Racist or not?

Quote: AZDuffman

I don't have time to answer them all, TLDR.

Was, is and will always be a caricature of a debate. Don't worry, I'm confident that some Christians in positions of religious authority aren't going to entirely stop committing sexual improprieties on children anytime soon, so I'll keep the links coming every few days. You can respond to them as time permits.

Quote:

I am not discriminating at all. I am sounding an alarm. Islam is not compatible with western societies. Look at what is currently happening in Europe. Look at the disaster that was made of Lebanon. When the muslim population hits a 10% or so minority in a country, violence is just around the corner. Don't say you were not warned.

I'll keep that in mind for you. Thanks for the advance warning.

Quote:

Sorry, but historically it is. Societal values and laws are based on Christian (actually Judeo-Christian) values and teachings. Go to a military cemetery and notice the number of crosses. Notice that POTUS swears in on a bible. Unlike an islamic country, outside religions are not banned. But your society has Christian roots from the first landings.

I can stipulate that the nation was founded, in part, on Christian moral principles, but that doesn't make it a Christian nation. A Christian nation would be one that respected the establishment of only one religion, namely, Christianity and would be a very dangerous place indeed.

I mean, if you want to try to compel adherents of other religions to become Christians, that's technically fine, but you're supposed to do it without judging them or their religion categorically.

Ephesians 4:2 "Be completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love."

2 Timothy 4 1-2: "Correct, rebuke and encourage, with great patience and careful instruction."

Romans 14:1 "Accept him whose faith is weak without passing judgment on his opinions."

Romans 14:4 "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another, it is before his own lord that he stands or falls."

Romans 14:10 "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"

Matthew 5 44-45: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

Titus 3:2 "To speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men."

John 12 47-48, from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself:

Quote:

“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

This debate as relates what the Christian stance on Islam should be is laughable. You're getting dominated by an Atheist, using your own book, with no hope of recovery.

Quote: AZDuffman

I am not talking about a state religion. That clause was to prevent a USA version of The Church of England. That does not mean that >90% of the country was Christian, and even to modern times probably 3/4.

They must have forgotten to put in the part where all Religions had to be Christian/Judaism based ones, then. Are you suggesting that the, say it with me for the lulz, #ConstitutionSucks?

Quote: AZDuffman

When the muslim population hits a 10% or so minority in a country, violence is just around the corner.

Damn religious conservatives and their intolerance....

Mission, you're so off base it's not even funny. What do the last 9 Bible verses have to do with Christianity in the USA? He said our country has Christian roots and was essentially founded in Christianity. Your rebuttal is that if the USA were to be a "Christian nation"....insert some foggy logic....therefore I'm owning you because you're not supposed to judge people of other religions. Dafaq?


According to Wikipedia, about 75% of the nation is Christian while 0.8% of the nation is Muslim. Of course it's going to be easier to find more crimes committed by Christians than it is to find crimes done by Muslims, or at least one would think that by just seeing the numbers.

If you fear Islam, I believe racism is probably more responsible for suffering and death than any religion probably ever will be. Because racism is practiced across many cultures and time periods and often multiple religious practices.

Quote: rxwine

If you fear Islam, I believe racism is probably more responsible for suffering and death than any religion probably ever will be. Because racism is practiced across many cultures and time periods and often multiple religious practices.

If you are saying islam breeds racists, fine. But an understanding of history shows that nation fights nation, klan fights klan, tribe fights tribe. "Racism" is a silly way to put it IMHO.

Quote: Mission146

Was, is and will always be a caricature of a debate. Don't worry, I'm confident that some Christians in positions of religious authority aren't going to entirely stop committing sexual improprieties on children anytime soon, so I'll keep the links coming every few days. You can respond to them as time permits.

I will make it a blanket response. The cases you cite are why I do not want gay males working with young and teen boys.

Quote:

I'll keep that in mind for you. Thanks for the advance warning.

I can stipulate that the nation was founded, in part, on Christian moral principles, but that doesn't make it a Christian nation. A Christian nation would be one that respected the establishment of only one religion, namely, Christianity and would be a very dangerous place indeed.

No. I am not talking exclusivity of religion like Saudi Arabia. So please do not keep replying as if I am since you stipulated what I am talking about.

Quote:

I mean, if you want to try to compel adherents of other religions to become Christians, that's technically fine, but you're supposed to do it without judging them or their religion categorically.

Ephesians 4:2 "Be completely humble and gentle, be patient, bearing with one another in love."

2 Timothy 4 1-2: "Correct, rebuke and encourage, with great patience and careful instruction."

Romans 14:1 "Accept him whose faith is weak without passing judgment on his opinions."

Romans 14:4 "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another, it is before his own lord that he stands or falls."

Romans 14:10 "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"

Matthew 5 44-45: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

Titus 3:2 "To speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men."

John 12 47-48, from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself:

No answer, not allowed to snip posts.

Quote:

This debate as relates what the Christian stance on Islam should be is laughable. You're getting dominated by an Atheist, using your own book, with no hope of recovery.

Not really. You are talking theology. I am talking geopolitics. I am pointing out how historically islam enters a nation in a small way but eats away at that nation's culture like termites. When islam dominates, see how well they accept you being an atheist vs. the Christians you seem to despise so much more.

Quote: RS

Mission, you're so off base it's not even funny. What do the last 9 Bible verses have to do with Christianity in the USA? He said our country has Christian roots and was essentially founded in Christianity. Your rebuttal is that if the USA were to be a "Christian nation"....insert some foggy logic....therefore I'm owning you because you're not supposed to judge people of other religions. Dafaq?

Yes, because first of all, nothing in the Constitution respects an establishment of Religion and it specifically allows the free exercise thereof. It does that without promoting or prohibiting a type of Religion of any kind, whether it be promoting Christianity or prohibiting Islam.

Next, we get to the Bible verses, which were to illustrate two points:

1.) Insinuating that when a group of Islamists hit a certain percentage of the population that the murders are going to come is indisputably, unequivocally and indubitably against the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus.

2.) That even if the country were founded for the purpose of being a Christian nation, pursuant to the words of The Bible, a Christian nation itself would not allow its citizens to cast judgment upon adherents of other Religions. A Christian nation would exist to try to convert others to Christianity using the virtues of peace, love, understanding and patience. It would seek to teach rather than tell.

Which is to say that a nation rooted in Christian principles absolutely WOULD NOT restrict the freedoms of other religions or otherwise do anything to pass judgment upon them. The reason why is because The Bible itself says that it is not the place of man to pass judgment down upon other man, but that is left for God and God alone.

Anyway, I agreed that the nation was founded, in part, on Christian moral principles. I find that difficult to dispute. That doesn't mean that there were not atheists or hypocrites even amongst the numbers of the Founding Fathers, but it is what it is.

Quote:

According to Wikipedia, about 75% of the nation is Christian while 0.8% of the nation is Muslim. Of course it's going to be easier to find more crimes committed by Christians than it is to find crimes done by Muslims, or at least one would think that by just seeing the numbers.

Immaterial. My point is that The Bible says that man has no place to prejudge other man and should instead try to show man the ways of God using patience, love and peace.

I highlight these things that those who profess Christianity do to show that no Religion is without sin, nor are Atheists or Agnostics. There are hypocrites amongst all of us. There are evil-doers amongst all of us. There are murderers, rapists, child molesters and all sorts of other heinous people walking amongst all of our numbers.

No category of people is innocent.

So, what is the real point? Individual people do things, Religions and political concepts do not do things. It makes no sense to point to one's own Religion and hold it as being, "Better," or, "Morally superior," to anything else, when if anyone wants to argue to the contrary, all they need do is point out your weakest link.

Instead of dragging down, "The other," we would be better served to point out the virtuous of our own numbers and uphold them as an example of what we can all strive to be. Hell, I probably wouldn't be so fervently anti-Christian (might I still be a Christian?) if this were done a Hell of a lot more often.

You have a book that preaches love, tolerance and that it is not the place of man to judge others for their choices so long as their choices are within the law...but some of the supposed adherents to that book behave and speak in a fashion completely antithetical to those principles.

Anyway, I don't know how many Islamists (if any) there are on this site to defend them. That's why I say, blame Islam for something (or show me an Islamist who has done a wrong) and I will blame Christianity for something or show you a Christian who had done a wrong.

The best part is that I can do it easily and guilt-free because I'm not violating any of my own tenets. As an Atheist, I have no Religious tenets that I can violate. I can answer the charges that Christians make against, "The other," other people and political groups and then point out the failings of other Christians.

And, where discriminatory and hateful words spoken by Christians go against the tenets of their faith (and, by definition, are hypocritical as such) I can say whatever I want because you can point to no tenet I have and accuse me of being in violation.

Quote: rxwine

If you fear Islam, I believe racism is probably more responsible for suffering and death than any religion probably ever will be. Because racism is practiced across many cultures and time periods and often multiple religious practices.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

Except it's not racism, per se. Racism is merely a symptom of an underlying inability that some people have to overcome underlying feelings of hatred and fear. Hatred and fear are the root causes.

Quote: AZDuffman

I will make it a blanket response. The cases you cite are why I do not want gay males working with young and teen boys.

The majority of cases I cited were on female children, so there's that...

Quote:

No. I am not talking exclusivity of religion like Saudi Arabia. So please do not keep replying as if I am since you stipulated what I am talking about.

Okay, what are you talking about?

Quote:

No answer, not allowed to snip posts.

Oh, the laughter. Today has been a good day so far. I didn't expect you to have an answer.

Quote:

Not really. You are talking theology. I am talking geopolitics. I am pointing out how historically islam enters a nation in a small way but eats away at that nation's culture like termites. When islam dominates, see how well they accept you being an atheist vs. the Christians you seem to despise so much more.

I thought the subject was Theology since we are discussing the Constitutional tenet of freedom of religion.

Unlike you, based on what you have just said, I have a little bit of faith in the United States of America and its people. I believe that this country was founded to allow the practice of all Religions and that our culture, the American culture, is strong enough to overcome the country hitting a population greater than 10% of adherents to a certain religion.

In fact, we already have. Despite the overwhelming presence of individuals from one general Religious belief making up a majority of this country for hundreds of years, America has still succeeded in establishing its own culture separate and distinct from that Religion.

Personally, I may not love The Constitution, and I may not love all of the laws, and I may not love how many Christians there are and how much influence they hold...but I do love America. Do you?

Quote: AZDuffman

I will wait for that stat on Christian crimes vs everyone else. Still waiting on the white guys killing 99% as well...

Please make some cites for Christians being a "problem." Yeah, they are not into abortion or gay sex. Those not into that need not apply. Please show me Christians crashing planes into buildings, making "no-go" zones, planning bombings of tunnels and bridges, and shooting up nightclubs and government buildings in the name of their religion.

Well, 7% of our inmate population is Islamic (1), and over 74% of our inmate population are "christian."

Pretty black and white there, right? Of people convicted of crimes in america, christians outnumber the islams by a factor of over 10-1.

Sum up all of the islamic attacks you're referring to in the past 20 years... then take a look at how many "christian" murders there are in the last 20 years... It's a complete joke to even compare the two, yet you're speaking as though Islam is the #1 issue we have in america... which is a completely fear driven bigoted response.

To put this argument on steroids... Your odds of being killed by Heart Disease is 1 in 6... Cancer is 1 in 7... The odds of being killed in a mass shooting is 1 in 11,125... and your odds of being killed by a foreign born terrorist are 1 in 45,785... where the hell is your outcry against our healthcare system? Why are you stuck on foreign born terrorists when you have INSANELY better odds of dying from heart disease, while having cancer, and having diabetes??? (2)

Quote:

It takes a higher intellectual capacity to be able to determine one religion is bad while others have been good. To separate "islam" from "good muslims someone knows." To call out the problem as it is happening as it is with islam.

A higher intellectual capacity... lol. I'm gonna call ban from a mod on this one. Is thinking you're "god" against the rules of the forum in some nature? Claiming to be of higher intelligence to be able to determine which religions are good vs bad... gotta fall under some kind of trolling, gas-lighting, scamming, cult brainwashing talk, etc, etc, etc. ffs...

Quote:

For fun, compare and contrast how free islamic countries and societies are vs. Christian countries and societies. Show me where Christians are killing women for the crime of BEING raped. Show me a Christian society where the government whips people for having a koran.

Show me what other country has ANYWHERE NEAR our death totals by guns, or the number of incarcerated christians that we do...

(1) http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

(2) http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/Romes66/Death%20Odds_1.png

Quote: Mission146

Yes, because first of all, nothing in the Constitution respects an establishment of Religion and it specifically allows the free exercise thereof. It does that without promoting or prohibiting a type of Religion of any kind, whether it be promoting Christianity or prohibiting Islam.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Huh??????

Quote: mission

Next, we get to the Bible verses, which were to illustrate two points:

1.) Insinuating that when a group of Islamists hit a certain percentage of the population that the murders are going to come is indisputably, unequivocally and indubitably against the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus.

2.) That even if the country were founded for the purpose of being a Christian nation, pursuant to the words of The Bible, a Christian nation itself would not allow its citizens to cast judgment upon adherents of other Religions. A Christian nation would exist to try to convert others to Christianity using the virtues of peace, love, understanding and patience. It would seek to teach rather than tell.

Umm....no? The verses you quoted are about evangelism. In other words, it says, "Don't think you're superior to someone else based on your (religious) beliefs."

Quote: mission

Which is to say that a nation rooted in Christian principles absolutely WOULD NOT restrict the freedoms of other religions or otherwise do anything to pass judgment upon them. The reason why is because The Bible itself says that it is not the place of man to pass judgment down upon other man, but that is left for God and God alone.

Again, you're mixing up judgement religious beliefs and actions.

Quote: mission

Anyway, I agreed that the nation was founded, in part, on Christian moral principles. I find that difficult to dispute. That doesn't mean that there were not atheists or hypocrites even amongst the numbers of the Founding Fathers, but it is what it is.

What's this have to do with anything?

Quote: mission

Immaterial. My point is that The Bible says that man has no place to prejudge other man and should instead try to show man the ways of God using patience, love and peace.

Speaking of immaterial............

Quote: mission

I highlight these things that those who profess Christianity do to show that no Religion is without sin, nor are Atheists or Agnostics. There are hypocrites amongst all of us. There are evil-doers amongst all of us. There are murderers, rapists, child molesters and all sorts of other heinous people walking amongst all of our numbers.

No category of people is innocent.

Of course there are hypocrites, murderers, rapists, etc. in all groups.

Quote: mission

So, what is the real point? Individual people do things, Religions and political concepts do not do things. It makes no sense to point to one's own Religion and hold it as being, "Better," or, "Morally superior," to anything else, when if anyone wants to argue to the contrary, all they need do is point out your weakest link.

Wait.....how.......ugh, this is beyond frustrating. So all of your anti-Christian diatribes..............nevermind, this is clearly going nowhere.

Quote: Romes

Well, 7% of our inmate population is Islamic (1), and over 74% of our inmate population are "christian."

Pretty black and white there, right? Of people convicted of crimes in america, christians outnumber the islams by a factor of over 10-1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Christianity: 73.7%
Islam: 0.8%

Muslim-to-Christian ratio:

Expected:
0.8 / (73.7 + 0.8) = 0.01073825503

Actual (according to you 7% and 74% figures) -
7 / (74 + 7) = 0.08641975308


IOW: You'd expect 1.07% of the inmate population to be Muslim, but the actual inmate population of Muslim is 8.64%. That's 7.47 times higher than expected. A 747% increase.

Quote: RS

IOW: You'd expect 1.07% of the inmate population to be Muslim, but the actual inmate population of Muslim is 8.64%. That's 7.47 times higher than expected. A 747% increase.

Is that because they commit more crimes, or because they are unfairly sentenced due to some kind of prejudice? Or both?

Quote: RS

What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Huh??????

I don't know what we're talking about, since I was responding to AZDuffman. Please enlighten me as to what we're talking about. I would approach a conversation with you in an entirely different way than one with AZ, to be honest.

AZ is essentially saying that we couldn't allow the Islamic population to exceed 10% or very very bad things would happen. If we're going to do population control based on the percentage of adherents to a particular religion (especially since people who are already Americans could theoretically convert to Islam) we would effectively be disallowing the freedom of religion.

Quote:

Umm....no? The verses you quoted are about evangelism. In other words, it says, "Don't think you're superior to someone else based on your (religious) beliefs."

Yeah, we agree on what those verses mean, what's the problem?

Quote:

Again, you're mixing up judgement religious beliefs and actions.

He's not judging actions, he's judging the people and insinuating what theoretical future actions would take place if there were too many of the people who subscribe to that religion.

Quote:

What's this have to do with anything?

You said, "He said our country has Christian roots and was essentially founded in Christianity." You were referring to AZDuffman. I was pointing out that I agreed with that aspect of what he said, your post made it appear as though I didn't.

Quote:

Speaking of immaterial............

Well, there are better approaches, I think, than, "I hate you and I think you're going to kill everyone." I think that's what The Bible was trying to say.

You'll notice that nothing that negatively denigrates Islam does anything to positively promote Christianity.

Quote:

Of course there are hypocrites, murderers, rapists, etc. in all groups.

Okay, so if we're going to talk about non-Christians who do these things, I'm going to balance it out by discussing Christians who do these things.

Or, we can have positive conversations. I'm good with either of those things pretty much equally.

Quote:

Wait.....how.......ugh, this is beyond frustrating. So all of your anti-Christian diatribes..............nevermind, this is clearly going nowhere.

All of my anti-Christian diatribes were meant to prove a point, and if I don't feel that I have successfully proven it, I will continue to attempt to do so.

Quote: TigerWu

Is that because they commit more crimes, or because they are unfairly sentenced due to some kind of prejudice? Or both?

I don't know. But the 'prejudice' thing sure is an easy scapegoat. Anytime a group of people you (generic) support are over-represented in something bad, it can be defended due to "prejudice".

Quote: Mission146

All of my anti-Christian diatribes were meant to prove a point, and if I don't feel that I have successfully proven it, I will continue to attempt to do so.

Please don't.

Quote: Romes

Well, 7% of our inmate population is Islamic (1), and over 74% of our inmate population are "christian."

Pretty black and white there, right? Of people convicted of crimes in america, christians outnumber the islams by a factor of over 10-1.

1% of the general population is muslim. So muslims are over-represented in prison by a factor of 7.

Quote:

Sum up all of the islamic attacks you're referring to in the past 20 years... then take a look at how many "christian" murders there are in the last 20 years... It's a complete joke to even compare the two, yet you're speaking as though Islam is the #1 issue we have in america... which is a completely fear driven bigoted response.

See, I am not talking just "attacks." That is how a fool would measure things. "Well, there was no attacks so we are doing dandy!" I am talking about general violence and cultural problems when the muslim minority reaches a critical mass. But I am probably wasting my time as my guess is your position is "there can't be any no-go zones in Paris because the mayor said there are not any."

Quote:

To put this argument on steroids... Your odds of being killed by Heart Disease is 1 in 6... Cancer is 1 in 7... The odds of being killed in a mass shooting is 1 in 11,125... and your odds of being killed by a foreign born terrorist are 1 in 45,785... where the hell is your outcry against our healthcare system? Why are you stuck on foreign born terrorists when you have INSANELY better odds of dying from heart disease, while having cancer, and having diabetes??? (2)

jabber jabber jabber

Quote:

A higher intellectual capacity... lol. I'm gonna call ban from a mod on this one. Is thinking you're "god" against the rules of the forum in some nature? Claiming to be of higher intelligence to be able to determine which religions are good vs bad... gotta fall under some kind of trolling, gas-lighting, scamming, cult brainwashing talk, etc, etc, etc. ffs...

Yes, a higher intellectual capacity. I insulted nobody directly. It is easy to say "racism is bad," "I know some good muslims," whatever. It takes thinking to look at the bigger picture and not bow to being PC.

Quote:

Show me what other country has ANYWHERE NEAR our death totals by guns, or the number of incarcerated christians that we do...

(1) http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

(2) http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/Romes66/Death%20Odds_1.png

More meaningless jabber. And where I say a "higher intellectual capacity" I mean not just saying "I was talking in class but everyone was talking in class!" You have, for example, not shown a muslim society that you would choose to live in for its peace and tolerance. In a majority Christian nation, Christians will end up in prison. But since you like stats:

USA ranks 31 in gun violence. Gun violence in the USA is way less of an issue when you take the top 4 violent cities out. Places like Chicago, But keep blaming guns, the lurkers may find it interesting even if I don't.

Quote: Mission146

The majority of cases I cited were on female children, so there's that...

I am all for straight males not being alone with female children or teens, either.

Quote:

Okay, what are you talking about?

Oh, the laughter. Today has been a good day so far. I didn't expect you to have an answer.

I am talking about what happens as muslims infiltrate a society in mass numbers.

Quote:

I thought the subject was Theology since we are discussing the Constitutional tenet of freedom of religion.

I am not talking about freedom of religion. See above.

Quote:

Unlike you, based on what you have just said, I have a little bit of faith in the United States of America and its people. I believe that this country was founded to allow the practice of all Religions and that our culture, the American culture, is strong enough to overcome the country hitting a population greater than 10% of adherents to a certain religion.

You believe we are immune to what has happened in the rest of the world? We are not special that way. We can fall just like anyone else.

Quote:

fact, we already have. Despite the overwhelming presence of individuals from one general Religious belief making up a majority of this country for hundreds of years, America has still succeeded in establishing its own culture separate and distinct from that Religion.

Personally, I may not love The Constitution, and I may not love all of the laws, and I may not love how many Christians there are and how much influence they hold...but I do love America. Do you?

The USA is not the only country that has done that. Pretty much every country with a majority Christian population has done that. Islam is not Christianity. Sharia law is not secular. As to a "distinct culture" you might want to ask some folk from outside. I hired a Jewish guy from Ukraine. He remarked how much "the USA loves God!" And he lived in Israel for 10 years! Says that! IOW, the USA is not as secular as you might imagine.

Loving America is not the issue. Pointing out the danger is the issue I am talking about.

Quote: AZDuffman

I am all for straight males not being alone with female children or teens, either.

We agree on this. I don't think any adults have any business in a one-on-one environment with kids to whom they are not related, unless multiple adults are present.

Quote:

I am talking about what happens as muslims infiltrate a society in mass numbers.

I know, you even cite the specific percentage of 10%. I'm saying that's not a well-founded assumption.

Quote:

I am not talking about freedom of religion. See above.

You can't population restrict based on religious affiliation or you are acting in a manner that restricts freedom of religion.

Quote:

You believe we are immune to what has happened in the rest of the world? We are not special that way. We can fall just like anyone else.

I believe that this is increasingly a country of tolerance, despite some extreme SJW's on one side and Christians who are not really Christians (not referring to anyone on the board) on the other side. I maintain that if we greet people with acceptance, rather than hatred and fear, that all religions and cultures can live in relative harmony with one another. I think that most of the Founding Fathers felt the same way on that one, but I could be wrong.

Quote:

The USA is not the only country that has done that. Pretty much every country with a majority Christian population has done that. Islam is not Christianity. Sharia law is not secular. As to a "distinct culture" you might want to ask some folk from outside. I hired a Jewish guy from Ukraine. He remarked how much "the USA loves God!" And he lived in Israel for 10 years! Says that! IOW, the USA is not as secular as you might imagine.

Loving America is not the issue. Pointing out the danger is the issue I am talking about.

I know they have, but that is not because Christianity governs the country, but rather because they are religiously free countries.

Sharia law is not our law, the laws of the United States of America are our laws. As I understand it, some tenets of Sharia Law could violate our laws and anyone who did so would be prosecuted accordingly.

Should I start basing my opinions on things based on the most recent individual person I have met? I'm going to be switching religious and political allegiances quite frequently if I do that.

Quote: Mission146

I know, you even cite the specific percentage of 10%. I'm saying that's not a well-founded assumption.

You can't population restrict based on religious affiliation or you are acting in a manner that restricts freedom of religion.

Look around at Europe and see what is happening. You cannot "population restrict" but you can restrict immigration as there is no right to enter the USA by any foreigner.

Quote:

I believe that this is increasingly a country of tolerance, despite some extreme SJW's on one side and Christians who are not really Christians (not referring to anyone on the board) on the other side. I maintain that if we greet people with acceptance, rather than hatred and fear, that all religions and cultures can live in relative harmony with one another. I think that most of the Founding Fathers felt the same way on that one, but I could be wrong.

My position on "tolerance" remains as below.

Quote:

I know they have, but that is not because Christianity governs the country, but rather because they are religiously free countries.

Sharia law is not our law, the laws of the United States of America are our laws. As I understand it, some tenets of Sharia Law could violate our laws and anyone who did so would be prosecuted accordingly.

Have you ever noticed that the idea of political freedom mostly came from Christian societies and the Enlightenment which came from the same societies?

Quote:

Should I start basing my opinions on things based on the most recent individual person I have met? I'm going to be switching religious and political allegiances quite frequently if I do that.

?

Quote: AZDuffman

Look around at Europe and see what is happening. You cannot "population restrict" but you can restrict immigration as there is no right to enter the USA by any foreigner.

If you restrict immigration on a religious basis, then you are restricting freedom of religion.

Quote:

My position on "tolerance" remains as below.

Have you ever noticed that the idea of political freedom mostly came from Christian societies and the Enlightenment which came from the same societies?

I don't dispute that. I'm not necessarily agreeing, but I don't disagree. Haven't counted.

Quote:

?

You use lots of personal anecdotes.

Quote: Mission146

If you restrict immigration on a religious basis, then you are restricting freedom of religion.

Not really. Non citizens outside the USA even if they want to come here are not guaranteed rights until they get here

Quote: Mission146

If you restrict immigration on a religious basis, then you are restricting freedom of religion.

Sorry, but no, you are not. All kinds of reasons to limit immigration based on any standard we like.

Quote:

I don't dispute that. I'm not necessarily agreeing, but I don't disagree. Haven't counted.

I can save you the count. Virtually all.

Quote:

You use lots of personal anecdotes.

Yes, I do. It comes from traveling and living far and wide. I had a boss ask if there was any side job I had not done to give just one example. So I have seen quite a bit.

Quote: troopscott

Not really. Non citizens outside the USA even if they want to come here are not guaranteed rights until they get here

If you take specific actions to restrict your religious population makeup, that is a restriction on religion, effectively.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, but no, you are not. All kinds of reasons to limit immigration based on any standard we like.

Yeah, except Religion, if you want to be adhering to the Constitution.

Quote:

Yes, I do. It comes from traveling and living far and wide. I had a boss ask if there was any side job I had not done to give just one example. So I have seen quite a bit.

Even if I grant that, I assume that statistical representations often reflect a greater range than does the sum of my personal experiences.

Quote: Mission146

If you take specific actions to restrict your religious population makeup, that is a restriction on religion, effectively.

Only people guaranteed protections under the constitution are those who reside here. The courts have already ruled trump's bans were in fact legal once they got out of the 9th circuit.

Quote: troopscott

Only people guaranteed protections under the constitution are those who reside here. The courts have already ruled trump's bans were in fact legal once they got out of the 9th circuit.

I would argue that by restricting immigration based on religion you are adversely affecting the religious freedom of those who reside here. Namely, you're doing it by preventing other people who adhere to their faith (and who would presumably attend and financially contribute to their churches) from becoming citizens (or entering this country in some cases).

Now, if you want to base it on what country they are coming from which can strongly correlate towards a particular Religion, that's something else entirely. However, you can't do it based on the Religion itself.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, except Religion, if you want to be adhering to the Constitution.

The Constitution ends at the water's edge. It does not guarantee any rights to people wishing to enter, nor should it. To do so would be inviting disaster.

Quote:

Even if I grant that, I assume that statistical representations often reflect a greater range than does the sum of my personal experiences.

But you cannot live by statistics alone. A smart person can make statistics look however they want, and half the population will lap it up. Statistically speaking, what muslim-majority country would you prefer to live in?

Quote: AZDuffman

The Constitution ends at the water's edge. It does not guarantee any rights to people wishing to enter, nor should it. To do so would be inviting disaster.

See post above in response to TroopScott.

Quote:

But you cannot live by statistics alone. A smart person can make statistics look however they want, and half the population will lap it up. Statistically speaking, what muslim-majority country would you prefer to live in?

No idea.

Quote: Mission146

I would argue that by restricting immigration based on religion you are adversely affecting the religious freedom of those who reside here. Namely, you're doing it by preventing other people who adhere to their faith (and who would presumably attend and financially contribute to their churches) from becoming citizens (or entering this country in some cases).

Not really. People here can worship whomever they want. Not affected by others coming over.

Can we get some pix of hot grils from all races damn I aint reading George RR Martin's game of thrones (racist or not edition)

Given the poll results, that's how we get to 330+ posts, ladies and gentlemen.

Quote: tringlomane

Given the poll results, that's how we get to 330+ posts, ladies and gentlemen.

Think I'm going to have to raise my price to sell my vote up to $25, seeing how serious this is all tied up 17-17,

Quote: djatc

Can we get some pix of hot grils from all races damn I aint reading George RR Martin's game of thrones (racist or not edition)

Just google “hot Norwegian women”. Works with Swedish or Finnish, too.

Edit: “hot” is redundant.

Quote: Mission146

I would argue that by restricting immigration based on religion you are adversely affecting the religious freedom of those who reside here. Namely, you're doing it by preventing other people who adhere to their faith (and who would presumably attend and financially contribute to their churches) from becoming citizens (or entering this country in some cases).

Now, if you want to base it on what country they are coming from which can strongly correlate towards a particular Religion, that's something else entirely. However, you can't do it based on the Religion itself.

How would you argue that. Nobody here in the us would be hampered from their religion. Just because someone may or may not give money or be a great preacher etc does not give them rights in this country. I would argue until they are here illegally but some liberal judges have ruled they have rights here even when illegal though I expect that will change over the next 10 years when trump gets to nominate ginsbergs replacement in the next 6 years and a state like Texas takes it back to the supreme court

Quote: troopscott

How would you argue that. Nobody here in the us would be hampered from their religion. Just because someone may or may not give money or be a great preacher etc does not give them rights in this country. I would argue until they are here illegally but some liberal judges have ruled they have rights here even when illegal though I expect that will change over the next 10 years when trump gets to nominate ginsbergs replacement in the next 6 years and a state like Texas takes it back to the supreme court

I just told you how I would argue that. You're restricting people, based on religion, who could come in and be benefits to the people in this country who adhere to that religion. It's inherently discriminatory.

It also was never addressed in the Constitution, so I don't know what the Supreme Court is making a judgment based upon. In fact, it wasn't until something like 1875 that ANY Federal law whatsoever was ever made pertaining to immigration.

Anyway, I should imagine the Founding Fathers not addressing it because they had no idea it would become an issue, and further, probably didn't want it to be. Like, "Yeah, why wouldn't we want people living here?"

Speaking of Founding Fathers, here's what our First President had to say about immigration:

Quote:

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges…”

Check it, the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions. That's good stuff. As we all know, the #ConstitutionSucks, but even if it didn't, it becomes quite clear that the Supreme Court, by restricting immigration in any way (or allowing for the restriction thereof) is going against the intent of out First President and likely the Founding Fathers.

Here's another from President Washington:

Quote:

“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”

Here's Thomas Jefferson:

Quote:

“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.”

Anyway, who knows what non-Constitutionally based thing the Supreme Court will do. Like I said, the Constitution doesn't really address immigration and the Founding Fathers, if nothing else, were extremely open to it. The SCOTUS is as partisan as anything else, I don't think either of us will deny that, so we'll just see how it goes.

Quote: Mission146

I just told you how I would argue that. You're restricting people, based on religion, who could come in and be benefits to the people in this country who adhere to that religion. It's inherently discriminatory.

It also was never addressed in the Constitution, so I don't know what the Supreme Court is making a judgment based upon. In fact, it wasn't until something like 1875 that ANY Federal law whatsoever was ever made pertaining to immigration.

Anyway, I should imagine the Founding Fathers not addressing it because they had no idea it would become an issue, and further, probably didn't want it to be. Like, "Yeah, why wouldn't we want people living here?"

Speaking of Founding Fathers, here's what our First President had to say about immigration:



Check it, the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions. That's good stuff. As we all know, the #ConstitutionSucks, but even if it didn't, it becomes quite clear that the Supreme Court, by restricting immigration in any way (or allowing for the restriction thereof) is going against the intent of out First President and likely the Founding Fathers.

Here's another from President Washington:



Here's Thomas Jefferson:



Anyway, who knows what non-Constitutionally based thing the Supreme Court will do. Like I said, the Constitution doesn't really address immigration and the Founding Fathers, if nothing else, were extremely open to it. The SCOTUS is as partisan as anything else, I don't think either of us will deny that, so we'll just see how it goes.

That was different times when there were no incometaxes, no welfare system, etc etc, and people who came here worked, starved or went back home.

They assimilated themselves, learned English, and as an example people didn't have to press 1 for English.

There have been immigration laws for 150 years. My grandparents who came here from Italy in 1908 did it the legal way.

I can assure you the constitution does not apply to people who do not live in this country and are not citizens. Otherwise everyone in the world would have claims in the us if they wanted.

Quote: troopscott

That was different times when there were no incometaxes, no welfare system, etc etc, and people who came here worked, starved or went back home.

So, what you're saying is that the #ConstitutionSucks, we shouldn't try to adjudicate anything by it and it was wholly unprepared for changing times and circumstances in this country? Like, how firearms changed?

Foreign-born persons make up 17.1% of the workforce and have a lower unemployment rate than natural-born citizens, by the way:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/forbrn_05172018.pdf

They also have higher labor force participation rates. I think one of the main factors is the fact that it seems that many foreign-born people are willing to switch countries for work, while some native-born people are not willing (or are unable) to switch states.

[sarcasm] Anyway, I don't think they are coming here so they can live like royalty on our overly generous welfare system. /sarcasm

I can tell you that I'm not on any kind of welfare, but my ass is lazier than the average foreign-born person by a country mile. Between some of the jobs they do and welfare, well, I'd have some thinking to do if those were my only choices.

Quote:

They assimilated themselves, learned English, and as an example people didn't have to press 1 for English.

I'm sorry, was I not there when we established an official national language? When did that happen? Seré un hijo de puta! How could I have missed that?

More than that, I'm guessing you didn't have to press anything for English because there wasn't a phone to press. There were actually more than ten fairly common languages spoken in the country during the years preceding immigration laws and that remains the case today.

Besides, what's wrong with good customer service? If I want to make money off of you, of course I'm going to try to offer you your preferred language if I can do it in a cost-effective way.

[sarcasm]Also, what you guys should really be worried about then is hunting down those nationalized Americans, The Amish, some of whom have the audacity not to know English. They were born here. Quite frankly, I find it insulting. /sarcasm

Besides, other languages are fun. People seem to either enjoy that you show them the respect when you try it in their language, or they get a good laugh at you completely botching the pronunciations.

Quote:

There have been immigration laws for 150 years. My grandparents who came here from Italy in 1908 did it the legal way.

I can assure you the constitution does not apply to people who do not live in this country and are not citizens. Otherwise everyone in the world would have claims in the us if they wanted.

Yeah, so did mine a few years after that, not that I would really care if they hadn't. I'm here either way, so there you go. My point is that the original Constitutional framework didn't, and still doesn't, speak as to immigration. Therefore, strictly speaking, I fail to see how the Supreme Court could have a Constitutional interpretation, which leaves you with the intent of the Founding Fathers...which I think was pretty clear.

Quote: AZDuffman

...


jabber jabber jabber

This is why you can't have any kind of meaningful discussion with this TROLL. He screams to present data, source facts, cite things... and then when you do he just goes "jabber jabber jabber" and ignores literal facts and numbers.

TROLL. BAN THE TROLL.

Quote: troopscott

That was different times when there were no incometaxes, no welfare system, etc etc, and people who came here worked, starved or went back home.

That was different times when there were no self loading rifles, self contained rounds, barrel rifling or smokeless powder, people shot once and spent 70sec reloading.

That was different times when few knew how to write, mass press relied on one local machine, and words were delivered via horseback, if the red man didn't get him first.

Beware the petard.

Quote: Romes

This is why you can't have any kind of meaningful discussion with this TROLL. He screams to present data, source facts, cite things... and then when you do he just goes "jabber jabber jabber" and ignores literal facts and numbers.

TROLL. BAN THE TROLL.

So cease the discussion. Insolence requires judgement, and i don't see ban worthiness here. Ignorance requires nothing, there's no rule addressing such. Calling someone a troll has precedence aplenty, it's the easiest snap ban there is.

Quote: Face

So cease the discussion. Insolence requires judgement, and i don't see ban worthiness here. Ignorance requires nothing, there's no rule addressing such. Calling someone a troll has precedence aplenty, it's the easiest snap ban there is.

Can you mods stop saying ban when you mean suspension? Bans are permanent, suspensions are temporary. Although a suspension can be permanent, they are not always so, but bans are always lifetime.

Quote: Face

So cease the discussion. Insolence requires judgement, and i don't see ban worthiness here. Ignorance requires nothing, there's no rule addressing such. Calling someone a troll has precedence aplenty, it's the easiest snap ban there is.

So there is NOTHING in the forum rules against trolling the forum?

...I might have to start rethinking how I post here.

Quote: Face

That was different times when there were no self loading rifles, self contained rounds, barrel rifling or smokeless powder, people shot once and spent 70sec reloading.

That was different times when few knew how to write, mass press relied on one local machine, and words were delivered via horseback, if the red man didn't get him first.

Beware the petard.

Face, ever the even-handed and fair one! You rock, dude!

Quote: Romes

So there is NOTHING in the forum rules against trolling the forum?

That's probably my main complaint about how things are run here.

It's okay to troll, but NOT okay to accuse someone of it.

Whatever. Don't feed the trolls, I guess.

Quote: Face

That was different times when there were no self loading rifles, self contained rounds, barrel rifling or smokeless powder, people shot once and spent 70sec reloading.

That was different times when few knew how to write, mass press relied on one local machine, and words were delivered via horseback, if the red man didn't get him first.

Beware the petard.

Got one for ya, Face. Was in my feed this morning.Navaho NA from Arizona, state representative. Local Trumpers told him to go back to his own country.

Can ya beat that? Trying to find the article.

Quote: Romes

Quote: AZDuffman

...


jabber jabber jabber

This is why you can't have any kind of meaningful discussion with this TROLL. He screams to present data, source facts, cite things... and then when you do he just goes "jabber jabber jabber" and ignores literal facts and numbers.

TROLL. BAN THE TROLL.

I've been mulling this one over. Yeah, AZD has been trolling you and others in this thread, in my personal opinion. But I can't see anywhere he has crossed the line, administratively speaking. You, unfortunately, did.

3 days. Personal insult.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I've been mulling this one over. Yeah, AZD has been trolling you and others in this thread, in my personal opinion. But I can't see anywhere he has crossed the line, administratively speaking.

Why is trolling itself not considered "crossing the line" on this forum?

Quote: Romes

So there is NOTHING in the forum rules against trolling the forum?

...I might have to start rethinking how I post here.

There is. You know there is.

It's like this Romes… going back to '15, I saw a change. I dunno, I thought with Obama, the ridiculousness of it all was tempered by, ya know, regular ol reason. "Common sense", as it used to be known. "He's from Kenya!" would be shouted and you'd just sort of giggle. Not often you see delusion on parade. The extreme had a voice, sure. But it was mostly mocked, with just a fringe of the fringe taking it anywhere remotely seriously.

Somewhen around '16, suddenly it started being taken seriously. I remember watching the barbs being thrown here with more intent, and hits being taken with more offense. I swear to god I thought everyone was taking the piss. The way people were acting was in no way genuine, it's just their own way to snub their noses, troll "the opponent" without outright doing so obviously. Normally civil people engaging in the most inane petty grudges, it had to be a ruse. It'll blow over soon.

And now here we are.

I've made my impotent threats. Nothing changed. Someone gets dinged here and there. Nothing changes. Attempt to have civil discourse, it gets buried and ignored. So, all's I know to do is either sit back, watch the rumble, and act on the egregious, or wholesale mud stomp the entire thread v.2013 style. Both those options suck. But with the former, you at least have an option. So that's what I choose.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Can you mods stop saying ban when you mean suspension? Bans are permanent, suspensions are temporary. Although a suspension can be permanent, they are not always so, but bans are always lifetime.

/unshun

To ban is to official prohibit. Were I to say "ONM, you are officially prohibited from posting for 3 days", it would be a proper English sentence that explains the action in question precisely. Ergo, ban is proper. I agree that suspend (to temporarily prevent) is perhaps more common, especially when considering internet forum parlance, and it might even be more appropriate, as it clears up any confusion over temp v indef.

But nah.

/reshun