Do you really believe this is a Muslim ban?

[entruil]

Originally Posted by maskedmelonpai [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pragmatically, what is wrong with a Muslim ban? How does the US benefit from Muslim immigration? They generally hail from impoverished third world nations and produce the most savage zealots of all major world religions in the modern era. The US already has no idea how to address its own poverty/violence issues. Why import more?

Of course the vast majority of Muslims are normal human beings with absolutely no intention of sawing off heads, but Islam harbors savagery, enshrines it within its sacred text.

When presented with a significant threat from one thing relative to other things and no intrinsic benefit, how is it rational to admit that thing? We seek to quarantine every other virulence we encounter. Why not this virulence?

Has self aggrandizement so thoroughly perverted ordinary thought that we are incapable of recognizing reason?

Let us continue blindly in our pursuit of moral piety that those who follow us might once again know the misery of a state of nature!


PS

Yes, I know it not a nice thing to do, duh! That not the point.

I would like to say things about the Bill of Rights, but so much of it is discarded when it is inconvenient for the government. As things are I think you have the upper hand in that if we don't have a full-scale revert back to the basic ideas of Liberty it doesn't matter.

My understanding of Islam is that the savagery was added in by a king and not all muslims recognize his additions. The virulence IS the savagery. To set up a test of virulence based on religious texts may not be the best avenue to follow. Maybe, instead, set up a test of virulence based on savagery.

Do any religious texts not include savagery? is this part of your point? No intrinsic benefit sounds like it may be an opinion? Who gets to judge?

I tend to believe that most of the savagery is brought about by tyrannical governments all over the world who seek to impose their own will and destruction on their own and other people. Whether it's through domestic spying and speech regulation/propaganda or bombs and covert-ops and currency manipulation/central banking. should probably add Religion to that as well.

but yea...

[maskedmelonpai]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would like to say things about the Bill of Rights, but so much of it is discarded when it is inconvenient for the government. As things are I think you have the upper hand in that if we don't have a full-scale revert back to the basic ideas of Liberty it doesn't matter.

I am suggesting we set aside sacred cows and consider what is most sensible, but I also do t think the bill of rights was intended to protect foreign interests. It was designed to protect the people of the US from their own government, not to protect foreign people's from prejudice of the US government.

My understanding of Islam is that the savagery was added in by a king and not all muslims recognize his additions. The virulence IS the savagery. To set up a test of virulence based on religious texts may not be the best avenue to follow. Maybe, instead, set up a test of virulence based on savagery.

Do any religious texts not include savagery? is this part of your point? No intrinsic benefit sounds like it may be an opinion? Who gets to judge?

I don't kno how the Qur'an was assembled, only what it says and what it says is terrible :c We can draw comparisons with Christians who have also spread their faith by the sword throughout history and in primitive parts of the world still do to some extent, but the fundamental difference between the two is that Christ was basically a hippy with a message of peace and forgiveness and civil disobedience. He said hey, you don't have to throw rocks at people and kill them for having sex. Muhammad was a conqueror and his message was one of violence spoken from both sides of his mouth. He said, hey, you need to partially burry these people in sand and throw rocks at them until they die for having sex.

The Qur'an is laced with prohibitions on nasty behavior, but is careful to follow every one of them with some sort of exit clause like, "but he who thinks he is right cannot be faulted for Allah is merciful." That sort of language is exceedingly dangerous because it opens the door to exploitation, which is the most basic problem with any ideology. Anytime you have a large group of people who have surremdered their intellectual sovereignty to pre-conceived notions of others, their vulnerable to manipulation because they are thoughtless louts. :c

As far as the value of Islam goes, yes that is my opinion and I am very open to changing it if someone can provide evidence to the contrary. What value does Islam specifically present the civilized world? :c

I tend to believe that most of the savagery is brought about by tyrannical governments all over the world who seek to impose their own will and destruction on their own and other people. Whether it's through domestic spying and speech regulation/propaganda or bombs and covert-ops and currency manipulation/central banking. should probably add Religion to that as well.

but yea...

If you read the Qur'an, you will see what I am talking about. I used to march around defending Islam against unfair attacks until I actually read what was written and was genuinely surprised. The whole thing is available in its entirety in English and Arabic and lots of other languages online. It is super accessible.

[claypigeons]

Originally Posted by maerilith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can't wait till the Christian Right gets all sharia about contraceptives and marriage and gays again.

I hope not. That would be awful. I'd rather we moved on to real issues (not to downplay social issues. But as a society we get WAYYYY too hung up on what people look like, their genitals, and who they share their bed with). Like our perpetual interventionist politics, inflation, the failed drug war, etc.