Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Moderate Muslims

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    You hit it on the nail! We let in too many people in a continuous fashion. And right now we have a situation with Muslims. It is not racist or unaccepting of all religions to limit the intake of a drastically different culture. It will take much longer for such a different culture to assimilate to the "once" American culture. It's just fact. We also have to acknowledge, now that we have the ability to communicate regularly with relatives back home in the county of conflicting culture, it slows down the assimilation process.

    Even a "moderate" muslim has a very different culture. Human rights are a key to recognize the more difficult culture to leave behind. Now if it is all middle east citizens that come here with the harder culture to leave behind, then all from the middle east should be limited. However if it is only the Muslim Middle East citizens that do no share the same or similar human rights that our culture demands, then it should be the Middle East Muslims that are limited. See in the case of Islam, it is not just a religion but also a nationality. A national culture. People need to understand that there is a reason why we say POLITICAL Islam and do not say Political Christianity. In America our national culture does not abide by one specific religion. Yes Christianity originally set down the laws, but Christianity is the religion that offered the human rights that our nation has adopted as righteous. It is Christianity that has welcomed and endorsed rights of all religions in the design of our nation. It is Islam that has shunned all religions and has made up the design of the culture in most of the middle east. American National Culture and Middle East countries National Culture. (A national Culture that coincidentally looks like Islam, Hmmm), tongue in cheek.

    Islam is nothing like Christianity or any other peaceful religion. People try and parallel it to Christianity and the Jewish refugees fleeing Germany. The situations are not even close. Muslims refugees are not asking for asylum because their religion is not welcome in the country they are fleeing. No way to make a distinction between one group or another. It is an individual preference. Muslims as a group are not fleeing religious or cultural persecution. Muslim refugees are not being targeted for worshiping a different God or prophet. The Jews were. There is no comparison. The Jewish culture posed no threat to the US and therefore in was cruel to turn the Jews away. Muslims DO pose a threat as a group, leaving it completely understandable why they should be turned away. I don't think we had to worry about Nazi's hiding within the Jewish refugees and causing havoc on America.
    Every immigrant group has had difficulty assimilating. That's why Chinatowns exist. Irish, Italians, Germans, Jews, Asian, Indian, etc... all took at least 1-2 generations to fully assimilate. My great grandparents were born in Italy, and even my dad's generation still had Italian culture deeply rooted in them, and this was considered a good thing.

    You are correct that there isn't much analogy between Muslims fleeing Syria and elsewhere to Jews fleeing Nazi Europe. They were just totally different scales and one was Christian on Jewish violence the other is Muslim on Muslim. However, ISIS does behave like a totalitarian regime and is murdering people based on ideology. It's apples and oranges but both are rotten. They are still people fleeing a war-zone.

    You are correct that Christianity influenced American society, but it did not influence the politics in any way. The founders were very clear in saying religion has no place in politics. The whole reason people left Great Britain at the time was to get away from state religions, like the Church of England.

    I think it's important to look at history and how it relates to modern times. Europe had a head start in terms of individual rights dating back to pre-Roman occupation and even under the Romans. Christianity came along and all of a sudden there were peasants and lords. Coronations and excommunications. The Catholic church exercised strict political control and were brutal towards Jews, Muslims, witches, etc... It took almost a millennium for Europe to come out of this societal structure. During that 1,000 years civilization in China, India, the Middle East was far more advanced, far more tolerant, and far more secular. But when Europe finally started to wake up it was because of the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers, not Christianity. Prior to 1600 the major powers in the world in order of greatness were probably the Ming Dynasty in China, the Ottoman Empire in the Mideast and Europe, the Mughal Empire in India, then Europe (which was divided and constantly at war). Although Chinese voyages over a hundred years earlier went farther than Columbus, they only mapped Africa and did not colonize or trade with them. Europe had the major advantage of having discovered the New World full of easily exploitable resources, which gave their economy a major boost. Major is perhaps an understatement as it literally catapulted some European powers to world power level.

    The process of political and societal change in Europe was slow, and really didn't finish until after 1800 and the end of the absolute monarchies and the establishment of Republics modeled on Enlightenment ideas and the United States. And even once elected government and secular society was firmly established Europe had numerous wars in the 19th century and two of the deadliest wars in human history in the 20th century. Europe wasn't really at peace until 70 years ago and even then was divided between East and West and had those annoying little flareups in Kosovo and Ukraine.

    Finally there was the industrial revolution, which is Europe's biggest contribution to humanity and allowed Europe to become the great power it is today. Consider that the industrial revolution did not reach China, India, and the Middle East until really after World War Two... China and India survived the fall of their great empires relatively well thanks to large populations and plentiful resources. They are going through their industrial revolutions as well as can be expected in my opinion. The Middle East didn't get to capitalize on their natural resources until the 1950's, and are still in the absolute monarchy stage of development, again in my opinion. Absolute monarchies largely supported by the US as de-facto vassal states I might add and not as an opinion..

    This is why the Middle East is the way it is today. So when it comes to comparing Syrian refugees, immigrants from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere to Jews fleeing Europe there is no comparison. But they are still refugees fleeing war zones, and not all of them are bad.

    In any society there have always been liberals and conservatives, orthodox and radical. The same goes for Muslim society. Of course there are vast differences between Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, and it would be great for Trump to acknowledge this, but his ego won't let him. There are also relatively secular and peaceful Muslim societies in Morocco, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Albania and elsewhere. Ireland had civil war and terrorist activities in the 20th century, but there was never any movement to ban Irish. In fact the US government stayed neutral while the IRA killed civilians. The US also was a major source of funding for the IRA. The Irish Declaration of Independence even gives a nod to allies in the US and Europe. Did anyone propose tracking Irish people or limiting their migration during this time? Maybe people secretly despised the English and their tyrannical ways?

    As for the Middle East, why do you think people are fleeing? They do not want the strict religious dogma that exists there. Why do Muslims create anti-terror groups and condemn those acts when they occur? Simple statements like, all terrorists are Muslim are difficult to debate. I'd turn the question slightly... If a Muslim is willing to denounce terrorism, accept secularism, and take an oath to that effect, should they be welcomed into American society?


    Originally posted by msc View Post
    The way I see it is: MOST, not all, of the Middle East is one nation UNDER ALLAH, as America is one nation UNDER GOD. The different countrie of the middle east, have mildly different laws and just have not officially joined a Union, because they can't figure it out, as American states have joined a Union to form 1 nation. Now the Nation, Nations are under Allah who sends quite a different message than America's secular God.
    As I said previously, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Albania, Algeria, and Morocco are all secular and peaceful Muslim countries, There are also Muslim minorities in India and Africa who are peaceful. There are also peaceful Muslim dictatorships in central Asia, the UAE, and Qatar. As for the Middle East, only Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are overtly religious. Iraq we smashed up ourselves, prior to that it was secular. Iran is democratic and has never started a war. Saudi Arabia is our ally even though they have sharia law. And Syria was secular until the CIA started giving weapons, money, and support to Syrian rebels. Yemen is the only place where religion doesn't seem to be playing as much of a role as politics, but basically the US is supporting the more religious Sunni side and not the more secular Shia side, albeit benignly, thank goodness. But that doesn't matter when it comes to the question of Moderate Muslims. For that I refer you to part 1 of this speech. Every society has conservatives and liberals, orthodox and radical. There are Moderate Muslims.

    Even in the US, there are people who commit hate crimes, are overtly religious, and I'd wager a guess that a fair percentage have racist tendencies. I personally know many Muslims who are fully integrated. The US has vastly different cultures and laws. So much so that I consider the South a separate culture, as well as the West Coast, Rocky Mountain region, Great Lakes region, and the Northeast.

    The cultures of the Middle East are like the cultures of Europe. Similar, but different. Egypt doesn't execute witches. Kuwait is far different than Jordan. Islam itself is derived from Christianity. Jesus is a prophet, as is Abraham and Moses. Christianity has as much in common with Judaism as Islam. I don't know if they all worship the same god, whether that god is male or female, etc... but each of those 3 religions believe the 10 Commandments were handed down by their god. Kind of seems like a big commonality there. The difference is in what kind of societies developed in the given geographic region. Again, Malaysia, Albania, and Morocco are all Muslim but have cultures based on their respective regions. The Middle East is still reeling from the establishment of a Jewish state within the state of Palestine. Of course they should have taken their protests to the UN and not resorted to cowardly killing of civilians. The Middle East is indeed radicalized and prone to violence, but their rates of murder and gun violence are lower than ours so what does that tell us? And there are still Moderate Muslims who reject all that and just want to live peaceful lives.

    And America's secular God? Is that like a religious atheist? How about a orthodox agnostic? The founders were quite clear, America is a secular nation. Enlightenment philosophy most influenced our laws. Christianity influenced the individuals and society, but had zero influence on laws.


    Originally posted by msc View Post
    Atheists like to pretend that God has nothing to do with the laws of America, but whether an individual believes in the reality of God or not, it is factual that the laws of this nation were directly developed based on God. The creators of our constitution delivered the rights to Americans based on their belief of the reality of God. Atheists can't change history as much as they'd like to try. We see what kind of a constitution believers of Allah offers. And we see what kind of a constitution believers of God/Jesus offered. You can't deny fact. I challenge anyone who does not acknowledge this to explain to me what they believe our constitutional rights were based on! Where do you think they came up with it? And shame on them all for not thanking Christians for the freedoms they are afforded. Anyone interested in thanking Muslims for America? Moderate or Not?

    Yep MODERATE MUSLIMS. Moderate within Islam, not moderate within America or any of the civilized world.
    Our constitutional rights were based on Enlightenment philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Spinoza, Montesquieu, and others.

    Hobbes: Father of Liberalism. Introduced the world to Natural Rights. Produced the idea that individuals could be self-regulating and self-governing, but that government's responsibility was to restrain unchecked self-interest.

    Locke: Picked up on the idea Natural Rights such as Life, Liberty, and Property, as well as tolerance. Pursuit of Happiness was all Jefferson!

    Mill: Introduced Freedom of Speech and advocated against unrestrained mob rule.

    Spinoza: Introduced idea of Separation of Church and State.

    Montesquieu: Introduced idea of Separation of Powers.

    The concept of Representative government is never mentioned in any religious text, but it is repeatedly mentioned by these Enlightenment philosophers and others. These names should be as familiar to freedom loving Americans as any of the Founding Fathers. These great minds provided the foundation for the free world as it exists today.

    Religion itself was far different during this period. At the time religion was like the government. The whole idea of Protestantism was to move away from strict religious interpretation and move towards an individual's relationship with a higher power, not necessarily via a church or priest. The Founders and the essence of the Constitution were greatly influenced by this movement.

    John Adams: Rejected the Trinity and did not believe Jesus was divine.

    James Madison: Considered a Deist and strongly supported strict separation of church and state. He even opposed government paid chaplains.

    George Washington: Another Deist who famously said "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion".

    Ben Franklin: Yet another Deist who said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches".

    Thomas Jefferson: His Bible didn't have any mention of Jesus as a divine figure. He also felt the Book of Revelations was not divinely inspired. He said And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

    To me this is all History 101, but I realize to others this is breaking news or possibly heresy.

    Muslims do tend to be more conservative than other religions on the whole, but we don't have religious tests to be a citizen in the United States. There are some Hindus who are very conservative, do we reject them because of it? There are many Asians who don't even try to integrate into society but live off the laundromat/convenience store/small business model and do quite well. Sorry if this seems racist to all the Hindus and Asians on this site. Many Hindus, Asians, and Muslims just work in offices too. Anyway, if there are Muslims who reject terrorism and embrace secularism they should be welcomed. As for the civilized world... the rest of the civilized world accepts refugees at a far greater rate than the US. The civilized world by its very definition is egalitarian and inclusive.

    I thank Boston primarily for starting the revolution and the Deist Enlightenment philosophers and Deist Founding Fathers for our freedoms.

    I thank Muslims for algebra, surgery, optics, Greek manuscripts, the Mameluke sword, coffee, and camel burgers. I have no idea why anyone would thank Muslims for American freedom any more than why Jesus should be thanked. I'm sincerely curious if there is any section of the Christian Bible which talks about freedom or representative government? Or any reason why Christianity should be thanked for freedom?

    Looking forward to any responses.
    Last edited by .3dontVoteParty; 01-07-2016, 12:13 AM.

    ?


    • #62

      ...

      ?


      • #63
        Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post

        Every immigrant group has had difficulty assimilating. That's why Chinatowns exist. Irish, Italians, Germans, Jews, Asian, Indian, etc... all took at least 1-2 generations to fully assimilate. My great grandparents were born in Italy, and even my dad's generation still had Italian culture deeply rooted in them, and this was considered a good thing.

        You are correct that there isn't much analogy between Muslims fleeing Syria and elsewhere to Jews fleeing Nazi Europe. They were just totally different scales and one was Christian on Jewish violence the other is Muslim on Muslim. However, ISIS does behave like a totalitarian regime and is murdering people based on ideology. It's apples and oranges but both are rotten. They are still people fleeing a war-zone.

        You are correct that Christianity influenced American society, but it did not influence the politics in any way. The founders were very clear in saying religion has no place in politics. The whole reason people left Great Britain at the time was to get away from state religions, like the Church of England.

        I think it's important to look at history and how it relates to modern times. Europe had a head start in terms of individual rights dating back to pre-Roman occupation and even under the Romans. Christianity came along and all of a sudden there were peasants and lords. Coronations and excommunications. The Catholic church exercised strict political control and were brutal towards Jews, Muslims, witches, etc... It took almost a millennium for Europe to come out of this societal structure. During that 1,000 years civilization in China, India, the Middle East was far more advanced, far more tolerant, and far more secular. But when Europe finally started to wake up it was because of the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers, not Christianity. Prior to 1600 the major powers in the world in order of greatness were probably the Ming Dynasty in China, the Ottoman Empire in the Mideast and Europe, the Mughal Empire in India, then Europe (which was divided and constantly at war). Although Chinese voyages over a hundred years earlier went farther than Columbus, they only mapped Africa and did not colonize or trade with them. Europe had the major advantage of having discovered the New World full of easily exploitable resources, which gave their economy a major boost. Major is perhaps an understatement as it literally catapulted some European powers to world power level.

        The process of political and societal change in Europe was slow, and really didn't finish until after 1800 and the end of the absolute monarchies and the establishment of Republics modeled on Enlightenment ideas and the United States. And even once elected government and secular society was firmly established Europe had numerous wars in the 19th century and two of the deadliest wars in human history in the 20th century. Europe wasn't really at peace until 70 years ago and even then was divided between East and West and had those annoying little flareups in Kosovo and Ukraine.

        Finally there was the industrial revolution, which is Europe's biggest contribution to humanity and allowed Europe to become the great power it is today. Consider that the industrial revolution did not reach China, India, and the Middle East until really after World War Two... China and India survived the fall of their great empires relatively well thanks to large populations and plentiful resources. They are going through their industrial revolutions as well as can be expected in my opinion. The Middle East didn't get to capitalize on their natural resources until the 1950's, and are still in the absolute monarchy stage of development, again in my opinion. Absolute monarchies largely supported by the US as de-facto vassal states I might add and not as an opinion..

        This is why the Middle East is the way it is today. So when it comes to comparing Syrian refugees, immigrants from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere to Jews fleeing Europe there is no comparison. But they are still refugees fleeing war zones, and not all of them are bad.

        In any society there have always been liberals and conservatives, orthodox and radical. The same goes for Muslim society. Of course there are vast differences between Muslims in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, and it would be great for Trump to acknowledge this, but his ego won't let him. There are also relatively secular and peaceful Muslim societies in Morocco, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Albania and elsewhere. Ireland had civil war and terrorist activities in the 20th century, but there was never any movement to ban Irish. In fact the US government stayed neutral while the IRA killed civilians. The US also was a major source of funding for the IRA. The Irish Declaration of Independence even gives a nod to allies in the US and Europe. Did anyone propose tracking Irish people or limiting their migration during this time? Maybe people secretly despised the English and their tyrannical ways?

        As for the Middle East, why do you think people are fleeing? They do not want the strict religious dogma that exists there. Why do Muslims create anti-terror groups and condemn those acts when they occur? Simple statements like, all terrorists are Muslim are difficult to debate. I'd turn the question slightly... If a Muslim is willing to denounce terrorism, accept secularism, and take an oath to that effect, should they be welcomed into American society?




        As I said previously, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, Albania, Algeria, and Morocco are all secular and peaceful Muslim countries, There are also Muslim minorities in India and Africa who are peaceful. There are also peaceful Muslim dictatorships in central Asia, the UAE, and Qatar. As for the Middle East, only Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are overtly religious. Iraq we smashed up ourselves, prior to that it was secular. Iran is democratic and has never started a war. Saudi Arabia is our ally even though they have sharia law. And Syria was secular until the CIA started giving weapons, money, and support to Syrian rebels. Yemen is the only place where religion doesn't seem to be playing as much of a role as politics, but basically the US is supporting the more religious Sunni side and not the more secular Shia side, albeit benignly, thank goodness. But that doesn't matter when it comes to the question of Moderate Muslims. For that I refer you to part 1 of this speech. Every society has conservatives and liberals, orthodox and radical. There are Moderate Muslims.

        Even in the US, there are people who commit hate crimes, are overtly religious, and I'd wager a guess that a fair percentage have racist tendencies. I personally know many Muslims who are fully integrated. The US has vastly different cultures and laws. So much so that I consider the South a separate culture, as well as the West Coast, Rocky Mountain region, Great Lakes region, and the Northeast.

        The cultures of the Middle East are like the cultures of Europe. Similar, but different. Egypt doesn't execute witches. Kuwait is far different than Jordan. Islam itself is derived from Christianity. Jesus is a prophet, as is Abraham and Moses. Christianity has as much in common with Judaism as Islam. I don't know if they all worship the same god, whether that god is male or female, etc... but each of those 3 religions believe the 10 Commandments were handed down by their god. Kind of seems like a big commonality there. The difference is in what kind of societies developed in the given geographic region. Again, Malaysia, Albania, and Morocco are all Muslim but have cultures based on their respective regions. The Middle East is still reeling from the establishment of a Jewish state within the state of Palestine. Of course they should have taken their protests to the UN and not resorted to cowardly killing of civilians. The Middle East is indeed radicalized and prone to violence, but their rates of murder and gun violence are lower than ours so what does that tell us? And there are still Moderate Muslims who reject all that and just want to live peaceful lives.

        And America's secular God? Is that like a religious atheist? How about a orthodox agnostic? The founders were quite clear, America is a secular nation. Enlightenment philosophy most influenced our laws. Christianity influenced the individuals and society, but had zero influence on laws.




        Our constitutional rights were based on Enlightenment philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Spinoza, Montesquieu, and others.

        Hobbes: Father of Liberalism. Introduced the world to Natural Rights. Produced the idea that individuals could be self-regulating and self-governing, but that government's responsibility was to restrain unchecked self-interest.

        Locke: Picked up on the idea Natural Rights such as Life, Liberty, and Property, as well as tolerance. Pursuit of Happiness was all Jefferson!

        Mill: Introduced Freedom of Speech and advocated against unrestrained mob rule.

        Spinoza: Introduced idea of Separation of Church and State.

        Montesquieu: Introduced idea of Separation of Powers.

        The concept of Representative government is never mentioned in any religious text, but it is repeatedly mentioned by these Enlightenment philosophers and others. These names should be as familiar to freedom loving Americans as any of the Founding Fathers. These great minds provided the foundation for the free world as it exists today.

        Religion itself was far different during this period. At the time religion was like the government. The whole idea of Protestantism was to move away from strict religious interpretation and move towards an individual's relationship with a higher power, not necessarily via a church or priest. The Founders and the essence of the Constitution were greatly influenced by this movement.

        John Adams: Rejected the Trinity and did not believe Jesus was divine.

        James Madison: Considered a Deist and strongly supported strict separation of church and state. He even opposed government paid chaplains.

        George Washington: Another Deist who famously said "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion".

        Ben Franklin: Yet another Deist who said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches".

        Thomas Jefferson: His Bible didn't have any mention of Jesus as a divine figure. He also felt the Book of Revelations was not divinely inspired. He said “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter”.

        To me this is all History 101, but I realize to others this is breaking news or possibly heresy.

        Muslims do tend to be more conservative than other religions on the whole, but we don't have religious tests to be a citizen in the United States. There are some Hindus who are very conservative, do we reject them because of it? There are many Asians who don't even try to integrate into society but live off the laundromat/convenience store/small business model and do quite well. Sorry if this seems racist to all the Hindus and Asians on this site. Many Hindus, Asians, and Muslims just work in offices too. Anyway, if there are Muslims who reject terrorism and embrace secularism they should be welcomed. As for the civilized world... the rest of the civilized world accepts refugees at a far greater rate than the US. The civilized world by its very definition is egalitarian and inclusive.

        I thank Boston primarily for starting the revolution and the Deist Enlightenment philosophers and Deist Founding Fathers for our freedoms.

        I thank Muslims for algebra, surgery, optics, Greek manuscripts, the Mameluke sword, coffee, and camel burgers. I have no idea why anyone would thank Muslims for American freedom any more than why Jesus should be thanked. I'm sincerely curious if there is any section of the Christian Bible which talks about freedom or representative government? Or any reason why Christianity should be thanked for freedom?

        Looking forward to any responses.
        Well, thanks for the history lesson. Yes it's true some things you said was news to me and others were merely interpretation.

        Nazi Germany was not the Christians against the Jews. Nazi's were not killing Jews in the name of Christ and Christianity. Being Christian had nothing to do with what was done to Jew's. The did it in the name of Hitler. Muslims do it in the name of Allah or their prophet Mohammed. Obvious difference.

        Much to debate about your interpretation of how the middle east came to be and pretty much everything you said about how religious influence played a part. But I was talking about America and how the constitution came to be. What I said was completely lost. Didn't say the constitution was a Christian Document. Didn't say everyone should thank Jesus. Again a misinterpretation of words. I said it was those who believed in Jesus and with Adams in mind I stated God, not specifically Jesus. As you learned all in "history 101", I'm sure you're familiar with the Federalist Papers which explain the thought process and intent of the content of the words in our constitution. And you will find that God was a guide in the minds of the Authors.

        Pure and simple, the authors of the constitution believed in a supreme being. Most believed in Jesus. The design of the constitution was pulled from the minds of people who followed the law of the supreme being. Who knew the supreme being as God, not Jesus, believed in a God that sent the same message as Jesus. Love your fellow man. The authors of the constitution were guided to create the document by what they believe in, which came from the word of God and Jesus. Not from Allah, Mohammed or Hitler. There message to humans is a different message which is not humane and welcoming to all Human beings of ALL religions. It is Jesus and a like God that delivered the people that created our constitution. And Adam's understanding of the supreme being, did not contradict the word of Jesus. He just didn't believe the word was delivered by Jesus. When creating the constitution that was specific not to endorse Christianity as the law of the land came directly from the word of Jesus.

        New Living Translation
        "Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
        English Standard Version
        Jesus said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. And they marveled at him.
        http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm

        Jesus is the one that told us that no one should be forced to live by his law. And people should not made to abide by his word through law. Yep. All should thank Christians for believing in a God that assisted them is writing down law that offers such freedoms, including religious freedoms, by the way of our Constitution.

        We see what kind of a nation is created when people create law based on the word of Allah and Mohammed.
        To simplify it. Not one Christian in History that participated in any kind of violence did not do it the name of Jesus. They did it in the name of man. Man's law to defend their religion. It was man's idea of what they should do to protect their religion. It was in direct opposition to what Jesus asked from them. And the Authors of our constitution who were true followers of the word of Christ, (Or the same word from a belief in the secular God), designed our constitution as Jesus told them to. He told them to leave Christianity as a ruling religion out of it.

        So ALL of America should get down on their knees and Thank the Christians of America for the creation of the constitution and their right to religious freedom.
        And Middle East countries that live by Islamic law can get down on their knees and Thank the Muslims for the laws they get to live by. Wondering how many non Muslims are thankful that there national laws coincide with the word of Mohammed.

        ?


        • #64
          It's one thing to hold on to your native culture while you and your progeny assimilate.
          Quite another to shoot and kill the natives with which you live, as is quite another to insist on special treatment and your own archaic system of criminal justice.

          ?


          • #65
            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post


            You're just plain wrong and are slurring millions of Muslims.
            I'm unsure how such a comment can stand on a political forum from a mod and just let go.

            I've never said this before but I honestly think you deserve de-moding for the above comment and you can now ban me for this post and most likely delete it.

            The above comment is disgraceful and uncalled for.
            And that's why so many people support Trump. Disgraceful is people speaking the truth and acknowledging reality. The orchestration of Political correctness actually is a method that convinces people that if they speak about something that is factually based, if that truth or reality, or even perhaps reasonable opinion based on many facts that conclude some to draw, if someone is offended or feelings are hurt, then it is disgraceful to say.

            Now you see with the support that Trump has, that many people think what Trump thinks and feel relieved that they don't have to hide their logic or convince themselves that what they feel and think are bad and inappropriate things. We are not the kind of people that Washington says we are or have to be. We are good people. We are a compassionate loving people who are righteous in using common sense, thinking for our self and making conclusions based on what we see, hear, or experience. We are free to call out evil and violence if we see it. We want a leader that does not try and make us feel shame for what we think, believe, or do in order to defend ourselves, our good families and neighbors, and the peace and freedom of our nation.

            So OMD's comment is disgraceful? Why?

            How do you know that OMD is wrong about what he said about Muslims. Is it so absurd to believe that there is a religion that is violent? Or is it just that you don't want to believe it? Or can't understand that it can be so, because you believe human nature is what your nature is? Perhaps you don't believe that you yourself can be manipulated by evil preaching so no one else can. Certainly not such a mass of people.

            Why is Hillary so concerned that things Trump says could assist in Jihadist recruitment? If Islam is a peaceful religion, then how could Trumps comments influence Muslim people from this beautiful, lovely and peaceful religion to become Jihadist killers? And why do Jihadists target Muslims for recruitment, but not Christians or Jew's? Explain that?

            ?


            • #66
              Here's a question to ponder: If Jihadists, left the moderate Muslims alone and only raise Jihad on non-Muslims, would the "Moderate" Muslims Care?

              ?


              • #67
                The funniest thing is that the Muslims know that it is Islam that has produced Jihadist's, yet our American leaders think they know Islam better. LOL

                Silly Liberal, Progressive. Ignorant, Arrogant, Americans putting faith in the education our Liberal, Progressive, Arrogant, Manipulative, American leaders are delivering.


                In a bold yet little-reported speech, the President of Egypt has directly confronted Islamic leaders in his country and challenged them to stand against extremism in their religion.


                The speech was denounced by a broad spectrum of critics, including many of el-Sisi's Islamist political opponents who have wide religious followings charging that he was trying to corrupt Islam.

                "He might win acquiescence, but I don't think that he wins acceptance from the people listening," Bandow told Newsmax. "He doesn't have a lot of independent credibility among genuine, devout Muslims."

                http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/egy.../11/id/617848/







                ?


                • #68
                  Originally posted by msc View Post
                  Well, thanks for the history lesson. Yes it's true some things you said was news to me and others were merely interpretation.

                  Nazi Germany was not the Christians against the Jews. Nazi's were not killing Jews in the name of Christ and Christianity. Being Christian had nothing to do with what was done to Jew's. The did it in the name of Hitler. Muslims do it in the name of Allah or their prophet Mohammed. Obvious difference.

                  Much to debate about your interpretation of how the middle east came to be and pretty much everything you said about how religious influence played a part. But I was talking about America and how the constitution came to be. What I said was completely lost. Didn't say the constitution was a Christian Document. Didn't say everyone should thank Jesus. Again a misinterpretation of words. I said it was those who believed in Jesus and with Adams in mind I stated God, not specifically Jesus. As you learned all in "history 101", I'm sure you're familiar with the Federalist Papers which explain the thought process and intent of the content of the words in our constitution. And you will find that God was a guide in the minds of the Authors.

                  Pure and simple, the authors of the constitution believed in a supreme being. Most believed in Jesus. The design of the constitution was pulled from the minds of people who followed the law of the supreme being. Who knew the supreme being as God, not Jesus, believed in a God that sent the same message as Jesus. Love your fellow man. The authors of the constitution were guided to create the document by what they believe in, which came from the word of God and Jesus. Not from Allah, Mohammed or Hitler. There message to humans is a different message which is not humane and welcoming to all Human beings of ALL religions. It is Jesus and a like God that delivered the people that created our constitution. And Adam's understanding of the supreme being, did not contradict the word of Jesus. He just didn't believe the word was delivered by Jesus. When creating the constitution that was specific not to endorse Christianity as the law of the land came directly from the word of Jesus.

                  New Living Translation
                  "Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
                  English Standard Version
                  Jesus said to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. And they marveled at him.
                  http://biblehub.com/mark/12-17.htm

                  Jesus is the one that told us that no one should be forced to live by his law. And people should not made to abide by his word through law. Yep. All should thank Christians for believing in a God that assisted them is writing down law that offers such freedoms, including religious freedoms, by the way of our Constitution.

                  We see what kind of a nation is created when people create law based on the word of Allah and Mohammed.
                  To simplify it. Not one Christian in History that participated in any kind of violence did not do it the name of Jesus. They did it in the name of man. Man's law to defend their religion. It was man's idea of what they should do to protect their religion. It was in direct opposition to what Jesus asked from them. And the Authors of our constitution who were true followers of the word of Christ, (Or the same word from a belief in the secular God), designed our constitution as Jesus told them to. He told them to leave Christianity as a ruling religion out of it.

                  So ALL of America should get down on their knees and Thank the Christians of America for the creation of the constitution and their right to religious freedom.
                  And Middle East countries that live by Islamic law can get down on their knees and Thank the Muslims for the laws they get to live by. Wondering how many non Muslims are thankful that there national laws coincide with the word of Mohammed.

                  History is great, especially for helping me to perceive the current world we live in through an objective lens. If you think that was good, wait until you hear my version of how radically different the world would be if the industrial revolution started in China, or how easy it really is for any alien species with opposable thumbs to kickstart an advanced civilization... *call me

                  My interpretation of how the Middle East came to be is based on fact. I challenge anyone to debate me on the points I raised. Namely that the Middle East is currently going through a rapid transition from a feudal society to a modern society. China has done it with Communism. South America and Europe have done it with Socialism. The Middle East is a work in progress.

                  I'm not debating that the situation in Syria and all that is not comparable to what the Nazi's did... however, I think the specific targeting of the Jews had a little something to do with religion. Hitler often cited an Aryan version of Jesus. He sought the approval of the Church (although thank god the Church secretly opposed him). The Nazi's even persecuted those who went against the Protestant order of things.

                  As for getting down on my knees and thanking Christians for Democracy... I think first of all that's a bit extreme, and just factually incorrect.

                  First of all, as I pointed out the Founders were explicit in their desire for the Republic they were creating to have a strict separation of Church and State. I mean really explicit. Not only that, many of the Founders, especially the ones we know and love, were all Deists and rejected the divinity of Christ, which is a core element of Christianity.

                  Secondly, your quotes, and any other information I've found on what the Bible says about government, have nothing to do with Democratic or Republican forms of government. The quote you provided could have as much to do with Monarchy or Dictatorship as Democracy.

                  The Founders, and even the exact text of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were based on Enlightenment principals pure and simple. I've proven my point with quotes and direct evidence. I haven't seen anything that points to your assertion that Christianity is to thank, much less to the extreme of getting down on my hands and knees like 'thank Jesus for Baseball and Apple Pie, and College Basketball and Football', ugh...

                  Look, I'll even acknowledge that early American society was based on Christianity, and therefor much of today's society ... because I'm honest and open minded like that. It would be fantastic of Conservatives could likewise acknowledge some good things liberals have brought to society. But I digress. Christianity preaches things like loving thy neighbor, being humble, giving to the poor, tending to the sick, being our brother's keeper, etc... Things often forgotten in modern society. Unfortunately the early part of the Bible, the part we share with Judaism and Islam, talks about shunning gay people, allowing for slavery, and something in there about kosher/halal I'm not really sure anyone cares about, at least not as much as shunning gays.

                  Early American society was also influenced by Islam however. That's why we have the Mameluke sword. Morocco was one of the first countries to recognize the United States. Stories about the Middle East are prominent in early American literature and Islamic architecture was also being copied early on. The United States by it's very design has always been about secularism and welcoming new ideas.

                  Christianity, however, has traditionally been about closed mindedness and shunning evil doers. At least ever since the Catholic church came along. Not that Protestantism is that much better. My view is that Jesus was a great man. He had some great ideas. Buddhism is also very attractive for it's focus on being at one with the universe/the higher power, and concepts like selflessness, purity, and devotion. There were many violent events tied directly to Christianity, including the Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, etc... It was the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that got Europe out of that mode of thinking, and in my view people today should be thanking those great philosophers. Not on their knees, they can stand, but it is important to thank them... And be cognizant that there are millions, perhaps billions of good people on Earth who do not believe that Jesus was the "Son of God".

                  I think human civilization is continuing to evolve, much like species have evolved on Earth for millions of years (sorry Genesis, your numbers scales or your translations are somewhat inaccurate). Species evolved to fill the best niche they could find. Nations also are evolving, Chinese civilization is very different from Russian, Indian, African, or European civilization. America is unique in that it has had the opportunity to create a truly modern society based on some really great ideas that we all know and love. Ideas born of some of the greatest philosophers of all time. It's also important to remember that even Socrates was executed for his corruption of the youth (damn kids these days).



                  One great quote that I think has influenced American society and should continue to do so is from Euripides:

                  "Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to harm his countrymen, or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured."

                  And one from Saint Augustine that I think has unfortunately influenced some in America as well:

                  "There is another form of temptation even more fraught with danger, this is the disease of curiosity, it is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets that are beyond our understanding which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."



                  As for moderate Muslims... yes of course they exist. Islam originally was a political empire, but treated the conquered well and throughout the Middle Ages was far more tolerant of a society than the Christian world. They gave us great technological achievements as I mentioned earlier. Christianity on the other hand, at least during it's early years, was responsible for far more violence. But does anyone seek to blame or judge the poor Peasant for the crimes of the Crusaders? Of course not. Nor should we blame a regular Muslim boy or girl, father or mother, for crimes committed by a fraction of a percentage of Muslims worldwide. Saying Muslims are coming here and killing us is like saying Americans are moving to Italy and killing people, it's insanity at it's finest, especially for a society that values individualism.

                  ?


                  • #69
                    Why do Liberals support Muslims to such a degree. Their very teachings are totally opposed to everything Liberals supposedly support. My only guess would be that they aren't Christians. (The Muslims that is)

                    ?


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      Why do Liberals support Muslims to such a degree. Their very teachings are totally opposed to everything Liberals supposedly support. My only guess would be that they aren't Christians. (The Muslims that is)
                      Confusion.

                      Sorry, it is that short and simple and it can only be remedied from within themselves.

                      ?


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Why do Liberals support Muslims to such a degree. Their very teachings are totally opposed to everything Liberals supposedly support. My only guess would be that they aren't Christians. (The Muslims that is)
                        Beats me. Perhaps its just a knee jerk against the right side who IMO, understand the danger of Islam better. Also, the liberals that are so vocal about supporting muslims are rich enough to live in a bubble that offers protection from them. Just like the liberals who support illegal immigration, open borders, are in a position that these people do not threaten economically. So, some of this depends upon all of these things. These kind of liberals will go after Christianity, which is so much more benign than islam, with what appears to be hatred, fervently, yet give islam a pass, and even will defend the religion of islam. Sure, we see it as incoherence, but this is created and sustained by forsaking rationality. And this is why I could never be a modern liberal, and hang my hats with the small FDR Progressive crowd. To us, social issues, are just a distraction from the important issues, which is this treasonous economic model, mostly. And I am a Progressive that would not take in muslims, when their own people in the middle east will not do a damn thing to help them. Personally, I think the middle east muslims, the ones iin power want to fill the West up with muslims, in order to change the west into Islam. And its not like some of their people have not said as much. More than one way to conquer other nations for islam, and this is still an element in that religion. To dominate, to bring all into Islam, or to tax them or kill them. This religion has proven to be a cancer, and is the world's most dangerous religion. The liberals refuse to admit that, and seem to see a benign Christianity as much worse. One wonders if they actually believe that? Or if it is just dangerous political theater?

                        ?


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          Confusion.

                          Sorry, it is that short and simple and it can only be remedied from within themselves.
                          Sorry, but of the possible ways of addressing our "Jihadist " problem, your idea will take the longest to work and before it is successful will result in an alarming number of Moderate Muslim "Green on Blue" attacks.

                          The answer is that we are our only hope.

                          And we must limit the #'s of Muslims in America to no more than Stage Two levels.

                          Stage Two is explained in the online article: The Five Stages of Islam.

                          ​​​​

                          ?


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by msc View Post
                            Here's a question to ponder: If Jihadists, left the moderate Muslims alone and only raise Jihad on non-Muslims, would the "Moderate" Muslims Care?
                            Ignoring the Muslims who are apostates (moderate Muslims) and only attacking Christians, Jews and Atheists would violate the Islamic commandments from Mohammed.

                            Thus, it would be as impossible as the manliest male poster here becoming Gay.

                            It just won't happen.

                            I invite you to become better familiar with the Islamic Holy Trilogy.

                            www.politicalislam.com

                            Try it. You'll like it.

                            ?


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              Why do Liberals support Muslims to such a degree. Their very teachings are totally opposed to everything Liberals supposedly support. My only guess would be that they aren't Christians. (The Muslims that is)
                              Asking such a question will only force us to run afoul of the posting rules which prevent attacking other groups.

                              Liberals are liberal for biological reasons.

                              Just as colorblindness is caused biologically.

                              We would be forced to debate the biological inferiority of Liberals.

                              And the rules here prohibit this.

                              So, we will shrug our shoulders and continue asking, 'why Liberals act as they do?' without ever getting closer to finding the answer.

                              ?


                              • #75
                                This is seemingly what happens to moderate Muslims:
                                http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZE2J1

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X