Trump's divisive Comments

[Shadow Wolf]

No they have not. People always take this garbage out of context.

What's being taken out of context is when you move goal posts around. Stalin was an atheist and he did terrible things. Mao was an atheist who did terrible things. Hitler was not an atheist, and not even relevant to the point. There are even some atheists who are staunchly opposed to homosexuality. The issue is is that many atheists tend to view atheists with rose-tinted glasses.

True. But you want to gamble someone else's life with the 1/3 ish that can turn violent at a moments notice because of mythology they don't even understand?

First, the number is not that high. And second, we do a ton of stuff that is far more likely to kill you than a terrorist - domestic or international.

 

[outhouse]

Stalin was an atheist and he did terrible things

Stalin was raised a Christian and that is where he learned his values. His motives were political.

Your the only one taking things out of context and moving goal posts

And second, we do a ton of stuff that is far more likely to kill you than a terrorist - domestic or international.

True, but you did not answer the question.

Do you want to gamble someone else's life with the 1/3 ish that can turn violent at a moments notice because of mythology they don't even understand?


How many Islamic deaths must we endure, before you would do something?

 

[outhouse]

First, the number is not that high

I would not gamble a single life on that.

 

[leibowde84]

No one is saying we should put muslims in camps either.

That was just typical Islamic diversion away from the truth of the matter, by a supporter of caliphate ideology.


Lets do a poll, is caliphate ideology primitive?

Yes, I believe it is. Any isolationist ideology is extremely primitive and, imho, unacceptable in our global society. If an ideology is opposed to change/progress, it won't be around for too much longer.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I believe it is. Any isolationist ideology is extremely primitive and, imho, unacceptable in our global society. If an ideology is opposed to change/progress, it won't be around for too much longer.

In 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of God.

That is a credible PEW poll.

1/3 might be low.

 

[leibowde84]

First, the number is not that high. And second, we do a ton of stuff that is far more likely to kill you than a terrorist - domestic or international.

I don't know whether this is reasonable, though. I mean, sure, there is a plethora of domestic dangerous acts done by US citizens. But, that has nothing to do with allowing more people into the country that might be tools of ISIS. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of a ban. I just think that this SPECIFIC line of reasoning is a bit unreasonable.

 

[outhouse]

Any isolationist ideology is extremely primitive and, imho, unacceptable in our global society

Is that not the problem here? Education and knowledge are advancing, and some people are placing mythology before reality.

The world is growing up and around fanaticism based religious belief.

 

[outhouse]

I am not in favor of a ban

Trumps idea is OK, his ban I agree is not.

But it does need to be studied and it is a great idea. In war time you do not open your borders to the enemy period.


Why would anyone want to let in more fanatics?

 

[Useless2015]

No, he's comparing Trump's plan to have a religious test for entry into the US with how some Christians and Muslims believe that God will deny entry into heaven based on religious beliefs.

I thought heaven was a belief? Silly me right?

 

[leibowde84]

In 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of God.

That is a credible PEW poll.

1/3 might be low.

This is as far "right" as I go on this issue, and I have been met with starch criticism from some of my Muslim friends I know personally, but nevertheless:
1. If you think that Sharia law should be imposed on a single non-Muslim, that is an "extreme view".
2. If you think that a caliphate where residents are isolated from "western culture" and forced to live under Islamic law, with all the punishments that go along with it, that is an "extreme view".
3. If you think that freedom of expression should be limited so that religious views (of any kind) are off limits to ridicule, that is an extreme position.
4. If you think that non-adherents to any religious belief are destined for hell, no matter what kind of life they live, that is an "extreme view".

Extreme views should be met with extreme scrutiny. If they can't be defended without resorting to scripture or subjective beliefs about God's will, they should be met with extreme ridicule.

I'm sorry for being so brash, but I'm fed up with people who think that religious beliefs should get some kind of special protection. Isolationism is dangerous for the entire planet. If groups/leaders aren't willing to enter into commerce, trade, tourism, peaceful negotiations, and also are dead set on blaming current countries and their leaders for the crimes of their predecessors long passed, then we have an obligation to the world to change their minds.

 

[leibowde84]

Trumps idea is OK, his ban I agree is not.

But it does need to be studied and it is a great idea. In war time you do not open your borders to the enemy period.


Why would anyone want to let in more fanatics?

But, are you talking about not letting Islamic Extremists into the country, or Muslims in general. Because, the vast majority of Muslims, whether or not they believe that Sharia is the word of God, are not extremists and are certainly not dangerous. Most are merely doing whatever they can to survive and escape the same things we are trying to destroy.

 

[outhouse]

but I'm fed up with people who think that religious beliefs should get some kind of special protection

Agreed.

These people have been murdering each other since the religion started. We are trying to stop a culture of that thinks they are peaceful, but ended up being the most violent.

What I find absurd, is that the were at one time the global center for knowledge, and have made ZERO attempt to try and return to how the religion can be practiced in a positive way.

 

[viole]

the bombs saved a lot more lives than they took.

I agree. But that is utilitarism, isn't it? Taking one life is better than taking two. Which tranlsates into lives having a finite value.

I believe utilitarism is meaningful, and I am not even sure about it, only under a naturalistic assumption.

Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

whether or not they believe that Sharia is the word of God, are not extremists and are certainly not dangerous

I disagree. The problem is we are fighting fanaticism, and half of the people are very strong fundamentalist. This places a thin line between danger and faith.

Its like saying fanaticism and fundamentalism are not dangerous. They factually are. I cannot agree that you take the leash off of fanaticism and let it run free in my backyard.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is we are fighting fanaticism, and half of the people are very strong fundamentalist.

Source?

 

[outhouse]

Source?

The pew poll stating 1/2 want Sharia

is not Sharia severe fanaticism?

wiki
The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation

 

[Demonslayer]

This is as far "right" as I go on this issue, and I have been met with starch criticism from some of my Muslim friends I know personally, but nevertheless:
1. If you think that Sharia law should be imposed on a single non-Muslim, that is an "extreme view".
2. If you think that a caliphate where residents are isolated from "western culture" and forced to live under Islamic law, with all the punishments that go along with it, that is an "extreme view".
3. If you think that freedom of expression should be limited so that religious views (of any kind) are off limits to ridicule, that is an extreme position.
4. If you think that non-adherents to any religious belief are destined for hell, no matter what kind of life they live, that is an "extreme view".

Extreme views should be met with extreme scrutiny. If they can't be defended without resorting to scripture or subjective beliefs about God's will, they should be met with extreme ridicule.

I'm sorry for being so brash, but I'm fed up with people who think that religious beliefs should get some kind of special protection. Isolationism is dangerous for the entire planet. If groups/leaders aren't willing to enter into commerce, trade, tourism, peaceful negotiations, and also are dead set on blaming current countries and their leaders for the crimes of their predecessors long passed, then we have an obligation to the world to change their minds.

I love this post more than two bacon double cheeseburgers. And let me tell you what, I really love bacon double cheeseburgers.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Statistically far far more people are killed in domestic shootings than by incoming terrorists.
Why is it ok to do nothing about the domestic shootings.
But take paranoid action to prevent even a possibility of terrorist action.?

 

[leibowde84]

The pew poll stating 1/2 want Sharia

is not Sharia severe fanaticism?

wiki
The term sharia comes from the Arabic language term sharīʿah, which means a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation

Only if they believe that it should be utilized in the US or other non-Muslim countries.

 

[leibowde84]

Statistically far far more people are killed in domestic shootings than by incoming terrorists.
Why is it ok to do nothing about the domestic shootings.
But take paranoid action to prevent even a possibility of terrorist action.?

Who said it was OK to do nothing about domestic shootings?