire

..... and??

Are you just unaware that there are those among us who would maintain that "atheism is a religion"? Here's an entire thread about that myth. Therefore I noted the irony that given the idea expressed above of also redefining Islam into not-a-religion, if such wackularity were to actually stick we would end up, presumably as a collective, declaring that one major world religion isn't a religion at all, while simultaneously the absence of one particular modality of many religions, IS a religion.

How in the wide world of **** is that "foot in the mouth"?

On the contrary, it would bring the delicious irony of using the base dynamic of atheism -- denial that a concept exists -- and applying it to deny that an entire religion exists.

Is all of this over your pointy little head?

Earlier you were forced to posit that there was a similar homicidal element in Christianity....

....of course that was a stupid position.

Now I used your reference to atheism to show that there are entire nations for which the penalty is death.....and all are Muslim nations.


Say something else stupid....and only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Beside some Neanderthal moron....you....who has suggested that?

You did with this thread.

Not a day goes by that you are not shown to be a low-life, dirt-eating liar.

Today is usual for you.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Barbarian scum are of the Islamic religion. They belief in it is so twisted that they have become a disease........which is growing...................

That is the bottom line.

 

[Jroc]

Don't tell me what I must do, you moron.

Namecalling is proof that you've lost the argument. Isn't that one of your beliefs?

No.

Vulgarity is.

What you call 'name calling' is accurately describing.
I'm good at that.

Okay, then you're a mentally retarded bigot. Happy now?

So do you seroiusly equate world wide islamic terrorism that occurs on a daily basis with chrisitian violence? Do you see them as equivalent? One reaps as much death as the other? Do you really want to appear as being that foolish?

Both are being conducted by a minority of that religion's extremists. The vast majority of each religion's adherents do not participate in that violence or condone it. In that they are certainly comparable. However, the main difference seems to be that with one religion you are willing to blame the entire religion for the acts of it's extremists yet cry foul when the other religion is tarred in a similar way. In order to do that, of course, you have to be able to show that the entire religion is at fault by attacking it's Holy Book, yet that falls apart when closely examined as the Bible contains far more calls to violence - unrestricted violence - than the Quran.

Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion. And the factors leading to this rise in extremism are complex and more than simply religion.

You're the one who is ignorant to equate the two. There is no comparison, 10s of thousands are killed in the name of islam lets keep it real shall we?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Namecalling is proof that you've lost the argument. Isn't that one of your beliefs?

No.

Vulgarity is.

What you call 'name calling' is accurately describing.
I'm good at that.

Okay, then you're a mentally retarded bigot. Happy now?

So do you seroiusly equate world wide islamic terrorism that occurs on a daily basis with chrisitian violence? Do you see them as equivalent? One reaps as much death as the other? Do you really want to appear as being that foolish?

Both are being conducted by a minority of that religion's extremists. The vast majority of each religion's adherents do not participate in that violence or condone it. In that they are certainly comparable. However, the main difference seems to be that with one religion you are willing to blame the entire religion for the acts of it's extremists yet cry foul when the other religion is tarred in a similar way. In order to do that, of course, you have to be able to show that the entire religion is at fault by attacking it's Holy Book, yet that falls apart when closely examined as the Bible contains far more calls to violence - unrestricted violence - than the Quran.

Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion. And the factors leading to this rise in extremism are complex and more than simply religion.

You're the one who is ignorant to equate the two. There is no comparison, 10s of thousands are killed in the name of islam lets keep it real shall we?

So how should we punish the innocent Muslims?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...Extremists are the problem - not a particular religion...

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Beside some Neanderthal moron....you....who has suggested that?

You did with this thread.

Not a day goes by that you are not shown to be a low-life, dirt-eating liar.

Today is usual for you.

Yes, making a monkey out of you is the usual for any given day.

 

[Jroc]

That argument is now beyond threadbare, and few buy into it any longer.

Really? Can we start killing the innocent Muslims with impunity then?

Can we use gas chambers as an exercise in efficiency?

Beside some Neanderthal moron....you....who has suggested that?

You did with this thread.

Not a day goes by that you are not shown to be a low-life, dirt-eating liar.

Today is usual for you.

Yes, making a monkey out of you is the usual for any given day.

You're the "monkey" displaying your stupidity daily