• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First U.S. City With Muslim Majority

blarg said:
Muslims arnt doing any 1 thing thing over billion people with as bunch of factions and you know those pesky individuals
Click to expand...

You would think that a billion people would have had enough brains to do away with the medievalism rather than continuing it and thinking themselves great for doing so. Apparently, a billion brains were so lacking in brain cells that they couldn't muster the power of thought realize, "Hey, it's the 21st century, why the f*** do we still have this medievalism going on? What the hell is the benefit of us continuing this? Why do I need my wife to cover her head? What's going to happen if she doesn't?"
Apparently, the billion people are so mentally vacuous that they can't come up with a way to break out of this crap, and keep clinging to it like a billion opium addicts.

your family is not worth my freedom of religion and not being punished for crimes i have not committed and am not connected with
Click to expand...

What is your religion, sir? I'm an atheist, I'm a modern person who doesn't suffer from the same weird hangups as you do. I challenge your principles to a debate, sir.


you have nay evidence some one is plotting an attack please by all means contact the authority's

right now you sound like 1 of these assholes

Woman?s face smashed with beer mug at US restaurant for 'not speaking English' - The Express Tribune

Sikh man who was attacked in Darien returns home from hospital - The Doings Weekly
Click to expand...

I'm born to immigrants from India, sir. I have relatives who are Sikhs. Do you?
My late uncle who introduced my father to my mother was Sikh.

From what personal moral highground are you speaking, sir?

The Sikh religion came into existence when Muslim tyrants who invaded India began massacring and forcibly converting people at the point of a sword. At first the Muslims started doing this in little dribs and drabs, here and there. Then the Muslim tyrant Aurangzeb got tired of all the little rebellions of the infidels fighting him, and decided he needed to do away with the infidel faiths once and for all - and so he decided he'd convert all of them to his all-important faith and kill anyone who resisted. This led to a massive consolidation of all rebellions against the Muslim tyranny, and led to a huge number of different rebels joining the Sikh faith to overthrow them. After a long fight, the tyrannical Muslim emperor Aurangzeb eventually died while fleeing and on the run, and was buried by his attendants in a shabby makeshift grave - a fitting end for a tyrant.

I'm a non-religious atheist, but if you read Sikh religious texts, they're all about resistance against Muslim oppression. In Sikhism, Islam is to them and their faith what the Roman Empire was to the Christians and the Jews. Your defense of Islam and its imperialism is like a defense of the Roman Empire and its imperialism.

Yes, the Romans gave the world some nice things, and I'm sure they felt unhappy when the barbarians swarmed their gates. But they were imperialist nonetheless.

Stop defending Muslim imperialism. They haven't repented for any of their actions against others throughout history, and the history of Islam remains pristine and perfect to them. There is no Muslim Chomsky. It's not merely a religion, it's an ideology with totalitarian/imperialist ambitions. When they agree to question their history, when they agree to reform their attitudes towards others, then they can earn credibility with others.
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
You would think that a billion people would have had enough brains to do away with the medievalism rather than continuing it and thinking themselves great for doing so. Apparently, a billion brains were so lacking in brain cells that they couldn't muster the power of thought realize, "Hey, it's the 21st century, why the f*** do we still have this medievalism going on? What the hell is the benefit of us continuing this? Why do I need my wife to cover her head? What's going to happen if she doesn't?"
Apparently, the billion people are so mentally vacuous that they can't come up with a way to break out of this crap, and keep clinging to it like a billion opium addicts.



What is your religion, sir? I'm an atheist, I'm a modern person who doesn't suffer from the same weird hangups as you do. I challenge your principles to a debate, sir.




I'm born to immigrants from India, sir. I have relatives who are Sikhs. Do you?
My late uncle who introduced my father to my mother was Sikh.

From what personal moral highground are you speaking, sir?

The Sikh religion came into existence when Muslim tyrants who invaded India began massacring and forcibly converting people at the point of a sword. At first the Muslims started doing this in little dribs and drabs, here and there. Then the Muslim tyrant Aurangzeb got tired of all the little rebellions of the infidels fighting him, and decided he needed to do away with the infidel faiths once and for all - and so he decided he'd convert all of them and kill anyone who resisted. This led to a massive consolidation of all rebellions against the Muslim tyranny, and led to a huge number of different rebels joining the Sikh faith to overthrow them. After a long fight, the tyrannical Muslim emperor Aurangzeb eventually died while fleeing and on the run, and was buried by his attendants in a shabby makeshift grave - a fitting end for a tyrant.

I'm a non-religious atheist, but if you read Sikh religious texts, they're all about resistance against Muslim oppression. In Sikhism, Islam is to them and their faith what the Roman Empire was to the Christians and the Jews. Your defense of Islam and its imperialism is like a defense of the Roman Empire and its imperialism.

Yes, the Romans gave the world some nice things, and I'm sure they felt unhappy when the barbarians raped their women and killed their families. But they were imperialist nonetheless.

Stop defending Muslim imperialism. They haven't repented for any of their actions against others throughout history, and the history of Islam remains pristine and perfect to them. It's not merely a religion, it's an ideology. When they agree to question their history, when they agree to reform their attitudes towards others, then they can earn credibility with others.
Click to expand...


idiot anti Muslim people attacked a Sikh

lot of Muslims are not into the medievalism you seem to ignore that in favor of collective punishment

so that moral high ground
 
sanman said:
You would think that a billion people would have had enough brains to do away with the medievalism rather than continuing it and thinking themselves great for doing so. Apparently, a billion brains were so lacking in brain cells that they couldn't muster the power of thought realize, "Hey, it's the 21st century, why the f*** do we still have this medievalism going on? What the hell is the benefit of us continuing this? Why do I need my wife to cover her head? What's going to happen if she doesn't?"
Apparently, the billion people are so mentally vacuous that they can't come up with a way to break out of this crap, and keep clinging to it like a billion opium addicts.



What is your religion, sir? I'm an atheist, I'm a modern person who doesn't suffer from the same weird hangups as you do. I challenge your principles to a debate, sir.




I'm born to immigrants from India, sir. I have relatives who are Sikhs. Do you?
My late uncle who introduced my father to my mother was Sikh.

From what personal moral highground are you speaking, sir?

The Sikh religion came into existence when Muslim tyrants who invaded India began massacring and forcibly converting people at the point of a sword. At first the Muslims started doing this in little dribs and drabs, here and there. Then the Muslim tyrant Aurangzeb got tired of all the little rebellions of the infidels fighting him, and decided he needed to do away with the infidel faiths once and for all - and so he decided he'd convert all of them to his all-important faith and kill anyone who resisted. This led to a massive consolidation of all rebellions against the Muslim tyranny, and led to a huge number of different rebels joining the Sikh faith to overthrow them. After a long fight, the tyrannical Muslim emperor Aurangzeb eventually died while fleeing and on the run, and was buried by his attendants in a shabby makeshift grave - a fitting end for a tyrant.

I'm a non-religious atheist, but if you read Sikh religious texts, they're all about resistance against Muslim oppression. In Sikhism, Islam is to them and their faith what the Roman Empire was to the Christians and the Jews. Your defense of Islam and its imperialism is like a defense of the Roman Empire and its imperialism.

Yes, the Romans gave the world some nice things, and I'm sure they felt unhappy when the barbarians swarmed their gates. But they were imperialist nonetheless.

Stop defending Muslim imperialism. They haven't repented for any of their actions against others throughout history, and the history of Islam remains pristine and perfect to them. There is no Muslim Chomsky. It's not merely a religion, it's an ideology with totalitarian/imperialist ambitions. When they agree to question their history, when they agree to reform their attitudes towards others, then they can earn credibility with others.
Click to expand...

so letting people keep there religion and live like every one else is defending Muslim imperialism......hows that work cause it seems crazy stupid to say that
 
blarg said:
idiot anti Muslim people attacked a Sikh
Click to expand...

And do you know why they attacked that Sikh? Because a bunch of Muslim @ssholes decided to start wearing turbans while killing innocent people. And why did they do that? Because the @ssholes (Taliban) were created by the military intelligence of an irredentist Muslim state - Pakistan - which decided that they should wear Turbans like the Sikhs do. And why did they decide that? Because most of Pakistan was carved out of territory previously ruled by the Sikhs, and Pakistan's military has a sectarian irredentist obsession against Sikhs whom they see as their former oppressors.

So ultimately, Muslim irredentism is the reason that Sikh man was attacked by misguided idiots.

So don't try to pretentiously call me the idiot, when you don't even know diddly-squat.

lot of Muslims are not into the medievalism you seem to ignore that in favor of collective punishment

so that moral high ground
Click to expand...


The Muslims who aren't directly oppressing others themselves are conspicuously silent on those among them who oppress others.
Their faith has not undergone any reformation - they continue to harbor sectarian chauvinist attitudes towards others. The numerous Muslim majority countries around the world which discriminate against non-Muslims, against gays, and others, are ample proof of the attitudes of Islam.

You're worried about "anti-Muslim people" - and meanwhile you completely ignore anti-people Muslims.
 
sanman said:
And do you know why they attacked that Sikh? Because a bunch of Muslim @ssholes decided to start wearing turbans while killing innocent people. And why did they do that? Because the @ssholes (Taliban) were created by the military intelligence of an irredentist Muslim state - Pakistan - which decided that they should wear Turbans like the Sikhs do. And why did they decide that? Because most of Pakistan was carved out of territory previously ruled by the Sikhs, and Pakistan's military has a sectarian irredentist obsession against Sikhs whom they see as their former oppressors.

So ultimately, Muslim irredentism is the reason that Sikh man was attacked by misguided idiots (they were African American, just FYI).

So don't try to pretentiously call me the idiot, when you don't even know diddly-squat.




The Muslims who aren't directly oppressing others themselves are conspicuously silent on those among them who oppress others.
Their faith has not undergone any reformation - they continue to harbor sectarian chauvinist attitudes towards others. The numerous Muslim majority countries around the world which discriminate against non-Muslims, against gays, and others, are ample proof of the attitudes of Islam.
Click to expand...

yes going after innocent people makes you an ass whole good progress

so lets apply that lesson

Muslims who attack people assholes

people who attack Muslims assholes

people who attack non Muslims because they believe there Muslim extra dumb assholes



now lets move on to blame

Muslims who attack people are to blame for that

people who attack Muslims are to blame for that

idiots who attack innocent people based on who they seem to look to blame for that

you do get Muslims condemning violence you just ignore that maybe that dosent do much because the ones who attack people ARE NOT ****ING ALLIED WITH THE ONES THAT DONT !
 
blarg said:
yes going after innocent people makes you an ass whole good progress

so lets apply that lesson

Muslims who attack people assholes

people who attack Muslims assholes

people who attack non Muslims because they believe there Muslim extra dumb assholes



now lets move on to blame

Muslims who attack people are to blame for that

people who attack Muslims are to blame for that

idiots who attack innocent people based on who they seem to look to blame for that

you do get Muslims condemning violence you just ignore that maybe that dosent do much because the ones who attack people ARE NOT ****ING ALLIED WITH THE ONES THAT DONT !
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've met and known more Muslims, and spent more time with them than you ever have. Because I'm the same skin color as them, I'm able to socialize them very easily. While english is my mother tongue and preferred language, I also speak French, as well as Urdu which is spoken by a lot of Muslims. I understand their politics and their political thinking much better than you do, and that comes from having had so much contact with them. As per Lenin's saying, people like you are just "useful idiots" to them.

There's a conspicuous lack of Muslims condemning Islamist violence - at least before it gets to the point where they fear a backlash against them. If there's no fear of backlash, then Muslims don't give 2 hoots about condemning Islamist violence.
It's the nature of Islam - it's geared to promote GroupThink.

The ties between Muslims who carry out violence and those who don't are closer than the ties between the latter and non-Muslims. The religion is just evolved that way. If it hadn't evolved that way, it wouldn't have managed to survive and flourish through so many conflicts and conquests of others.

The bottom line is that most Muslim majorities treat non-Muslims as 2nd-class citizens while discriminating against them and openly having laws that treat Muslims and non-Muslims differently. Islam rejects secularism, except where Muslims are in the minority. What's needed for better ties between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, is for Muslim majority societies to accept secular laws rather than Islamic laws. Muslim majorities do indeed represent the Muslim world, and their actions speak loudest. What there cannot be is a one-sided situation where Muslims get to lord it over everybody else wherever Muslims are the majority, and then fiercely demand special rights for themselves when they're in the minority. That becomes a situation of "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share" and that's an intolerable and untenable double standard.
 
blarg said:
who was doing that we need to kill violant religous extrmeists it just stupid to go after people for being Muslim
Click to expand...

It's an ideology - it's a war of ideas - and so as an atheist I'm fully in favor of confronting religions which have a track record of persecuting others. Why coddle and protect someone from debate or challenge just because they're a religion? This allows outmoded belief systems to play an ethnic card and hide behind it, in order to avoid robust debate.
 
sanman said:
I'm pretty sure I've met and known more Muslims, and spent more time with them than you ever have. Because I'm the same skin color as them, I'm able to socialize them very easily. While english is my mother tongue and preferred language, I also speak French, as well as Urdu which is spoken by a lot of Muslims. I understand their politics and their political thinking much better than you do, and that comes from having had so much contact with them. As per Lenin's saying, people like you are just "useful idiots" to them.

There's a conspicuous lack of Muslims condemning Islamist violence - at least before it gets to the point where they fear a backlash against them. If there's no fear of backlash, then Muslims don't give 2 hoots about condemning Islamist violence.
It's the nature of Islam - it's geared to promote GroupThink.

The ties between Muslims who carry out violence and those who don't are closer than the ties between the latter and non-Muslims. The religion is just evolved that way. If it hadn't evolved that way, it wouldn't have managed to survive and flourish through so many conflicts and conquests of others.

The bottom line is that most Muslim majorities treat non-Muslims as 2nd-class citizens while discriminating against them and openly having laws that treat Muslims and non-Muslims differently. Islam rejects secularism, except where Muslims are in the minority. What's needed for better ties between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, is for Muslim majority societies to accept secular laws rather than Islamic laws. Muslim majorities do indeed represent the Muslim world, and their actions speak loudest. What there cannot be is a one-sided situation where Muslims get to lord it over everybody else wherever Muslims are the majority, and then fiercely demand special rights for themselves when they're in the minority. That becomes a situation of "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share" and that's an intolerable and untenable double standard.
Click to expand...

ya religions discriminate against others and cling to power where they have control they kind of suck

yes there are Muslims who support violence

do most of the Muslims you know just not condemn violence or are you saying they talk about how they support it ( why would you go around distancing yourself form actions that are not yours all the time )

what special rights weer the Muslims in the op taking for themselves?

and how would turning innocent people into 2nd class citizens be justified?

also could you explain how this works in more detail

The ties between Muslims who carry out violence and those who don't are closer than the ties between the latter and non-Muslims. The religion is just evolved that way. If it hadn't evolved that way, it wouldn't have managed to survive and flourish through so many conflicts and conquests of others.
 
sanman said:
It's an ideology - it's a war of ideas - and so as an atheist I'm fully in favor of confronting religions which have a track record of persecuting others. Why coddle and protect someone from debate or challenge just because they're a religion? This allows outmoded belief systems to play an ethnic card and hide behind it, in order to avoid robust debate.
Click to expand...

confronting religions sounds great fellow atheist..um but not letting people practice them and changing laws over them seems wrong
 
blarg said:
ya religions discriminate against others and cling to power where they have control they kind of suck
Click to expand...

And there are more Muslim majority countries that keep their religion as the official law of the land, as compared to countries where other religions are in the majority. Islam needs to reform itself in order to maintain credible relations with the non-Muslim world. The idea of "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share" is simply untenable.


yes there are Muslims who support violence

do most of the Muslims you know just not condemn violence or are you saying they talk about how they support it ( why would you go around distancing yourself form actions that are not yours all the time )
Click to expand...

Likewise, why expect Trump to go around distancing himself from databases, gulags, ovens, etc and all sorts of things which didn't come from him, but which Left-wing media ambush artists are more than happy to bait him with? I see a double standard here.

The onus is always on the non-Muslim to disavow and distance themselves, while there's never any onus on the Muslim to disavow or distance themselves, because then it's considered an unfair burden. Well, if you want to live with other people, you've got to shoulder the same burdens, instead of coming up with creative rationalizations for double standards - and there's always some rationalization/excuse waiting to be made.

what special rights weer the Muslims in the op taking for themselves?
Click to expand...

They may not have taken any yet - but given the overwhelming track record of the rest of the Muslim world, it's certainly not only very plausible but also very likely that the laws will be changed to create special preferences that cater to the newly dominant Muslim majority there.


and how would turning innocent people into 2nd class citizens be justified?
Click to expand...

How did Ulyssses Grant justify it?
I don't see social pressure and peer pressure as automatically adding up to 2nd class citizenship.

also could you explain how this works in more detail

The ties between Muslims who carry out violence and those who don't are closer than the ties between the latter and non-Muslims. The religion is just evolved that way. If it hadn't evolved that way, it wouldn't have managed to survive and flourish through so many conflicts and conquests of others.
Click to expand...

Islam is still unreformed, and it must be reformed, in order to separate out its political ideology. Muslims must stop believing that wherever they are the majority, they have some automatic right or mandate to create an ethnically chauvinist state that places their religious ethnicity above others. Muslims today show too much lenience and too much silence towards Islamist chauvinism - what Muslims condemn and don't condemn, what they rally against and don't rally against, what they campaign against and don't campaign against, is easily available for others to see and judge them on. Muslims only rally and campaign on behalf of Islamic causes - they never campaign for minority rights unless they're the minority - when they're the majority they couldn't give a damn about minority rights. Muslims had better introspect to develop some higher thoughts on this.
 
blarg said:
confronting religions sounds great fellow atheist..um but not letting people practice them and changing laws over them seems wrong
Click to expand...

There was a big fuss made when that cake-maker refused to make the wedding cake for the gay wedding.

Just as a thought exercise, what if the cake-maker had been Muslim?

Let's not kid ourselves that Muslims on average have more liberal attitudes towards gays than Christians on average do.

Leftists never like to probe the fuller moral contours of their professed principles - they prefer the expediency of just dealing with each situation opportunistically.

What happens if a Muslim-majority town decides to pass restrictions on gay people? Well, then of course you'll say that courts will strike this down, and that's what courts are for. What happens when people take a squatter mentality and start defying the courts?
There is ample precedent for this happening in Muslim countries. There are even numerous troubling cases in Britain and France - which are not Muslim-majority countries, but which have large and very assertive Muslim populations.

It's worth comparing the future of Islam in America to the present and future of Islam in Britain and France. If you start looking closely at things going on in Britain and France, you'll find some things which are very worrying.

Americans should be very worried about getting themselves into the predicament that Britain and France are already in.
 
sanman said:
There was a big fuss made when that cake-maker refused to make the wedding cake for the gay wedding.

Just as a thought exercise, what if the cake-maker had been Muslim?

Let's not kid ourselves that Muslims on average have more liberal attitudes towards gays than Christians on average do.

Leftists never like to probe the fuller moral contours of their professed principles - they prefer the expediency of just dealing with each situation opportunistically.

What happens if a Muslim-majority town decides to pass restrictions on gay people? Well, then of course you'll say that courts will strike this down, and that's what courts are for. What happens when people take a squatter mentality and start defying the courts?
There is ample precedent for this happening in Muslim countries. There are even numerous troubling cases in Britain and France - which are not Muslim-majority countries, but which have large and very assertive Muslim populations.

It's worth comparing the future of Islam in America to the present and future of Islam in Britain and France. If you start looking closely at things going on in Britain and France, you'll find some things which are very worrying.

Americans should be very worried about getting themselves into the predicament that Britain and France are already in.
Click to expand...

and weer back to blaming people for what you fer they will do and yes Muslim objections to homosexuality just as wrong
 
sanman said:
And there are more Muslim majority countries that keep their religion as the official law of the land, as compared to countries where other religions are in the majority. Islam needs to reform itself in order to maintain credible relations with the non-Muslim world. The idea of "What's Mine is Mine, What's Yours We Share" is simply untenable.




Likewise, why expect Trump to go around distancing himself from databases, gulags, ovens, etc and all sorts of things which didn't come from him, but which Left-wing media ambush artists are more than happy to bait him with? I see a double standard here.

The onus is always on the non-Muslim to disavow and distance themselves, while there's never any onus on the Muslim to disavow or distance themselves, because then it's considered an unfair burden. Well, if you want to live with other people, you've got to shoulder the same burdens, instead of coming up with creative rationalizations for double standards - and there's always some rationalization/excuse waiting to be made.



They may not have taken any yet - but given the overwhelming track record of the rest of the Muslim world, it's certainly not only very plausible but also very likely that the laws will be changed to create special preferences that cater to the newly dominant Muslim majority there.




How did Ulyssses Grant justify it?
I don't see social pressure and peer pressure as automatically adding up to 2nd class citizenship.



Islam is still unreformed, and it must be reformed, in order to separate out its political ideology. Muslims must stop believing that wherever they are the majority, they have some automatic right or mandate to create an ethnically chauvinist state that places their religious ethnicity above others. Muslims today show too much lenience and too much silence towards Islamist chauvinism - what Muslims condemn and don't condemn, what they rally against and don't rally against, what they campaign against and don't campaign against, is easily available for others to see and judge them on. Muslims only rally and campaign on behalf of Islamic causes - they never campaign for minority rights unless they're the minority - when they're the majority they couldn't give a damn about minority rights. Muslims had better introspect to develop some higher thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

and surly any example to the contrary are just pr lies
 
I am as WASP as it gets...and I say good for Hamtramck.

I just hope this place will not become a lightning rod for moronic/cowardly Americans who are terrified of terrorist attacks (or who just excel at hating those that are different).
 
blarg said:
and weer back to blaming people for what you fer they will do and yes Muslim objections to homosexuality just as wrong
Click to expand...

But the thing here is that by constantly backing up Muslims politically, the Left is creating a monster. You need to see what will happen to America down the road by looking at Europe today. Look at the powerful threat of violence that Muslim populations have achieved over various European countries. Have a listen to Pat Condell, a British man who happens to be gay:

https://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Condell is not a bigot - he's totally fine with all kinds of ethnic groups - except the one that hates him, Islam. I think it's totally legitimate for Condell to campaign against those who promote hate against him. He at least has the courage to stand up and publicly state his beliefs, and like Trump he won't be cowed into shutting up.
 
blarg said:
so if i storm into you town kill all the men boys and women whoa are not virgins and then make the virgin girls my wives thats not rape?

and even if they are just dying to **** me hows that solve the nephalim problem?
Click to expand...
Where does it say anywhere in Numbers 31, in which this story was found, did it say to take virgin girls for wives? Nope. Neither does it say to know them (carnally), to go in to them, or to lay with them (that's what the language of the OT is when it describes sexual intercourse).

If you were to read the OT in its totality, you'd know that the Israelites would take prisoners of wars to servitude. If you read further down to verse 40 this is what it says: "And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons."

Did that verse mean the LORD took the dedicated tribute of 32 virgin female persons as wives? Of course not. It was servitude to the LORD in the tabanacle. Also, there was no prohibition to adopt them as their own.

When America bombed Syria and takes in Syrian women and children refugees, does that mean we rape them or make them wives?

You don't comprehend a thing about OT Scripture, so please stay away from using it as a linchpin to make islam looks good.
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
But the thing here is that by constantly backing up Muslims politically, the Left is creating a monster. You need to see what will happen to America down the road by looking at Europe today. Look at the powerful threat of violence that Muslim populations have achieved over various European countries. Have a listen to Pat Condell, a British man who happens to be gay:

https://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Condell is not a bigot - he's totally fine with all kinds of ethnic groups - except the one that hates him, Islam. I think it's totally legitimate for Condell to campaign against those who promote hate against him. He at least has the courage to stand up and publicly state his beliefs, and like Trump he won't be cowed into shutting up.
Click to expand...


Part of the left, anyway -- the unthinking authoritarian part. Those with intelligence who operate according to liberal principles such as Bill Maher are quite outspoken.

I do find it ironic, though, when those who roll on their back and pee on their belly any time the subject is Islam wag their fingers and call other people cowards if they show any resistance to its totalitarianism.
 
truthatallcost said:
In the first majority-Muslim U.S. city, residents tense about its future
Click to expand...

Renae said:
Except Irish and Italians didn't generally want to replace the laws with their own version, one that is not compatible with the US Constitution. They Assimilated into the great melting pot.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in the article about Muslims in this town trying to "replace the laws with their own version, one that is not compatible with the US Constitution." What I see is about Polish Catholics who are scared of muslims when they hear muslims praying. Also, things like this:

On a boarded-up building on the city’s main street, a poster to re-elect council member Anam Miah had been partially covered with big block letters — “DON’T VOTE” — and a swastika was drawn on Miah’s forehead.

Would you mind copy/pasting the portion out that supports your claim that the muslims in this town want to "replace the laws with their own version, one that is not compatible with the US Constitution."?
 
sanman said:
But the thing here is that by constantly backing up Muslims politically, the Left is creating a monster. You need to see what will happen to America down the road by looking at Europe today. Look at the powerful threat of violence that Muslim populations have achieved over various European countries. Have a listen to Pat Condell, a British man who happens to be gay:

https://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

Condell is not a bigot - he's totally fine with all kinds of ethnic groups - except the one that hates him, Islam. I think it's totally legitimate for Condell to campaign against those who promote hate against him. He at least has the courage to stand up and publicly state his beliefs, and like Trump he won't be cowed into shutting up.
Click to expand...

backing them translating to letting them live in peace with normal rights and freedoms

homophobic Muslims suck yes
 
truthatallcost said:
Boo hoo, they don't accept me... They think I'm all weird n stuff.. I know...I'll blow them up! Yeah that way they'll think I'm kewl!
Click to expand...
You are confusing an explanation...with a justification.

You reason like a 10 year old. Just last month a suicide bomber blew up 22 people in Pakistan for being Shiite instead of Sunni. What's the reason for this? Can't blame it on not fitting in or not being accepted with the cool kids. Can't blame it on Western culture being full of meanies. Let's hear why this happened wise one.
Click to expand...
Uh, I'm certain it is explained as a matter of (again) group dynamics, and if you don't understand Sunni/Shia relations I don't know what you're doing in this thread
 
dolphinocean said:
Where does it say anywhere in Numbers 31, in which this story was found, did it say to take virgin girls for wives? Nope. Neither does it say to know them (carnally), to go in to them, or to lay with them (that's what the language of the OT is when it describes sexual intercourse).

If you were to read the OT in its totality, you'd know that the Israelites would take prisoners of wars to servitude. If you read further down to verse 40 this is what it says: "And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons."

Did that verse mean the LORD took the dedicated tribute of 32 virgin female persons as wives? Of course not. It was servitude to the LORD in the tabanacle. Also, there was no prohibition to adopt them as their own.

When America bombed Syria and takes in Syrian women and children refugees, does that mean we rape them or make them wives?

You don't comprehend a thing about OT Scripture, so please stay away from using it as a linchpin to make islam looks good.
Click to expand...

so wives and slaves for the tabernacle after your done murdering the boys and older women

no ones trying to make the Koran look good its just the bible also contains evil ****
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom