Why Liberals Support Muslims who stand for everythng they hate?

[Sundance508]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Why do we Liberals support the First Amendment?

Because we believe in the Constitution.




Why do Conservatives believe all Muslims are terrorists?

View attachment 78595

If one is a 'constitutionalist aka a believer in the constitution you must support the second amendment as well.

Once again we see the usual fallacious argument of "ALL' not all blacks are criminals...not all muslims are terrorists(btw no one has ever claimed either to be true)such an argument is fallacious as well as irrelevant.

This logical fallacy commonly made by liberals when arguing against the actions of people that follow a particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for more religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

Lest we forget not 'ALL' Germans were nazis but look what happened there.

Where's the logical fallacy?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is a straw man argument.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is almost always a straw man argument when deployed in the context of a debate on Islam.

A straw man argument is a type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy is a response to an argument/position that is intended to shift attention away from the real issue at hand. When people say "not all Muslims are terrorists" (or an equivalent phrase, like "only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Al Qaeda) they are shifting attention away from the real issue. Specifically, they are shifting attention away from whatever it is their opponent is actually saying by pretending that their opponent holds a position that they do not -the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

I do not believe that every single Muslim is a terrorist. I have never spoken to anyone who does. Even Pat Robertson doesn't believe this. So to anyone who insists on injecting "not all Muslims are terrorists" into a debate, please be aware that you are almost certainly committing a logical fallacy.

I am opposed to Islam for ideological reasons. My opposition is not based on a mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. Do not impart this belief onto me. I am not opposed to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", although I can understand the point of view of those who are, and it is not helping the debate to deploy a logical fallacy against them by saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists". From their point of view, you look stupid and ignorant, because you are unwilling to actually respond to their actual beliefs.'

 

[idb]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Why do we Liberals support the First Amendment?

Because we believe in the Constitution.




Why do Conservatives believe all Muslims are terrorists?

View attachment 78595

If one is a 'constitutionalist aka a believer in the constitution you must support the second amendment as well.

Once again we see the usual fallacious argument of "ALL' not all blacks are criminals...not all muslims are terrorists(btw no one has ever claimed either to be true)such an argument is fallacious as well as irrelevant.

This logical fallacy commonly made by liberals when arguing against the actions of people that follow a particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for more religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

Lest we forget not 'ALL' Germans were nazis but look what happened there.

Where's the logical fallacy?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is a straw man argument.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is almost always a straw man argument when deployed in the context of a debate on Islam.

A straw man argument is a type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy is a response to an argument/position that is intended to shift attention away from the real issue at hand. When people say "not all Muslims are terrorists" (or an equivalent phrase, like "only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Al Qaeda) they are shifting attention away from the real issue. Specifically, they are shifting attention away from whatever it is their opponent is actually saying by pretending that their opponent holds a position that they do not -the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

I do not believe that every single Muslim is a terrorist. I have never spoken to anyone who does. Even Pat Robertson doesn't believe this. So to anyone who insists on injecting "not all Muslims are terrorists" into a debate, please be aware that you are almost certainly committing a logical fallacy.

I am opposed to Islam for ideological reasons. My opposition is not based on a mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. Do not impart this belief onto me. I am not opposed to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", although I can understand the point of view of those who are, and it is not helping the debate to deploy a logical fallacy against them by saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists". From their point of view, you look stupid and ignorant, because you are unwilling to actually respond to their actual beliefs.'

It's not a strawman argument when the claim is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
Neither is it appeasement or favouring Muslims when this simple fact is pointed out.

 

[Sundance508]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Why do we Liberals support the First Amendment?

Because we believe in the Constitution.




Why do Conservatives believe all Muslims are terrorists?

View attachment 78595

If one is a 'constitutionalist aka a believer in the constitution you must support the second amendment as well.

Once again we see the usual fallacious argument of "ALL' not all blacks are criminals...not all muslims are terrorists(btw no one has ever claimed either to be true)such an argument is fallacious as well as irrelevant.

This logical fallacy commonly made by liberals when arguing against the actions of people that follow a particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for more religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

Lest we forget not 'ALL' Germans were nazis but look what happened there.

Where's the logical fallacy?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is a straw man argument.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is almost always a straw man argument when deployed in the context of a debate on Islam.

A straw man argument is a type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy is a response to an argument/position that is intended to shift attention away from the real issue at hand. When people say "not all Muslims are terrorists" (or an equivalent phrase, like "only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Al Qaeda) they are shifting attention away from the real issue. Specifically, they are shifting attention away from whatever it is their opponent is actually saying by pretending that their opponent holds a position that they do not -the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

I do not believe that every single Muslim is a terrorist. I have never spoken to anyone who does. Even Pat Robertson doesn't believe this. So to anyone who insists on injecting "not all Muslims are terrorists" into a debate, please be aware that you are almost certainly committing a logical fallacy.

I am opposed to Islam for ideological reasons. My opposition is not based on a mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. Do not impart this belief onto me. I am not opposed to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", although I can understand the point of view of those who are, and it is not helping the debate to deploy a logical fallacy against them by saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists". From their point of view, you look stupid and ignorant, because you are unwilling to actually respond to their actual beliefs.'

It's not a strawman argument when the claim is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
Neither is it appeasement or favouring Muslims when this simple fact is pointed out.

You make quite a leap from 'all muslims are terrorists' to 'all muslims are potential terrorists' neither of which has anyone that i have ever read has claimed.

Thus.....this 'ALL' b .s. you are hung up on is nothing more than a red herring. deal wid dat chump and get back wid us here on da low i.q. boid. hehheh

BTW....lest we forget ....not all germans were nazis....but look what happened there.

 

[idb]

Why do we Liberals support the First Amendment?

Because we believe in the Constitution.




Why do Conservatives believe all Muslims are terrorists?

View attachment 78595

If one is a 'constitutionalist aka a believer in the constitution you must support the second amendment as well.

Once again we see the usual fallacious argument of "ALL' not all blacks are criminals...not all muslims are terrorists(btw no one has ever claimed either to be true)such an argument is fallacious as well as irrelevant.

This logical fallacy commonly made by liberals when arguing against the actions of people that follow a particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for more religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

Lest we forget not 'ALL' Germans were nazis but look what happened there.

Where's the logical fallacy?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is a straw man argument.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is almost always a straw man argument when deployed in the context of a debate on Islam.

A straw man argument is a type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy is a response to an argument/position that is intended to shift attention away from the real issue at hand. When people say "not all Muslims are terrorists" (or an equivalent phrase, like "only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Al Qaeda) they are shifting attention away from the real issue. Specifically, they are shifting attention away from whatever it is their opponent is actually saying by pretending that their opponent holds a position that they do not -the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

I do not believe that every single Muslim is a terrorist. I have never spoken to anyone who does. Even Pat Robertson doesn't believe this. So to anyone who insists on injecting "not all Muslims are terrorists" into a debate, please be aware that you are almost certainly committing a logical fallacy.

I am opposed to Islam for ideological reasons. My opposition is not based on a mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. Do not impart this belief onto me. I am not opposed to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", although I can understand the point of view of those who are, and it is not helping the debate to deploy a logical fallacy against them by saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists". From their point of view, you look stupid and ignorant, because you are unwilling to actually respond to their actual beliefs.'

It's not a strawman argument when the claim is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
Neither is it appeasement or favouring Muslims when this simple fact is pointed out.

You make quite a leap from 'all muslims are terrorists' to 'all muslims are potential terrorists' neither of which has anyone that i have ever read has claimed.

Thus.....this 'ALL' b .s. you are hung up on is nothing more than a red herring. deal wid dat chump and get back wid us here on da low i.q. boid. hehheh

BTW....lest we forget ....not all germans were nazis....but look what happened there.

I've made no leaps...stop listening to the voices arguing in your own head and try to focus on the world on the other side of your eyeballs...chump.

When you write that "There is no such thing as 'moderate islam' or moderate muslims...to think so is to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of islam."
and
"'We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance." the presumed point you're making is that you can't trust Muslims.

Is that what you're trying to say...chump?

 

[Sundance508]

If one is a 'constitutionalist aka a believer in the constitution you must support the second amendment as well.

Once again we see the usual fallacious argument of "ALL' not all blacks are criminals...not all muslims are terrorists(btw no one has ever claimed either to be true)such an argument is fallacious as well as irrelevant.

This logical fallacy commonly made by liberals when arguing against the actions of people that follow a particular ideology where instead responding appropriately to the argument at hand, you make an erroneous assertion that the argument only applies to a small subset of people. For example

Me: islam is responsible for more religious violence per capita then any other religion.
You: but not all Muslims are terrorists!.

Lest we forget not 'ALL' Germans were nazis but look what happened there.

Where's the logical fallacy?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is a straw man argument.

"Not all Muslims are terrorists" is almost always a straw man argument when deployed in the context of a debate on Islam.

A straw man argument is a type of red herring fallacy. A red herring fallacy is a response to an argument/position that is intended to shift attention away from the real issue at hand. When people say "not all Muslims are terrorists" (or an equivalent phrase, like "only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Al Qaeda) they are shifting attention away from the real issue. Specifically, they are shifting attention away from whatever it is their opponent is actually saying by pretending that their opponent holds a position that they do not -the position that all Muslims are terrorists.

I do not believe that every single Muslim is a terrorist. I have never spoken to anyone who does. Even Pat Robertson doesn't believe this. So to anyone who insists on injecting "not all Muslims are terrorists" into a debate, please be aware that you are almost certainly committing a logical fallacy.

I am opposed to Islam for ideological reasons. My opposition is not based on a mistaken belief that all Muslims are terrorists. Do not impart this belief onto me. I am not opposed to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", although I can understand the point of view of those who are, and it is not helping the debate to deploy a logical fallacy against them by saying that "not all Muslims are terrorists". From their point of view, you look stupid and ignorant, because you are unwilling to actually respond to their actual beliefs.'

It's not a strawman argument when the claim is that all Muslims are potential terrorists.
Neither is it appeasement or favouring Muslims when this simple fact is pointed out.

You make quite a leap from 'all muslims are terrorists' to 'all muslims are potential terrorists' neither of which has anyone that i have ever read has claimed.

Thus.....this 'ALL' b .s. you are hung up on is nothing more than a red herring. deal wid dat chump and get back wid us here on da low i.q. boid. hehheh

BTW....lest we forget ....not all germans were nazis....but look what happened there.

I've made no leaps...stop listening to the voices arguing in your own head and try to focus on the world on the other side of your eyeballs...chump.

When you write that "There is no such thing as 'moderate islam' or moderate muslims...to think so is to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of islam."
and
"'We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance." the presumed point you're making is that you can't trust Muslims.

Is that what you're trying to say...chump?

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You took the woids right out of mah mouth boyo! hehheh

 

[Norman]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Liberals support everyone who votes (or donates) for them. That's the only requirement. Satan himself could vote for them and they would represent him just fine.

 

[depotoo]

Why Liberals Support Muslims who stand for everythng they hate?

Why Conservatives Support Muslims who stand for everythng they love?

Old Bush jr was having a love affair with the Saudis and the right didn't seem to mind then...

 

[LeftofLeft]

Why Liberals Support Muslims who stand for everythng they hate?

Why Conservatives Support Muslims who stand for everythng they love?

Old Bush jr was having a love affair with the Saudis and the right didn't seem to mind then...

Put the goal post back where you found it. The issue is Muslim intolerance and how liberals give Muslims a pass.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

 

[Norman]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

 

[Sundance508]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

Liberalism is a form of insanity.........................4 Insane Reasons Why Liberals Admire and Romanticize Islam
For his part, President Barack Obama spent half of his speech after the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 lecturing Americans for not being tolerant enough. Contrast that with a different speech last year, when he took time out of his Easter message to scold Christians for their “less than loving” behavior. Our president chastised Christians on Easter and excused Muslims after an Islamic terrorist attack. It’s incredible. Almost as incredible as Secretary of State John Kerry explaining how he can “see the rationale”for Muslims slaughtering cartoonists who draw pictures of Muhammed.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

Huh?

Look. I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the tenets of Islam. Most liberals do, because otherwise they wouldn't really have liberal values such as the equality of women, non-descrimination of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and secular humanist values such as the separation of church and state.

At the same time I respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the right to religion.

So, although I disagree with Islam, I don't think Muslims should be descriminated against because of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean I support Islam; it means I support the Constitution of the United States.

 

[jasonnfree]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Why do we Liberals support the First Amendment?

Because we believe in the Constitution.

Why do Conservatives believe all Muslims are terrorists?

View attachment 78595

Great. Muslims in the military. And of course, none would join so they could do sabotage, would they? Let's hope Trump becomes the new Sheriff in town. I don't believe America as we know it can survive a hillary presidency.

 

[Norman]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

Huh?

Look. I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the tenets of Islam. Most liberals do, because otherwise they wouldn't really have liberal values such as the equality of women, non-descrimination of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and secular humanist values such as the separation of church and state.

At the same time I respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the right to religion.

So, although I disagree with Islam, I don't think Muslims should be descriminated against because of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean I support Islam; it means I support the Constitution of the United States.

Why do they want to make the west, the middle east then?

0/10.

Pretty sure there is no amendment in the constitution commanding: "Thou shalt import bunch of crazy 3rd world regressives". Obama doesn't seem to believe that either. Didn't he just ban immigration from socialist Venezuela?

 

[bodecea]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Don't support Muslims at all....I DO support the 1st Amendment. Don't you?

 

[bodecea]

So, the response to this thread should be "bigot said what?" The OP abandoned his thread.

Your logical response to this thread would be to apologize for your ignorance and promise to try and do better next time.....nothing against you personally....jus saying........fools wil be fools git mah drift boyo?

What ignorance? What have moderate Muslims done to you and why throw all Muslims into the same bucket?

There is no such thing as 'moderate islam' or moderate muslims...to think so is to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of islam.

For many, my comments and the following article will be eye-opening to say the least. We have all heard of Christians in name only. Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, and they are hated by those who are true to the Qur’an and to their prophet, Muhammad.

'Islam is a totalitarian ideology, cloaked in robes of religion to present itself as honorable to an unsuspecting world.'

'We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance.'



The Qur’an Proves There Is No Such Thing As Moderate Islam Or Moderate Muslims • Now The End Begins

Then there's no such thing as moderate Christianity either.

 

[Sundance508]

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

Huh?

Look. I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the tenets of Islam. Most liberals do, because otherwise they wouldn't really have liberal values such as the equality of women, non-descrimination of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and secular humanist values such as the separation of church and state.

At the same time I respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the right to religion.

So, although I disagree with Islam, I don't think Muslims should be descriminated against because of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean I support Islam; it means I support the Constitution of the United States.

Why do they want to make the west, the middle east then?

0/10.

Liberals support muslims because liberals hate Christians more than they love gays.

Wrong.

It's wrong indeed. No democrat yet has released an onslaught on Christian people killing 50. None of them support an ideology that says Christians be thrown down from rooftops. Clearly, they hate gays even more than Christians.

Huh?

Look. I'm a liberal. I strongly disagree with the tenets of Islam. Most liberals do, because otherwise they wouldn't really have liberal values such as the equality of women, non-descrimination of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and secular humanist values such as the separation of church and state.

At the same time I respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, specifically the right to religion.

So, although I disagree with Islam, I don't think Muslims should be descriminated against because of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean I support Islam; it means I support the Constitution of the United States.

Do you also support the second amendment?....i mean if you support the constitution? jus sayin ya know................irregardless.....................what if there was a religion that stated it's primary function was to kill Americans....do you think such a religion should be protected or outlawed?

In other woids....are you claiming anyone can claim their religion should be respected juz because of the first amendment no matter what their behavior or ideology happens to be? Git mah drift boyo?

There was a time......when Americans were very pragmatic. Whut Happened? Obviously political correctness.

 

[Seawytch]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Don't support Muslims at all....I DO support the 1st Amendment. Don't you?

Actually, there are some Muslims I support. There are also some Christians I support, some Sikhs I support, some Wiccans I support, some Buddhists I support, even a Satanist or two I support. I don't support their religion or agree with their beliefs, but I love them and support their individual right to practice their religion.

It boils down to stop demonizing entire religions for the actions of individual followers. It's like hating Elvis because a bunch of his fans are nucking futs.

 

[Sundance508]

• "I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician -- and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV -- who today have said ‘We don't know what the shooter's motivation could possibly be!’ have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team." --

John Hawkins - Why Liberals Support Muslims Who Hate Everything They Stand For

Don't support Muslims at all....I DO support the 1st Amendment. Don't you?

Actually, there are some Muslims I support. There are also some Christians I support, some Sikhs I support, some Wiccans I support, some Buddhists I support, even a Satanist or two I support. I don't support their religion or agree with their beliefs, but I love them and support their individual right to practice their religion.

It boils down to stop demonizing entire religions for the actions of individual followers. It's like hating Elvis because a bunch of his fans are nucking futs.

You probablly would have said the same thing about Nazism aka we cannot demonize nazism because a few nazis like to kill jews etc.etc. and so on and so forth.

You essentially are sterotyping...aka....claiming all ideologies and religions are worthy of support.

Muslim Opinion Polls

You need to listen to Bill Maher>>>>Bill Maher: There’s a False Equivalence Between Muslim and Christian-Inspired Terrorist Attacks

 

[Care4all]

Meriden Mosque shooter gets prison time