Trump's demand that Mosques be closed -- Here's what Washington said in a letter to the Jews

[theDoctorisIn]

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

Nothing will change in these countries whilst their men keep 'fleeing'. I'd like to see them stay and fight for their countries, fight for what they want instead of running away.

What if what they want is peace and safety in which to raise their families?

Not everyone worships at the altar of war.

Of course they don't, but if your leaders are destroying your country there comes a point surely where you have a responsibility to fight for it as opposed to running. The women, the children, the elderly should be placed in safety of course.

I don't agree. I'm a pacifist, have been my whole life.

So you'd run away too? I guess things are making a little more sense now.

You know, I'm honestly not sure what I would do.

I'm a weird kind of pacifist, though. I have no problem defending myself, my family, or my property.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The electorate, that the Democrats think they are too stupid to express themselves

You know that I'm not "the Democrats", right?

No. I don't know that.

You don't understand that I am an individual person and not a political party?

I only know what your posts support.

My posts support that I am actually a national organization made up of tens of millions of people?

No, your posts support that you are an individual who supports a wacky group made up of tens of millions of people.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is not mob rule.

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

Wow. What makes you think that?

I study public opinion and political psychology.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know that I'm not "the Democrats", right?

No. I don't know that.

You don't understand that I am an individual person and not a political party?

I only know what your posts support.

My posts support that I am actually a national organization made up of tens of millions of people?

No, your posts support that you are an individual who supports a wacky group made up of tens of millions of people.

So, because you believe that I "support" the Democratic party, you also believe that I represent them and speak for them?

I'm not following your logic.

 

[Tilly]

If you want to live under mob rule, do it somewhere else, please. This country was designed specifically to prevent that.

That is not mob rule.

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

That is not mob rule.

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

So you don't trust your fellow Americans to vote in referenda in their own country because you have so little respect for them and believe them too ill informed, too emotional and too reactionary (generalise much? How ironic), but you trust strangers who are likely to be more ill informed about the west and it's politics and way of life, who can't be vetted properly according to the director of the FBI, and who who come from violent, war torn hell holes. Strangers who may have been involved in violence but who don't have the decency to stand up and be counted in their own country, for their own way of life, for their own beliefs, but cut and run away to yours instead. Priceless.

 

[Tilly]

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

Wow. What makes you think that?

I study public opinion and political psychology.

Maybe you should divert your efforts and study the Quran and Hadith instead.

 

[Tilly]

Nothing will change in these countries whilst their men keep 'fleeing'. I'd like to see them stay and fight for their countries, fight for what they want instead of running away.

What if what they want is peace and safety in which to raise their families?

Not everyone worships at the altar of war.

Of course they don't, but if your leaders are destroying your country there comes a point surely where you have a responsibility to fight for it as opposed to running. The women, the children, the elderly should be placed in safety of course.

I don't agree. I'm a pacifist, have been my whole life.

So you'd run away too? I guess things are making a little more sense now.

You know, I'm honestly not sure what I would do.

I'm a weird kind of pacifist, though. I have no problem defending myself, my family, or my property.

Thank you for your honesty. I hope you're not tested.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That is not mob rule.

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

So you don't trust your fellow Americans to vote in referenda in their own country because you have so little respect for them and believe them too ill informed, too emotional and too reactionary (generalise much? How ironic), but you trust strangers who are likely to be more ill informed about the west and it's politics and way of life, who can't be vetted properly according to the director of the FBI, and who who come from violent, war torn hell holes. Strangers who may have been involved in violence but who don't have the decency to stand up and be counted in their own country, for their own way of life, for their own beliefs, but cut and run away to yours instead. Priceless.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I don't "trust" Syrian refugees to vote on issue referendums either. That has nothing to do with whether I believe they should accepted as refugees.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

Wow. What makes you think that?

I study public opinion and political psychology.

Maybe you should divert your efforts and study the Quran and Hadith instead.

I've studied them some. Not really that interesting to me, though.

 

[Tilly]

Yeah, actually that's exactly what a popular vote referendum is.

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

So you don't trust your fellow Americans to vote in referenda in their own country because you have so little respect for them and believe them too ill informed, too emotional and too reactionary (generalise much? How ironic), but you trust strangers who are likely to be more ill informed about the west and it's politics and way of life, who can't be vetted properly according to the director of the FBI, and who who come from violent, war torn hell holes. Strangers who may have been involved in violence but who don't have the decency to stand up and be counted in their own country, for their own way of life, for their own beliefs, but cut and run away to yours instead. Priceless.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I don't "trust" Syrian refugees to vote on issue referendums either. That has nothing to do with whether I believe they should accepted as refugees.

I'm trying to understand you, but failing, and I didn't particularly mean you advocate Syrians voting in referenda. Anyway, thank you for the debate, but I must go now. Have a good day - or night, not sure what the time is on your side of the pond

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nope. It is the electorate explaining to the government where they have gotten out of line.

Why do you fear that, if you are so non-partisan?

We already have elections for that.

Sometimes specific issues require a more detailed statement.

The American public as a whole is too illinformed, emotional and reactionary to make a "detailed statement" about policy in this country.

So you don't trust your fellow Americans to vote in referenda in their own country because you have so little respect for them and believe them too ill informed, too emotional and too reactionary (generalise much? How ironic), but you trust strangers who are likely to be more ill informed about the west and it's politics and way of life, who can't be vetted properly according to the director of the FBI, and who who come from violent, war torn hell holes. Strangers who may have been involved in violence but who don't have the decency to stand up and be counted in their own country, for their own way of life, for their own beliefs, but cut and run away to yours instead. Priceless.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I don't "trust" Syrian refugees to vote on issue referendums either. That has nothing to do with whether I believe they should accepted as refugees.

I'm trying to understand you, but failing, and I didn't particularly mean you advocate Syrians voting in referenda. Anyway, thank you for the debate, but I must go now. Have a good day - or night, not sure what the time is on your side of the pond

It's night here, about 10:30 pm. See you later.

 

[theHawk]

George Washington Letter

George Washington and his Letter to the Jews of Newport
The original of Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport, Rhode Island is small in size, but its impact on American life is immense. In 340 well-chosen words, the Letter reassures those who had fled religious tyranny that life in their new nation would be different, that religious “toleration” would give way to religious liberty, and that the government would not interfere with individuals in matters of conscience and belief. Quoting the Bible’s Old Testament, Washington writes,

“every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
He continues:

For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.1

When he wrote this particular letter in August of 1790, the new President must have been aware of the effect it would have on the fledgling nation. He could not have known the extent of its influence today. The history behind Washington’s Letter not only gives us an understanding of the values of the early colonists and our Founding Fathers, but also insight into two fundamental tenets of American democracy: the separation of church and state, and the right of individuals to believe in and practice their religion.

Trump will destroy the basic fundamental right of this nation -- which is freedom to worship without government persecution.

When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation.

Who the fuck cares whether you "entertain the idea of accepting Muslims"?

You don't get a say, bigot. Muslims will continue come to this nation and make up an important part of American culture, whether you like it or not.

When cafe and theater bombings become a common occurrence in America, at least we'll all take comfort in the fact that we were not bigoted by letting them in.

By the way, Muslims do not "make up an important part of American culture", unless you're including the destruction of our culture.

 

[BULLDOG]

George Washington Letter

George Washington and his Letter to the Jews of Newport
The original of Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport, Rhode Island is small in size, but its impact on American life is immense. In 340 well-chosen words, the Letter reassures those who had fled religious tyranny that life in their new nation would be different, that religious “toleration” would give way to religious liberty, and that the government would not interfere with individuals in matters of conscience and belief. Quoting the Bible’s Old Testament, Washington writes,

“every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
He continues:

For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.1

When he wrote this particular letter in August of 1790, the new President must have been aware of the effect it would have on the fledgling nation. He could not have known the extent of its influence today. The history behind Washington’s Letter not only gives us an understanding of the values of the early colonists and our Founding Fathers, but also insight into two fundamental tenets of American democracy: the separation of church and state, and the right of individuals to believe in and practice their religion.

Trump will destroy the basic fundamental right of this nation -- which is freedom to worship without government persecution.

Completely irrelevant to the current situation with Islam.

Sharia law in an integral part of Islam. Should that be permitted here as part of freedom to worship w/out government persecution? Make sure you study the subject a bit before answering.

We have procedures for defining our laws. There is no way Sharia can be implemented. If individuals want to set their own terms on their personal dealings, that is no ones business but theirs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Perhaps I should clarify.

You guys can "say" whatever ridiculous fear-mongering nonsense that you like - but angrily posting on message boards won't change reality.

You can refuse to entertain the idea of accepting Muslims into this country as much as you want, but that's not going to stop them from coming.

Maybe yes, maybe not.

It's odd that we conservatives are not the ones disputing the value of people speaking and arguing their ideas, but instead it is you, the libs, confident in the power of his side that wants to dismiss debate and the contest of ideas in favor of MIght Makes RiGHT.

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

That is not the position. Obviously.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

As for the "position", it's pretty simple.

Muslims are individuals. My downstairs neighbor bears no responsible for the laws in Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian refugees in question are fleeing the persecution of those Muslim countries.

See was that so hard?

But you're wrong.

Muslims are not individuals. They are a group. When we are talking about millions of them moving from shitty Third World Shitholes to First World Nations, AND we have to consider how their descendants will or will NOT assimilate and live happily ever after with US in a diverse and wonderfully multi-cultural Utopia under cotton candy clouds and rainbows.

YOur neighbor might not bear personally responsibility.

How does he feel about Jews? Women? Gays? Personal Property rights?

If he's an American Muslim.....regardless of his race....he will feel fine about all of those things....or he'll be unAmerican. American Muslims have no greater inclination toward hatred or bigotry than Americans of any other religion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Not at all. I've lived around American muslims my entire life, and he's pretty much par for the course.

Anecdotal evidence that flies in the face of statistical evidence.

Show me the "statistical evidence" of American Muslims that that "flies in the face of".

Here's a link showing how a growing Muslim population in Europe is leading to increased antisemetism and violence.


Islam and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am against such a choice for the US.

Islam is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution. For the Democrats to attempt to force such nonsense upon the American people will have catastrophic results upon that party, one way or another.

No. It isn't.

 

[JimH52]

I bet the media in Washington's day was a lot more honest than left wing blog sites that pass for news in the convoluted liberal mind. Trump never demanded anything. He has no power to demand that mosques be closed and he never said it. He merely suggested that the next president consider that Mosques may have become recruitment centers for the jihad. You almost gotta laugh that the same hypocrite liberals who are shocked that a presidential candidate might say such a thing supported a federal judge's order to bulldoze a half century old monument to Korean War Veterans because it featured a 40 ft Christian Cross which was offensive to a single agnostic or atheist or jihadist. Left wingers cheered when federal thugs armed with sledge hammers destroyed a representation of the Ten Commandments on a court house wall which never offended anyone for more than half a century because a single agnostic or an atheist or a jihadist claimed to be offended.

Blah...Blah...Blah

GO DONALD!!

 

[Correll]

How very unusual.

And thus irrelevant when discussing immigration policy that will effect hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

Not at all. I've lived around American muslims my entire life, and he's pretty much par for the course.

Anecdotal evidence that flies in the face of statistical evidence.

Show me the "statistical evidence" of American Muslims that that "flies in the face of".

Here's a link showing how a growing Muslim population in Europe is leading to increased antisemetism and violence.


Islam and antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am against such a choice for the US.

Jews and Muslims have been living side-by-side in Brooklyn for decades. They'll figure it out.

Populations act one way when they are tiny segments of a greater whole.

Grow them pass that point and they act differently.

Did you review the link and it's information about the rise in antisemitism being fueled by the rise in Muslim population?

 

[Correll]

Maybe yes, maybe not.

It's odd that we conservatives are not the ones disputing the value of people speaking and arguing their ideas, but instead it is you, the libs, confident in the power of his side that wants to dismiss debate and the contest of ideas in favor of MIght Makes RiGHT.

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

That is not the position. Obviously.

And yet you offer no information on what you believe it was. Typical.

And just as well. I can only imagine what type of strawman you would almost certainly suggest if you had gone so far as to try to pretend to make a substantive post.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You take internet message boards way too seriously, dude.

This isn't a "debate", and the fact that I'm dismissing you clowns and your fear-mongering doesn't mean I'm "silencing" you - nor am I using "MIGHT" on you.

If you're so into the free exchange of ideas, why are you bitching and whining about what I'm saying?

It is a debate.

I did not accuse you of "silencing" me. Why do you feel a need to stoop to strawmen? Are you unable to counter what I say honestly?

I pointed out that instead of debating the issue and defending your position, you point out that your side has the power to make and enforce the policy. THat is Might Makes RIght. LIbs: All the self awareness of a turnip.

And I am not "bitching and whining" about what you are saying. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and world view/behavior.

Go look at the post that I was responding to in the first place.

Tell me when you find a "debate", or a position to argue against.

Sure.

I believe it was this.

"When Christians, Jews, and atheists are no longer being persecuted and are able to live freely and equally in Muslim nations, we'll entertain the idea accepting Muslims into our nation."

THe position is obviously that Muslims should not be welcome until the Muslim religion/cultures are better at co-existing with different religions.cultures.

YOu seem to disagree, though you did not explain why.

Other than ridicule and Appeal to Authority.

That is not the position. Obviously.

And yet you offer no information on what you believe it was. Typical.

And just as well. I can only imagine what type of strawman you would almost certainly suggest if you had gone so far as to try to pretend to make a substantive post.

It was clear.

If people in countries other than America don't become less intolerant of differing religions and ethnicities......then America will become more intolerant of same.

That's ridiculous. This country doesn't work that way. That's why we are as great as we are. And....it's why certain groups who hold those types of views have become marginalized here.

That wouldn't effect you, though. As you are most certainly not a member of one of those groups. Right?

Have a great day!