Should Muslims convert or?

Islam needs a Renaissance.

 

It has now become "anti-American" to criticize certain aspects of our Gov't - even when the Gov't is committing crimes. This is one of the harbingers of totalitarianism.

Those who engage in criminal activities within Gov't are given a pass and those who try to out criminal activities (through legitimate means - not talking Snowden or Manning here) have their lives ruined and/or are falsely imprisoned.

The head of the NSA lied to congress (felony 1) about en mass NSA spying (felony 2) ... not only was he not charged or punished .. he kept his job. https://whowhatwhy.org/2015/09/01/whistleblowers-file-100-million-suit-against-nsa-fbi/

And if you really want to hear how tyrannical the police state has become. Take some time and listen to these folks.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...-panel-at-ron-paul-institute-conference-2017/

 

What does what Trump said have do do with anything - Trump is eugenics adherent (not to be confused with Hitler) - he classifies people on the basis of their position on the socioeconomic hierarchy = "Social Darwinism"

Of course it is about "good" and "bad". Christianity and Judaism adore the same religious material that makes Islam an anathema to essential liberty. In context your claim is then pointless nonsense.

It is not about the religion ... it is about the person. What you are suggesting is that we generalize the evils of Islam on all Muslims .. and this is logical fallacy.

When you get into the details (rather than me teasing it out of you by saying what do you not like about Islam) - the main problem with Islam is that it teaches lack of respect for individual liberty. Fundamentalist Muslims belief that they are justified in forcing their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law)

An "Islamist" Muslim believes in Sharia Law - that Sharia should be the law of the land = forcing religious belief on others through physical violence. The Islamist hates individual liberty - BY DEFINITION.

Western democracy and the USA was founded on the principle of respect for individual liberty - essential liberty. In the US the Law and the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted on the basis of this founding principle. (not that most folks know this as through 12 years of school we fail to teach the basic principles on which this nation was founded).

Given this - why on earth would we let an Islamist immigrate into this nation. Why would we let someone into this nation who hates the main principle on which this nation was founded ?

This is not a religious test ... this is a test of whether or not someone respects the founding principles of this nation. I do not care what religion the person is ... if you have no respect for essential liberty of others - you should not be allowed into this nation .. FULL STOP.

Your problem is that you want to lump all Muslims into the "Islamist" group when not all Muslims are Islamist's. Granted - most of them are - upwards of 70% or more according to statistics ... but, not all of them.

The problem with the masses is that they do not friggen know what the founding principles even are .. never mind know what the difference between Muslim who is an Islamist and one who is not is.

 

How would you tell an Islamist from a Muslim? Have you Americans invented a mind reading machine yet?
And how do you know if a Muslim, even if peaceful and docile, won't get radicalized on the basis of his religion later on (meaning, reading Muslimic 'holy books' more carefully and paying attention to the calls fof violence against infidels) and turn into an Islamist? Can you guarantee this?

 

Yes to the Religion of Science

You must believe your brain exists at the very least

I grew up an Atheist by the DC beltway..

I see more Nature everyday now.. this is my temple for the people.. all 7.5 Billion the very old spaceship.. you can't help but feel something is there watching this..

Trump Stress Disorder has renewed my interest in what spirituality is ... ironically enough.. And I spend a lot of time in Santa Fe

 

I can not guarantee that some individual - Muslim or otherwise - will not be radicalized any more than I can guarantee that life as we know it will not be destroyed by some massive meteor in the future.

That said - If some woman and her husband show up at the immigration office - and that woman is wearing a niqab - she might as well have a tattoo on her forehead "I am an Islamist".

Regardless - just because we might miss a few is no excuse for not asking would be immigrants - regardless of religion - questions with respect to the founding principles -followed by mandatory education in these principles prior to becoming a US citizen - followed by swearing an oath to uphold those principles.

Further just because we might miss a few is no excuse for not educating the masses in general with respect to the founding principles. This is how you fight radicalization.

Most Muslims (never mind Muslims - most people in general) do not understand that making law on the basis of religious belief = forcing religious beliefs on others through physical violence. Most people do not understand what Law is - from the perspective of essential liberty.

It is not just the Islamist's that hate individual liberty -- it is the Red and Blue Establishment in this nation - and many other Western Nations.

 

It can tell me plenty of different things. Would you mind writing out the argument so that I may point out any bits I disagree with instead of just letting it hang and pick it up at the conclusion?

Not sure which theory or practice you're referring to. I don't think we disagree whether stoning gays is wrong, I don't think our disagreement arises between theory and practice.

My aim is to incentivise there being less bad things, terrorism and hostility towards gays/women included. The question is how to make that happen. In my opinion, painting oneself as the enemy to everything they are does not accomplish that, it only feeds hostility. Of course, it's not enough to not want to kill them all, but it is a requirement.

 

My argument, you say, well my argument is that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree". You can't have a culture that preaches hate towards the "infidel" and get a pleasing result. If a third generation Muslim turns into a Jihadi, who's fault is it - infidel's or Islam's?
Or if I have to peraphrase, is it the fault of the Nazi or the Nazi ideology those atrocities of Nazism?

 

When might someone living near you start reading Stormfront and decide to take action?

Can you guarantee that won't happen?

 

Is Stormfront a 'mainstream' religion and a world view, practiced by billions of people?

 

This line of argumet requires a belief that Islam holds the purpose you propose.

And, that's just not the case. Today it is Islam that fights ISIS. THEY are the "boots on the ground". They are the ones who are victims of ISIS terrorism. They are the ones having their wedding parties droned by America. They are the ones having their homes bulldozed by Israel with the blessing and monumental political and arms support of America.

You would like to point to this stuff and suggest that if there is blowback it is because they don't share YOUR religion.

But, that's just absolute garbage. Our own treatment of the ME fully warrants outrage in the eyes of many. I believe our intent has been good, but the methods used and our changing priorities leave a wakee of indiscriminate slaughter and destruction.

Plus, let's remember that the ENTIRE population of the ME is only 17% of Islam. And, those acting on the hate developed through conditions there (condions of random killing, war, despotic leadership, outside agitation by Russia, China, economic privation to the point of starvation, etc.) amount to a tiny, tiny percent of that 17%.

In short, we absolutely are NOT in a religious war with Islam. There is simply no evidence of that.

 

You might not be interested in Islam but Islam is interested jn you.
Don't be like an ostrige with a head in the sand.
It is Islam, apart from Communism, that has declared the desire to take over the world, not Christianity or Buddism.
Reagrding America's treatment of the ME, I agree, it is stupid. At least with presidents prior to DJ Trump that is.

 

Christians would like to take over the world, too. Like Islam, there is not a desire to do that through violence - outside of a few crazy extremists.

America, a predominantly Christian nation, would like to establish our form of government, our rule of law, our economic system, etc.

Like those espousing other systems, we believe ours is best.

We believe it is best to support Israel in buulldozing the homes of Palestinians in order to provide land for Israelis. Well, no, for Israeli Jews, as others may not apply for land stolen from Palestiniians.

We believe it is best that Palestinians be peaceful in the face of losing every last thing they own - their representatin, their property, their civil rights.

And, if they object (as did our forefathers for FAR less reason) we support slaughtering them.

Would YOU accept that?

 

I would leave that to the Jews to decide their internal affairs.

 

Sorry for a long reply.

This seems to me half an argument. The question is not whose fault it is, the question is how we get it to stop. We already have unpleasing results, the question is how to change it.

The Nazis are a good example. It is fairly well established that the Nazi movement grew on the economic hardship and animosity which came after the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles (slightly simplified) caused the Nazi uprising, but I wouldn't say that those who designed it are morally responsible for Nazism. When the Germans were defeated in WWII, they went the other way around, Marshall plan, and setting up a close respectful relationship between Germany and France, and since then, animosity isn't even in the cards.

The point of the above is that identifying blame, as you seem to, doesn't necessarily do anything to resolve the issues. The Marshall plan wasn't saying that the Nazis weren't responsible for the WWII, it was concerned with building a better future. In other words, identifying blame was not the principle by which a solution was found.

That's not to say that blame fundamentally is a bad thing, it is often important to identify problems and remove them. My point is that we need to construct blame in a useful way. For instance, our blame should be well defined. Those who are responsible for atrocities should be held accountable for them, but those who are not responsible for them should not be held responsible for them. When I say your argument seems like half an argument, what I mean is that you don't really explain what you suggest we do with identifying this "fault", or why the fault you have identified matters.

If we give the impression that we will kill or oppress Muslims as a whole, then you better believe they will be hostile towards us (and arguably justifiably so). Any solution must avoid that. That's not the only thing we need to do, but any other solution will invariably fan the flames more than anything.

 

No, not opress or kill them.
How about if we shun them and leave them to boil in their own Islamic stew?
How about if we build a wall between the Muslim world and our world and only let tourist groups in, so they can realize what they are worth withouth the "infidels"?
Is that OK?

 

No, "Islam' has indeed not developed or declared any such desire, except insofar as Christianity has, which means they proselytise, they try to convert others to Islam through MORAL SUASION ONLY, just like Christians do. ISIS and ONLY ISIS tries to convert others through violence, and for this reason, and several others, they are regarded as a heretical sect by other muslims

BTW Christianity has and does declare a desire to take over the world through converting everyone to Christianity. and the Christian Liberation Army in Uganda is a small heretical sect of Christianity which very much resembles ISIS, so we do it too.

Do you really think you can constantly argue for what would be the largest genocide ever even conceived of for very long before you are restrained in some way? Just on here alone advocating genocide is a rules violation and I don't know how long it will be before one or another mod notices this.

 

Please, point out exactly where I call for genocide of Muslims. Thanks.

 

No, it is not. It amounts to the same thing

And it is profoundly idiotic and exactly what ISIS wants us to do. I have gone on record as saying I think many of the Deus Vultures are secretly in league with ISIS. They both have the same chiliastic attitude to their religion and they both want to advance their Faiths by violence.

 

In your topic and many other areas. You make it very clear that you advocate we give muslims a "choice" of "convert or die" You argue that all muslims are enjoined by their religion to kill all of us, so what choice do we have but to kill all of them first out of self-defense? It is the old, "they'll murder us all in our beds" bullshit which was used against the Jews.

Please don't insult our intelligence by trying to argue you are not advocating this when it is so clearly implied by everything you say.

 

post deleted duplicate machine error

 

No, I never said that. It's your own words and build up.
How about "convert or be expelled"?

Actually, it is the Koran that calls for the genocide of non-Muslims. There are many threads with quotes about that.
It is Muslims that used the formula "convert or die" many times throught history. So, you've got it somewhat wrong and you should address them, not me.

 

As Rush Limbaugh liked to say "Words mean things" You cannot escape the implications of what you say just by saying that you didn't say exactly that, You have to own inferences, especially if they are clear and repeated..

Your very defense further implicates you. If all muslims are really intending to kill us what other choice do we have but to kill them first? What ELSE could your constant accusations against all muslims mean or imply we should do?

 

Nonsense.
I belive I already answered your concerns in post #41.

 

No it is not, not if you are intending we exile our own muslims. Forced exile of large groups, even internment, is genocide, recognized as such by the UN. The Holodromor, the Armenian exile, the Trail of Tears and Stalin's 'relocations" along with Hitler's enslavement of foreigners and POWs, all are genocides

What you are suggesting is EXACTLY what ISIS wants us to do. Are you in ISIS yourself? Your goals and theirs are totally the same