Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That possibility actually exists. One fact being kept under wraps by most media is that the shooter was a frequent visitor to the mosque, and may have been a recent convert. For whatever reason, he "lost it" that day. Now, whether his apparent "conversion" was feigned is yet to be determined. Nobody's releasing any more information at the moment.
Not really. It's the Liberal party. Polls show that 74% of us are AGAINST this motion.
I didn't hear about the other day, but about four years ago in Indiana Tea Party hopeful Richard Mourdock, a Republican who ousted Republican incumbent Richard Lugar during the primaries, made such a claim. He was expected to waltz into the Senate, but he made that comment just a few days before the election and it ended up sending Joe Donnelly (D) instead.
Yet.
This doesn't relate to what I said.
And how does that result in a blasphemy law?
While I thought him pathetic for saying that, it turned out to not be quite so sad as he went from expecting a massive win in such a Conservative state to sinking his own ship just before docking.
Surely.
The whole, stopping people from coming into the doesn't stop cases like that, but I certainly don't see terrorists attacking churches but some Christian, possible "covert", takes issue. Just read an article they are indicting a racists as a terrorism in ny.
Muslims who believe that Sharia should be the law of their country? That alone certainly doesn't make them "Islamists", as that requires being an advocate of militancy or fundamentalism. I think they are merely Muslims that think Sharia should be the law of their country. Obviously, from the articles you provided, the vast majority of them already live in majority muslim countries, so there would be no militancy involved.
This I agree with. Ben Affleck is off his rocker on this subject. He thinks that anyone who isn't Muslim shouldn't even be able to discuss Islam as a religion. That is nuts.
Yes I have. Show on.
Exactly. Not yet. When a blasphemy law comes up for a vote, I would wholeheartedly be against it, no matter what religion it claimed to protect.
This is where I stand. It's foolish to fight and oppose everything, and to be victorious you must choose your battles carefully. Can it really be said it's worth fighting a non-binding motion that is more interested in studying the effects of a specific type of bigotry is anything worth investing time, energy, effort, and money into when there comes no consequences, legal repercussions, or actual laws?
I would agree that Muslims who want the entire world to be ruled by Sharia would be accurately considered "Islamists". But, the article you cited didn't speak to that, unless i missed something. I only saw data regarding Muslims who want the law of their specific country to be Sharia.
I agree. I feel like those who would oppose a mere study of this kind in a way are demonstrating some animosity towards Islam.