CDZ Islamification of The West

[Arianrhod]

Not at all.

The point stands. Prior to domestication, seperating religion from government - there was little tolerance in either the Christian dominated world or the Islamic dominated world.

But don't you find it ironic that the first thing that comes out of people's mouths when it comes to Muslims is....but but they lop peoples heads off!...meanwhile their own legislatures are discussing bringing back the electric chair and they don't seem to have a problem with that.

The OP is discussing today, I am discussing today.

Today it is happening in the name of Allah.

In the name of terrorists claiming to speak for Allah. Why are you validating terrorists?

Not

You're saying the same thing they are: That they're doing this in the name of Allah. How is that not validation?

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

 

[Coyote]

Dogmaphobe is clearly saying that muslims can't integrate into a western nation's culture. .

I very clearly DID NOT say they can't. Some do, indeed, integrate.

The problem here is that as population of Muslims have grown, integration has diminished, and this is the pattern played out over and over whenever Islamic demographics overtake native populations. .

That is heavily dependent on more than just religion. The factors that influence integration are the culture and country of origin as well as the culture of the country they immigrate to. Some nations are far better at integrating immigrants into communities and the workforce, others are not and immigrant groups remain largely segregated or ghettoized and marginalized in the job market. It's the same with the country of origin - some Muslim groups integrate very well, others integrate poorly or self-segregate, but it's more reflective of the nationality than of the religion. Saying "Muslims don't integrate" is ignoring the multi-ethnic backgrounds, some very diverse, of the Muslim immigrants.

 

[Alex.]

The OP is discussing today, I am discussing today.

Today it is happening in the name of Allah.

In the name of terrorists claiming to speak for Allah. Why are you validating terrorists?

Not

You're saying the same thing they are: That they're doing this in the name of Allah. How is that not validation?

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

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

 

[GaryDog]

In response to Lucy's question in the OP, the ICM poll cited several times already, found that 32% of UK muslims refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock muhammed.

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

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

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

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

 

[Arianrhod]

In the name of terrorists claiming to speak for Allah. Why are you validating terrorists?

Not

You're saying the same thing they are: That they're doing this in the name of Allah. How is that not validation?

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

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

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

 

[Alex.]

Not

You're saying the same thing they are: That they're doing this in the name of Allah. How is that not validation?

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

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

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

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

 

[Carla_Danger]

I am responding to the claim that Islam is somehow more expansionist and intolerant than other religions. I've provided ample evidence that Judaism and Christianity have similar histories of conquest and intolerance.

If the Israelites (circa Old Testament) were invading Europe, they'd be killing the men and enslaving the women and children. Ditto for the conquests of many a Christian European nation.

This thread is about Muslims being different from all other religions, "Islamicizing" Europe, and them being innately different from other people.

They aren't.

We already documented the Sharia courts, violent attacks in France and Britain. This is expanding Islam. The violence is based on being intolerant. You condemn past violence by other religions, but give current violence a pass.

No one here is giving violence a pass.

 

[pillars]

Pretty funny stuff citing the Bible as intolerant, without considering the Koran's vast violence and calls to kill nonbelievers.

It's not an either/or. The bible is every bit as intolerant as the Koran. in the old testament, YHWH calls upon the Israelites to slaughter the surrounding pagan tribes...repeatedly.

It's interesting how you don't seem to be aware of this. Again, maybe you should read your bible.

I've even provided you with the relevant chapters for your convenience.

The problem arises from their not recognizing (or not knowing), that Islam is the third of the three Abrahamic religions, following from Judaism and Christianity, the Koran is based on a knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, and YHWH, Jesus, and Allah are all different manifestations of the same monotheistic god.

The difference is that in Christianity and Judaism people don't go around blowing Infidels up in suicide attacks....it's NOT rocket science.

Actually, they do and have. I have linked to two attacks in the US in the past year.

 

[GaryDog]

I am responding to the claim that Islam is somehow more expansionist and intolerant than other religions. I've provided ample evidence that Judaism and Christianity have similar histories of conquest and intolerance.

If the Israelites (circa Old Testament) were invading Europe, they'd be killing the men and enslaving the women and children. Ditto for the conquests of many a Christian European nation.

This thread is about Muslims being different from all other religions, "Islamicizing" Europe, and them being innately different from other people.

They aren't.

We already documented the Sharia courts, violent attacks in France and Britain. This is expanding Islam. The violence is based on being intolerant. You condemn past violence by other religions, but give current violence a pass.

No one here is giving violence a pass.

This can't be said enough.

I'll say it again for the rest of the people who have yet to put on their reading glasses.

No one here condones Islamic violence (or other violence).

 

[Arianrhod]

You're saying the same thing they are: That they're doing this in the name of Allah. How is that not validation?

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tilly]

In response to Lucy's question in the OP, the ICM poll cited several times already, found that 32% of UK muslims refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock muhammed.

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

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

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

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

Because we have already taken in enough.

 

[Alex.]

Saying it is in the name of one thing or another does not validate nor does it condone the unacceptable and barbaric action.

But saying the same thing the terrorists say is -?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

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

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

 

[GaryDog]

In response to Lucy's question in the OP, the ICM poll cited several times already, found that 32% of UK muslims refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock muhammed.

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

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

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

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

Because we have already taken in enough.

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

 

[Tilly]

In response to Lucy's question in the OP, the ICM poll cited several times already, found that 32% of UK muslims refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock muhammed.

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

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

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

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

Because we have already taken in enough.

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

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

 

[Alex.]

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

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

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

Talk is cheap, head lopping is death.


There is a difference.

 

[jc456]

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

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

not if they're not here.

if "they're not here", then it follows that they were not brought into the US.

and yet the libs are fighting to get them here. Right? Or did I just imagine the last five months?

It's more accurate to say that right-wing extremists are fighting to keep them out.

It's pretty standard throughout history for the U.S. to accept refugees from war-torn countries -- particularly when it was our intervention that basically caused their refugee status.

how are they doing that? exactly what did they say? I know I've never said such a thing and I am right wing, not extremist though. I merely want them vetted. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

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

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

Talk is cheap, head lopping is death.


There is a difference.

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

You're correct, there is a difference.

 

[GaryDog]

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

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

Who has rejected them? Germany alone took 1.6 M.

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

Because we have already taken in enough.

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

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

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

 

[GaryDog]

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

not if they're not here.

if "they're not here", then it follows that they were not brought into the US.

and yet the libs are fighting to get them here. Right? Or did I just imagine the last five months?

It's more accurate to say that right-wing extremists are fighting to keep them out.

It's pretty standard throughout history for the U.S. to accept refugees from war-torn countries -- particularly when it was our intervention that basically caused their refugee status.

how are they doing that? exactly what did they say? I know I've never said such a thing and I am right wing, not extremist though. I merely want them vetted. Do you have a problem with that?

Refugees might be the most vetted group of all immigrants to the US. And no I have no problem with that.

Your party's candidate for President has said he would ban not just refugees but all Muslims. "Who said that"? Are you serious???