Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Absolutely. Look at what they have done to American Blacks and their families -- and, by extension, the country -- via the soft bigotry of reduced expectations.The attitude of regressive islamopologists is an example of PC paternalism at its most insulting, IMHO. It is not only incredibly bigotted (albeit potentially unwittingly in many), it is also anti progressive in that it compounds issues related to successful integration in the West, as well as being damaging to the attempts of liberal Muslims, female Muslims, gay Muslims etc etc to promote a more tolerant, less fundamentalist version of Islam. In a way, the regressive islamopologists with their 'racism of low expectations' (not sure racism is the correct word, but according to Nawaz, below it is) add fuel to the fire of angry young Muslims in the West, albeit, again, probably unwittingly. The islamopologists really need to review how much damage their double standards are causing, and how their double standards are useful to fundie Muslims, but insulting and bigotted against the rest.
Maajid Nawaz hits the nail on the head, IMHO.
"Author and anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz explains how certain members of the "regressive left" threaten progress within minority communities, in particular liberal Muslims.
Members of the left too often champion a brand of racism of low expectations, through which they lower their standards when looking at other cultures if those cultures happen to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. This misguided prioritization of cultural tolerance over the progress and the advancement of liberal values handicaps the evolution of minority communities and harms the weakest members of those groups. Nawaz' argument is simple: If we claim to support human rights and classical liberalism, why do we pull punches when it comes to criticizing minority communities and cultures that don't live up to those standards?..."
Je Suis Muslim: How Universal Secular Rights Protect Muslim Communities the Most
Before anyone claims there is no tendency for the left to bow to accommodations in the Muslim case and be hypocritical when the same issue crops up with the Christian case. Compare these 2 stories.
Accommodating Muslims in public school: where to draw the line? | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
That’s why Muslim students in public schools are often reluctant to ask school officials for accommodation for required prayers or other religious needs. Who can blame them for keeping silent and hoping that the surge in Islam-bashing will eventually recede?
But some things can’t wait. When required daily prayers fall within the school day, for example, Muslim students need a place to pray. And when Muslim girls wearing head scarves arrive at a school with a “no head coverings” policy, they need an exemption on grounds of conscience.
Some school officials take a hard line — as when the Muskogee, Okla., school district suspended a Muslim girl last year for refusing to remove her scarf. Fortunately, most educators instinctively do the right thing and accommodate these requests. Even when they may not have to do so, they want to find some way to allow students to follow the requirements of their faith.
It’s true that students in a public school are free to pray — alone or in groups — as long as they aren’t disruptive and don’t interfere with others’ rights. If students want to pray between classes or at lunch in informal settings such as hallways or the cafeteria, they are free to do so. And there’s no problem with allowing students to use a section of the library or a free classroom for brief prayers, as long as safety and discipline are maintained — and students don’t miss much class.
But if schools get involved in releasing students from classes to attend a prayer service in the school building, that looks like a First Amendment violation to me. Under the establishment clause, administrators may not organize, sponsor, or otherwise entangle themselves in religious activities during the school day.
Michigan High School Bans Football Team From Praying On Field
There will be no more post-game praying for this Michigan high school football team.
After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, Lahser High School has banned football players from engaging in prayer on the field. The team had previously made a ritual of kneeling in prayer after big games, according to local outlet WDIV-TV.
While the original complaint from the ACLU alleged that the team’s coach, Dan Loria, had led the team in prayer, the school determined after an investigation that Loria had merely been present for the prayer. Still, when he received word that the practice was in violation of the Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause of the First Amendment, the coach took responsibility for the occurrence, reports The Oakland Press.
And sports events for school are not even subject to worries about missing class time, providing a special place and dont even occur during regular school hours.
Seems like all that vigorous defense of "separation" that you think is in the Constitution needs a little consistency on Team Leftist. Either you need to ease up on your blood vendetta against ALL people of faith in this country or you ARE gonna get accused of bending over to accommodate religious/cultural differences selectively..
Might be a serving of crow in your future as regards "the war on religion" that is specific to the left.
You've mastered the tactic of presenting false equivalencies. Congrats. Next lesson....how to literally bore intelligent people to death. You are ready.
So your gigue right now is to convince me that those 47 radical groups leaving blood pools all over the planet are confused about the meaning of Jihad?
They're confused about the meaning of Islam.
These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.
What ISIS Really Wants
They are Islamic end timers.
Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.
And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.
We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.
Why is that????
again, i'm no supporter of terrorists. i kind of have a zero tolerance when it comes to blowing up stuff in the name of allah.
in this country? more people have been killed by christian terrorists than muslim terrorists. i think radical religionists are dangerous.
That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.
Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..
we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.
reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.
i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.
see a problem there? with both responses?
i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.
They're confused about the meaning of Islam.
These Islamic terrorist groups are cults essentially.
What ISIS Really Wants
They are Islamic end timers.
Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.
And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.
We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.
Why is that????
again, i'm no supporter of terrorists. i kind of have a zero tolerance when it comes to blowing up stuff in the name of allah.
in this country? more people have been killed by christian terrorists than muslim terrorists. i think radical religionists are dangerous.
That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.
Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..
we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.
reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.
i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.
see a problem there? with both responses?
i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.
Nobody in their right mind would only count American terrorism death and carnage that ONLY occurs within our borders. There were times not too long ago where a SINGLE American death abroad brought swift and SEVERE action..
The carnage is San Bernadino came about because a Muslim RADICAL got a marriage visa without the APPROPRIATE vetting and interviews and GUIDED that attack.. You tend to ignore EXACTLY the pertinent that would allow you to understand why Americans are JUSTLY concerned about accommodating refugees from these war zones.
Ft Hood Allahu Akbar nut? ACCOMODATED by the US Army. Was known to be a bit "polarizing". Incident is STILL officially workplace violence., Your turn --- more Christian terrorists...
They are blinded by their hatred and their ideology.However, the Left may be regretting this alliance. Islam is by far the least tolerant of the major religions. In comparison, Christianity and Judaism are very tolerant of Leftist beliefs and behaviors. That's the sad and strange irony of this alliance. They're not seeing the outcome they envisioned with it.
Yeah, Christian "terrorism."Don't make me go out there and pull the "mission statements" for those 47 plagues of the planet. What does ISIS stand for? Literally? Do you think creating an orthodox Islam Caliphate is AGAINST the principles of Islam? There are certainly RADICALIZED versions of Islam given full validity by the likes of sovereign states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. And in fact --- my beef is not with Islam.. It's with the tyrannical theocratic governments that Arabs tend to prefer. The Wahabi versions of the Koran are a DIRECT EXPORT of the Saudis.
And leftists OUGHT to understand that.. Since they are all hyper about usurpations of liberty by ANY threat of combining state power with theology. THAT"s really your "regressive leftist" reality. That you want to compare the LIBERTY of this nation and it's "discussions" of keeping it secular ----- to a religion that spreads with the ASSISTANCE of established theocratic states that HAVE no liberties.
We OUGHT to be on the same page here. But SOMEHOW --- you folks are stuck on OPPOSING people who recognize and understand threats to their existence by combining religious tenets with the power of a state.
Why is that????
again, i'm no supporter of terrorists. i kind of have a zero tolerance when it comes to blowing up stuff in the name of allah.
in this country? more people have been killed by christian terrorists than muslim terrorists. i think radical religionists are dangerous.
That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.
Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..
we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.
reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.
i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.
see a problem there? with both responses?
i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.
Nobody in their right mind would only count American terrorism death and carnage that ONLY occurs within our borders. There were times not too long ago where a SINGLE American death abroad brought swift and SEVERE action..
The carnage is San Bernadino came about because a Muslim RADICAL got a marriage visa without the APPROPRIATE vetting and interviews and GUIDED that attack.. You tend to ignore EXACTLY the pertinent that would allow you to understand why Americans are JUSTLY concerned about accommodating refugees from these war zones.
Ft Hood Allahu Akbar nut? ACCOMODATED by the US Army. Was known to be a bit "polarizing". Incident is STILL officially workplace violence., Your turn --- more Christian terrorists...
my point was the flaccid response from rightwingers to terrorism emanating from their own and the over-reaction to terrorism emanating from muslims.
They are blinded by their hatred and their ideology.However, the Left may be regretting this alliance. Islam is by far the least tolerant of the major religions. In comparison, Christianity and Judaism are very tolerant of Leftist beliefs and behaviors. That's the sad and strange irony of this alliance. They're not seeing the outcome they envisioned with it.
.
Disagree. America and Canada have a couple of skin-lesions, but the Cancer has not yet mestastisized. We need only look to Europe to see a Terminal Case.If they fail they will likely flee to East Asia.Europe has pretty much 'had it'... it is, by now, so pervasively undermined that it may be too far gone to recover its culture and identity.Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.Culture does make a huge difference.
What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...
And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.
It IS a threat.
Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?
Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.
I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?
Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.
“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”
The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.
One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.
“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”
This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.
If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.
An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.
Oh, well... at least our dumb-ass Euro-cousins can emigrate to New Europe (Canada, the US and Australia), when the pressure from Islam grows too great, as it will.
They're at grave risk of losing their cohesion and identity; having bled themselves white, twice, in the previous century, losing their empires, and exhausting themselves.
America and Canada are too far gone to do anything but follow them there.
Disagree. America and Canada have a couple of skin-lesions, but the Cancer has not yet mestastisized. We need only look to Europe to see a Terminal Case.If they fail they will likely flee to East Asia.Europe has pretty much 'had it'... it is, by now, so pervasively undermined that it may be too far gone to recover its culture and identity.Except in Europe the "colonialism" goes back BOTH ways.I think that is an over-simplified explanation. I talked about this in the thread I started in CDZ on Muslim Americans.What's going with the mass Muslim migration into Europe and all the backlash is probably more CULTURAL than it is religious. It's a matter of getting thru to the immigrants the very basic concept that their right to not to be offended by Western ways has been revoked. And that the mayor of Cologne (or whereever this happened) shouldn't be admonishing German woman to not dress provocatively. That's a leftist "solution" that is counter-productive to what "culture re-adjustment" needs to happen...
And I sympathize with the immigrants. Who must ponder now how to practice and live their religious convictions in a place that WILL NOT protect them from being offended. Leftist leaders trying to ACCOMMODATE these adjustments are just making it worse. It needs to be handled by the EXISTING Muslim community and by culture immersion. Perhaps at some point -- they give up and go back to the safety of tyranny and theocracy. But the danger is --- they might be subject to radicalization if they ABHOR western culture and don't adjust.
It IS a threat.
Muslim immigrant assimilation is little different from other immigrant assimilation - it depends on the culture of the country they are coming from and the culture of the country they are going to - not just the culture, but the culture of integration that country has. Why are countries like the US and Canada so successful at integrating immigrants and why do immigrants flourish here and end up not in other places? That is a question that Righwingers refuse to address because it is more satisfying to attack the alien religion than it is to examine complex problems. Instead they focus on religion as the only barrier, claim that therefore the SAME things will happen in the US as in ohter countries, and completely ignore culture. Like Leftwingers - it's ignoring huge pieces of information. How can there be a solution when you only have part of the data?
Integration is a two-way street dependent on the immigrant and on the host country - when either end fails, there is room for radicalization.
I posted this before but I think it's relevent in this discussion also: Why Do American Muslims Fare Better Than Their French Counterparts?
Some 5 million Muslims live in France -- about 7.5 percent of the country’s population -- one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe. After the horror of the coordinated terrorist attacks on six sites in Paris last Friday, a climate of suspicion once again engulfs Muslims living in the Western world -- and French citizens and politicians alike are grappling with how to respond to homegrown threats. But experts say that the conditions of Muslims in some European countries can create fertile breeding grounds for extremism, whereas societies with more-integrated Muslim populations like the United States are less susceptible.
“In a very broad sense, you have the same communities in Europe and America. Both are Muslims living in the West. But in fact, there are huge sociological differences between the two groups. Most importantly, the relationship between Europe and its Muslims is one rooted in colonialism, whereas the U.S. has no previous history with its Muslim populations. So [in Europe] there is some of the residue of racial and cultural prejudices of the colonial era,” says Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University’s School of International Service and the author of several renowned field projects on Muslims, including “Journey Into Europe: Islam, Immigration and Empire.”
The result is two very different communities: One in America that is hopeful, affluent and better assimilated, versus one in Europe, particularly in countries like France, that exists on the periphery of society, both economically and socially. It’s that marginalization of European Muslim communities that can leave certain members vulnerable to recruitment attempts from groups like ISIS.
One of the main differences stems from the makeup of Muslim groups in European countries compared with those in the United States. Estimates vary, but Muslims in the United States account for 1 to 2 percent of the total population -- yet there is no one ethnic group that dominates: Muslims hail from 77 different countries in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa and Europe. That’s a stark contrast from Europe, where the Muslim populations are more homogenous and typically made up of residents of former colonies. For example, the Muslim community in the U.K. is dominated by Muslims of South Asian descent, while three-quarters of French Muslims are mostly of Morocco, Algeria or other North African origin, according to the Brookings Institution.
“In Europe, pockets of Muslims are isolated by country of origin, which hampers integration. That keeps Islamic identity tied to a home country and so the community is more insular. The umbilical cord is still there,” says Shahed Amanullah, who has worked as a senior adviser at the U.S. Department of State on issues surrounding Muslim youth around the world. “In America, no one group that dominates. It’s not an affinity-based community but a value-based community.”
This article makes strong points outlining the differences between America/Canada and Europe in terms of assimilation, how they are integrated into society, and affluence and prospects for the future - all of this plays into the potential for radicalization far more than simple religion or a matter of "abhoring western culture" - if they feel economically marginalized by western culture, if they feel they have few prospects for improvement AND if they are surrounded by like minded individuals and that view is consistently affirmed by the dominant culture then they are ripe for radical exploitation.
If the Right were truly looking for ways to reduce radicalization, they would be examining this data and asking - why does it work in some places and not in others ? Some models hamper assimilation and integration, other ones inhance it and again, it only works when it's a two-way street with immigrants seeking to assimilate and culture that helps them to assimilate by providing avenues for successful integration.
An inconvenient fact that the so called "left" refuses to acknowledge.
Oh, well... at least our dumb-ass Euro-cousins can emigrate to New Europe (Canada, the US and Australia), when the pressure from Islam grows too great, as it will.
They're at grave risk of losing their cohesion and identity; having bled themselves white, twice, in the previous century, losing their empires, and exhausting themselves.
America and Canada are too far gone to do anything but follow them there.
Y'know, that may be the best short answer to the thread yet.They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.
.
I dislike religion in general but see that Islam is the most dangerous of all of them.
Y'know, that may be the best short answer to the thread yet.They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.
.
Hello. I do not support Islam. Never have.
Next.
Yeah, Christian "terrorism."again, i'm no supporter of terrorists. i kind of have a zero tolerance when it comes to blowing up stuff in the name of allah.
in this country? more people have been killed by christian terrorists than muslim terrorists. i think radical religionists are dangerous.
That's a ridiculous claim backed up by incomplete factoids. If you count the American deaths ABROAD at the hands of Jihadis, airplanes, ships, contractors, diplomatic folk, etc (or even our soldiers battling ISIS right now) -- It's a MOUNTAIN of dead Americans at the hands of Islamic radicals. No comparison.
Sounds like you're going out of your way to IGNORE terrorism here..
we weren't talking about "abroad". we were talking about risk in this country. there is nothing ridiculous in presenting reality. i'm sorry if it doesn't concur with your biases.
reality: in this country.... more deaths have been caused by rightwing christian terrorists.
i say this because when the rightwingnut theocrat shot up planned parenthood, the right shrugged. there was no insane and out of proportion response. but when the pieces of garbage in san bernadine went on their little spree, the wingers and their dear leader, the drfump, thought excluding muslims from this country was the proper response.
see a problem there? with both responses?
i'll also point out that if any democrat had appointed as their liaison to the muslim community, someone who said "death to america", you would have rightfully, been appalled. yet when ted cruz appointed as his liaison to the anti-choice radical theocrats someone who said that doctors performing a legal activity should be murdered, you all didn't even flinch.
Nobody in their right mind would only count American terrorism death and carnage that ONLY occurs within our borders. There were times not too long ago where a SINGLE American death abroad brought swift and SEVERE action..
The carnage is San Bernadino came about because a Muslim RADICAL got a marriage visa without the APPROPRIATE vetting and interviews and GUIDED that attack.. You tend to ignore EXACTLY the pertinent that would allow you to understand why Americans are JUSTLY concerned about accommodating refugees from these war zones.
Ft Hood Allahu Akbar nut? ACCOMODATED by the US Army. Was known to be a bit "polarizing". Incident is STILL officially workplace violence., Your turn --- more Christian terrorists...
my point was the flaccid response from rightwingers to terrorism emanating from their own and the over-reaction to terrorism emanating from muslims.
Got it.
Here they are. Predictable as hell.
"But but but Christians. ......."
They actually attempt to equate the two. They just cannot help themselves.
Get ready for the timmothy McVeigh claim, the "countless abortion clinics being blown up" every day and the crusades in the dark ages.
The left are godless losers. They are hacks. Especially this American hating moron.
I dislike religion in general but see that Islam is the most dangerous of all of them.
Be careful -- the frightened children will start bombing you with their sarcastic little "funny" options at any moment.
By holding islam to a lower standard and sanitising it's worse excesses by likening same to Christianity, you ARE supporting Islam.Y'know, that may be the best short answer to the thread yet.They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.
.
Hello. I do not support Islam. Never have.
Next.
what's the matter, nutty boy? you don't like the term Christian terrorism?
what do you call some psychotic loon who kills doctors in order to keep them from performing a lawful procedure?
By holding islam to a lower standard and sanitising it's worse excesses by likening same to Christianity, you ARE supporting Islam.Y'know, that may be the best short answer to the thread yet.They never outgrew that acting-out stage of their life. That is one of the reasons they support Islam the way they do, as they are forever stuck in that adolescent, oppositional stage.
.
Hello. I do not support Islam. Never have.
Next.
