Widows and Orphans

[DirtyDan]

hey we all have our moments.....

ive had mine

dan

[fudgie]

Tell me more about how I don't know crap about the Republican party.

Are you saying they don't want the country to be more Christian?  Then explain the push for prayer in public schools, proposed laws banning gay marriage, etc.

Are you saying that they do want to accept Syrian refugees?  Then explain the near unanimous opposition in the Republican party to accepting them.

Are you saying they aren't against raising taxes to pay for social services?  Then explain why the party has been for cutting taxes and defunding social services.

Are you saying they want to fund Planned Parenthood?  Then explain the attempts to defund it.

Are you saying they are for Obamacare?  I mean really....

Are you saying they aren't terrified of Muslims?  Look at the hysteria over allowing Syrian refugees despite the fact that there has never been a terrorist attack on Americans by a Syrian.

Methinks you need to re-examine what you know about your party, because it is common knowledge that the things I stated in my post are true, and even those with an IQ lower than dirt know it (present company excepted)  

Im not a Republican. I don't like terrorists. I don't want refugees from terrorists countries. So how is it a 'republican' thing now?

[dinosnake]

Tell me more about how I don't know crap about the Republican party.

Are you saying they don't want the country to be more Christian?  Then explain the push for prayer in public schools, proposed laws banning gay marriage, etc.

Are you saying that they do want to accept Syrian refugees?  Then explain the near unanimous opposition in the Republican party to accepting them.

Are you saying they aren't against raising taxes to pay for social services?  Then explain why the party has been for cutting taxes and defunding social services.

Are you saying they want to fund Planned Parenthood?  Then explain the attempts to defund it.

Are you saying they are for Obamacare?  I mean really....

Are you saying they aren't terrified of Muslims?  Look at the hysteria over allowing Syrian refugees despite the fact that there has never been a terrorist attack on Americans by a Syrian.

Methinks you need to re-examine what you know about your party, because it is common knowledge that the things I stated in my post are true, and even those with an IQ lower than dirt know it (present company excepted)  

Im not a Republican. I don't like terrorists. I don't want refugees from terrorists countries. So how is it a 'republican' thing now?

That's interesting: when Northern Ireland had the IRA, and were doing terrorist actions against the British, we had no problem in continuing to allow Irish citizens into our borders.

Countries even took refugees in from the Spanish Civil War, even though they (strongly) disliked the Franco regime and had embargoes against it, considering it a hostile government.  Later, when the Guanche Armed Forces were bombing locales, bombed the Tererife airport and caused the worst civil aviation disaster in history, we didn't limit the Spanish, either.

Etc, etc, etc.

This is not directed to you per see, it is directed to ALL who believe that we should not offer shelter to those in need.  Can [you] explain why we have such double standards?

[Patrick]

It's not religion I have a problem with, that's private.  As long as it STAYS private, please be of faith, have courage from your faith and be of peace and good will from it.  But keep it PRIVATE, got it?

Religion is a lot like a penis.

If you've got one, great, have fun with it, enjoy it, I'm happy for you.

But don't go whipping it out in public.

And don't you DARE try shoving it down my children's throats!

In other words... Matthew 6:5-8.

Damn Serk , I agree with you but that's a little too graphic.  

Got to admit though, the man has a way with words.

[Crackerborn]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

[Serk]

didnt know you could safely drink ethanol?

Hope you are ok Serk

Totally not germane to the topic at hand, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

You may now resume your regularly scheduled thread.

[dinosnake]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

And the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful - if anything, current conditions proves that.  In NYC alone the mayor's office states that there are over 1 million Muslims and, look, no violence.  The violent people come from the outside.

So is it fair to punish all for the sins of a few? 

I think reasonable limits should certainly be applied.  Single males seem to be the greatest risk.  Favor women with children and their families but vet them and maybe create communities that are monitored for them - they are guests and our applying limits is simply part of the program is you want our help.  We don't have to take everybody, that is our right, but the women and especially the children should not suffer for the stupidity of their males.

[Patrick]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

And the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful - if anything, current conditions proves that.  In NYC alone the mayor's office states that there are over 1 million Muslims and, look, no violence.  The violent people come from the outside.

So is it fair to punish all for the sins of a few?  

I think reasonable limits should certainly be applied.  Single males seem to be the greatest risk.  Favor women with children and their families but vet them and maybe create communities that are monitored for them - they are guests and our applying limits is simply part of the program is you want our help.  We don't have to take everybody, that is our right, but the women and especially the children should not suffer for the stupidity of their males.

There are not many that I'm aware of that would refuse all. All most are saying is that a GOOD vetting process needs to be in place first. But, women should also have to go thru the process.

This is not a matter of being anti refugee, it is a matter of anti terrorism. At this moment I don't trust this administration to be able to vet these people. There are too many opportunities for terrorists to fit in with the refugees. Had this administration stayed on top of this problem there could be safe zones for these people. Other countries need to ante up and take on some responsibility. Some gulf states with far more money than we have are doing nothing. This isn't all our problem.

After-al, wouldn't they all look alike to us.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Damn Serk , I agree with you but that's a little too graphic.  

Sorry, I'd remove my post but ya'll quoted it so it's kinda there now... Just a small application of CH3CH2OH and my internal filters get turned off...  

that's alright  but I must say you might want to change brands of whiskey. When I drink I never think about religion and penis. (Just messing with you)

[..]

Fake Syrian passports being found on fake Syrians in

Paris - on a Muslim terrorist
Belgium
Turkey
Serbia
Greece
Germany
Austria
Hungary
Cyprus
Lebanon
Jordan
Iraq
Pakistan
Honduras
Guatemala
Our Texas border

But there's nothing to see here.
Move along.

[..]

More Syrian "refugees" arrested in Belgium charged with aiding the Muslim Paris terrorists.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Patrick]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

But we still are a nation of horrible double standards, from slavery to the fact that we interred Japanese Americans during WWII but did nothing of the same to (white) German Americans, even those known to have been active in the German American Bund.  We talk a good game but, when the chips are down, we usually fail to live up to our rather big mouths when the other side is too different from us.

I doubt very many understand or know much about slavery, but, thats not the topic right now.

I think there is a reason why people, as well as other animals, shy away from things 'too different from us'. I would call it reason. There is a lot to be said for 'stranger danger'.

So from your reasoning we should just up and blindly over compensate for what you perceive to be past wrongs. Sorry, but, I happen to disagree.

[Moonshot_1]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

And the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful - if anything, current conditions proves that.  In NYC alone the mayor's office states that there are over 1 million Muslims and, look, no violence.  The violent people come from the outside.

So is it fair to punish all for the sins of a few? 

I think reasonable limits should certainly be applied.  Single males seem to be the greatest risk.  Favor women with children and their families but vet them and maybe create communities that are monitored for them - they are guests and our applying limits is simply part of the program is you want our help.  We don't have to take everybody, that is our right, but the women and especially the children should not suffer for the stupidity of their males.

Some simple facts about all this stuff.

We know there is a terrible humanitarian crisis in Syria. (And elsewhere too, but we are on Syria and their refugees.)

We know that within this crisis are members of a group called ISIS that are avowed enemies of the US and countries of predominant Western culture.

We know that they can move at will amongst the refugees.

We know that it is a logistical impossibility to document and vet these refugees as they have no records or papers and generally no reliable history in order to vet them.

So with that as a backdrop the question is why does the US or any other country with a predominant Western culture have an obligation to absorb these refugees?

Why is it not possible to work with the likes of the Saudis, UAE, Egypt, and the like in resettling these refugees there? Would it not give the refugees refuge and isolate ISIS at the same time?

How would this be punishment?

If this were just a standard civil war, then sure, I'd be a bit more lax in my opinion of the situation. But there is a volitile atmosphere. We're not just dealing with the stereotypical refugees. There are evil people looking to do great harm mixed in among them.

There just seems to be so many alternatives that would be far more secure and logistically feasible than sending them half a world away.

[dinosnake]

Ah, this human world is filed with irony: as I'm writing this, less than 15 feet away, a Christian preacher just kicked into a sermon.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting we 'over compensate', for as you note I did say reasonable limitations are...reasonable.  I'm saying that we need to step up and put our money where our mouth is, rather than what we have done in the past and talk a good game of how righteous are but failing when the chips are down.

Reasonable precautions are warranted and certainly within a logical act, but something has to be done.  If America wants to deal with the problem at its source, in Syria (know what I mean?), then do it.  But don't try to stake a moral high ground and then...do nothing.  If you want, or need to, get rid of the ISIS problem, at its source, then get behind the necessary military actions and get it done.

Yeah, this is just me.  There is nothing that gets my ire up, or I call out faster, than double standards.  Don't treat them any differently than if those were Christian refugees fleeing a war zone; pick out the criminals, weed out the fifth, but all this talk of them being Muslims is insulting my intelligence - it doesn't matter what they are as a group, it matters who they are individually and each one gets treated as such.  A Muslim terrorist gets justice, a Muslim child gets a treat and a warm bed.  Anything else is an insult to democracy and humanity.

[dinosnake]

Dinosnake, I don't seem to remember that the Irish and Spanish refugees had ever stated publicly and often that their intent was to destroy all infidels and western civilization. Perhaps 98% of the refugees are legitamate but 2% of 65,000 is 1,300 terrorist allowed into our country. It only took 19 to perpetrate 9\11 and have the authorities mentioned the total number of terrorists involved in the Paris attack? I suspect the number to be less than 1,3000.

And the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful - if anything, current conditions proves that.  In NYC alone the mayor's office states that there are over 1 million Muslims and, look, no violence.  The violent people come from the outside.

So is it fair to punish all for the sins of a few? 

I think reasonable limits should certainly be applied.  Single males seem to be the greatest risk.  Favor women with children and their families but vet them and maybe create communities that are monitored for them - they are guests and our applying limits is simply part of the program is you want our help.  We don't have to take everybody, that is our right, but the women and especially the children should not suffer for the stupidity of their males.

Some simple facts about all this stuff.

We know there is a terrible humanitarian crisis in Syria. (And elsewhere too, but we are on Syria and their refugees.)

We know that within this crisis are members of a group called ISIS that are avowed enemies of the US and countries of predominant Western culture.

We know that they can move at will amongst the refugees.

We know that it is a logistical impossibility to document and vet these refugees as they have no records or papers and generally no reliable history in order to vet them.

So with that as a backdrop the question is why does the US or any other country with a predominant Western culture have an obligation to absorb these refugees?

Why is it not possible to work with the likes of the Saudis, UAE, Egypt, and the like in resettling these refugees there? Would it not give the refugees refuge and isolate ISIS at the same time?

How would this be punishment?

If this were just a standard civil war, then sure, I'd be a bit more lax in my opinion of the situation. But there is a volitile atmosphere. We're not just dealing with the stereotypical refugees. There are evil people looking to do great harm mixed in among them.

There just seems to be so many alternatives that would be far more secure and logistically feasible than sending them half a world away.

Hey, I agree: where is the Arabic world in staking a claim for life and safety?  Same thing here in the U.S.: maybe the Muslim community should be much, much more vocal in demonstrating against ISIS and what they are doing.  That is certainly their failing and maybe why some people don't give them as much of a benefit of a doubt.  It seems to me that too many of them want their cake and eat it too.

[Karen]

All this compassion for the Syrian refugees, while BHO allowed the Syrian people to be gassed by their own government while drawing a meaningless line in the sand. Suddenly it's unAmerican to not allow them unfettered access to our homeland? Carpet bomb ISIS, then use the territory acquired to house and care for those who have survived this unending assault on those of us who do not wish to be Muslim. Eleven hundred years is enough. Anyone who wants to kill me because I believe differently than they do, and has made their position perfectly clear, has a target on their back.  Obviously there are more members I need to ignore.

[Moonshot_1]

Ah, this human world is filed with irony: as I'm writing this, less than 15 feet away, a Christian preacher just kicked into a sermon.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting we 'over compensate', for as you note I did say reasonable limitations are...reasonable.  I'm saying that we need to step up and put our money where our mouth is, rather than what we have done in the past and talk a good game of how righteous are but failing when the chips are down.

Reasonable precautions are warranted and certainly within a logical act, but something has to be done.  If America wants to deal with the problem at its source, in Syria (know what I mean?), then do it.  But don't try to stake a moral high ground and then...do nothing.  If you want, or need to, get rid of the ISIS problem, at its source, then get behind the necessary military actions and get it done.

Yeah, this is just me.  There is nothing that gets my ire up, or I call out faster, than double standards.  Don't treat them any differently than if those were Christian refugees fleeing a war zone; pick out the criminals, weed out the fifth, but all this talk of them being Muslims is insulting my intelligence - it doesn't matter what they are as a group, it matters who they are individually and each one gets treated as such.  A Muslim terrorist gets justice, a Muslim child gets a treat and a warm bed.  Anything else is an insult to democracy and humanity.

In all likelihood it would be far more difficult for Islamic Terrorists to Hide amongst Christian Refugees fleeing a war zone than Islamic Terrorists to hide amongst Muslim refugees fleeing a war zone dontcha think?
 
The Christian Refugees would likely tell us " Hey, them guys are always praying to Allah."



Common sense apparently is insulting at times.

[3fan4life]

A Muslim terrorist gets justice, a Muslim child gets a treat and a warm bed.

Then he grows up to be a big, strong Muslim terrorist.


This whole Syrian refugee thing reminds me of an old story:

A young girl walking along a mountain path to her grandmother's house heard a rustle at her feet. Looking down, she saw a snake, but before she could react, the snake spoke to her.

"I am about to die," he said. "It's too cold for me up here, and I am freezing. There is no food in these mountains, and I am starving. Please put me under your coat and take me with you."

"No," the girl replied. "I know your kind. You are a rattlesnake. And if I pick you up, you will bite me and your bite is poisonous."

"No, no," the snake said. "If you help me, you will be my best friend. I will treat you differently."

The young girl sat down on a rock for a moment to rest and think things over. She looked at the beautiful markings on the snake and she had to admit he was the most beautiful snake she had ever seen.

Suddenly, she said, "I believe you. I will save you. All living things deserve to be treated with kindness."

She then reached over, put the snake gently under her coat and continued toward her grandmother's house.

Within a moment, she felt a sharp pain in her side. The snake had bitten her!

"How could you do this to me?" she cried. "You promised that you would not bite me, and I trusted you!"

"You knew what I was when you picked me up," he hissed as he slithered away.

[3fan4life]

Can [you] explain why we have such double standards?

A Picture is worth a THOUSAND words:

[Crackerborn]

Sadly the women and children of Syria can be bomb carriers as well as the men. I will grant the men are a greater danger, but to allow mass acceptance of the Syrian refugees would require internment until proper vetting could be carried out, irregardless of sex or age.

Dinosnake, I don't believe we are philosophically worlds apart on the Syrian problem. I just want there to be accountability for the proposed refugees and I don't trust the current administration to provide that. I am not sure any administrative process will be able to vet the Syrian refugees properly since there are no records for the vast majority of the unfortunate souls caught in this SNAFU.

By the way, ask some of the older German descent residents of Milwaukee if there were not serious restrictions to movement and confiscations of their properties and in some cases, internment, during WWII. Some that had fled Hitler's Europe and were willing but barred from serving in the US Armed Forces. We are not a perfect society, but IMO, we are far better than the next closest despite all of our flaws and differences of opinion.

Or perhaps, because of our flaws and differences of opinion.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I am heartened by this club !  The Foster Loyacano thread is doubling this one in views and posts. 

[Serk]

One has to wonder what the Canadians know that we don't...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185

[dinosnake]

One has to wonder what the Canadians know that we don't...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185

Wow, doesn't that sound familiar?  (see my post above)

[The emperor has no clothes]

One has to wonder what the Canadians know that we don't...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185

1) What a great sport Hockey is.
            2) How to make good beer.
            3) Exporting punk pop singers.
Oh.... we are still talking about refugees. 

[Jess from VA]

So long as some 50% of our country is on the Free crap Army G benefit dole (bought and paid for Dem voters), and we are at a REAL unemployment rate of 40%, with 11 million illegals here already, and an $18 trillion national debt, why should we take any new immigrants from anywhere for any reason (let alone Middle Easterners)?

We are already at 320 million.... humans aren't endangered here.

Now if an applicant shows he is a nuclear physicist or has some other unique skill that we need, we could make an exception, AFTER a complete individual vetting.

Don't tell me there's a difference between refugees and immigrants, you think refugees will go home after things settle down back home (you know, like maybe in 300 years)?

Evey single cent of refugee cost to US taxpayers should be deducted from the US State Dept budget.   

[dinosnake]

A Picture is worth a THOUSAND words:



etc etc etc

Hey, if you want to trade photos






And there are so many more.

If you want to use the extremists (only) to make a point, we can all do the same.

[MP]

Dont see " kill, massacre, butcher, behead, etc" in you pic. I also dont see planes crashing into buildings, etc.

As a lot of your ilk do, you equate them. But, one says things I disagree with, the other DOES murderous things.

[DirtyDan]

well said Melvin

dan

[Patrick]

A Picture is worth a THOUSAND words:



etc etc etc

Hey, if you want to trade photos






And there are so many more.

If you want to use the extremists (only) to make a point, we can all do the same.

Apples and oranges.

[Patrick]

This subject got me looking into what has been happening with countries such as France, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands over the past few years that they have been allowing these refugees in.
I think if one starts looking, you'll not want them here.

[Serk]

For me at least, being non-religious myself, I don't care if someone is a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist an Atheist or really any belief they want to be or not be.

I do however care if they share our western values, which a LARGE percentage of Muslims clearly do not. Not saying all, but enough of them to be very very concerned.

Some examples - 1 in 4 Turks support honor killings of female family members who have dishonored their family. (Source - http://www.realcourage.org/2009/03/turkey-war-on-women/ )

1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband's bidding ( http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pd f)

BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over "dishonor". ( http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/peter-rhodes/2011/12/28/honour-killing-%E2%80%93-a-stain-on-our-nation/ )

95% of honor killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies. ( http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/21/barbara-kay-continue-calling-honour-killings-by-its-rightful-name/ )

1 in 5 young British Muslims agree that 'honor' violence is acceptable. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117003/More-thirds-young-British-Muslims-believe-honour-violence-acceptable-survey-reveals.html )

83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates (People who leave Islam) ( http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/ )

40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK (  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html )

Far more if you're interested (Yes, this site is very biased and doesn't try to hide it, but it also links it's sources - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm )

[The emperor has no clothes]

Dont see " kill, massacre, butcher, behead, etc" in you pic. I also dont see planes crashing into buildings, etc.

As a lot of your ilk do, you equate them. But, one says things I disagree with, the other DOES murderous things.

Wouldn't the assassination of abortion doctors be considered murderous ?

[dinosnake]

Apples and oranges.

What "apple and oranges"?  The ones that appear in dreams?

As a non-believer, I'm constantly having to hear about how America is supposedly a "Judeo-Christian nation" and how our laws are supposedly based on "biblical values" and how, when those believers don't like what someone else is doing, throw all of that in their face.

So, from my perspective, Christians may play 'holier than thou' when it comes to other religions but they play many of the same games, pull many of the same cards.  The benefit here is that Western Christians usually don't play the violence card...but, then again, why don't we ask the dead abortion doctors about that, eh?

It is all a matter of perspective.  When this society plays according to your own viewpoints, there's no problem.  Since, for all too many people, this society does indeed play the Christian card, sometimes in many situations, most people don't complain.  But I'm not a Christian, I'm not Jewish, I'm not anything, yet I am constantly bombarded with people who believe their viewpoints, based on their religious values, should be the foundations of laws that apply to me.  For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

[old2soon]

This subject got me looking into what has been happening with countries such as France, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands over the past few years that they have been allowing these refugees in.
I think if one starts looking, you'll not want them here.

        Understand right up front SARCASM intended. As well as that is working in Europe you would sorta kinda think we-America-would really WANT to give this a shot because we KNOW we do EVERYTHING far better than anyone else!  My Father used a phrase that seems very apropos here-can't see past the tip of ones nose.  THAT be directed at deception central.  Let just say there ain't a one of them I'd trust to take a door with or have my back. That particular list is extremely short. RIDE SAFE.

[Patrick]

Apples and oranges.

What "apple and oranges"?  The ones that appear in dreams?

As a non-believer, I'm constantly having to hear about how America is supposedly a "Judeo-Christian nation" and how our laws are supposedly based on "biblical values" and how, when those believers don't like what someone else is doing, throw all of that in their face.

So, from my perspective, Christians may play 'holier than thou' when it comes to other religions but they play many of the same games, pull many of the same cards.  The benefit here is that Western Christians usually don't play the violence card...but, then again, why don't we ask the dead abortion doctors about that, eh?

It is all a matter of perspective.  When this society plays according to your own viewpoints, there's no problem.  Since, for all too many people, this society does indeed play the Christian card, sometimes in many situations, most people don't complain.  But I'm not a Christian, I'm not Jewish, I'm not anything, yet I am constantly bombarded with people who believe their viewpoints, based on their religious values, should be the foundations of laws that apply to me.  For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

Remember that I was thrown out of the catholic church for failure to pay extortion money to them.
So how religious am I.
But, our country was founded on christian values. It was christians that arrived here from England. [ Well, not England but they were English]. Our founding fathers were Protestant and Diest.
We are also bound to live under our law, not multiple law. I can't imagine any rational person wanting sharia in this country. If you think there is chaos here now just wait until that takes hold.

[Valkorado]

For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

Wow.

[RainMaker]

For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

Wow.

Considering how an atheist would at the least be forced to pay taxes for not being Islamic and at the worst losing their heads under Sharia Law, "Wow" indeed. 

[Serk]

For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

Wow.

Dino - As a heathen myself, I know what you mean about staying on guard against Christian Taliban but really, as distasteful as some of them are, even the worst of the worst, the good people of Westboro Baptist Church are holding signs and saying mean things.

In Muslim areas, gay men are being tossed off of buildings, with throngs of cheering onlookers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198283/Horrific-moment-two-gay-men-thrown-tall-building-ISIS-stoned-baying-mob-including-children.html

See the difference?

Here, in the midst of a very conservative Christian group, I'm admitting I'm not a Christian. I'm not worried about retribution for that. In Islamic majority nations, admitting you're not religious can be tantamount to suicide.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34338691

See the difference?

As a westerner if one of my daughters became a slut (To use the colloquial term) I might take away her car and cell phone.

In Muslim society, murdering your own daughters is widely acceptable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061842/Mohammad-Shafia-murdered-daughter-honour-killing-said-hed-again.html

See the difference?

In the most conservative Christian areas of America, the religious right might have a problem with alcohol consumption and try to force liquor stores out of the town.

In Islamic nations, drinking alcohol can lead to public lashings, caning or even execution.

See the difference?


As I said earlier, my issue with Muslims coming here en masse isn't a matter of religious differences, I have religious differences with most of the Americans who are already here, it's a matter of different values, many values diametrically opposed to our liberal western values. (Liberal in this case in the classical sense, not the modern hijacked communist version of the word)

[Wizzard]

Apples and oranges.

What "apple and oranges"?  The ones that appear in dreams?

As a non-believer, I'm constantly having to hear about how America is supposedly a "Judeo-Christian nation" and how our laws are supposedly based on "biblical values" and how, when those believers don't like what someone else is doing, throw all of that in their face.

So, from my perspective, Christians may play 'holier than thou' when it comes to other religions but they play many of the same games, pull many of the same cards.  The benefit here is that Western Christians usually don't play the violence card...but, then again, why don't we ask the dead abortion doctors about that, eh?

It is all a matter of perspective.  When this society plays according to your own viewpoints, there's no problem.  Since, for all too many people, this society does indeed play the Christian card, sometimes in many situations, most people don't complain.  But I'm not a Christian, I'm not Jewish, I'm not anything, yet I am constantly bombarded with people who believe their viewpoints, based on their religious values, should be the foundations of laws that apply to me.  For me, there's no difference from what Christians want to do and the Christians complain about, that Islam would impose "Sharia law" - from my perspective, there's really no difference at all.

Sorry about that.

If its so bad here,, why do you live here?   If anyone thinks its so bad in the USA then I will be the first to invite you to find your happiness elsewhere!

[dinosnake]

Respectfully, no, there is not much difference if you know some of the history of what our "Christian" society has done in the past.  Let's take for, example, gays:

You state that gays, in an Islamic country, would be thrown off of a building.  Not all that far away from our own past, Christian actions, where gays were, depending upon the particular society:

- forced into (either) permanent psychiatric wards or, sent to wards where they were "treated" by non-voluntary electro-shock therapy until they recanted their desires (United States and UK)

- non-voluntary lobotoby (Europe / Russia, United States)

- non-voluntary castration (United Kingdom, via chemical treatments)

Yes, that all happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

In case you missed it, Alan Turing, the creator of modern computer science, committed suicide because the British court found him guilty of homosexuality and imposed chemical castration as punishment.  He couldn't deal with it and decided that death would be welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

And this is "better"?

Sorry.  There is a significant number of Christian fundamentalists out there who would recreate all that, and more - hey, we've got politicians openly stating their beliefs that women should 'stay in the kitchen' and get out of both politics and the workforce.  We shouldn't mention the forced medical exams in some states (thankfully deemed illegal, but after a court fight) on some pregnant women.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/14/new-study-reveals-impact-post-roe-v-wade-anti-abortion-measures-on-women/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

So, let's do some fact checking.

"Woman gives birth to twins after refusing c-section, one twin dies in stillbirth, mother charged with murder"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/utah-c-section-mom-pleads-guilty/

Yep, true.

Women forced to have medical procedures:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631088/Woman-suing-says-doctors-forced-C-section-against-perforated-bladder.html


"United States court orders woman into forced Cesarean section, woman and fetus die"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C.
https://www.aclu.org/coercive-and-punitive-governmental-responses-womens-conduct-during-pregnancy

Yep, true

And this is much different than punitive Islam law?  Not in my eyes.