Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[shmogie]

Right, but not every Muslim necessarily follows every twist and turn of the Koran or Hadith or even necessarily knows what the Koran or Hadith say on the matter. So you will find plenty of Muslims - perhaps even the majority - who don't see a contradiction between their faith and being a good citizen in a Western country. Sure, there are exceptions, but those are just that, exceptions.

I don't think so. Since we don';t have many in the USA, yet, it is hard to find an example here, though Dearborn (istan) might suffice.

I have followed closely what has happened in Britain, and to a lesser extent France, after inviting millions of them in. No go zones for civil authority, especially the police, refusal to learn English or French, sharia courts, culture and religion being mitigating factors when judged for committing crimes. it goes on and on. For them many of the laws and rules of the host country don't apply, and they demand, and many times, get their own.They have created huge pockets that totally reflect muslim society and culture. They may be in Britain or France, but they live and are effected by authority exactly like they were in the middle east. Their patriotism goes as far as receiving public services that they want. Otherwise, they want no part of the country they are in.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, I have read it, as well as the hadith. It is clear and unambiguous. Some muslims want to have their cake, and eat it as well. For their own purposes and desires they twist and mold the words so that it says what they want it to say, like many stated Christians do with the Bible. As an example, some will say that when ol' mo wrote that non believers who wouldn't pay their special tax, were to be killed, it was symbolic. Most of the killing and torture bits, are dealt with like this, or somehow diluted or explained away.

Uh-huh.. Just like the Bible is clear and unambiguous, I guess.

I suppose you read it in the original Arabic, too.

 

[shmogie]

Most moderate protestants? Citation?

Here is your citation. For the denominations that have stated, essentially, from their Church headquarters, that they accept in totality evolution and all it';s implications, do this. Ask any member who is a committed Christian ( as far as you can tell) how life began, and how the huge variety of plants and animals came about. See how many of them respond by saying that non living chemicals randomly came together to create a simple organism, that over billions of years reproduced itself to became everything living today.

I have been asking these questions for a long time of Methodists, Episcopalians, non Missouri Synod Lutherans, and others.

Never got that answer. Some will say God used evolution, but when you explain in detail what that means, they are somewhat stunned. Most will respond in a manner that shows they are a creationist, maybe old earther, new earther, or a variation. Some will flat out tell you they disagree with the position of their denomination.

 

[shmogie]

Uh-huh.. Just like the Bible is clear and unambiguous, I guess.

I suppose you read it in the original Arabic, too.

No, English. Yes, the Bible is clear and unambiguous. Especially the NT, except for Revelation, which takes a lot of study, and still can be problematic

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I don't think so. Since we don';t have many in the USA, yet, it is hard to find an example here, though Dearborn (istan) might suffice.

I have followed closely what has happened in Britain, and to a lesser extent France, after inviting millions of them in. No go zones for civil authority, especially the police, refusal to learn English or French, sharia courts, culture and religion being mitigating factors when judged for committing crimes. it goes on and on. For them many of the laws and rules of the host country don't apply, and they demand, and many times, get their own.They have created huge pockets that totally reflect muslim society and culture. They may be in Britain or France, but they live and are effected by authority exactly like they were in the middle east. Their patriotism goes as far as receiving public services that they want. Otherwise, they want no part of the country they are in.

I live in Britain, and have lived in areas with large Muslim populations, and I don't recognise the picture you paint above.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Here is your citation. For the denominations that have stated, essentially, from their Church headquarters, that they accept in totality evolution and all it';s implications, do this. Ask any member who is a committed Christian ( as far as you can tell) how life began, and how the huge variety of plants and animals came about. See how many of them respond by saying that non living chemicals randomly came together to create a simple organism, that over billions of years reproduced itself to became everything living today.

I have been asking these questions for a long time of Methodists, Episcopalians, non Missouri Synod Lutherans, and others.

Never got that answer. Some will say God used evolution, but when you explain in detail what that means, they are somewhat stunned. Most will respond in a manner that shows they are a creationist, maybe old earther, new earther, or a variation. Some will flat out tell you they disagree with the position of their denomination.

Hmm, so you don't have a citation you can point to. I can just as easily give you counter-examples of Protestants I have known who are quite happy with evolution, and it then becomes your experience and word against mine.

 

[icehorse]

If you look past the headlines, you'll see that the greatest support is only for certain aspects of Sharia - typically relating to family law - rather than the whole shebang - there is markedly less support for the criminal punishments mandated by Sharia, for example. And a typical view is that Sharia should only apply in Muslim countries, and only to Muslims in those countries (though there are exceptions to the latter view).

So which bits of Sharia are okay with you?

And as for "only applies in 'Muslim countries' ", two points:

1 - The phrase "Muslim country" is a pretty clear indication of a theocratic state, correct?
2 - That's not what half the Muslims in Europe think.

 

[icehorse]

I live in Britain, and have lived in areas with large Muslim populations, and I don't recognise the picture you paint above.

How many large "grooming rings" are okay with you? I'm just curious to know what your tipping point is?

 

[Milton Platt]

Mapped: The world's most (and least) free countries

Is freedom on the rise, or is it in Decline?

There is no doubt the United States has lost a fair amount of freedom the past few decades and has slipped in it's ratings as a free and open country.

Opinions?

Liberty and freedom must always necessarily be limited. The question is how much in what manner each society accomplishes this.

 

[shmogie]

Hmm, so you don't have a citation you can point to. I can just as easily give you counter-examples of Protestants I have known who are quite happy with evolution, and it then becomes your experience and word against mine.

It is called an opinion based on experience, as yours is. There hasn't been a study that has polled all Christians, or even a reasonable number of them, on this matter, unless you know of one.

 

[shmogie]

I live in Britain, and have lived in areas with large Muslim populations, and I don't recognise the picture you paint above.

Could be, I simply keep track of the news. Like the big police scandal for covering up muslim rapes and other crimes, or the sharia courts approved by the Home Office, or the uniformed sharia compliance officers in sections of London.

 

[shmogie]

It is called an opinion based on experience, as yours is. There hasn't been a study that has polled all Christians, or even a reasonable number of them, on this matter, unless you know of one.

Ah, you are a Brit different for you entirely. Christianity in your country is much more diluted and world friendly than here in the USA. Apples an oranges. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Christianity is about dead there.

I don't know the stats for there, but here, according the census office, well over 80% identify as Christians.

 

[godnotgod]

It's basically controlling a person's life and dictating how they should run it for them rather than have the person decide for himself that's a primary reason why I chose the Republican Party.

It's in my opinion that lost of individual freedom and a loss of the right for the pursuit of happiness.

Sadly the Democrats never used to be that way. I don't know what happened since because if they had stayed like the old Democrats like they were in the 60s and 70s, I might have not been Republican today.

While the Dems are guilty of over-regulation, the Repubs are very clever in saying that they want less government. Sure. That way they can lock you up for whatever reason if there are fewer laws to protect your individual rights. But I think what lurks behind this policy of 'less government', is that they would then have more license to do what they want, and I do mean in a most corrupt manner. In addition, via political and religious indoctrination, they really do want us to shut up and do as we're told. We can have freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their doctrine. Isn't this the worst kind of control of personal freedoms, or rather, no freedom at all? If they eventually do get their way, there would be little difference between living in America and living in Communist China or Russia. Speaking of Russia, were you aware that Putin has revived the Cossacks, who are now an unofficial police force, and who use violence against the citizenry to dictate moral and political behavior?

 

[shmogie]

While the Dems are guilty of over-regulation, the Repubs are very clever in saying that they want less government. Sure. That way they can lock you up for whatever reason if there are fewer laws to protect your individual rights. But I think what lurks behind this policy of 'less government', is that they would then have more license to do what they want, and I do mean in a most corrupt manner. In addition, via political and religious indoctrination, they really do want us to shut up and do as we're told. We can have freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their doctrine. Isn't this the worst kind of control of personal freedoms, or rather, no freedom at all? If they eventually do get their way, there would be little difference between living in America and living in Communist China or Russia. Speaking of Russia, were you aware that Putin has revived the Cossacks, who are now an unofficial police force, and who use violence against the citizenry to dictate moral and political behavior?

Sorry but you are so far off base, you can´t even see the stadium. Republicans want less FEDERAL government. The Constitution points out clearly what the role of the Federal government is, and 75% of the increasing debt isn´t enumerated in the Constitution. The state´s can do what the feds have their hands into, and do a better job.

You are absolutely nuts regarding ¨religious indoctrination¨ ¨political indoctrination´. We want everyone to have freedom of speech, itś the leftyś who want to, and are taking it away, not us. I don´t know if you do pot, but you sound like you have had way too much of it. You apparently know little of history, as well.

 

[godnotgod]

Republicans want less FEDERAL government. The Constitution points out clearly what the role of the Federal government is, and 75% of the increasing debt isn´t enumerated in the Constitution. The state´s can do what the feds have their hands into, and do a better job.

Ha ha ha...are you so naive and duped that you actually believe in the noble-sounding slogan of 'states rights', (ooooh!) not realizing it is just a front for how the Repubs* manupulate the game board in their favor?

*CORRECTION: I should have used the term 'conservatives'.

Conservatives and the Rotten Smell of States' Rights:

"Earlier this year, Missouri passed a law rejecting $8.3 million in federal funds for women’s health rather than let some of the money flow to health providers who perform abortions.

Florida famously rejected federal funds for a planned high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.

“We absolutely cannot trust our own state legislature to be sensitive to the health care and insurance needs of our people,” said former Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, a Democrat, in an email. “They will take this money and enrich the insurance industry and health care providers or, worse, divert the money to non-health-related purposes. Our totally Republican-controlled legislature has a long history of this behavior.”

Florida’s history is American history. As Ira Katznelson explained in “When Affirmative Action Was White,” the New Deal was structured to win support from Southern congressmen who controlled key committees. Their support was contingent on making sure that as few benefits as possible flowed to blacks. That’s why Social Security initially excluded domestic and agricultural workers.

Likewise, much of the G.I. Bill, the sprawling array of federal benefits that helped create unparalleled middle-class prosperity, was administered locally, the better to channel its benefits exclusively to whites, as Southern congressmen demanded.

But the resort to “states’ rights” is more than an effort to kick responsibility to 50 disparate entities of varying competence. It’s more than a party-wide dodge of accountability. (Although it certainly is that..) Above all, “states' rights” is the mechanism by which conservatives traditionally have put certain people in harm’s way, and then pretended that they never saw the truck that ran them over."

Conservatives and the Rotten Smell of States' Rights

You are absolutely nuts regarding ¨religious indoctrination¨ ¨political indoctrination´. We want everyone to have freedom of speech, itś the leftyś who want to, and are taking it away, not us. I don´t know if you do pot, but you sound like you have had way too much of it. You apparently know little of history, as well.

How about a glimpse into the future history of America if we continue on the current conservative path, where human rights are being eaten away, and violence made legal, by conservatives right before our very eyes:

Sure. You want 'freedom of speech' as long as it agrees with your punitive authoritarian doctrines. In Russia, Putin has revived the Cossacks to do his dirty work against those who would dare to exercise their 'freedom of speech'. Maybe Trump might employ the thousands of motorcycle gangs across the nation to do the same.

Pot has nothing to do with it. It's all in your head. Get over it.

 

[shmogie]

Ha ha ha...are you so naive and duped that you actually believe in the noble-sounding slogan of 'states rights', (ooooh!) not realizing it is just a front for how the Repubs manupulate the game board in their favor?

Conservatives and the Rotten Smell of States' Rights:

"Earlier this year, Missouri passed a law rejecting $8.3 million in federal funds for women’s health rather than let some of the money flow to health providers who perform abortions.

Florida famously rejected federal funds for a planned high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.

“We absolutely cannot trust our own state legislature to be sensitive to the health care and insurance needs of our people,” said former Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, a Democrat, in an email. “They will take this money and enrich the insurance industry and health care providers or, worse, divert the money to non-health-related purposes. Our totally Republican-controlled legislature has a long history of this behavior.”

Florida’s history is American history. As Ira Katznelson explained in “When Affirmative Action Was White,” the New Deal was structured to win support from Southern congressmen who controlled key committees. Their support was contingent on making sure that as few benefits as possible flowed to blacks. That’s why Social Security initially excluded domestic and agricultural workers.

Likewise, much of the G.I. Bill, the sprawling array of federal benefits that helped create unparalleled middle-class prosperity, was administered locally, the better to channel its benefits exclusively to whites, as Southern congressmen demanded.

But the resort to “states’ rights” is more than an effort to kick responsibility to 50 disparate entities of varying competence. It’s more than a party-wide dodge of accountability. (Although it certainly is that..) Above all, “states' rights” is the mechanism by which conservatives traditionally have put certain people in harm’s way, and then pretended that they never saw the truck that ran them over."

Conservatives and the Rotten Smell of States' Rights



How about a glimpse into the future history of America if we continue on the current conservative path, where human rights are being eaten away, and violence made legal, by conservatives right before our very eyes:

Sure. You want 'freedom of speech' as long as it agrees with your punitive authoritarian doctrines. In Russia, Putin has revived the Cossacks to do his dirty work against those who would dare to exercise their 'freedom of speech'. Maybe Trump might employ the thousands of motorcycle gangs across the nation to do the same.

Pot has nothing to do with it. It's all in your head. Get over it.

LOL!!!, "Southern congressmen" ? Why didn';t you list their party ? They were democrats, The racist southern democrats controlled the south from the civil war till the late 60's, early 70"s. Your cites had nothing with Republicans. Here is one for you, Johnson could not get the civil Rights act through because his own party rejected it, it was Republicans who got it through congress and passed.

Social Security was a democrat deal, any racism in the act was from the southern democrats.

State governments reflect the will of the states people. The will of the people of the state is not reflected when their will is diluted by the population of the entire country.

WHY was the " womens health program" cancelled ? Here is a hint, the people of the state do not support the murder of millions of unborn baby's. "Womens health program" is a euphemism for a planned parenthood abortion program. The state didn't want to fund it, their right, the right of their people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the Dems are guilty of over-regulation

I don't see that. The right amount of regulation is that wherein any more or any less make things worse.

That idea seems to me to be a myth promulgated by conservative indoctrination sources to manufacture support for deregulating industry in a way that they claim will make things better, but never seems to do that - at least not for the middle and lower classes, whose economic status has been steadily declining since the Reagan years when all of this anti-government business took off. What's happened since then? There were two or three billionaires in the early 80's (Gates, Buffet, Perot - all very prominent names) and now, the president's administration alone contains several of them, none of which many of us have ever heard of before - Commerce Secretary Ross, Deputy Commerce Secretary Rickets, Education Secretary DeVos, Small Business Administration head McMahon, and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin (actually only about a half billion), and many multimillionaires such as HUD Secreatary Carson and Transportation Secretary Chao.

What has happened as you no doubt know has been a transfer of wealth from the middle class into the hands of major players in various industries, and not because they all of a sudden got smarter or more efficient or innovative, but because they were allowed to make money in new ways that left the public with the mess. The banking industry is a prime example. The taxpayer footed the bill for the bailout as bankers got obscenely rich thanks to banking deregulation.

I found this amusing (can't get the image, so here's the link - sorry about the insulting language, but the message is on point): special kind of stupid

These people are deregulating away as fast as they can. And who do we think that they're doing that for? Not you and me.

That's what all of that talk about deregulation was about. Did you benefit from any of it? I didn't - not to my knowledge.

In fact, my profession - medicine - was beset with intense regulation during my career coming from both the HMO's, who were insufferable to work with, and government through its oversight of Medicaid and Medicare. Onerous burdens were imposed on us, including unfunded mandates to convert to electronic medical record systems - about a $40,000 out of pocket expense for software, staff training, and conversion of existing paper records to digital format that generates no revenue.

Whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, these are conservatives. Coservatives serve the wealthy class at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Republicans want less FEDERAL government.

The Republicans want less regulation of industry. They're very happy to micromanage the lives of ordinary people. Give them a chance and they will take away the right to an abortion, the right to same sex marriage, and the right of LGBT to serve in the military. Many would take away women's right to vote.

The deregulation that the Republicans want is the ability to drill for oil off pristine shores, to mine the national parks, to dump more toxins into the ground, water and air, and to let the banking industry go back to where it was during the roaring twenties and last decade.

 

[godnotgod]

LOL!!!, "Southern congressmen" ? Why didn';t you list their party ? They were democrats, The racist southern democrats controlled the south from the civil war till the late 60's, early 70"s. Your cites had nothing with Republicans. Here is one for you, Johnson could not get the civil Rights act through because his own party rejected it, it was Republicans who got it through congress and passed.

Social Security was a democrat deal, any racism in the act was from the southern democrats.

The issue here is about 'conservatives'; not Republicans or Democrats. I made a correction in my post to that effect.

State governments reflect the will of the states people. The will of the people of the state is not reflected when their will is diluted by the population of the entire country.

Not diluted, equalized and standardized across the board. This is America, not Confederate Texas.

WHY was the " womens health program" cancelled ? Here is a hint, the people of the state do not support the murder of millions of unborn baby's. "Womens health program" is a euphemism for a planned parenthood abortion program. The state didn't want to fund it, their right, the right of their people.

'Their people' are, in the larger context, 'Americans'. And as I understand it, Federal Law overrules State Law in the case of conflict. That is why Federal troops could be called into the South during the Civil Rights era.

Pro-choice and pro-life are matters of personal choice, and therefore, a right to choose. Whatever one choses is a matter universal to all women across state lines. It is an issue outside of state boundaries.

The article referred to 'health providers who perform abortions'. That can include Planned Parenthood, but also includes medical doctors or any other certified medical facility.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see that. The right amount of regulation is that wherein any more or any less make things worse.
.

Then perhaps it is a case of regulation improperly applied. I know that here in my little New Mexico town, a couple of guys started a recycling program and provided a real service locally for the county. EPA came in and shut them down as non-compliant. I don't know the details, but it seems to me that the EPA should have taken into account that an important service was in place and tried to work with them, rather than just shut them down so that everyone suffers their black and white policy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

WHY was the " womens health program" cancelled ? Here is a hint, the people of the state do not support the murder of millions of unborn baby's. "Womens health program" is a euphemism for a planned parenthood abortion program. The state didn't want to fund it, their right, the right of their people.

You might like the following:

The Handmaid’s Tale is the second dystopian work of speculative fiction—after George Orwell’s 1984—to suddenly appear on top of the bestseller lists years after its release. The renewed interest in Margaret Atwood’s classic story of a post-apocalyptic America dominated by a puritanical religious sect that reduces most women to subjugated breeder status stems from both the current political atmosphere in the United States and the adaptation airing on Hulu (starring Elizabeth Moss, Alexis Bledel, and Joseph Fiennes).​