Newt and his Muslim Inquisition
- Thread starter Clinton Scott
- Start date
Do you think that Muslims who believe in Sharia will a) fully integrate into our culture and b) make our country better?
I'm trying to figure out how you get someone to admit to something if they know it will defeat their purpose. I mean I like Vinyl on HBO but I'm not going to admit it if it means I get kicked out of the country or not let in. I agree that folks who buy into Sharia law are probably not the kind of folks I want to hang with, just not sure how you get them booted or not let in.
And the notion of making it a felony to visit a website "favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups" is a truly scary exercise in governmental overreach.
Deporting any Muslim woman who wears a burka, along with her husband and kids, would be a good start.
Not a big believer in the 1st Amendment are you? Where are you going to deport the Muslim US Citizens that choose to wear a burka? Why stop at burkas? Let's deport the hijab, shayla, and Al-Amira wearers too.
The idea that those from a cultural background which is completely incongruent with the principles in our Constitution will somehow evolve to respect our culture is just pure insanity and reeks of Western naivete.
You really want these animals moving to OKC or Tulsa?
Didn't answer my questions. Kind of completely non-responsive in fact.
Not a believer in the First Amendment are you?
Where are you going to deport U.S. citizens that wear a burka and their families?
Why stop at burkas?
I don't see "except for those 'a cultural background which is completely incongruent with principles in our Constitution'" or "except for those that wear a burka" anywhere in 1st Amendment protection of freedom of religion.
Furthermore, you weren't talking about letting Muslims that wear burkas and their families into the country when you said they should be deported. You also didn't limit you "good start" deportation for the burka wearing "animals" and their families to non-citizens.
I believe in the sanctity of the Constitution....particularly the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th are the foundation of what makes America great. If that makes me naive and insane in your eyes, I'm good with that. What you called a "good start" is insane to me.
I was talking about non-citizens. And no, burka-wearing muslims should absolutely not be allowed into this country.
You didn't answer my question. Do you want like-minded people to those animals in that video moving to OKC or Tulsa (people who think non-hijab wearing women should be raped or that gays should be killed)?
What makes a burka-wearing non citizen any better than a burka-wearing citizen?
I don't agree with what you are proposing at all, but I also think you have a problem in your argument by only having one foot in the pool so to speak.
I knew a wonderful Iranian family who came here for a better life and an education and to escape the violence and degradation. One son did not finish college and his education visa was revoked and he was sent back to Iran, where you can be forced into military service. The other married an American, earned a graduate degree in chemical engineering at OSU including awards, and landed an oil gig in Houston.
Some are here for the right reasons. In a marketplace of ideas, you gotta tolerate the stuff you don't like.
It gets the foot in the door for the globalists to begin dismantling the 1st A. I mean WHO would disagree that people shouldn't visit those sites right? And then what else constitutes a "hate" site? Breitbart? Mother Jones?
I thought it was rhetorical.
Obviously I don't. The fact that I don't doesn't logically at all lead to the conclusion that you drew that the best way to avoid having that is jettison the First Amendment in America by deporting everyone that wears a burka.
Also, why stop at only burkas? Why not deport all hijab wearers as well. Why not just deport all Muslims?
We all have our breaking point. There is an action or a collection of actions that would open the door for jd or mega to say **** the bill of rights **** any due process lets start rounding up Muslims. Is it one shooting a week? Is it one truck rampage a day? Would it be one or maybe five family members killed and the last thing they heard was allah Akbar? Would it be not being able to leave your house because your neighborhood was under siege? All ridiculous scenarios to a lot of you but to someone who has studied history and knows the spectrum of human nature knows anything is possible.
Some people are reaching their breaking point now and do not want being civilized and fair to be a death sentence from people who probably don't have an Arabic translation.
That being said, I don't know what the right answers are. I don't know what my breaking point is. I'm probably an early stage islamaphobe at this point.
Some people are reaching their breaking point now and do not want being civilized and fair to be a death sentence from people who probably don't have an Arabic translation.
That being said, I don't know what the right answers are. I don't know what my breaking point is. I'm probably an early stage islamaphobe at this point.
Iranians (Persians) overwhelmingly are very secular and do not believe in Sharia law. Not to mention that they are culturally superior to most of the world. They tend to thrive here. I saw a study by MIT and Indians and Persians are the two highest grossing per capita ethnicities in America today. Your friends who were here "to escape the violence and degradation" are well aware that the "violence and degradation" in Iran was caused by instituting Sharia in a country which pre-1979 was Western-like. There is nothing I don't like about Persians, other than the very small percent of them who like and support the government of Iran. And that small minority should never be allowed to move here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...it-comes-terrorism-america-not-serious-nation
"Any nation that has reacted as we have after being attacked by Muslim jihadis almost 15 year ago is not a serious nation. It is not a nation with a grand strategy for remaining the world’s pre-eminent power while ensuring the life, health, and prosperity of its citizens. It is not a nation that is serious about preserving its distinctive culture, habits, and institutions. Our leadership has devolved into a pusillanimous group of virtue-signalers for whom cowardice and cant masks itself as compassion. The Democrats, of course, have been almost universally awful, if not, at times nearly treasonous, on immigration and terrorism, but sadly many leading Republicans, particularly on immigration, are hardly any better.
If you want to know why Donald Trump, for all of his boorishness, superficiality, and lack of conservatism will be accepting the nomination of America’s conservative party next week in Cleveland, you need look no further than the martyred dead of Nice. If we can’t bear to say for what they died, and to forthrightly name and defeat the forces that attacked them, then too many of us will ultimately suffer their fate.
Our cowardice will be the wellspring of our own destruction. In Nice, the voice of our brothers’ blood is crying out to us from the ground."
I don't agree that any Muslim woman who wears a burka (and her family) should be deported. I too have known plenty of folks from the middle east that have come here looking for a better life and wished no one here any harm. I don't have the answers, frankly.
What I do know is what we are doing right now is not the answer, and we do need to get serious about very real national security threats posed by radical Islamic forces and individuals. I'm pretty confident that the solution involves tightening our border security by one means or another (or several). I'm also pretty confident it won't involve agreeing to ramp up the number of immigrants we allow to come to this country from areas with known high concentrations of radicals.
Do we really have faith in this administration to adequately vet them? Have they located Noor Salman, wife of the Orlando shooter, and a person of interest in the case, yet?
"Any nation that has reacted as we have after being attacked by Muslim jihadis almost 15 year ago is not a serious nation. It is not a nation with a grand strategy for remaining the world’s pre-eminent power while ensuring the life, health, and prosperity of its citizens. It is not a nation that is serious about preserving its distinctive culture, habits, and institutions. Our leadership has devolved into a pusillanimous group of virtue-signalers for whom cowardice and cant masks itself as compassion. The Democrats, of course, have been almost universally awful, if not, at times nearly treasonous, on immigration and terrorism, but sadly many leading Republicans, particularly on immigration, are hardly any better.
If you want to know why Donald Trump, for all of his boorishness, superficiality, and lack of conservatism will be accepting the nomination of America’s conservative party next week in Cleveland, you need look no further than the martyred dead of Nice. If we can’t bear to say for what they died, and to forthrightly name and defeat the forces that attacked them, then too many of us will ultimately suffer their fate.
Our cowardice will be the wellspring of our own destruction. In Nice, the voice of our brothers’ blood is crying out to us from the ground."
I don't agree that any Muslim woman who wears a burka (and her family) should be deported. I too have known plenty of folks from the middle east that have come here looking for a better life and wished no one here any harm. I don't have the answers, frankly.
What I do know is what we are doing right now is not the answer, and we do need to get serious about very real national security threats posed by radical Islamic forces and individuals. I'm pretty confident that the solution involves tightening our border security by one means or another (or several). I'm also pretty confident it won't involve agreeing to ramp up the number of immigrants we allow to come to this country from areas with known high concentrations of radicals.
Do we really have faith in this administration to adequately vet them? Have they located Noor Salman, wife of the Orlando shooter, and a person of interest in the case, yet?
Last edited:
Nope.
There is not an action or a collection of actions that would open the door for me to say **** the bill of rights or **** due process let's start rounding up Muslims....nor come search me and my family's home without a warrant....nor arrest me without probable cause or force me to incriminate myself as a matter of law or to presume anyone guilty until proven innocent.
Doesn't exist.
We can effectively fight terrorism at home and abroad without doing that.
Yes. Though we may disagree on the reasonableness, advisability or usefulness of a particular reform, regulation, or enforcement action. The devil is in the details.
Obviously true.
How about a foundation from which to build...
A generally fair statement or no?
"The U.S. government entity owes it's first allegiance to a U.S. citizen over non- citizen."
This part seems to shift the framing of Hsh's original assertion (and the first part of your answer), and therefore comes across as requiring an asterisk.
Lol. Am I?
Maybe I'm a new thing, Country-ist. A term not defined by a prejudice but instead by its, the country's, obligation.
Don't care about race, faith, or country of origin, care about its accountability to citizenry.
That's just the kind of thing a racist would say, now, isn't it?
???
Doesn't require an asterisk at all.
Harry contended that there are a series of acts or act that would lead me to agree to say **** the bill of rights and due process and round up Muslims. The statement that we can effectively fight terrorism without doing that shifts neither the framing of his original assertion nor the first part of my answer.
The line doesn't where I would buy into jettisoning the bill of rights doesn't exist.
The fact that we can effectively fight terrorism without doing that doesn't change the fact that such a line doesn't exist for me. It also doesn't change the assertion my HSH that such a line does exist with me.
Generally fair, yes. I would refine it to U.S. Citizens and the principles of the Constitution over non-citizen, but generally fair statement.
I see where this is headed.
It appears that you think I'm an open refugee immigration proponent or an open immigration proponent in general. I'm not.
Last edited:
I wasn't going anywhere at all as far as assumptions about your political positions. None.
Was primarily a mental exercise for myself to test against you, a JD, whether my statement passed mustard. It seems a reasonable statement to me from which to build.
Where that unpacks itself after several iterations of laws in understanding what that means or how it is applied, is beyond me.
As an aside, the scientific method depends on reproducibility in order to remain rigorous. Reproducibility depends on having a defined control group. In the evolution of government (programs), some determination of a "control" group would seem to help evaluate governing effectiveness.
Fair enough.
For future reference, my name is JD and that's why I use it in my screen name. It's not a reference to my profession. Nor does being a J.D. as a profession make me more worthy or credible to pass judgment on your statement (which wasn't a legal one). I did appreciate the engagement, question, and reply to my response. Thank you for that.
I'm just now seeing this. My apology.
The reason I said asterisk is because it seemed to shift from a universal statement ~not ever~ to a temporal statement ~ we can fight (present tense) without.... ~
I was contemplating a what-if, worst case scenario in which laws changed gradually over time in such a way that, say, Christianity is outlawed as a practice or heavily infringed upon. Or some other low probability (but not impossibility) event that is in direct contradiction of your (and my) interpretation of the bill of right.
Which, at that point, the issue isn't the bill of rights, it is the government which has moved to reject the bill of rights thereby allowing persecution or some other unacceptable behavior.
I suppose that raises a question for me (to answer for myself), how do you define US government behavior which adheres to the bill of rights (identifiable borders on infringement, etc) such that there comes a point when that government in practice no longer executes itself in a way that honors the BOR? Where are those lines? You haven't betrayed the BOR, but the governing entity has.
That's a lot of babble. No response needed. I'm brain dead on a Friday.
I agree that a citizen should not be denied to have their beliefs regardless of how oppressive or disgusting they are just so long as their actions don't cause physical harm to someone.
A non-citizen is a whole different matter. It would be like allowing Nazi's to migrate to the USA during WWII. Sharia is not a religion it's an ideology that governs every aspect of person's life. Personal and governmental.
Substitute in the word "black" for every instance Sharia law uses the word "woman" or "women" the liberals in this country wouldn't tolerate it for one second.
This is what I don't get of the left's defense of Islam, it is one of the most prejudiced, misogynistic religions in the world.
A non-citizen is a whole different matter. It would be like allowing Nazi's to migrate to the USA during WWII. Sharia is not a religion it's an ideology that governs every aspect of person's life. Personal and governmental.
Substitute in the word "black" for every instance Sharia law uses the word "woman" or "women" the liberals in this country wouldn't tolerate it for one second.
This is what I don't get of the left's defense of Islam, it is one of the most prejudiced, misogynistic religions in the world.
No temporal shift intended. Maybe I should clarify.
Not ever with regards to my line in the sand regarding the Constitution BECAUSE I believe we can effectively fight terrorism within the bounds of the Constitution now and forever (IMO).
Have a good weekend.
Uh..... You went full retard?
I hope you're not actually stupid enough to think Christianity and Islam are comparable in regards to the prejudices and treatment of women. One of those religions murders gay folks, murders folks who don't believe in the same religion, murders folks who speak against their god, and stones women to death for sex out of marriage. The other doesn't. I wonder which one is which?
I'm not religious in any regard, so statements criticizing Christianity don't bother me at all. Just throwing that out for your likely rebuttal.
I'm not comparing their actions, tho Christians have historically been pretty rough on opponents.
The rhetoric is much the same, however...hate-filled, judgmental and degrading.
Damn jd that's...something. Noble or foolish we will hopefully never know but if searching me and my family, holding me until I can be cleared means also finding a huge chunk of terrorists then I can see a scenario in which I would say sign me up. I'm not there, but ostatedchi sure got a lot closer than me to being touched by jihad last night. It gets you thinking that sometimes terror doesn't always take place inside the tv box.
Of course it opens the door to liberals locking me up and torturing me for the crap I say on here but one does not always fall down a slippery slope.
Of course it opens the door to liberals locking me up and torturing me for the crap I say on here but one does not always fall down a slippery slope.
History is history. It's 2016. One religion has modernized. The other is stuck in 600 AD.
As far as rhetoric, I don't think hate speech causes any deaths by stoning. Black Lives Matter has some pretty hate-filled, judgmental, and degrading rhetoric too.
Whether it's noble or foolish, it's a principle on which I squarely stand and which I will have no doubt that I will continue to hold.
