NationStates Jolt Archive

This was not orignally written by me. The following was written on another forum by a Muslim: -

What always surprises me about us Muslims is how we always expect better human rights from non-Muslims than we would give them in an Islamic state.

In an Islamic state a free Muslim Male has a superior legal standing in a court of law than a dhimmi. But under the rule of a non-Muslim power we want equal legal standing with the followers of the native religion and complain if we are treated differently in any way.

In an Islamic state a non-Muslim must pay Jizya (not payable by Muslims) in order to be afforded the protection of the state and be allowed to practice his religion. If a non-Muslim country asked Muslims to pay a 'special tax' in order to be 'protected' and allowed to practice Islam (which didnt apply to the native religion of that country) then we would be in uproar!

Within an Islamic state a Muslim woman accepts that her legal standing in a court will be half that of a man but in non-Muslim countries she insists on having equal standing with the native men of that land!!

If a non-Muslim land prevented us from building new houses of worship or from displaying Islamic symbols outside our place of worship then we would consider it a violataion of our human rights but under Islamic rule its ok for us to do that to non-Muslims.

Today you see many Muslims in non-Muslim countries churning out all sorts of Islamic literature and proudly boasting about the number of conversions they have achieved to Islam. But this wouldnt be allowed to happen in an Islamic state with non-Muslims trying to convert Muslims.

In an Islamic state we reserve the right to punish apostates who leave Islam but if a non-Muslim state were to punish apostates who leave their native religion and become Muslim then we would call it abuse of freedom of choice.

Why is it that we Muslims seem to expect better rights for ourselves than we would be willing to give non-Muslims in an Islamic land?

Why is it that we Muslims seem to expect better rights for ourselves than we would be willing to give non-Muslims in an Islamic land?
Because clearly, if the Muslims living our nations wanted to live in a theocracy, they wouldn't be HERE. And as such, they demand, and want, the same rights the rest of us do. Seems reasonable, no? It's not their fault that idiots who happen to be of the same religion are running around killing and oppressing others...no more than Fred Phelps is the fault of all Chrisitans.

Seconded

Because clearly, if the Muslims living our nations wanted to live in a theocracy, they wouldn't be HERE. And as such, they demand, and want, the same rights the rest of us do. Seems reasonable, no? It's not their fault that idiots who happen to be of the same religion are running around killing and oppressing others...no more than Fred Phelps is the fault of all Chrisitans.
Provided they accept the culture of the host country and contribute economically to it, I have no problem with them. When they themselves actively create a situation in which they are a pariah though and drain on the economy whilst preaching their supremacy (in the case of extremists), that we should not tolerate.

The issue is not what would happen in an Islamic state, it is what can and should happen in a democratic state. Morality isn't relative: simply because it happened somewhere else does not make a violation of human rights any more tolerable. The issue at hand is that all citizens of a democracy deserve to be treated equally, and there is absolutely no justification for infringing upon a person's rights simply because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

The issue is not what would happen in an Islamic state, it is what can and should happen in a democratic state. Morality isn't relative: simply because it happened somewhere else does not make a violation of human rights any more tolerable. The issue at hand is that all citizens of a democracy deserve to be treated equally, and there is absolutely no justification for infringing upon a person's rights simply because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.
Morality is highly subjective. It depends on a society's particular views and values. Yet, I will agree with you, that it is at the same time an absolute moral point that one cannot have their rights infringed.

The issue is not what would happen in an Islamic state, it is what can and should happen in a democratic state. Morality isn't relative: simply because it happened somewhere else does not make a violation of human rights any more tolerable. The issue at hand is that all citizens of a democracy deserve to be treated equally, and there is absolutely no justification for infringing upon a person's rights simply because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.
No, the issue of this thread (in my opinion) is the difference between how muslims treat others in their counties and how they wished to be treated in other countries.

No where was there any mention of denying a muslim's civil liberties.

Because clearly, if the Muslims living our nations wanted to live in a theocracy, they wouldn't be HERE. And as such, they demand, and want, the same rights the rest of us do. Seems reasonable, no? It's not their fault that idiots who happen to be of the same religion are running around killing and oppressing others...no more than Fred Phelps is the fault of all Chrisitans.

What about Muslims who support Shrai style theocracy in their own nations but demand full human rights in ours. Surely thats hypocritical

What about Muslims who support Shrai style theocracy in their own nations but demand full human rights in ours. Surely thats hypocritical
Here I will agree. They should not be so presumptuous as to think we are dumb enough to not see past their motives in this case.

This was not orignally written by me. The following was written on another forum by a Muslim: link?

There's a difference between Muslim states (Turkey, etc.) and theocracies (Saudi Arabia, Iran).

There's a difference between Muslim states (Turkey, etc.) and theocracies (Saudi Arabia, Iran).
Turkey is officially secular, yet still violates many human rights, fails to recognise crimes it has committed in the past and has a population of which the large majority is in favour of conservative islamic policies, such as honour killings.

Turkey is officially secular, yet still violates many human rights, fails to recognise crimes it has committed in the past and has a population of which the large majority is in favour of conservative islamic policies, such as honour killings.

It's a bastion of liberty compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, though.

It's a bastion of liberty compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, though.
That's a frightening thought. :(

It's a bastion of liberty compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, though.


That's not saying much. Compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea looks like a bunch of free-love hippies.

Provided they accept the culture of the host country and contribute economically to it, I have no problem with them. When they themselves actively create a situation in which they are a pariah though and drain on the economy whilst preaching their supremacy (in the case of extremists), that we should not tolerate.

Then get ready to start ‘not tolerating’ idiots like Phelps, and assorted intersection preachers. As well as all those looney milita folk, and anyone else that is a ‘pariah and a drain on the economy whilst preaching their supremacy’. Or do you just mean supremacists on welfare?

In a free society, EVERYONE must have the right to be a complete ass. You start restricting that right, and you are no longer a free society.

That's not saying much. Compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea looks like a bunch of free-love hippies.
Heh I never realised Saudi Arabia was that bad. Its extremely wealthy, that much I know. What is it that goes on there?

That's not saying much. Compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea looks like a bunch of free-love hippies.

No, North Korea's way worse. North Korea has hundreds of thousands of political prisoners.

No, the issue of this thread (in my opinion) is the difference between how muslims treat others in their counties and how they wished to be treated in other countries.

No where was there any mention of denying a muslim's civil liberties.
Muslims are not a homogenous group. The Muslims living here, are not the ones treating anyone anyhow in other countries. I don't see the connection. I certainly don't judge Christians in Canada by the actions of Christians in Eritrea, for example. They aren't the same group.

Heh I never realised Saudi Arabia was that bad. Its extremely wealthy, that much I know. What is it that goes on there?

It's a totalitarian theocratic monarchy, with absolutely no individual freedoms whatsoever.

It's a totalitarian theocratic monarchy, with absolutely no individual freedoms whatsoever.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/saudi-arabia.htm

What about Muslims who support Shrai style theocracy in their own nations but demand full human rights in ours. Surely thats hypocriticalWhat the fuck does hypocricy have to do with anything? People everywhere are hypocrites. So what? In a democracy, you have the right to talk out one side of your mouth, and then out the other, any time you wish.

Then get ready to start ‘not tolerating’ idiots like Phelps, and assorted intersection preachers. As well as all those looney milita folk, and anyone else that is a ‘pariah and a drain on the economy whilst preaching their supremacy’. Or do you just mean supremacists on welfare?

In a free society, EVERYONE must have the right to be a complete ass. You start restricting that right, and you are no longer a free society.
Even if it begins resulting in a rise in violence and death within the society? Freedom is a form of power. Too much power corrupts.

I do mean supremacists on welfare in any case. Current immigration policies are too lax. There should be more focus on allowing skilled labour rather than just anyone who wants to enter the country.

That's not saying much. Compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea looks like a bunch of free-love hippies.
Yeah, but they aren't as fun to hate as teh Muslims.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/saudi-arabia.htm
I would have never thought...:confused:

Even if it begins resulting in a rise in violence and death within the society? Freedom is a form of power. Too much power corrupts.

I do mean supremacists on welfare in any case. Current immigration policies are too lax. There should be more focus on allowing skilled labour rather than just anyone who wants to enter the country.
'Just anyone who wants to enter the country' is not an option, nor has it ever been, under current, or past immigration policies in the US or Canada.

No, North Korea's way worse. North Korea has hundreds of thousands of political prisoners.

But at least they're secular. If you shut up and don't oppose the government, you should stay out of jail. Not the case in Saudi, where religion, a personal choice, can get you all sorts of tortures. Not to mention the schools which brainwash children to hate westerners and christians.

I would have never thought...:confused:
No offense...but are you kidding? (no big deal if you didn't actually know...just wondering)

'Just anyone who wants to enter the country' is not an option, nor has it ever been, under current, or past immigration policies in the US or Canada.
Yet its becoming that way in Europe.

But at least they're secular. If you shut up and don't oppose the government, you should stay out of jail. Not the case in Saudi, where religion, a personal choice, can get you all sorts of tortures. Not to mention the schools which brainwash children to hate westerners and christians.

Well, North Korea persecutes Christians as well, along with more or less all religions. When it comes to religious tolerance, they're as bad as Saudi Arabia.

Because clearly, if the Muslims living our nations wanted to live in a theocracy, they wouldn't be HERE. And as such, they demand, and want, the same rights the rest of us do. Seems reasonable, no? It's not their fault that idiots who happen to be of the same religion are running around killing and oppressing others...no more than Fred Phelps is the fault of all Chrisitans.

Best answer.

But at least they're secular. If you shut up and don't oppose the government, you should stay out of jail. Not the case in Saudi, where religion, a personal choice, can get you all sorts of tortures. Not to mention the schools which brainwash children to hate westerners and christians.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/korea-north.htm

Yet its becoming that way in Europe.
I'd like to see you link to the immigration laws in your country that back you up on this.

Canada has pretty open immigration, though it has tightened considerably since 9/11. We have a number of different classes of immigrant. Skilled labour, which must speak one of our official languages, and accrue a certain number of points, based on education, and experience in a under-manned field. Not easy by any means.

Then we have family class immigrants. They must be sponsored by a family member. That family member must prove they have sufficient means (financially) to support the immigrant. In Canada, that means that you are responsible for that person for 10 years, and any welfare payments, or other social assistance payments they receive, can be collected back from you. That changes only when that person gains full citizenship, a process which takes at least four years. They are literally not allowed to be a ‘drain’.

We also have refugee applicants. A very small proportion of immigrants are refugees...not because many do not apply, but rather because we only accept a very small proportion.

It is NOT an easy process. Only those with no first hand experience with immigration make claims like that. It's a terrible, dehumanizing experience, and many people never make it here.

Want to immigrate to Canada? Jump through these hoops first. (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.html)

I'd like to see you link to the immigration laws that back you up on this.

Canada has pretty open immigration, though it has tightened considerably since 9/11. We have a number of different classes of immigrant. Skilled labour, which must speak one of our official languages, and accrue a certain number of points, based on education, and experience in a under-manned field. Not easy by any means.

Then we have family class immigrants. They must be sponsored by a family member. That family member must prove they have sufficient means (financially) to support the immigrant. In Canada, that means that you are responsible for that person for 10 years, and any welfare payments, or other social assistance payments they receive, can be collected back from you. That changes only when that person gains full citizenship, a process which takes at least four years. They are literally not allowed to be a ‘drain’.

We also have refugee applicants. A very small proportion of immigrants are refugees...not because many do not apply, but rather because we only accept a very small proportion.

It is NOT an easy process. Only those with no first hand experience with immigration make claims like that. It's a terrible, dehumanizing experience, and many people never make it here.
We have free movement of citizens in Europe. Its pretty much easy to go to one country, become a citizen, then go to another by grace of being a citizen and be a parasite there.

We have free movement of citizens in Europe. Its pretty much easy to go to one country, become a citizen, then go to another by grace of being a citizen and be a parasite there.
Bullshit. Europe has a huge problem with illegal migration, and people living with false papers, but citizenship is not as simple as a hop-skip-and-jump from one country to the next.

Bullshit. Europe has a huge problem with illegal migration, and people living with false papers, but citizenship is not as simple as a hop-skip-and-jump from one country to the next.
Its not very difficult either. Its much easier than moving say from France to Australia.

Its not very difficult either. Its much easier than moving say from France to Australia.
Because of the open borders, yes. That helps with the movement. But that does not mean citizenship is easy to get, especially if you are a 'parasite'. Immigration and citizenship laws in western Europe are considerably tougher than Canadian laws...review the link I provided to see that it's actually VERY difficult to become a Canadian citizen unless you are highly skilled, or happen to marry a Canadian. EVEN THEN it takes a considerable amount of time to get you into the country...citizenship is not automatic...you wait for the 4 years like everyone else, and they can deny you, married or not. Especially if you are from a black-listed country.

Anyway, that's going a bit off topic. I return to the concept that a free nation is free to ALL, not just to the chosen few. I also repeat that if Muslims in your nation truly wanted to live under a theocracy, they would, rather than trying to create one in their new country.

Anyway, that's going a bit off topic. I return to the concept that a free nation is free to ALL, not just to the chosen few. I also repeat that if Muslims in your nation truly wanted to live under a theocracy, they would, rather than trying to create one in their new country.
What if their aim is to create new theocracies and spread their influence?

What if their aim is to create new theocracies and spread their influence?
Well, what do we do about people with the same aim...who are NOT Muslims?

Heh I never realised Saudi Arabia was that bad. Its extremely wealthy, that much I know. What is it that goes on there?

Saudi Arabia is wealthy, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few (kind of like the U.S.). Women are not allowed to drive. At all. It is believed that driving will lead women to do immoral things. Since they are not allowed to drive, any family in Saudi Arabia that can afford it has a live-in driver, usually an underpaid foreign worker, to take women shopping and stuff. For some reason, having women driven about town by male non-family members is less dangerous to womens' moral health than driving cars is.

My Dad was a gynecologist before he retired, and he had a lot of patients from Saudi Arabia who came over once a year for birth control. They couldn't get any at home. Also, many young women in Saudi Arabia are subjected to genital mutilation. It is believed that cutting off their sensitive pink bits is important for health. Also, if they don't enjoy sex, they are more likely to be faithful.

The huge gap between the people who have the oil wealth and the people who don't means a lot of young, under-employed and unhappy people. Instead of creating jobs and stuff, the government sneakily supports a lot of schools and other organizations that preach violent terrorism against non-Muslim countries, thus re-directing rage away from home-grown oppression to a convenient remote target. This is why a bunch of the September 11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.

I agree North Korea is a hell pit. Starving people eat dirt there. But at least they don't cut off your pink bits, that's all I'm saying.

Well, what do we do about people with the same aim...who are NOT Muslims?
Obviously prevent them from doing so.

Saudi Arabia is wealthy, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few (kind of like the U.S.). Women are not allowed to drive. At all. It is believed that driving will lead women to do immoral things. Since they are not allowed to drive, any family in Saudi Arabia that can afford it has a live-in driver, usually an underpaid foreign worker, to take women shopping and stuff. For some reason, having women driven about town by male non-family members is less dangerous to womens' moral health than driving cars is.

My Dad was a gynecologist before he retired, and he had a lot of patients from Saudi Arabia who came over once a year for birth control. They couldn't get any at home. Also, many young women in Saudi Arabia are subjected to genital mutilation. It is believed that cutting off their sensitive pink bits is important for health. Also, if they don't enjoy sex, they are more likely to be faithful.

The huge gap between the people who have the oil wealth and the people who don't means a lot of young, under-employed and unhappy people. Instead of creating jobs and stuff, the government sneakily supports a lot of schools and other organizations that preach violent terrorism against non-Muslim countries, thus re-directing rage away from home-grown oppression to a convenient remote target. This is why a bunch of the September 11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia.

I agree North Korea is a hell pit. Starving people eat dirt there. But at least they don't cut off your pink bits, that's all I'm saying.
I knew it was radical, but never knew it was that bad. Its a shame, because given its oil wealth, it could have created the kind of societies present in the Scandinavian countries, such as Norway.

Obviously prevent them from doing so.
How? And cite examples of this being done. Because I know in the US and Canada, religious nutjobs are allowed to puke forth their vile religious hatred, convert people, raise funds and stay tax free while doing it. Yet we do not 'prevent' them from doing this. Why? Because we are an open society, that allows the dissemination of beliefs, no matter how ridiculous...and we hope that the majority of people are smart enough to not fall for it. Yet, were a theocratic government voted in, there you'd be. In a democractic, theocracy. I would certainly prefer that to a nation that stifled opinions that seem...weird. Hey, Canada once had a Federal political party that promised to cut the defense budget, and protect Canada via yogic flying. And some people voted for them:)

How? And cite examples of this being done. Because I know in the US and Canada, religious nutjobs are allowed to puke forth their vile religious hatred, convert people, raise funds and stay tax free while doing it. Yet we do not 'prevent' them from doing this. Why? Because we are an open society, that allows the dissemination of beliefs, no matter how ridiculous...and we hope that the majority of people are smart enough to not fall for it. Yet, were a theocratic government voted in, there you'd be. In a democractic, theocracy. I would certainly prefer that to a nation that stifled opinions that seem...weird.
Much like Hitler came to power through a "legal revolution." I am not inclined to disagree with you, yet it seems that we take considerable risk in allowing the existence of such an open society.

Much like Hitler came to power through a "legal revolution." I am not inclined to disagree with you, yet it seems that we take considerable risk in allowing the existence of such an open society.
Of course we do. But the risk is part of it. And would you really want to live in a 'safe' society, where certain beliefs were outlawed....protected by censorship? People all over the world, throughout history, have fought and died to escape such control. They didn't do it just for the hell of it. Then again...fanatics do the same, regardless of the cause.

Nonetheless, I prefer the 'danger of freedom' to the stifling of security.

Of course we do. But the risk is part of it. And would you really want to live in a 'safe' society, where certain beliefs were outlawed....protected by censorship? People all over the world, throughout history, have fought and died to escape such control. They didn't do it just for the hell of it. Then again...fanatics do the same, regardless of the cause.

Nonetheless, I prefer the 'danger of freedom' to the stifling of security.
Let us hope then that another totalitarian state like the Nazi one does not arise within a democratic nation, such as the USA. Freedom is indeed worth any price paid, yet lets hope that the price doesn't become too great over time.

Let us hope then that another totalitarian state like the Nazi one does not arise within a democratic nation, such as the USA. Freedom is indeed worth any price paid, yet lets hope that the price doesn't become too great over time.
Rather than hope, let's fight to make sure it doesn't. The complacency of its citizens is what allows a tolitarian state to arise in a democratic nation. And the price can never be too high...even if democracy is stolen, and replaced with a dictatorship, there is always the hope that struggle will allow democracy to return. No such hope exists when you willingly stumble into totalitarianism because of fear.

Rather than hope, let's fight to make sure it doesn't. The complacency of its citizens is what allows a tolitarian state to arise in a democratic nation. And the price can never be too high...even if democracy is stolen, and replaced with a dictatorship, there is always the hope that struggle will allow democracy to return. No such hope exists when you willingly stumble into totalitarianism because of fear.
No doubt you refer to legislation such as the Patriot Act? I am not that clued up about it as I know little about US legislation, yet doesn't it give the government increased powers in the fight against terror? Even if that specific act is not of this nature, emergency legislation is usually what leads to the suppression of freedom.

Why is it that we Muslims seem to expect better rights for ourselves than we would be willing to give non-Muslims in an Islamic land?

Because they know they can get them.

No doubt you refer to legislation such as the Patriot Act? I am not that clued up about it, yet doesn't it give the government increased powers in the fight against terror? Even if that specific act is not of this nature, emergency legislation is usually what leads to the suppression of freedom.
Emergency legislation, fear of an outside threat, these are both great tools for the curtailing of freedoms. Which is why I resist the idea that Muslims in particular present a worse threat that any of the other groups out there. For one, they are not homogenous in their desire to pull down western democracy and replace it with a theocracy. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE, I would trust in the rest of the citizens of a country to thwart their plans through democracy. Were a coup attempted...that is another matter altogether. But if any group, no matter how far out there, attempts to gain political power through the democratic process, they certainly have that right, and I would deny it to none.

What is more dangerous than any outside threat, is the belief that by voluntarily curtailing our freedoms, we will be safer. When has this ever worked? Safer from what? We've just done our 'enemies' job for them...we've restricted ourselves, and made ourselves fearful. Why play into the hands of those who resent our freedom...those outside, and inside our nations?

There's a difference between Muslim states (Turkey, etc.) and theocracies (Saudi Arabia, Iran).

Have you ever been to either of those countries? If so, please tell us what the differences are.

Emergency legislation, fear of an outside threat, these are both great tools for the curtailing of freedoms. Which is why I resist the idea that Muslims in particular present a worse threat that any of the other groups out there. For one, they are not homogenous in their desire to pull down western democracy and replace it with a theocracy. AND EVEN IF THEY WERE, I would trust in the rest of the citizens of a country to thwart their plans through democracy. Were a coup attempted...that is another matter altogether. But if any group, no matter how far out there, attempts to gain political power through the democratic process, they certainly have that right, and I would deny it to none.
And thus we would only surrender democracy as a result of apathy or stupidity. I see your point. Coup's are indeed a different situation, as they involve opposition to democracy.

What is more dangerous than any outside threat, is the belief that by voluntarily curtailing our freedoms, we will be safer. When has this ever worked? Safer from what? We've just done our 'enemies' job for them...we've restricted ourselves, and made ourselves fearful. Why play into the hands of those who resent our freedom...those outside, and inside our nations?
This does raise the question though, why exactly do governments want this increased power? What truly are their motives?

It's a totalitarian theocratic monarchy, with absolutely no individual freedoms whatsoever.

Have you ever been there?

What the fuck does hypocricy have to do with anything? People everywhere are hypocrites. So what? In a democracy, you have the right to talk out one side of your mouth, and then out the other, any time you wish.

So, you advocate being a hypocrite?

That's not saying much. Compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea looks like a bunch of free-love hippies.
Er, not really.

Are Muslims unreasonable?

No we're not and fuck you for asking. :D


Why is it that we Muslims seem to expect better rights for ourselves than we would be willing to give non-Muslims in an Islamic land?

Ok ok ok ... serious answer time ...

We don't. Also, the majority of us would not oppress non-Muslims. Don't take the Arab world's ideaologies for what Islam is all about. Arabs make up less than 13% of the world's Muslims. A very small minority. Yes, Islam started with Arabic people, but it has grown way beyond that. The largest chunk of Muslims are Asian with White/Caucasian Muslims coming up very fast for 2nd.

If you examine Islam beyond Saudi Arabia, you'll find a very, very different view of Islam.

Have you ever been to either of those countries? If so, please tell us what the differences are.
Hell, I haven't been to either country and even I can tell you the differences! Sheesh!


Turkey is bordered by the Black and Mediterranean Seas…making it officially a “Mediterranean” country. Mmm. Falafel! It is a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, is slightly larger than Texas, and it’s famous Mount Ararat is thought by some to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark. Oh yeah, the Turks also engineered the genocide of millions of Armenians…Hitler made reference to it once when someone suggested his Final Solution for the Jews might not go over well…he said, “Hey folks…no one remembers the Armenians…heh? Hey? Am I right? Huh Rudolph? Come on Hess…you know I’m right!” Turkey is full of Kurds, something it has attempted to fix over the years. They are secular, and their economy is based mostly on agriculture, and modern industries such as automotives and electronics. Buy your next Dell from Ankara!

Saudi Arabia, however, is smack in the middle east, bordered by the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It’s a monarchy, and is about one fifth the size of the US. It is mostly uninhabited, sandy desert…no fun religious mountains, and not much arable land. No Kurds, no Armenians…and hey! No Turks! Wow! Look at all these crazy differences.

Need I go on?

So, you advocate being a hypocrite?
No, I advocate allowing people to retain the right to be hypocrites. That's part of the whole free society thing. Even assholes get to enjoy it.

Let us hope then that another totalitarian state like the Nazi one does not arise within a democratic nation, such as the USA. Freedom is indeed worth any price paid, yet lets hope that the price doesn't become too great over time.

It kind of makes sense that nazism took control of a democratic nation. The nazi message of racial superiority was the ultimate in pop culture. Being told you are part of the master race can be a very appealing thing to hear, especially when you have low self-esteem. If you tell a complete zero that just because of the way he looks he deserves to rule the world, and that you'll bring him that privelege if he gives you his support, you'll have his vote.

Speaking of which, I hear more people have been listening to Prussian Blue lately.

It kind of makes sense that nazism took control of a democratic nation. The nazi message of racial superiority was the ultimate in pop culture. Being told you are part of the master race can be a very appealing thing to hear, especially when you have low self-esteem. If you tell a complete zero that just because of the way he looks he deserves to rule the world, and that you'll bring him that privelege if he gives you his support, you'll have his vote.

Speaking of which, I hear more people have been listening to Prussian Blue lately.
Many people voted Nazi because of a lack of viable alternatives and because of dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic. The message of Germany reborn did influence many, but please don't oversimplify it so. The issue is far more complex than mere messages of racial superiority.

Mmm. Falafel!

I have no reply to the rest of this post, but to this I concur with the 'Mmm'. :)

Hell, I haven't been to either country and even I can tell you the differences! Sheesh!


Turkey is bordered by the Black and Mediterranean Seas…making it officially a “Mediterranean” country. Mmm. Falafel! It is a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, is slightly larger than Texas, and it’s famous Mount Ararat is thought by some to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark. Oh yeah, the Turks also engineered the genocide of millions of Armenians…Hitler made reference to it once when someone suggested his Final Solution for the Jews might not go over well…he said, “Hey folks…no one remembers the Armenians…heh? Hey? Am I right? Huh Rudolph? Come on Hess…you know I’m right!” Turkey is full of Kurds, something it has attempted to fix over the years. They are secular, and their economy is based mostly on agriculture, and modern industries such as automotives and electronics. Buy your next Dell from Ankara!

Saudi Arabia, however, is smack in the middle east, bordered by the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It’s a monarchy, and is about one fifth the size of the US. It is mostly uninhabited, sandy desert…no fun religious mountains, and not much arable land. No Kurds, no Armenians…and hey! No Turks! Wow! Look at all these crazy differences.

Need I go on?
Just one point to make. Although the nation is officially secular, many Turks are still strongly Muslim and often support more radical aspects of it, such as honour killings. In addition, the Turkish military, a remnant from the powerful Ottoman Empire, is still rather influential.

Just one point to make. Although the nation is officially secular, many Turks are still strongly Muslim and often support more radical aspects of it, such as honour killings. In addition, the Turkish military, a remnant from the powerful Ottoman Empire, is still rather influential.
Yes, this is true. But honour killings at least are illegal in Turkey, though the laws are laxly enforced. Democracy does exist, even diluted as it is. There is chance that reform will happen. Saudi Arabia doesn't seem even that close to it.

And with that, I bid you all a good night...it's time to rest up, and in the morning, the LSAT I shall write...

Why is it that we Muslims seem to expect better rights for ourselves than we would be willing to give non-Muslims in an Islamic land?
I think this person brings up an interesting point, which the discussion in this thread is virtually ignoring.

The question is not, do Muslims who live in democratic wetern countries deserve all the freedoms they excercise here. Clearly they do, and not many people will argue differently. I think the issue is the mentality of Muslims who have no problem living by very different standards, depending on what country they happen to be operating in at the time. We see the same thing with other groups as well (examples in a sec). Now, this flexibility of standards, (perhaps moral standards) isn't illegal, but it sure can cause some social problems.

For instance, there are Indian men (and lots of them) that have immigrated to Canada or the U.S. and aquired citizenship that get engaged to Indian women by arrangement, go back and mary them, and return to Canada with large dowries, promising to sponsor their new wife. But they never do. They use canada's divorce and immigration laws as a sheild to virtually guarantee them a home free; he can get a one sided divorce after he's proved separation for a year, and forget about the girl. The girl remains in India, cut off from communication with the husband, and viciously stigmatized for being abandoned. here we see a strange clash - the arranged marriage, dowry, and abandonment are a sequence of ideas that have been imported from India; the divorce and ciizenship rights the man retains while here, he has adopted. And the result is a huge miscarriage of justice.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, there is some form of a superiority compex, coupled with a sense of entitlement and a sort of perverted pragmatism that permeates some (not most) people, mostly males, and lets them take advantage of a situation where they can hop between both worlds. For wealthy families that have buisness in their countries of origin and live abroad this can be a very comfortable and profitable arrangement indeed, and its totally legal. Maybe it sould be. I don't know. Anyway, I don't think it mostly applies to working families that stay in the new countries except for occasional visits.

Yes, this is true. But honour killings at least are illegal in Turkey, though the laws are laxly enforced. Democracy does exist, even diluted as it is. There is chance that reform will happen. Saudi Arabia doesn't seem even that close to it.
I will concede to this point. Turkey at least has what could one day be a democratic government.

Canada has pretty open immigration, though it has tightened considerably since 9/11. We have a number of different classes of immigrant. Skilled labour, which must speak one of our official languages, and accrue a certain number of points, based on education, and experience in a under-manned field. Not easy by any means.[/url]

Oh, yes you have such a wonderful open immigration policy. I am a professional, with over 45 years experience in aviation, have an MS. Ed., am fluent in English as it is my native language and still can not qualify for immigration into Canada. Why? Because I'm 62 years old. So much for your "open immigration" policy.
:(
Your immigration policy discriminates against the uneducated, non-English/French speaking, older, person with no relatives in Canada. It isn't a great system, but it is better than the U.S. system. :)

Oh, yes you have such a wonderful open immigration policy. I am a professional, with over 45 years experience in aviation, have an MS. Ed., am fluent in English as it is my native language and still can not qualify for immigration into Canada. Why? Because I'm 62 years old. So much for your "open immigration" policy.
:(
Your immigration policy discriminates against the uneducated, non-English/French speaking, older, person with no relatives in Canada. It isn't a great system, but it is better than the U.S. system. :)
A country can at least expect those who want to live in it to be of economic value and to speak its language, or at least be willing to learn it.

Oh, yes you have such a wonderful open immigration policy. I am a professional, with over 45 years experience in aviation, have an MS. Ed., am fluent in English as it is my native language and still can not qualify for immigration into Canada. Why? Because I'm 62 years old. So much for your "open immigration" policy. Um...you'll notice I said 'fairly open'. You'll also notice that this is the nicest thing I say in this entire thread about our immigration policies. But thank you for backing up the statements I have made about our policies not being particularly friendly.
:(
Your immigration policy discriminates against the uneducated, non-English/French speaking, older, person with no relatives in Canada. It isn't a great system, but it is better than the U.S. system. :)
That's why I said it's 'fairly open'. In relation to other systems. So if our system is pretty open in comparison, and it's damn tough to get in, it kind of disproves the lie that 'anyone who wants to can immigrate'.

Firstly I would like to say that any answer of yes to this question is a massive generalization.

The major flaw with the arguments this person is making is that he is comparing a religion's teachings and laws to that of a (in many cases) secular contries laws. There is a major difference between relgious laws and laws of the state.

Historically, muslims were some of the most tolerant people to others religions. They allowed people to practice their religion freely (in the muslim nation), and preached peace, while the Christians were invoking the inquisition and traveling on murderous crusades.

A country can at least expect those who want to live in it to be of economic value and to speak its language, or at least be willing to learn it.
Willing to learn it makes no difference on the point scale. You either know French or English, or both, and are fluent, or you do not.

No, he is right. As I've said, our immigration 'standards' are very hard to meet.

...it's actually VERY difficult to become a Canadian citizen unless you are highly skilled, or happen to marry a Canadian. EVEN THEN it takes a considerable amount of time to get you into the country...citizenship is not automatic...you wait for the 4 years like everyone else, and they can deny you, married or not. Especially if you are from a black-listed country.

So, should America deport illegal immigrants or not? Just checking the Canadian liberal bias.

Willing to learn it makes no difference on the point scale. You either know French or English, or both, and are fluent, or you do not.

No, he is right. As I've said, our immigration 'standards' are very hard to meet.
I said it is what a nation can reasonably expect, not what currently happens in Canada. Yet, in terms of economic value, a person should definitely be able to contribute to the economy.

So, should America deport illegal immigrants or not?

No ... and I'm an American.


So there.

Hell, I haven't been to either country and even I can tell you the differences! Sheesh!


Turkey is bordered by the Black and Mediterranean Seas…making it officially a “Mediterranean” country. Mmm. Falafel! It is a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, is slightly larger than Texas, and it’s famous Mount Ararat is thought by some to be the resting place of Noah’s Ark. Oh yeah, the Turks also engineered the genocide of millions of Armenians…Hitler made reference to it once when someone suggested his Final Solution for the Jews might not go over well…he said, “Hey folks…no one remembers the Armenians…heh? Hey? Am I right? Huh Rudolph? Come on Hess…you know I’m right!” Turkey is full of Kurds, something it has attempted to fix over the years. They are secular, and their economy is based mostly on agriculture, and modern industries such as automotives and electronics. Buy your next Dell from Ankara!

Saudi Arabia, however, is smack in the middle east, bordered by the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. It’s a monarchy, and is about one fifth the size of the US. It is mostly uninhabited, sandy desert…no fun religious mountains, and not much arable land. No Kurds, no Armenians…and hey! No Turks! Wow! Look at all these crazy differences.

Need I go on?

Yes, you need to go on. What about religious and political tolerance in each country? What about civil and woman's rights in each county? What about religious rights in each country?

No ... and I'm an American.


So there.So if you're treated the same way whether you've emigrated legally or not, what's the point of the long, agonizing hedache? What's the point of immigration laws at all?

Just as others who break laws face consequences, yes, illegal immigrants should be deported.

Religion is the root of all evil... ban the conservative, FRicker!!!!:sniper:

LMAO

A country can at least expect those who want to live in it to be of economic value and to speak its language, or at least be willing to learn it.

I'm sorry you feel that someone who is 62 has no economic value. I'm glad the company I work for doesn't feel the same way.

I'm sorry you feel that someone who is 62 has no economic value. I'm glad the company I work for doesn't feel the same way.
I was not making specific reference to his person, but to the statement he made afterwards. A person of 62 may well be worth more economic value than one of 21.

Religion is the root of all evil... ban the conservative.

Uh right... actually, religion is the root of much evil when people start doing stuff "in the name of god," and spreading their faith through any means necessary.

In the beginning, religion was created to serve as a structure for the human soceity. Its basis was in that of the 10 commandments... some of the earliest rules ever. They were written to create common courtesys and ways of acting with one another.

Religion had two major roles. A system of laws to interact with one another and a safety blanket: it gave people something to fall back onto, it gave them faith when something went wrong, and most of all it gave them away to explain the unexplainable.

The problem is that people have forgotten that the scripture is supposed to be a set of morals and how we should treat each other and instead quote it to say that god wants us to get rid of the non believers.

Religion has done plenty of good and plenty of evil in the world.

[QUOTE=SinuhueThat's why I said it's 'fairly open'. In relation to other systems. So if our system is pretty open in comparison, and it's damn tough to get in, it kind of disproves the lie that 'anyone who wants to can immigrate'.[/QUOTE]

That is why I like your policy, even though I couldn't get in. It at least gives some assurance that the candidate for immigration will contribute to the economy and assimilate into the Canadian culture.

The major flaw with the arguments this person is making is that he is comparing a religion's teachings and laws to that of a (in many cases) secular contries laws. There is a major difference between relgious laws and laws of the state.

Historically, muslims were some of the most tolerant people to others religions. They allowed people to practice their religion freely (in the muslim nation), and preached peace, while the Christians were invoking the inquisition and traveling on murderous crusades.

Um....wrong. I guess that's the most concise answer.

1. The argument does NOT have the major flaw you suggest, because the countries in question are theocracies, where religious law IS the law of state.

2. Although muslims did historically grant "prefered" religions (Abrahamic ones- Jews and Christians, since they technically worship the same God) a moderate degree of tolerance, they were far from "free". I assume you are refering to the Ottoman Empire, and other such incarnations of Arab/Muslim states prior to the 20th century. Restrictions were placed on other Abrahamic religions in said countries, such as taxes specifically on them in some cities, and "open" worship was not allowed, but it was tolerated within church walls or "behind closed doors".


I have come to believe that religions evolve and go through certain stages of development. For example, both Christains and Muslims had early pacifist periods. The crusades and the inquisition are evidence of the intolerant and elitist phase of christianity's development, much as how the terrorist actions and oppressive theocracies of Arab muslims shows that phase in Islam. Of course, not all muslims are arab terrorists. Not every Christian ran off to conquer Jerusalem either. However, not all christians are out of the intolerant phase even today(i.e. Bob Jones University), just as how some muslims are still pacifists. I guess stages of development is too compartmentalized.
I will rephrase to say that religions go through "trends" throughout their tenure as institutions which govern human morality.

Just as others who break laws face consequences, yes, illegal immigrants should be deported.

What about my grandfather, a man of 75 years old, who came here from Ireland so that he could work because Ireland was shit at the time? He came here, he worked his ass off, he had 3 children, and subsequently 17 grandchildren, and now has 26 great-grandchildren.

He never got a social security card, he never filed a tax return, and he never applied for citizenship. Would you kick him out for being "illegal"?

Well ... maybe you would ... but you'd fight my Irish family over it.

Or maybe you wouldn't ... because he's not brown.

You got any "illegals" in your family?

That is why I like your policy, even though I couldn't get in. It at least gives some assurance that the candidate for immigration will contribute to the economy and assimilate into the Canadian culture.
Agreed.

Uh right... actually, religion is the root of much evil when people start doing stuff "in the name of god," and spreading their faith through any means necessary.

In the beginning, religion was created to serve as a structure for the human soceity. Its basis was in that of the 10 commandments... some of the earliest rules ever. They were written to create common courtesys and ways of acting with one another.

Religion had two major roles. A system of laws to interact with one another and a safety blanket: it gave people something to fall back onto, it gave them faith when something went wrong, and most of all it gave them away to explain the unexplainable.

The problem is that people have forgotten that the scripture is supposed to be a set of morals and how we should treat each other and instead quote it to say that god wants us to get rid of the non believers.

Religion has done plenty of good and plenty of evil in the world.
Very true. Religion, in many ways, is an efficient social policy tool. Too bad this forms contradictions within religions such as Christianity, were the policy of preventing homosexuality so as to keep birth rates high comes into direct opposition with Jesus' message that all are equal and one should respect another at all times.

Um....wrong. I guess that's the most concise answer.

1. The argument does NOT have the major flaw you suggest, because the countries in question are theocracies, where religious law IS the law of state.

2. Although muslims did historically grant "prefered" religions (Abrahamic ones- Jews and Christians, since they technically worship the same God) a moderate degree of tolerance, they were far from "free". I assume you are refering to the Ottoman Empire, and other such incarnations of Arab/Muslim states prior to the 20th century. Restrictions were placed on other Abrahamic religions in said countries, such as taxes specifically on them in some cities, and "open" worship was not allowed, but it was tolerated within church walls or "behind closed doors".


I have come to believe that religions evolve and go through certain stages of development. For example, both Christains and Muslims had early pacifist periods. The crusades and the inquisition are evidence of the intolerant and elitist phase of christianity's development, much as how the terrorist actions and oppressive theocracies of Arab muslims shows that phase in Islam. Of course, not all muslims are arab terrorists. Not every Christian ran off to conquer Jerusalem either. However, not all christians are out of the intolerant phase even today(i.e. Bob Jones University), just as how some muslims are still pacifists. I guess stages of development is too compartmentalized.
I will rephrase to say that religions go through "trends" throughout their tenure as institutions which govern human morality.

1) The countries of muslim rule are theocracies, yes. But the other ones as he called "non-Muslim countries" can be anything from Israel to Australia to USA.

2) You are correct. However I am sure you are aware of things called the Inquisition in which non Catholics were targeted, run out of town, converted, or killed. Or possibly the crusades in which Christians ventured out to recapture the holylands from the "infidels" as they slaughtered anybody in their path. Ooh, ooh - and was that thing called... the Holocaust - thats it. I believe that was the time when a select group of christians, known as Nazis, decided that all non Christian, blonde, blue eyed, people should be killed. I suppose all those places were much better than having to pay a few taxes in the Ottoman Empire?

3) Correct.

1) The countries of muslim rule are theocracies, yes.

Not all of them ....

Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on the planet) and Turkey both come to mind. Let's not forget Egypt or the UAE. Oh, crap, not even Iran is a Theocracy!

Damn, man .... I guess you'll have to re-examine your global view, too.

The Inquisition targetted Christians as well, not just members of other religions. Anyone who opposed Church policy was a likely target.

1) The countries of muslim rule are theocracies, yes. But the other ones as he called "non-Muslim countries" can be anything from Israel to Australia to USA.

2) You are correct. However I am sure you are aware of things called the Inquisition in which non Catholics were targeted, run out of town, converted, or killed. Or possibly the crusades in which Christians ventured out to recapture the holylands from the "infidels" as they slaughtered anybody in their path. Ooh, ooh - and was that thing called... the Holocaust - thats it. I believe that was the time when a select group of christians, known as Nazis, decided that all non Christian, blonde, blue eyed, people should be killed. I suppose all those places were much better than having to pay a few taxes in the Ottoman Empire?

3) Correct.

1. I don't follow your point. Mine to it's most simplistic level- Muslims oppress other people in their theocracies. Al Jazeera and muslim groups in those very theocracies demand equal treatment for muslims abroad. That is a double standard.

2. I covered the crusades and inquisition as part of the "intolerance" period of Christianity's development, which Islam is currently in.

3. thanks.

Not all of them ....

Indonesia (the largest Muslim country on the planet) and Turkey both come to mind. Let's not forget Egypt or the UAE. Oh, crap, not even Iran is a Theocracy!

Damn, man .... I guess you'll have to re-examine your global view, too.

I know, believe me I know.

I was just trying to make the argument go over smoother and I would be very pleased if you weren't quite so condescending.

Oh, crap, not even Iran is a Theocracy!

I disagree. Although it is more secular than some arab muslim countries, the hard-line clerics have too much power (especially over the courts) to classify Iran as anything short of a theocracy.

I will admit I am ill-informed here, yet didn't the Muslims attack the West first? The Arabs frequently raided the Byzantine Empire and threatened its borders. The Byzantine Empire was part of the Western world, and although it was not at eye level with the Catholic Church, it enjoyed good relations with other European nations at the time. Thus, couldn't one say that the Arabs first began attacking the West? The Crusades were rather bloody, yet it wasn't as if the West had no prior history with them.

Although not Muslim, the West also faced attacks by the Huns, which Barbarossa eventually crushed.

The Inquisition targetted Christians as well, not just members of other religions. Anyone who opposed Church policy was a likely target.

There is a reason I said Catholics and not Christians.

I was just trying to make the argument go over smoother and I would be very pleased if you weren't quite so condescending.

Me not condescending? That unpossible! :D

There is a reason I said Catholics and not Christians.
Oh even Catholics were not immune...you simply had to vocalise opposition to Vatican policy.

I disagree. Although it is more secular than some arab muslim countries, the hard-line clerics have too much power (especially over the courts) to classify Iran as anything short of a theocracy.

Yes, some of the hard-line Clerics have power in Iran just like many of the conservative preachers have power in the United States ... would you, therefore, call the United States a "Theocracy"?

I will admit I am ill-informed here, yet didn't the Muslims attack the West first? The Arabs frequently raided the Byzantine Empire and threatened its borders. The Byzantine Empire was part of the Western world, and although it was not at eye level with the Catholic Church, it enjoyed good relations with other European nations at the time. Thus, couldn't one say that the Arabs first began attacking the West? The Crusades were rather bloody, yet it wasn't as if the West had no prior history with them.

Although not Muslim, the West also faced attacks by the Huns, which Barbarossa eventually crushed.

Actually, if you want to get technical, you could say that this is all Abraham's fault for dissing his slave wife and his bastatrd child with her (Ishmael, whose descendants are muslims) for his wife and Isaac. (whose descendants are christians/jews)

1. I don't follow your point. Mine to it's most simplistic level- Muslims oppress other people in their theocracies. Al Jazeera and muslim groups in those very theocracies demand equal treatment for muslims abroad. That is a double standard.

2. I covered the crusades and inquisition as part of the "intolerance" period of Christianity's development, which Islam is currently in.

3. thanks.

1. I agree with the point in principle. The problem is that there is a difference between laws based on religion as in a theocracy and laws based on an agreement between the people and the government. If they were demanding equal treatment of Muslims in Christian theocracies, I would completely agree with you.

Let me reiterate that I do not disagree with you, only I don't 100% agree with you. Also, in part I am playing the devil's advocate.

2. I agree, though I would have to say that Christiandom hasn't really had a tolerance period in any large portion. Even today, though it is one of the most tolerant times for Christianity, there is till lots of intolerance that they hold.

Me not condescending? That unpossible! :D

You mean impossible :D

Yes, some of the hard-line Clerics have power in Iran just like many of the conservative preachers have power in the United States ... would you, therefore, call the United States a "Theocracy"?

In the south...maybe. But seriously, the influence of the religious right in the U.S. may be extensive, but judicial rulings cannot be based on what Pastor Joe-Bob says the bible's take on the subject is. Even in England, where they have an official church, that is not the case. In Iran, however, the Koran is as if not more important in a case of law than actual laws.

Actually, if you want to get technical, you could say that this is all Abraham's fault for dissing his slave wife and his bastatrd child with her (Ishmael, whose descendants are muslims) for his wife and Isaac. (whose descendants are christians/jews)
:rolleyes: My point was that Arabs often blame the West for first attacking them, when the situation seems to be the reverse.

Oh, crap, not even Iran is a Theocracy!

:confused:

Oh even Catholics were not immune...you simply had to vocalise opposition to Vatican policy.

I know... but that isn't based on religion at all. That is entirely based on opposition to the church. Considering the topic of discussion was religious toleration, your point didn't really make sense for me to raise in my argument.

What about my grandfather, a man of 75 years old, who came here from Ireland so that he could work because Ireland was shit at the time? He came here, he worked his ass off, he had 3 children, and subsequently 17 grandchildren, and now has 26 great-grandchildren.

He never got a social security card, he never filed a tax return, and he never applied for citizenship. Would you kick him out for being "illegal"?

Well ... maybe you would ... but you'd fight my Irish family over it.

Or maybe you wouldn't ... because he's not brown.

You got any "illegals" in your family?

Nothing on this? Come on, people! Do you think "illegal" immigrants are shit or what? I want some neocon, Mexican hating, "America for Americans", "They took our jobs" asshole's response here.

Did you all hide from this?

Hello?

Illegal immigrant's grandson here waiting for a reponse! Where'd you all go hide? Is it because you can't blaim it on Kerry or Clinton?

In the south...maybe. But seriously, the influence of the religious right in the U.S. may be extensive, but judicial rulings cannot be based on what Pastor Joe-Bob says the bible's take on the subject is.

On the other hand, if a judge is a member of Pastor Joe-Bob's congregation, then the end effect is pretty much the same. Roe v Wade overturned, anyone?

The issue is not what would happen in an Islamic state, it is what can and should happen in a democratic state. Morality isn't relative: simply because it happened somewhere else does not make a violation of human rights any more tolerable. The issue at hand is that all citizens of a democracy deserve to be treated equally, and there is absolutely no justification for infringing upon a person's rights simply because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

True...but the original quote does make a valid point, and alludes to a larger issue. Muslim countries need to stop blaming America and Israel for all their shortcomings, and reform themselves. America is richer than they are because free markets and liberal democracy work better than fundamentalism and socialism. I met an obnoxious Muslim (I use that adjective because not all Muslims think this way) who talked about how women didn't need to go to school, alcohol and the Internet were foreign vices, schools for males needed to focus on the Quran above all else--and, oh yeah, let's hate America and Israel because they are responsible for our poverty. Hey there Sparky...

Yes, some of the hard-line Clerics have power in Iran just like many of the conservative preachers have power in the United States ... would you, therefore, call the United States a "Theocracy"?

The difference being the conservative preachers in the United States have no control over the government. In Iran, the hard-line Clerics control who can and cannot run for political office.

In the south...maybe. But seriously, the influence of the religious right in the U.S. may be extensive, but judicial rulings cannot be based on what Pastor Joe-Bob says the bible's take on the subject is. Even in England, where they have an official church, that is not the case. In Iran, however, the Koran is as if not more important in a case of law than actual laws.

Apparently you missed Election 2004. *coff*

Come on ... the only reason Bush got re-elected was because "gays are icky".

You also may need to bone up on Iran. There's no official church in Iran. There are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and even Atheist Iranian groups. Some of them even hold public office!

1) The countries of muslim rule are theocracies, yes. But the other ones as he called "non-Muslim countries" can be anything from Israel to Australia to USA.

2) You are correct. However I am sure you are aware of things called the Inquisition in which non Catholics were targeted, run out of town, converted, or killed. Or possibly the crusades in which Christians ventured out to recapture the holylands from the "infidels" as they slaughtered anybody in their path. Ooh, ooh - and was that thing called... the Holocaust - thats it. I believe that was the time when a select group of christians, known as Nazis, decided that all non Christian, blonde, blue eyed, people should be killed. I suppose all those places were much better than having to pay a few taxes in the Ottoman Empire?

3) Correct.

Get your facts right - the Nazis targeted Christians too. They were either paganistic (they harkened back to a lot of the pre-Christian ideas of Germany) or secular. They packed Christians (and Catholics in particular) off to concentration camps.

Nothing on this? Come on, people! Do you think "illegal" immigrants are shit or what? I want some neocon, Mexican hating, "America for Americans", "They took our jobs" asshole's response here.

Did you all hide from this?

Hello?

Illegal immigrant's grandson here waiting for a reponse! Where'd you all go hide? Is it because you can't blaim it on Kerry or Clinton?

No, it's just that we like Irish. You have good wiskey, hot red-headed women (and a culture which encourages them to get drunk), and that soap smells nice. Oh, and Lucky Charms taste good too. :rolleyes:

(no offense intended)

Nothing on this? Come on, people! Do you think "illegal" immigrants are shit or what? I want some neocon, Mexican hating, "America for Americans", "They took our jobs" asshole's response here.

Did you all hide from this?

Hello?

Illegal immigrant's grandson here waiting for a reponse! Where'd you all go hide? Is it because you can't blaim it on Kerry or Clinton?

I don't see them as a mar on our soceity at all. In fact I think people should be ashamed when they talk bad of illegal immigrants because most of the time they do jobs Americans don't want to do.

I do however feel that they shouldn't be illegally entering the nation. But at the same time I can't blame them from trying to escape the horrors and miserys of their nation.

What we should really be doing is helping to develop the economies and industries of South and Central America including Mexico.

No, it's just that we like Irish. You have good wiskey, hot red-headed women (and a culture which encourages them to get drunk), and that soap smells nice. Oh, and Lucky Charms taste good too. :rolleyes:

(no offense intended)


Irish people have an exception sticker across their foreheads. Even if America completly closed it's borders, Irish would still stream into it.

That's why I think the entire of America is an Irish trap. That's right. The British never lost the American revolution, in fact they planned it. And when evey last Irish man, woman and child have entered, massive walls will spring up around America.

In the drunken brawl that will follow, not even Chuck Noris will escape death.

The difference being the conservative preachers in the United States have no control over the government.

Really? Then explain the recent movement toward constructionist Justices, "In God We Trust", and hiding Janet Jackson's nipple (omfg a nipple hax0r! seen by our childrenszszsz!!!1!!one!11) when it was clearly an accident? Explain covering up the statue of Justice because she had a boobie exposed?

You tell me the conservative movement among Christianity has no power, but I see it happening every day in this country.

On the other hand, if a judge is a member of Pastor Joe-Bob's congregation, then the end effect is pretty much the same. Roe v Wade overturned, anyone?

It'll never happen. Abortion is too prevalent in U.S. culture. It may be ruled against by a judge Joe-Bob here or there, but his ruling will be reversed.

And the difference is that Judge Joe-Bob still has to (at least in theory) follow the LAW, not the bible. He may let his religious beliefs influence his judgement, but the bible is not considered a valid source of legal code.

Oh, and Lucky Charms taste good too. :rolleyes:

ROFL!

You also may need to bone up on Iran. There's no official church in Iran. There are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and even Atheist Iranian groups. Some of them even hold public office!

You have been taking too much of the hublybubly if you believe there is no official religion in Iran. I guess you missed a big part of history.

And hiding Janet Jackson's nipple (omfg a nipple hax0r! seen by our childrenszszsz!!!1!!one!11) when it was clearly an accident? Explain covering up the statue of Justice because she had a boobie exposed?

You tell me the conservative movement among Christianity has no power, but I see it happening every day in this country.

There is a difference between prude religions and public indecensy.

It'll never happen. Abortion is too prevalent in U.S. culture. It may be ruled against by a judge Joe-Bob here or there, but his ruling will be reversed.

And the difference is that Judge Joe-Bob still has to (at least in theory) follow the LAW, not the bible. He may let his religious beliefs influence his judgement, but the bible is not considered a valid source of legal code.
Indeed. All judgements have to be explained. Judges do not have as much power as one may think they do.

You have been taking too much of the hublybubly if you believe there is no official religion in Iran. I guess you missed a big part of history.

A fine answer that contains all of the facts needed to refute my statement.

Kudos, Celt. :p

There is a difference between prude religions and public indecensy.

What if the public indecensy is an accident?

Nothing on this? Come on, people! Do you think "illegal" immigrants are shit or what? I want some neocon, Mexican hating, "America for Americans", "They took our jobs" asshole's response here.

Did you all hide from this?

Hello?

Illegal immigrant's grandson here waiting for a reponse! Where'd you all go hide? Is it because you can't blaim it on Kerry or Clinton?

I am opposed to uncontrolled immigration (and please note the qualifier there). I am not a neocon, nor do I hate Mexicans. The reasons I believe in controlling immigration are primarily economic and ecological. Right now, Mexicans are immigrating to America too quickly, soaking up public resources. Now, don't get me wrong: I think immigrants are a long-term boost to the economy, and I don't care what color a person's skin is. I'm sure your grandfather has, over his lifetime, put more taxes into the system than he's taken out in benefits. But over the short term, most immigrants do consume more in public resources than they contribute. Bring in 100,000 new people a year, distribute them decently, even 200,000 during a good year, and we can absorb the influx. It's when annual immigration goes toward, and into, the seven-digit mark that it becomes unmanageable, like it is now.

Here in California, we're about fifteen years behind in building public infrastructure (roads, housing, power plants, water and sewage, schools, fire and police, etc.), we have rolling blackouts in summer, traffic jams miles long, and housing prices are ludicrous. We really need about a ten year moratorium on immigration until we can catch up and the immigrants already here reach the break-even point on contributing versus taking from the public treasury.

As far as your grandfather...well, I think him and others like him who have been here since time out of mind, we can...er...grandfather in. :)

Apparently you missed Election 2004. *coff*

Come on ... the only reason Bush got re-elected was because "gays are icky".

You also may need to bone up on Iran. There's no official church in Iran. There are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and even Atheist Iranian groups. Some of them even hold public office!

I thought Bush got re-elected because we were in a nationalistic furvor over destroying the WMD's of certain Arab Muslims, especially after Arab Muslims engineered a few plane mishaps which resulted in the most notorious act of war against Americans since Pearl Harbor. Simply, Democrats opposing the war when Americans wanted someone to pay in blood for Sept 11th is what got Bush re-elected.

There is no official language in the U.S. either, but try ordering a Big Mac in Farci.

Really? Then explain the recent movement toward constructionist Justices, "In God We Trust", and hiding Janet Jackson's nipple (omfg a nipple hax0r! seen by our childrenszszsz!!!1!!one!11) when it was clearly an accident? Explain covering up the statue of Justice because she had a boobie exposed?

You tell me the conservative movement among Christianity has no power, but I see it happening every day in this country.

What part of no control over the government did you not understand? Unlike Iran, the religious leaders do no decide who can and cannot run for political office. Unlike Iran, religious law is not the law of the land. To say that Iran is not a thoracic is simply not true. Shiria laws apply. No religious law or government applies in the U.S.

What about my grandfather, a man of 75 years old, who came here from Ireland so that he could work because Ireland was shit at the time? He came here, he worked his ass off, he had 3 children, and subsequently 17 grandchildren, and now has 26 great-grandchildren.

He never got a social security card, he never filed a tax return, and he never applied for citizenship. Would you kick him out for being "illegal"?

Well ... maybe you would ... but you'd fight my Irish family over it.

Or maybe you wouldn't ... because he's not brown.

You got any "illegals" in your family?Not that I know of. Maybe. Whatever, its a bit late in the case of your grandfather.

the point is, one runs inot problems when you decide which laws to followm and which ones to enforce.

What part of no control over the government did you not understand? Unlike Iran, the religious leaders do no decide who can and cannot run for political office. Unlike Iran, religious law is not the law of the land. To say that Iran is not a thoracic is simply not true. Shiria laws apply. No religious law or government applies in the U.S.
That may change :p

What if the public indecensy is an accident?

They didn't inprison Janet Jackson for it... they just censored it.

I am opposed to uncontrolled immigration (and please note the qualifier there). I am not a neocon, nor do I hate Mexicans. The reasons I believe in controlling immigration are primarily economic and ecological. Right now, Mexicans are immigrating to America too quickly, soaking up public resources. Now, don't get me wrong: I think immigrants are a long-term boost to the economy, and I don't care what color a person's skin is. I'm sure your grandfather has, over his lifetime, put more taxes into the system than he's taken out in benefits. But over the short term, most immigrants do consume more in public resources than they contribute. Bring in 100,000 new people a year, distribute them decently, even 200,000 during a good year, and we can absorb the influx. It's when annual immigration goes toward, and into, the seven-digit mark that it becomes unmanageable, like it is now.

Here in California, we're about fifteen years behind in building public infrastructure (roads, housing, power plants, water and sewage, schools, fire and police, etc.), we have rolling blackouts in summer, traffic jams miles long, and housing prices are ludicrous. We really need about a ten year moratorium on immigration until we can catch up and the immigrants already here reach the break-even point on contributing versus taking from the public treasury.

As far as your grandfather...well, I think him and others like him who have been here since time out of mind, we can...er...grandfather in. :)
This is true, the rate of immigration should be regulated so as not to overwhelm the domestic economy.

They didn't inprison Janet Jackson for it... they just censored it.

And they made it sound like the end of Western civilization, and used it as an excuse to increase government control over media.

Goes to show how most Americans really don't understand what a true problem is. A woman's breast accidentally showing for an instant during the Super Bowl really isn't a significant problem. A child going to bed hungry and dying from a disease that costs $20 to cure is a real problem. Yet many so-called "Christian" conservatives would push the child aside to sign some new law against indecency. Shameful.

I thought Bush got re-elected because we were in a nationalistic furvor over destroying the WMD's of certain Arab Muslims

HA! The only reason Bush got re-elected is because the "let's not let icky-poo gay people get married" proposition was on the same ballot in 11 states as the "let's elect GWB - who hates fags" general election was.

The only reason Iraq would have had WMDs is a two fold reason:

1] GHWB sold them to Saddam in the 80s.
2] Bill Clinton hadn't already bombed those sites in 1997-1998.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with a situation where the neocon retards want to blame Clinton for everything (inclduing the Polk debacle) so they started this whole mess with chants of "WMD! WMD! WMD!" ... and ignoring that Clinton already took care of that. Why'd they ignore it? Because Clinton got his dick sucked by a fat Jew. Strange reasoning, but apparently getting your bishop polished means you're incapable of governance. (Of course, using wealth to escape the worst war in modern US history and snorting 50 metric tons of cocaine means you are eligable to govern the people!)

You know what ... how about I just stop now ... mmkay?

the point is, one runs into problems when you decide which laws to follow and which ones to enforce.

YES!!!!

(I made a couple of spelling corrections, please forgive me, but that quote is damn near sig worthy.)

YOU ... (yes you) ... must decide which laws to follow and which ones to enforce.

That is a beautiful statement.

And they made it sound like the end of Western civilization, and used it as an excuse to increase government control over media.

Goes to show how most Americans really don't understand what a true problem is. A woman's breast accidentally showing for an instant during the Super Bowl really isn't a significant problem.

I agree that they took it too far, but censoring that is completely fine with me.

A child going to bed hungry and dying from a disease that costs $20 to cure is a real problem. Yet many so-called "Christian" conservatives would push the child aside to sign some new law against indecency. Shameful.

That is taking it a bit far. It clearly wouldn't take $20 to cure diseases and feed a child for life.

<snip>...Here in California, we're about fifteen years behind in building public infrastructure (roads, housing, power plants, water and sewage, schools, fire and police, etc.), we have rolling blackouts in summer, traffic jams miles long, and housing prices are ludicrous. None of which have anything to do with immigration and a lot to do with tax reduction gone mad. Prop 13, an unfettered energy industry, NIMBY and real estate profiteering are much more likely sources of the problems you've listed.

I thought Bush got re-elected because we were in a nationalistic furvor over destroying the WMD's of certain Arab MuslimsHA! The only reason Bush got re-elected is because the "let's not let icky-poo gay people get married" proposition was on the same ballot in 11 states as the "let's elect GWB - who hates fags" general election was.Don't forget the role Diebold played in Selection 2004.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with a situation where the neocon retards want to blame Clinton for everythingSure wish someone would give W a blowjob so we could impeach him. ;)

Don't forget the role Diebold played in Selection 2004.

Sure wish someone would give W a blowjob so we could impeach him. ;)
Someone blind? :p

Sure wish someone would give W a blowjob so we could impeach him. ;)

Well I sure as hell won't ... what's your schedule look like this week? ;)

Well I sure as hell won't ... what's your schedule look like this week? ;)I'm a tad busy ... and not quite blind enough. :D

YES!!!!

(I made a couple of spelling corrections, please forgive me, but that quote is damn near sig worthy.)

YOU ... (yes you) ... must decide which laws to follow and which ones to enforce.

That is a beautiful statement.
Hmm, I'm flattered (and thanks for the corrections - my typing is an umittigated farce); but ummm....

*explodes*

Ok ok ok ... serious answer time ...

We don't. Also, the majority of us would not oppress non-Muslims. Don't take the Arab world's ideaologies for what Islam is all about. Arabs make up less than 13% of the world's Muslims. A very small minority. Yes, Islam started with Arabic people, but it has grown way beyond that. The largest chunk of Muslims are Asian with White/Caucasian Muslims coming up very fast for 2nd.

If you examine Islam beyond Saudi Arabia, you'll find a very, very different view of Islam.

Then perhaps more Muslims should be doing something about the theocracy they have in Saudi Arabia. When entering a Muslim formum and asking for their help in this matter (the pertition) I got banned. I also did it extremely peacefully.

Then perhaps more Muslims should be doing something about the theocracy they have in Saudi Arabia.

We can't. We don't have an Army, you know. Besides, if we tried, the Saudis would close off Mecca to all but Saudis and that would make the rest of us suffer.

As long as they hold Mecca, there's very little we can do.


When entering a Muslim formum and asking for their help in this matter (the pertition) I got banned. I also did it extremely peacefully.

Try more than one.

We can't. We don't have an Army, you know. Besides, if we tried, the Saudis would close off Mecca to all but Saudis and that would make the rest of us suffer.

As long as they hold Mecca, there's very little we can do.

Well you could sign my pertition, and encourage others to. It would be most apriecated.

Well you could sign my pertition, and encourage others to. It would be most apriecated.

It's a 'petition,' not a 'pertition.'

It's a totalitarian monarchy, ....Just like Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates....

It's a 'petition,' not a 'pertition.'

Petition then, however it is spelt, the meaning is still there