Ali totally bought into Nation of Islam rascist ideology

[GL97]

If by citizens and non-citizens you mean.....

The original quote I responded to was: "in terms of "extreme vetting", a good policy would be to refuse immigration to any family where the women cover their hair with the hijab, chador or burka."

This quote did not specifically mention where this immigrant family is or the family's specific status. Everything I have posted is legally consistent with the general nature of that quote.

Both of us may have assumed too much in regards to the specific meaning of that quote. If he chooses to clarify that statement, perhaps we would find that we are actually in agreement.

 

[mseabolt]

I am putting all extremists of an ideology on the same level playing field. Sure, there is a difference in disparity

I am talking number and severity of actions.
I would live to see you prove your point by walking into a group from westboro and then a group of extreme Muslims and tell them both you are a homosexual ... Please go to westboro first so you have a chance at the other.

 

[GL97]

Groups don't have the same beliefs, values, and norms.

Do most religious groups have an extremist faction?

 

[JohnVoight]

And?

Just because the refugees are Muslim doesn't mean the reason those on the left want to help Syrian refugees is so they can "import Islam" into this country. I mean, come on.



No they aren't. Advocating religious diversity and protection against religious discrimination doesn't mean one wants to "import Islam" into this country. It simply means the left is standing up for civil liberties.

Let go of the fear and paranoia. Take some time and get to know some Muslims. Heck fire, take some time and get to know some liberals too, lol!

Regardless of the altruistic motives of the left, what is the net effect of importing Syrians into this country? Which religion is imported? I live in Seattle, have lived in SF. I'm surrounded by millennial liberals. Thank you though for assuming my world experiences...triggered. If I was only exposed to and surrounded by leftist-leaning and tolerant worldviews such as yours, I would have a new perspective. Gotcha. The ivory tower will open its doors to me someday. I can only hope.

 

[GL97]

I am talking number and severity of actions.

I agree with you in terms of numbers (within the modern age at least), but not in terms of severity (when comparing equal actions, which it appears you don't want to do).

The severity of a person claiming to be Christian walking into a Planned Parenthood and shooting people is just as severe as a person claiming to be a Muslim walking into a nightclub and shooting people.

The severity of a person claiming to be a Christian celebrating a mass shooting of homosexuals is just as severe as a person claiming to be a Muslim celebrating a mass shooting of homosexuals.

 

[MegaPoke]

What about the preacher advocating "executing the homos". . . or the preacher celebrating the Orlando shooting?

Hate is hate, regardless of what religious ideology it hides behind.

Hate is not hate regardless of proportionality. Cmon man.

 

[GL97]

what is the net effect of importing Syrians into this country?

Yes, some individuals who are Muslims will enter this country. But the intent of those seeing to assist and help Syrian refugees isn't to "import Islam." The intent is to address a humanitarian crises and provide different forms of relief to those who are suffering.

I live in Seattle, have lived in SF. I'm surrounded by millennial liberals.

That doesn't mean you have sought to talk with them and truly understand why they embrace the positions they do.

You are correct though, it is wrong of me to make assumptions about what you have experienced. It is just hard not to when you claim liberals want to "import Islam" simply because we oppose religious discrimination and because Ellison was in the running for the DNC chairmanship.

 

[CowboyJD]

The original quote I responded to was: "in terms of "extreme vetting", a good policy would be to refuse immigration to any family where the women cover their hair with the hijab, chador or burka."

This quote did not specifically mention where this immigrant family is or the family's specific status. Everything I have posted is legally consistent with the general nature of that quote.

Both of us may have assumed too much in regards to the specific meaning of that quote. If he chooses to clarify that statement, perhaps we would find that we are actually in agreement.

You do understand "refusing immigration" has legal meaning as well don't you?

That you legally aren't an immigrant to American until you have been given due status or have actually stepped on American soil?

I didn't assume anything. I used the legal meaning of the words "refusing immigration" in making my legal argument.

What's more, I consistently expressly made the distinction here in every statement I made....which you consistently ignored or didn't understand and never took the opportunity to do what you're doing now.

I said from the beginning that citizens and non-citizens on American soil and those with some status already granted are protected by the Free exercise clause...I.e. I agreed with that portion.

I even said that was the critical difference (which in your zeal to argue you either ignored or didn't understand). Those non-citizens not having stepped on American soil or been given some legal status by the US are NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to be even more particular, they are not protected by the 1st Amendment with regards to the decision whether or not to let them on American soil or in the granting of status.

We don't need BigOSUFan to clarify anything for you to definitively state whether or not you agree with the bolded proposition of mine.

So what say you?

 

[GL97]

You do understand "refusing immigration" has legal meaning as well don't you??

Yes I do. But I also understand it to be a general statement in the context of this message board that could have differing meanings if you insist on interpreting it specifically.

I didn't assume anything.

Yes you do.

You are trying to make his comment more specific to back up the argument you postulated based upon your original assumptions. I'm rather surprised that you can't simply admit this.

I said from the beginning that citizens and non-citizens on American soil and those with some status already granted . . . That those non-citizens not having stepped on American soil or given some legal status by the US are NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.

I know "you" said this from the beginning. But the original poster said none of this. You went specific based on your...wait for it...assumptions.

I don't disagree btw that I perhaps did the same. But still, my statements remain consistent with the original general nature of his comment.

 

[JohnVoight]

I seek all the time to understand the vision. It almost always devolves to (i) BUT CHRISTIANS!, (ii) how many Muslims do you know?, (iii) or my 1 Muslim friend ain't so bad. You've tried all 3 in this thread alone.

It's my belief the Islam is incompatible with western culture and it is reinforced nearly every single day as more and more migrate to the West. All of the statistics are right in front of us. With that being said, the 1st amendment is very important and must be defended. However, we do have control of what our immigration policy is. I'm for less immigration jihad. The Left is for more.

 

[MegaPoke]

Yes they are, just as radical Islamic terrorists are also marginalized from society.



Really?

Let go of the fear. The left isn't trying to "import" Islam into the United States. Stop believing everything you read at WND.com.

I've face to face interviewed Shirley Phelps. She is evil, but is more lawyer and agitator than true believer. She's a radical but to say she's the same level of committed as a terrorist? No.

Also... Yes the left (globalists, actually) absolutely is trying to import Islam and illegal aliens because the next step is voting rights.

 

[GL97]

It's my belief the Islam is incompatible with western culture and it is reinforced nearly every single day as more and more migrate to the West.

It is my belief that radical Islamism is the danger, not Islam in general.

 

[GL97]

I've face to face interviewed Shirley Phelps. She is evil, but is more lawyer and agitator than true believer. She's a radical but to say she's the same level of committed as a terrorist? No.

Is she on the same level as a radical Muslim who doesn't commit an act of terrorism but instead simply declares the radical beliefs to others?

Is the radical Christian who walked into the Planned Parenthood and shot people on the same level as the radical Muslim who walked into the nightclub and shot people?

 

[MegaPoke]

Is she on the same level as a radical Muslim who doesn't commit an act of terrorism but instead simply declares the radical beliefs to others?

Is the Christian who walked into the Planned Parenthood and shot people on the same level as the radical Muslim who walked into the nightclub and shot people?

No, and also no.

 

[NZ Poke]

The same establishment elites telling us that Islam is not dangerous also told us:


- stop eating high-fat foods like eggs (in the 1970s, we were officially advised by the Surgeon General to eat "low-fat foods" instead - this policy destroyed our nation's health)

- we're about to enter another ice age (also back in the 70s)

- Saddam has WMD, and we have to invade *right now*

- Hillary Clinton has a 92% chance of winning the 2016 election

- Marijuana is extremely dangerous to your health and should be banned

 

[GL97]

No, and also no.

To borrow a phrase from your hero...

Wrong.

 

[PDT816]

"extremist" means there are hundreds of people involved in a belief set and shared goal.

Millions is a mainstream movement. Your issue is that you can't tell who is who, and I agree, that's a problem.

 

[GL97]

Millions is a mainstream movement.

There are millions of Muslims who reject radical Islamism. You are right, moderate Islamism is a mainstream movement.

 

[MegaPoke]

It is my belief that radical Islamism is the danger, not Islam in general.

Sharia law among mass refugee flows of people escaping from civil war (Rather than a legit desire to become Americans, Brits, Germans etc) is at least a big a problem and provides a lot of cover for terrorists to work in.

Islam in general isn't the problem as much as it is the common thread among several current problems.

 

[PDT816]

There are millions of Muslims who reject radical Islamism. You are right, moderate Islamism is a mainstream movement.

Again, it's not radical when 10s of millions of people believe in it

 

[GL97]

Islam in general isn't the problem

Exactly! I fully agree.

I also believe btw that Syrian refugees should be vetted very carefully, as should any refugee we admit into this country from a war-torn area. However, we shouldn't simply reject Syrian refugees because they are Muslim.

 

[NZ Poke]

There are millions of Muslims who reject radical Islamism. You are right, moderate Islamim is a mainstream movement.

Lol - name a country outside of the US, Canada, Australia and NZ (or a handful of small western euro countries with small Islamic populations) where a Muslim can commit apostasy (reject Islam - ie leave the faith) and live an open life.

Be specific.

 

[GL97]

Again, it's not radical when 10s of millions of people believe in it

But that still doesn't mean that all Muslims are extremists (when millions aren't) or that we should discriminate against Muslims.

Again, that is all I am arguing.

 

[GL97]

Lol - name a country

I am talking about individuals, not countries.

where a Muslim can commit apostasy (reject Islam - ie leave the faith) and live an open life.

And in the history of countries that were predominantly Christian, would you like to discuss what use to happen to Christians who committed apostasy?

 

[NZ Poke]

I am talking about individuals, not countries.



And in the history of Christian nations, you want to talk about what use to happen to Christians who committed apostasy?

It's pretty telling when you can't name a single place -- and try to redirect the conversation to Christianity.

 

[MegaPoke]

To borrow a phrase from your hero...

Wrong.

My hero? He's just a guy who works for me.

 

[JohnVoight]

But that still doesn't mean that all Muslims are extremists (when millions aren't) or that we should discriminate against Muslims.

Again, that is all I am arguing.

I don't think all Muslims are extremists, nobody is arguing that as far as I can tell. Muslims do a bang up job of discriminating against followers of their own faith as it is. We don't have to accomplish that for them.

 

[GL97]

It's pretty telling when you can't name a single place -- and try to redirect the conversation to Christianity.

You are the one who attempted to redirected the conversation from individual Muslims to countries.

I've notice you do this often btw. You posted a quote from Francis Yockey regarding feminism and then try to redirect the conversation to foreign aid for Israel, lol.

 

[GL97]

I don't think all Muslims are extremists, nobody is arguing that as far as I can tell.

Then why do you keep debating with me about it?...because that (along with how we shouldn't discriminate against a person because of their religion) is all I am and have been claiming.

Muslims do a bang up job of discriminating against followers of their own faith as it is.

Some Muslims...

 

[Medic007]

And in the history of countries that were predominantly Christian, would you like to discuss what use to happen to Christians who committed apostasy?

Lol. Sure. Then maybe we can compare it to what happens TODAY in Christianity and Islam in regards to committing apostasy. What did Christians USED to do?

 

[GL97]

What did Christians USED to do?

You know what they used to do. Which leads to an even more informative question to ponder...what helped put a halt to those actions within nations that were predominantly Christian?

 

[JohnVoight]

Then why do you keep debating with me about it?...because that (along with how we shouldn't discriminate against a person because of their religion) is all I am and have been claiming.

Have I argued that Muslims currently residing in the U.S. should be round up and shipped out? Interned? No I haven't. Where have a I argued that Muslims should be discriminated against? I don't view a sane and controlled immigration policy as "discrimination." I gather that you and your ilk do and would have a "hemispheric comment market" if allowed with enough cultural diversity to make Soros blush. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion @GL97 . Off to culturally appropriate Mexico and have some cervezas. Cheers!

 

[PDT816]

But that still doesn't mean that all Muslims are extremists (when millions aren't) or that we should discriminate against Muslims.

Again, that is all I am arguing.

Replace Muslims with Gun Owners and tell if we should repeal all gun control laws. One bad apple and there's always a movement to descriminate against every gun oener

 

[GL97]

Replace Muslims with Gun Owners and tell if we should repeal all gun control laws.

Gun control is a whole other conversation PDT, haha.

But no, we shouldn't repeal all gun control laws nor should we falsely assume all gun owners think we should.

 

[Medic007]

You know what they used to do. Which leads to an even more informative question to ponder...what helped put a halt to those actions within nations that were predominantly Christian?

No, I'm not familiar with what Christians USED to do. Fill me in.

 

[GL97]

No, I'm not familiar with what Christians USED to do. Fill me in.

As you once posted...

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[GL97]

I don't view a sane and controlled immigration policy as "discrimination."

I have no problem with a sane (i.e. fair and humane) and controlled immigration policy. That policy though shouldn't discriminate against people based solely upon their religion. That is what I (and most liberals) would have a problem with.

 

[Medic007]

As you once posted...

Ahhh. Sure. Apostasy in Christianity USED to result in things like death. Guess which religion still punishes apostasy with death TODAY? More interestingly, which religion is the one most persecuted in Muslim nations? When are the Islamic leaders going to demand a reformation?

 

[MegaPoke]

When are the Islamic leaders going to demand a reformation?

This comtains the answer to the question GL97 should be asking, which is what are Muslim leaders doing to correct the loopholes in their own religion that are so commonly interpreted as justifications for violence?

Islam as a whole, bears some collective responsibility for Islamic terriorism until it reforms itself.

 

[GL97]

Ahhh. Sure. Apostasy in Christianity USED to result in things like death.

What helped put a halt to those actions within nations that were predominantly Christian?