patrick.net

marcus says

all of Islam is not our enemy.

Marcus, you are 100% correct. I'm sure you also see that populisim, fear, and many in the new administration very much want an "Islam vs us" paradigm in place. It cements control and unity like only a common enemy coming to "get us" can (remember post 911 Bush). The additional reason they like it is because it is a covert appeal to a Christian conservatism. This is why Russia is an ally, not a threat. That's one too many enemies, and not as good for conservatives, as our chosen war on an entire religion that is fast outpacing other religions.

The new administration loves people saying garbage like this ...

curious2 says

(a) stop celebrating, financing, and empowering Islam;

(b) denounce and isolate it. Sharia violates human rights, and countries that impose it should be sanctioned.

... which of course is completely anti-constitutional and could just as easily be enacted, not only against Islam, but any religion not to the taste of culture de-jour. This is why we saw Utah/Mormonism so vehemently against Trump: fear of persecution.

Islam isn't the enemy. Our reaction to terrorism is. That's where the real damage is coming from. The ignorant and scared will continue toward a simplistic answer because they are lazy and easily cowed by powers with an agenda.

It's so very easy to see what we are fighting ... and Islam, itself, isn't it. The more primitive and distrusting will need more exposure before realization kicks in. In the end, enemies typically become friends, once major conflict has run its course. (Time heals all wounds ... etc. etc.)

"Quarantine works pretty well for most diseases. Importing the sick is a path to plague inferno."

How do you quarantine against a religion? It's pretty easy for someone from the Philippines to say lie and say he's not Muslim when he gets his visa. Or someone from Denmark. How are you going to stop that?

worldwide Islam has shown that numbers have to be kept very low or they cause trouble. So keep their numbers as low as possible. No concessions! No justifications! No obscuring the truth about their fraud of a religion! It's as anti-western civilization as a philosophy can be, and should be rejected by all right thinking people.

Rew says

anti-constitutional

@Rew, I don't care about you falsely calling me an ignorant, lazy, coward, but I resent your distortion of our Constitution and your false accusation that anything I've proposed would be unconstitutional. Your name-calling is merely silly, but our Constitution matters.

Read our Constitution. Nothing in it gives non-resident aliens a right to immigrate. Our federal government has virtually plenary authority to regulate immigration.

Read what Islam says. It requires Sharia, which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution.

We can and should confront and denounce Islam as we confronted and denounced Communism, and the same way we would denounce any other doctrine that threatens our Constitution. Hiding behind a religion makes no difference.

Instead of wasting your time trying to make Americans accept Sharia, which would be unconstitutional, maybe you should persuade your Muslim "friends" and their compatriots to renounce it.

marcus says

Again this is a lie. Saying that the terrorists aren't speaking for all of Islam is only saying that all of Islam is not our enemy.

Quotes: "Islam is peace". (Implied all of Islam) "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people " (implied: all Muslims)
Marcus: "They are just saying that not ALL Muslims are terrorists"

Let's do a bit of logic:
They are saying: Muslim => not (terrorist)
you are saying: not(muslim => terrorist)
Is that the same? No it isn't.
YOU ARE THE ONE LYING.

In what you say some Muslims are terrorists.
In what they say: no Muslim is terrorist. Even if these terrorists say they are Muslims, it is only because they are using a perverted version of Islam that is not really Islam.

You need to admit that there is a layer of lie here. US politicians don't simply minimize the relation with Islam. They eliminate it altogether.

curious2 says

Read our Constitution. Nothing in it gives non-resident aliens a right to immigrate. Our federal government has virtually plenary authority to regulate immigration.

Correct, there are no mandates on immigration, but you are purposefully attacking rights of religion, belief, and expression. Those are very much protected in the 1st Amendment. Or does your proposal not apply to the over 3 million Muslim Americans today?

curious2 says

Instead of wasting your time trying to make Americans accept Sharia, which would be unconstitutional

Jewish Halakha law, Christian Cannon law, almost all religious laws, if forced on someone are un-constitutional. The polls will ask how many 'want or believe in Sharia'. They aren't asking who wants to force the practice on others at the end of a gun. That's a very small subset of Islamic radicals, and they are denounced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world.

You imagine a far greater enemy than exists.

Rew says

the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world.

In most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. Read about Asiaa Bibi, a Christian woman currently on death row in her native Pakistan, sentenced to death for blasphemy, as per Sharia, as is the law in Pakistan.

We should not give even one penny of foriegn "aid" to Pakistan, and in fact we should sanction Pakistan, at least until such time as that woman is free from prison, compensated for her loss, and free to say whatever she believes. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a terrorist state, as per Islam, which commands believers to strike terror into the enemies of Allah. It would be a failed state if not propped up by American "aid".

You remind me of The Manchurian Candidate. You claim to have defended our country, in a capacity that would have required you to swear an oath to defend our Constitution. Yet, now, you attack us, in the name of a foreign doctrine. You sound like a latter day Lee Harvey Oswald, claiming that anyone who opposes Stalinism is an ignorant coward. You are the ignorant one.

Rew says

curious2 says

Read our Constitution. Nothing in it gives non-resident aliens a right to immigrate. Our federal government has virtually plenary authority to regulate immigration.

Correct, there are no mandates on immigration, but you are purposefully attacking rights of religion, belief, and expression. Those are very much protected in the 1st Amendment. Or does your proposal not apply to the over 3 million Muslim Americans today?

Islam commands all believers to go to Mecca. As I have written previously on PatNet, the solution is to offer everyone free one-way tickets to go there, while also saying that anyone who chooses to go to a territory that is at war against America is thereby choosing to renounce citizenship. The Islamic State is waging a declared war against us, while Saudi Arabia has committed acts of war against us by aiding and abetting the 9/11 terrorists both before and after the fact. If you wish to join your beloved Muslims, by all means, enjoy your free flight.

At the same time, special accommodations for Islam should end for anyone who refuses to go to Mecca, because obviously they don't really have a bona fide belief in it.

Rew says

Islam isn't the enemy. Our reaction to terrorism is.

Yeah ISIS is not the enemy. We are.
Muslims hating free speech and wanting to implement blasphemy laws is not the problem. We are.
Muslims treatment of women is not the problem. We are.
Muslims wanting theocracy as required by Islam is not the problem. We are.

Let's take a giant whip and flagellate ourselves. We are the worse. We deserve everything bad coming our way.

Meanwhile:
- Belgium elected Muslim politicians vow to create an Islamic state in Belgium and implement Shariah.
http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/10/31/muslim-candidates-vow-islamic-state-after-belgium-win/

- Muslims to be majority in Brussels in 2030.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3442/belgium-islamic-state

curious2 says

We should not give even one penny of foriegn "aid" to Pakistan

Should we extend this further and say we shouldn't give aid or be ally with anyone that doesn't do things exactly as we do, or has any questionable civil rights issues? Are we ourselves so clean (Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Birth control/abortion)? Pakistan is far more strategically important to us, that we absolutely shouldn't throw away a relationship, just because they have some rough edges. We can give aid (aka pay to play and influence) and also be critical of civil liberties or how a country is doing things.

If you want to influence the region at all, what are you going to do? Isolate all the countries you perceive as having human rights abuses? Who is left in the mideast to deal with? Israel? Probably not.

I admire your idealism, but you have to work with and meet these countries, if you are going to change them.

curious2 says

You remind me of The Manchurian Candidate.

Oh, thank you. (high five) If only I could be so influential.

curious2 says

You claim to have defended our country, in a capacity that would have required you to swear an oath to defend our Constitution.

What?

curious2 says

Yet, now, you attack us, in the name of a foreign doctrine.

No. I'm defending (poorly, on the internet) people's rights to believe as they wish and not be persecuted for a religion. That absolutely is one of the primary tenants of the constitution.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah ISIS is not the enemy. We are.

ISIS isn't Islam.

People who would trade away freedoms for a belief in security are absolutely the enemy of a free nation.

You think the Patriot Act, and the rise of hate crimes and persecution of Muslims in America, is really what America aspires to be? Is this what the nation was founded on? It's not even a Christian ideal, let alone an American one.

Rew says

primary tenants of the constitution.

Our constitution is not an apartment building.

Rew says

I'm defending (poorly, on the internet) people's rights to believe as they wish and not be persecuted for a religion.

I believe we should stop importing Islam and we should oppose it. I have a right to believe that.

Muslims, by definition, believe in Islam, which is a hateful fraud. You can say they have a right to believe in a hateful fraud, but they don't have a right to do what it says. Calling it a religion makes no difference. Their religion says to cut off your head, but we have every right to prohibit them from doing that. The fact their religion says to kill you doesn't give them a right to kill you.

curious2 says

Islam commands all believers to go to Mecca. As I have written previously on PatNet, the solution is to offer everyone free one-way tickets to go there, while also saying that anyone who chooses to go to a territory that is at war against America is thereby choosing to renounce citizenship.

Of which Islam says that if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family, you don't have to go. Magical. There is a clause for that.

Rew says

if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family,

It wouldn't though: free airfare, safe airplane, in flight movies, AOK. Really, if you love Islam so much, enjoy the flight.

Rew says

ISIS isn't Islam.

ISIS is founded around a literal interpretation of the core of Islam, and as such represents the purest form of Islam on the planet maybe with the Saudis.
What are they doing that Mohamed hasn't done? Nothing. Mass murder, sex slaves and forced marriages? Been there, done that.

Rew says

People who would trade away freedoms for a belief in security are absolutely the enemy of a free nation.

Like Marcus you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?
What is wrong with you?

curious2 says

Of which Islam says that if a pilgrimage would cause great harm to yourself or ones family, you don't have to go. Magical. There is a clause for that.

You absolutely do. You can believe that, right up to the point you try and have your beliefs infringe on another rights as outlined by civic laws of the land.

Do you see how you and a member of ISIS now share things in common?

curious2 says

Muslims, by definition, believe in Islam, which is a hateful fraud.

Inquisators around the world tip their caps to you.

curious2 says

It wouldn't though: free airfare, safe airplane, in flight movies, AOK. Really, if you love Islam so much, enjoy the flight.

But now my family/or I an an enemy of America, and that itself causes great harm if I'm a Muslim American.

Silly hypothetical anyway.

Heraclitusstudent says

Like Marcus you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?

Heraclitusstudent says

ISIS is founded around a literal interpretation of the core of Islam

Right, it matters how it is interpreted and practiced by an individual, and that practice is NOT universal or uniform in practitioners today. It is also true that literal interpretations of Christianity and Judaism would also be unconstitutional.

Edit: Point being Islam and ISIS are not equivocal or equal.

Rew says

You think the Patriot Act, and the rise of hate crimes and persecution of Muslims in America, is really what America aspires to be?

This is not what we are talking about.
I'm not asking for security. I'm asking for a war of ideas.
I'm not asking for persecutions. I'm asking for rational discussions.
I'm not asking for hate crimes. I'm asking for recognizing the reality of a problem.

You operate under the false assumption that any recognizing the problem and criticizing ideas is the same as hatred and bigotry. It is not.
BUT if you persist enough in your obfuscation, people will indeed rally around people like Trump, because they at least have the merit of recognizing the problem.

Rew says

(a) stop celebrating, financing, and empowering Islam;


(b) denounce and isolate it. Sharia violates human rights, and countries that impose it should be sanctioned.

... which of course is completely anti-constitutional

It's not unconstitutional.

Heraclitusstudent says

BUT if you persist enough in your obfuscation, people will indeed rally around people like Trump, because they at least have the merit of recognizing the problem.

I don't think anyone is denying a radicalization issue in Islam.

Heraclitusstudent says

you are defending the most illiberal ideology on the planet, yet claim you defend freedom?

I'm asking for a war of ideas.

But you and many others equate Islam, entirely and wholly, as something to be vilified and destroyed. If that isn't persecution, I don't know what is.

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Rew says

Point being Islam and ISIS are not equivocal or equal.

The head of ISIL/Daesh is a Muslim born to a Muslim family, in a majority Muslim country. He has a PhD in Islamic studies. He justifies everything the Islamic State does by reading from texts that most Muslims hold sacred. Many of the rules he imposes would be imposed in KSA and many other countries with Muslim majorities, including Pakistan.

You seem terribly worried about offending Muslims, but you don't seem to care at all about Asiaa Bibi on death row. Instead, you make excuses for her impending execution. This is how you remind me of The Manchurian Candidate: somehow, you have internalized the perspective of Islam, where any denunciation of Islam requires you to defend it, no matter how many it kills.

Rew says

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Not necessarily. Read the cases about teaching evolution, and the prior cases on Moronic polygamy. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from contradicting a religion, nor from denouncing a doctrine that says to kill us all, even if that doctrine hides behind the word "religion."

Rew says

Right, it matters how it is interpreted and practiced by an individual, and that practice is NOT universal or uniform in practitioners today. It is also true that literal interpretations of Christianity and Judaism would also be unconstitutional.

No Christian or Jews are asking for theocracy. Our culture has, through centuries of criticizing faith, managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.
This is not the case for Islam. Muslims, even many moderates, are asking for direct meddling of religion in public life.

Comparing Islam to other religions is clearly an attempt to distort the problem we face, which is clearly unique to Islam.

Moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for a text that is literally inciting violence and discrimination against non-Muslims are contributing to the problem. You can't say this is a sacred text written by God, and at the same time claim it doesn't mean what it says when you read it.

curious2 says

The head of ISIL/Daesh is a Muslim born to a Muslim family, in a majority Muslim country.

Are all Christians then the same? They believe the same, come from the same countries, believe the same things?

Christian radicals are prevalent. Shall we war against Christianity too?

curious2 says

You seem terribly worried about offending Muslims

Not worried in the least.

curious2 says

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from denouncing a doctrine that says to kill us all, even if that doctrine hides behind the word "religion."

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

Rew says

Islam isn't the enemy. Our reaction to terrorism is.

Exactly how are we supposed to react to Islamic terrorism?

Rew says

In the end, enemies typically become friends, once major conflict has run its course. (Time heals all wounds ... etc. etc.)

Islam never becomes anyone's friend. Those barbarians haven't even stopped killing each other.

Rew says

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

I denounce Nazis and Islam equally, because of their inherent similarities and historic axis in Europe (100k Muslims joined the Nazi SS at the behest of their Grand Mufti), and the KKK. You embrace KKKlansmen, Nazis, and/or Muslims, claiming that some of them seem really nice to you.

Rew says

Strategist says

It's not unconstitutional.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking a religion, most certainly is.

Denouncing, isolating, and attacking the sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

Rew says

I don't think anyone is denying a radicalization issue in Islam.

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam. Except for the mainstream media, that relay these thoughts exactly.
Except the numerous liberals who are so afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims. etc, etc...

Heraclitusstudent says

Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Even more bizarre, she proposed paying to import more of it, while acknowledging that lethal terrorism "is clearly rooted in Islamic thinking," and proposing more mass surveillance and support for her Saudi sponsors.

Heraclit says

No Christian or Jews are asking for theocracy.

They are out there, on the fringe.
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/#sthash.iFbBpkoW.dpbs
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm

Heraclit says

Our culture has, through centuries of criticizing faith, managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?
Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

Heraclit says

Comparing Islam to other religions is clearly an attempt to distort the problem we face, which is clearly unique to Islam.

No denying problems. They are problems faced before and common to religions in general. This is not an attempt to obscure, merely something you don't agree with.

Heraclit says

Moderate Muslims, by asking for respect for a text that is literally inciting violence and discrimination against non-Muslims are contributing to the problem. You can't say this is a sacred text written by God, and at the same time claim it doesn't mean what it says when you read it.

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

Fundamentalism must appeal to you. ;)

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Rew says

You can denounce fundamentalism, radicalism, and absotluey bad ideas and practice, without denouncing ALL of Islam and Muslims everywhere.

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam. Just denouncing acts like killing someone for apostasy will get Muslims up in arms.

Rew says

Strategist says

sharia laws which are human rights abuses is not unconstitutional.

RIGHT! Not Islam.

Sharia laws are Islam. And Islam is sharia laws. There is no difference. You cannot be a Muslim without first believing in sharia laws.

Rew says

"God bless the untied states of America." What was that marriage fight over exactly? Abortion rights are free and clear of religion in politics. IS Obama still a secret Muslim?

Clearly, we are unmarred and completely agnostic when we begin to make political decisions. Humans absolutely can operate like that. Bah!

You compare this to theocracy? You can't be serious. We have separation of church and state. That some voters blocks within a democracy are influenced by their religious philosophy is not theocracy.
I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well, except our past 2 presidents and Hillary Clinton, who made it clear that there is no problem with Islam.

Islam itself, no. Radicalization in Islam, yes.

Heraclitusstudent says

afraid to be seen as islamophobic they wouldn't dare even admitting that attackers are radicalized Muslims.

False attack line of the right. The counter side, and proponent of freedoms, is afraid that people will be biased against Islam overall.

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

Rew says

Strategist says

You can't separate bad ideas from Islam.

Oh no? Much like the ACA, we gotta throw the whole thing out, huh? (wink)

All religions, political systems, and 'ideas', change, evolve, and are reformed over time. If they do not, they die. The core tenets of Islam are almost identical to all religions of the world. If you strip most religions down to their initial fostering beliefs, they all look egalitarian, have some form of the golden rule, and are about love and kindness.

The sharia laws are unique to Islam and Islam only. No one else practices such human rights abuses to this extent as does Islam. If sharia laws are not part and parcel of Islam, as you claim, why do Muslims accept it instead of speaking out against it?

Rew says

Which is to say it would be impossible to have different interpretations of a holy text, which we know is false. It is also to say a religions belief can never evolve and must adhere strictly to fundamental interpretations. We know this also to be false.

To have a different interpretation you just need to hold contradictory beliefs: (1) that the legitimacy of the text comes from being written by god (not inspired or spelled but directly written) (2) then believe something else than what is written. Then pray over it 5 times a day.

It's not impossible but clearly this is not what the stable intellectual position is.

Heraclitusstudent says

I don't think you even imagine what it would be like under shariah law.

Oh no. I'm very clear of what it looks like. The fall of the Shaw in Iran is the model to watch. Amazing today that Iran is more progressive on some things than other nations considered to be far less theocratic and progressive than it. Guess that is that whole 'things cannot change and are always strictly interpreted' point you are making. (wink)

Heraclitusstudent says

We have separation of church and state.

Except where we don't, and the fact that Christianity's influence in politics is enormous.
I didn't compare it to a theocracy, I'm pointing out that we are not beyond a clean our influence from religion in our politics.

There is no "ban" from influence on government ... as you previously stated.

Heraclitusstudent says

... managed to reduce its influence and ban it from government.

That reduction in influence also seems to be making a last ditch swing the other way as of late.

How many terrorist attacks in the US or Europe are assigned to Dominionists or Superfrum Hassidim?

It's not people with long sideburns or 50s men's haircuts plowing trucks into Xmas markets or random pedestrians.

Frankly I would take Rafael Cruz in a heartbeat over Grand Sheik Abdulrahman Al Alsanad. By the way, the Saudi Religious Police were the model for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - aka the Taliban's- own version of Saudi's PVPV.