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.
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!
That's because there isn't any to follow.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.
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?
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.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; seeking to deny refugees asylum in the United States predicated only on their religion and national origin is evidence of that, unsupported by the rule of law.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.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.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; seeking to deny refugees asylum in the United States predicated only on their religion and national origin is evidence of that, unsupported by the rule of law.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.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.
Public policy is developed and implemented based on facts and objective, documented evidence, not fear and bigotry.
No one is advocating the refugees be given asylum absent a comprehensive investigation and background check. Everyone fully supports the effort to ensure no terrorists take advantage of our values and tradition to offer asylum to those indeed fleeing war and terror.
Consequently, the notion of a 'national referendum' on whether Syrian and Iraqi war refugees should be granted asylum runs counter to our republican form of government, it is nowhere sanctioned by the history, text, or case law of the Constitution; a 'national referendum' in fact manifests as mob rule – unwarranted and devoid of merit.
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.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; seeking to deny refugees asylum in the United States predicated only on their religion and national origin is evidence of that, unsupported by the rule of law.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.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.
Public policy is developed and implemented based on facts and objective, documented evidence, not fear and bigotry.
No one is advocating the refugees be given asylum absent a comprehensive investigation and background check. Everyone fully supports the effort to ensure no terrorists take advantage of our values and tradition to offer asylum to those indeed fleeing war and terror.
Consequently, the notion of a 'national referendum' on whether Syrian and Iraqi war refugees should be granted asylum runs counter to our republican form of government, it is nowhere sanctioned by the history, text, or case law of the Constitution; a 'national referendum' in fact manifests as mob rule – unwarranted and devoid of merit.
Red herring fallacy.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.
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.
Red herring fallacy.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.
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.
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!
Wow. Your Communication skills are terrible, or you are being dishonest.
Either way, as someone who is able to read what other people write and understand the PEOPLE behind the words, I can assure you that is not the position he was putting forth.
This is an aspect of you being a sociopath. You have no ability to understand the internal life of other people, any more than any other "object" you encounter.
This part is very important to stress: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.
Damn straight he said it! Fuck yeah!
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.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask about procedures or US law. We were talking freedom to worship w/out government persecution.
Sharia is part of Islamic worship. Should that be permitted here?
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.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask about procedures or US law. We were talking freedom to worship w/out government persecution.
Sharia is part of Islamic worship. Should that be permitted here?
Of course it should if they chose to use it to settle their personal disputes, as long as it doesn't break our law in the process.
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.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask about procedures or US law. We were talking freedom to worship w/out government persecution.
Sharia is part of Islamic worship. Should that be permitted here?
Of course it should if they chose to use it to settle their personal disputes, as long as it doesn't break our law in the process.
Which, for them, negates their freedom to worship without government interference. Thank you for your cooperation.
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.
Irrelevant. I didn't ask about procedures or US law. We were talking freedom to worship w/out government persecution.
Sharia is part of Islamic worship. Should that be permitted here?
Of course it should if they chose to use it to settle their personal disputes, as long as it doesn't break our law in the process.
Which, for them, negates their freedom to worship without government interference. Thank you for your cooperation.
None of our rights are absolute
