Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

SO if this is completely true, what do you suggest? Do you suggest that the US should begin discriminating against people - even its own citizens - on the basis of religion (only Islam of course, not all religions- unless there are other religions that you feel threatened by)? Should we make laws that outlaw the practice of certain religious institutions (such as the hijab)?Would that make the U.S. great again?What is your solution? They are coming to get us, Faith ... stopping new migrants from entering the country is not enough... there is already 3.3 million Muslims in the country right now. How do we stop them from taking over our country? Should we prevent anyone of the Muslim faith from holding public office? Cause that seems like a good way for them to gain influence over our country.Let's hear what you would propose to do about this problem.HBD

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

This is super nitpicky, but the 14th isn't all that clear. It refers to what the individual states must do; if you're under a state's jurisdiction, then that state must treat you this way. It wasn't the 14th alone, but in combination with the 5th, that the courts used to say that it applies to the federal government as well. I think, that's my understanding of it.

HBD writes: So this means that GITMO is neither within the territory nor under the jurisdiction of the United States.That explains it.

Court rulings have made the 14th very clear.

I said there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist ACTING ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. ALL your examples can be shown to violate Christian principles.Catholicism often violates Christian principles. Northern Ireland's problems are all caused by the Vatican, AGAINST CHRISTIAN PRincipleS as so much Catholicism does. They don't regard the Bible as the authority, they are quite willing to contradict the Bible with their own man-made laws. THERE IS NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT CATHOLIC POLICIES THAT COME DOWN FROM THE VATICAN. I did a post at my blog on the problems in Ireland a while back, maybe I can find it.The Crusades may or may not be a "terrorist" action. But it's also a CATHOLIC action, not based on anything Christian.I don't know enough about the English Civil War to comment.The Gunpowder Plot was the work of JESUITS.The Ku Klux Klan is clearly in violation of Christian Principles.So are pogroms, which by the way were also the work of Catholicism, I don't know if exclusively, but certainly predominantly.In every case you are talking about a violation of Christian principles.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm proposing that people come to recognize the reality of Islam. You are refusing to recognize it. When you finally do recognize it, if that ever happens, then we can talk about other proposals.

According to most Islamic clerics, Islamic terrorists are violating Islamic principals. Or are you more of an expert an Islam than they are?
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism | Charles Kurzman

quote:

---

That letter outlines 24 violations of Islamic Law, noting it's forbidden to kill the innocent, torture people, and disfigure the dead.

---

Muslims Using Sharia Law Against ISISWhy are you holding Muslims to a different standard?I notice you didn't address these people. Do you agree with what some of them did? Or did they violate Christian principals too?BTW Catholics are Christians.

Sure I addressed "those people" becausae as I keep saying there is NO WAY TO COMMIT SUCH ACTS ON THE BASIS OF CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES> They are either dissembling or they support a version of Islam that denies some of their scriptures, or they are outright lying, which is an accepted Islamic tactic, also on their books.I've heard dozens of times now that there are one hundred and nine verses in the Koran that specifically call for attacks on Jews, Christoans and other "infidels."Get a clue, Theodoric, you're supporting a pack of lies.So I'll say the sources where I'm getting my information, there's lots of it out there, are more expert on Islam than they are, yes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I could expect non-christians to be better experts on Christianity than Christian clerics. Ok if you say so. Evidence please. But I guess no different than you a Liar for Christ.109 verses calling for murder huh? How many in your bible do the same or worse? Have you read your bible? Try Deuteronomy and Joshua to start.

quote:

---

Interpretation is all, and that changes over time. Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops. However strong the textual traditions justifying war and conflict, believers come instead to stress love and justice. Of course Muslim societies throughout history have engaged in jihad, in holy war, and have found textual warrant so to do. But over time, other potent strains in the religion moved away from literal warfare. However strong the calls to jihad, struggle, in Islamic thought, the hugely influential Sufi orders taught that the real struggle was the inner battle to control one's sinful human instincts, and this mattered vastly more than any pathetic clash of swords and spears. The Greater Jihad is one fought in the soul.
Often, such reforming thinkers are so successful that the troublesome words fade utterly from popular consciousness, even among believers who think of themselves as true fundamentalists. Most Christian and Jewish believers, even those who are moderately literate in scriptural terms, read their own texts extraordinarily selectively. How many Christian preachers would today find spiritual sustenance in Joshua's massacres? How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings, and that Paul's Epistles include more detailed rules on the subject than anything written in the Koran? This kind of holy amnesia is a basic component of religious development. It does not imply rejecting scriptures, but rather reading them in the total context of the religion as it progresses through history.
Alternatively, one can choose to deny that historical experience, and seize on any available word or verse that authorizes the violence that is already taking place - but once someone has decided to do that, it scarcely matters what the text actually says.

---

Violent passages in the Koran and the Bible - The Boston GlobePersonally I think Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all vile oppressive violent religions. The legacy of Abraham(who wasn't real) is one of hate, xenophobia and oppression. A pox on all their houses.
But that you hold others to a different standard is disgusting.

Yep, that's what you said. Known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy AKA circular reasoning.If a terrorist is a professed Christian and claims to be acting in accordance with Christian principles, that's a Christian terrorist. Whether or not you think he is violating Christian principles.

Faith's hate and xenophobia forces all other religions to meet a higher standard. This is what I find amazing about religious people. Their own faith and religion does not have to meet the high ideals they old others too.
I guess they know they cannot meet them.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : change of subtopic

Anything to obscure the truth. There is nothing in the Bible that can rightly be used to support such actions. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. But there are 109 verses in the Koran that tell the reader to kill Jews, Christians and other infidels.You guys are going to lie yourselves into some serious danger by denying the truth and supporting a gigantic wolf that is salivating over your heads.

I see so Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution only gives Congress absolute power and the President broad powers in the narrow field of immigration? Obama gave EOs about immigration. At least one of the examples of Tea Party protests I provided you with was a protest on Obama's executive orders regarding immigration. I was discussing the tension between your position on Obama'a judgement regarding aliens and danger - and your defence of Trump for the same. That is - it seems that when Obama did it he was breaking the laws, over reaching his authority and so on - but when Trump does it its within his authority and perfectly justified. Like your position on whether something is legal is tied up in how much you agree with it. Well no - you see there are three branches of government who check and balance one another. So appealing to the judiciary is in fact the constitutionally correct way to attempt to inhibit an executive order. Only the legislature can put laws on the books, the President can only issue orders for how government agencies ought to practice and how they should focus their efforts etc - he cannot institute laws.Motives are not illegal - or is the thought police OK in Trump's America and was outrageous in Obama's where you perceived it existed ? There is only one President. When Obama was president, the right was calling him a despotic tyrant. I thought it represented a contradiction in the application of political theory that you and the right wing weren't seeking to defend Obama's authority then too. Which is why I posted an example of someone protesting it so as to help your recall. Here let me try again: NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 20: Jim MacDonald (C) and fellow activists from the organization New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement (NY ICE) hold protest signs outside the offices of 32BJ SEIU, a workers union, during a viewing party for U.S. President Barack Obama's speech on evecutive action immigration policy reform on November 20, 2014 in New York City.I didn't say anything on gun control. I just pointed out that some people on the right wing, yourself included, protested Obama's authority to issue Executive Orders when those orders were about gun control actions. Since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the President broad powers, and there is, as far as I'm aware nothing in there that excludes 'gun control', or indeed only talks about immigration (which would rather contradict the point of 'broad powers') that makes it relevant. My point, again, is that the right wing certainly DID protest Obama's executive orders on a number of subjects. They formed a protest movement called the Tea Party and everything. I don't remember you suggesting they were wrong because Obama had 'broad powers' but here you are saying those protesting Trump are wrong because Trump has 'broad powers'Do you see the issue, now?

Lies lies lies, how do you keep it up? Why do you put credence in someone who says it doesn't matter how wrong a person is about the Bible, it's the Bible's fault if they misread it. Such sleazy stuff is just anti-Christian propaganda and you slurp it up while TOLERATING THE ACTUAL SOURCES OF MURDER AND VIOLENCE IN THIS WORLD. If someone gets the idea of taking off people's heads from reading "A Tale of Two Cities" is that the novel's fault?The Bible RFEPORTS on many horrific incidents in the ancient past, some of them commanded by God. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VERSE THAT TELLS THE READER TO COMMIT VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND AGAINST ANYBODY EVER AND PLENTY THAT COMMAND THE EXACT OPPOSITE. But obviously you can't read and/or you are deceived or dishonest.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.