CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[alpine]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."—Benjamin Franklin

Tough job.

I dont think anybody would have a definite solution to this problem tho.

IMO;
improve your technology,
improve your manpower using that technology,
implement them wisely and carefully...

Take NSA for instance.
A powerful tool for any society who acquire such a technology.
When not used wisely, can damage,
but when used wisely, not hinder, but empower the freedoms of the society


Would you think NSA would require any compromise to your freedoms, to function better than it does today?

That was the quote I was thinking about. Thanks

Also, thank you for introducing some other solutions. More than a little concerned about the NSA recording all our emails and electronic communications from a privacy point of view. I feel that is protected under the Constitution.

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...

 

[Coyote]

Two things stand out:

There is nothing about no vetting

And, it states:
Obama's plan to accept an increased number of Syrian refugees into the US in 2016, however, only apply to the ones already in the process of coming to the US, not the ones headed to Europe.

The refugees have little if any identification nor ability to get confirmation from ISIS controlled regions. Hard to vet huh?

But not unvetted. It just means that they have to go to alternative sources to try to vet them (I'm trying to remember the article where they talked about it) - it's not 100%, but neither is it 0%.

 

[saveliberty]

Those lunatic folks that stalk military funerals to spread their gay hate message? Us normal Christians are furious with them. We are careful in sermons to stay away from political commentary, unless the subject is brought to us by government intervention. We understand there is a line.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[pillars]

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.

Of the muslim women I know, only about half wear hijab. Both of our posts are composition fallacy.

 

[pillars]

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, XXXXXXXXXXX , 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?

 

[saveliberty]

LOL.

So how is that different from the 10 commandments in the court room?

Are they there any more?

 

[Arianrhod]

Those lunatic folks that stalk military funerals to spread their gay hate message? Us normal Christians are furious with them. We are careful in sermons to stay away from political commentary, unless the subject is brought to us by government intervention. We understand there is a line.

So, in other words, you don't speak out against the actions of Westboro. But you expect other religionists to speak out against the maniacs among their ranks.

 

[pillars]

LOL.

So how is that different from the 10 commandments in the court room?

Are they there any more?

In some places they still are: 8 times that a 10 Commandments monument had its day in court

 

[alpine]

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.

To me the question is not "to compromise or not to compromise"

Because it seems to me we already did compromise, greatly.

This is very obvious in this NSA situation.

If we have not compromised, if we have not clicked that checkbox that comes along with every step you are taking in your online world, you pretty much couldnt have functioned in this todays society.

So we have created this giant tool that makes us much more efficient, functional and analytical.

In my opinion; if there is a security weakness in this country, it is not because we are willing or not willing to compromise, it is because we cant use the tools available to us, wisely and properly.


Take ISIS for instance, could not have existed w/o internet....

 

[pillars]

Those lunatic folks that stalk military funerals to spread their gay hate message? Us normal Christians are furious with them. We are careful in sermons to stay away from political commentary, unless the subject is brought to us by government intervention. We understand there is a line.

But you do understand that those people consider themselves to be the only true Christians (and think you are a heretic), much like Islamic fanatics consider themselves to be the only true Islamics, and moderate Islamics are heretics.

 

[saveliberty]

Those lunatic folks that stalk military funerals to spread their gay hate message? Us normal Christians are furious with them. We are careful in sermons to stay away from political commentary, unless the subject is brought to us by government intervention. We understand there is a line.

So, in other words, you don't speak out against the actions of Westboro. But you expect other religionists to speak out against the maniacs among their ranks.

Did I not just speak out against Westboro? Why yes I did and it is far from the first time on this board. Yes, I expect the same.

 

[saveliberty]

Those lunatic folks that stalk military funerals to spread their gay hate message? Us normal Christians are furious with them. We are careful in sermons to stay away from political commentary, unless the subject is brought to us by government intervention. We understand there is a line.

But you do understand that those people consider themselves to be the only true Christians (and think you are a heretic), much like Islamic fanatics consider themselves to be the only true Islamics, and moderate Islamics are heretics.

I do understand that. Doesn't stop me from speaking out and it should not stop them.

 

[pillars]

Muslims do speak out about it, but people don't pay attention.

Muslim peace march in London 'IGNORED by media'

How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To Terrorism

Think Muslims Haven't Condemned ISIS? Think Again - Common Word, Common Lord

Shiite Muslims hold anti-terrorism rally in Washington

Kamran Pasha's Blog » Blog Archive » The Big Lie About Muslim Silence on Terrorism

 

[saveliberty]

To me the question is not "to compromise or not to compromise"

Because it seems to me we already did compromise, greatly.

This is very obvious in this NSA situation.

If we have not compromised, if we have not clicked that checkbox that comes along with every step you are taking in your online world, you pretty much couldnt have functioned in this todays society.

So we have created this giant tool that makes us much more efficient, functional and analytical.

In my opinion; if there is a security weakness in this country, it is not because we are willing or not willing to compromise, it is because we cant use the tools available to us, wisely and properly.


Take ISIS for instance, could not have existed w/o internet....

We compromised because it was easy and people chose safety over liberty. So yes, the compromise already happened. ISIS integrated the internet, it would have existed without it.

 

[saveliberty]

Muslims do speak out about it, but people don't pay attention.

Muslim peace march in London 'IGNORED by media'

How 70,000 Muslim Clerics Are Standing Up To Terrorism

Think Muslims Haven't Condemned ISIS? Think Again - Common Word, Common Lord

Shiite Muslims hold anti-terrorism rally in Washington

Kamran Pasha's Blog » Blog Archive » The Big Lie About Muslim Silence on Terrorism

You have identified a problem then, that is good. How do we get media to provide a more balanced picture?

 

[pillars]

I can't control the media, but I can provide the information I have to the people I know.

Do you feel differently knowing that many muslim groups and clerics have spoken out against the violence?

 

[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.

 

[saveliberty]

I can't control the media, but I can provide the information I have to the people I know.

Do you feel differently knowing that many muslim groups and clerics have spoken out against the violence?

It helps me focus more on why the message isn't getting through to extremists. Were they well attended events, perhaps it needs more time to grow and take effect?

 

[flacaltenn]

Would that be required then for others choosing religous arbitration? Jews, Catholics, Mormans?

I suppose you need to for equality's sake.

All of those faiths place women in a subordinate position to men - some sects of those faith extremely so. Shouldn't it also be out of concern for women?

My intention was to protect Muslim women.

What about protecting Jewish women, Catholic women, Morman womwn? Orthodox Jewish women can not get a religious divorce with out the husbands permission even in the most abusive marriage. Shouldn't they be protected?

Another point, often missed is that though these religious abritation groups can help adjudicate issues such as child custody and the division of property in a divorce - must be ratified by a secular court to have the force of law.

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..