- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What evidence have you encountered that indicates a prevalent mentality that attempts to push a radical agenda? Where are the massive (or atleast significant) calls for an inclusion of theology w/ state legislation from the oh so intrusive radical islam? It appears that atheists are more apt to remove God from governing institutions at a rate that out-paces muslims trying to include it (if it even exists). How large is the muslim caucas in this country?
My evidence shows itself in the lack of meaningful instances people can point to that suggests an aggressive movement of radicalized islam in this country.
There are two methods of war going on, one from the militants and one from the moderates.
I think we know how the militants operate. These are the ones who will riot and murder of something like the Mohammed cartoons, intimidating anyone critical of Islam either through the courts, charging of "racist" or "Islamophobia" and so on, or merely remarking that it can't be helped if someone mind kill them for making an offensive remark concerning Mohammed.. This has led to self censorship, of course.
The 'moderates' will be be like the recent case of woman who is suing the school board because she can't travel to Mecca while school is in session. The idea is to claim special rights because you are a Muslims and charges of religious discrimination if you don't get your way. Of course this could allow the militants to move in also if things don't go in their favour.
People suing an organization over religious beliefs/perceived requirements is nothing exclusive to people of the islamic faith. Take Mark Buehler, who (in march) filed a similar lawsuit with the equal employment opportunity commission because he feels he (a baptist) was forced to work on Sundays (the Sabbath). Even with cases like these... there is no proof of some sort of stealth move to change the American way of life. They're filing lawsuits because they felt they were victims, and playing the victim isn't (by any measure) an indication of covert non-violent terrorism. Damn those stealth baptists...
What evidence have you encountered that indicates a prevalent mentality that attempts to push a radical agenda? Where are the massive (or atleast significant) calls for an inclusion of theology w/ state legislation from the oh so intrusive radical islam? It appears that atheists are more apt to remove God from governing institutions at a rate that out-paces muslims trying to include it (if it even exists). How large is the muslim caucas in this country?
My evidence shows itself in the lack of meaningful instances people can point to that suggests an aggressive movement of radicalized islam in this country.
This last sentence is clear as a bell evidence that you haven't done the homework on Stealth Jihad, and you are commenting on something you are unschooled. You , like many people, simply don't know how much you don't know.
It's a nice thought. Loving your enemies. Only problem is, loving jihadists, whether they be violent now, or Stealth Jihadists ("moderate" now, violent later) is asking to have millions of people killed, subjugated, enslaved, pedophiled, etc. As a protectionist, that is unacceptable to me, and I don't care who said it.
That's fine, as long as you are consistent. But too many ultra-conservatives like to pretend they're Jesus People, too (and most actually believe they are).
It's the typical liberal knee-jerk reaction, Protectionist, feeling that there is a line which must not be crossed for fear of being named "Racist", "Islamophobe", "paranoid", oir any of the other epithets many use as a substitute for facts or honest debate.
He's a product of the environment that has created this somewhat parallel universe between what's really happening and that which people refuse to see, or even try to understand. Something similar happened during the Cold War..
That, or ultra-cons are really, really paranoid. I'm goin' with the latter.
Who are these "ultra-cons"?
Is that a recently coined term?
Who are these "ultra-cons"?
Is that a recently coined term?
Lol. No, that's mine. An "original," if you will.
"Lack of meaningful instances" ? LOL. It's like saying Babe Ruth wasn't a good home run hitter. What instances can anyone show of Babe Ruth ever hitting very many home runs ?"
Do you expect Grant or me to sit here and type out the hundreds (if not thousands of examples) ?
OK, you haven't read the articles and have no nterest, Fair enough
You may feel you know better but there are many Muslims themselves who are saying otherwise.
The are muslims that disagree with those muslims. See how we can go in circles with such a notion?
Lol - Well, Europe doesn't have the House of Representatives to deal with. Nor the Senate. Nor the Executive. Nor the Judicial, which is pretty conservative at this point. They also don't have the 4th Estate, The Press. And finally, at least at this point, the United States is a UNIFIED nation with a strong central government, not a bunch of nation/states claiming their rights over The Union with no cohesive policy (which, ironically, is what the Federalists wanted back in the Articles of Confederation days, and what the Tea Party/Libertarians think they want now).
In all honesty, I don't feel America has a "Muslim problem" at all, despite what those with a fear-dependent income may tell us.
Yes, Muslims will disagree with Muslims, and frequently kill each other when they do
If you don't understand what's being said, and are not interested in learning, there is little point in your being involved in this thread.
The Muslim problem exists in different degrees throughout the world. It may not be as bad in the U.S. as other countries but that doesn't mean we ignore it. I hate for peaceful Muslims to have to endure scrutiny brought on them through no personal fault of there own. But I choose not to ignore reality.
Ah... I suppose billions of peaceful muslims agree on all topics... making death the most frequent solution if disagreements ever arise.
To the contrary... you're not interested in mirror incidents that counter your arguments. You don't get to introduce an occurrence into the topic as if proof of some sort of stealth jihadist agenda (muslim woman suing over unpaid leave for religious trip) without acknowledging that suits over religious claims are not exclusive to any one religion... especially when I present examples. Instead, you'll resort to this "if you don't understand" routine in a trivial attempt to claim victory and move on. That card won't work.
Well, we could do what Roosevelt did with Japanese Americans, but more thorough. Inter them all.
In the United States, there are essentially three categories of Muslims: 1) immigrants; 2) American converts/reverts to Islam; and 3) those born to the first two groups as Muslims. As of 2008, Muslims make up 2.11% of the population. I would think, given the size of the Muslim population in this country, eradication - or eternal interment - should be a piece of cake.
We should inter them all, in Gitmo, so we can avoid complaints that people don't want to imprison possible terrorists in their states. Then we should forget about them.
Who's next? Hasidic Jews? Catholics? Scientologists (personally, I like that idea)? Mormons? Snake-handling Pentecostals? Liberals? Conservatives? Shriners? Masons? Local Chamber of Commerce? My point is, people are afraid of Muslims, okay. But I hear no ideas, only fears. How do you resolve the fear without shredding the constitution? And where were the anti-Muslim sentiments when Mr. Bush was president? I don't get it.
What's your solution? One that doesn't set precedence and can't easily be used against organizations and churches. I don't understand what people are thinking on this one in light of our constitution.
Yes, Muslims will disagree with Muslims, and frequently kill each other when they do, but that banality is not what's under discussion.
If you don't understand what's being said, and are not interested in learning, there is little point in your being involved in this thread.
BTW E Pluribus. Are you a Muslim ? Member of CAIR maybe ? ISNA ? MPAC ? Doesn't matter. Stealth Jihad, in 2011, becomes Exposed Jihad.
The solution is (as stated in my 11:05 pm post, right here) to ban Islam in the United States, based on it's violation of Article VI of the US Constitution (the Supremacy clause).
Take the bet!!! He is Nicaraguan...but recently converted to Islam.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?