Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

There are 38,000 flavours of Christians. You do not personally get to say who's a Christian and who isn't. There's no point keeping on doing it because you'll be reminded of it every time you attempt it.

Well I can go on defining it whether you agree or not you know. My authority is the Reformation leaders and most Reformation churches and pastors. I've made the case: it's a matter of taking the Bible as authority. Pretty basic.Of course others have other definitions, but I don't know why you prefer those to mine. Here's a sampling of preachers of the persuasion I consider true. I can't vouch for all 25,700 of them of course, but the site focuses on the Reformed point of view. The point is just to say I'm not making this up, there are lots of us. (Most of those pastors are heads of congregations too, which increases our numbers).You can believe what you want of course, nobody is stopping you. But I'm sure I'm not going to stop saying what true Christianity is.ABE: There are of course lots of other Christian groups, not just the Reformed. I put this up just because it's the source of my viewpoint. Most churches differ from each other on very minor points while taking the Bible as their authority. But where it is known that the Bible is either misused or neglected altogether, that's not a Christian church.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because yours is a definition created by the sect you prefer. I prefer historic definitions that are supported by the majority of historians and people. Why would I have any interest in that? I consider your entire belief system utterly bonkers. It's not what I believe or don't believe - remember I'm a atheist, I have no regard for any of them being the 'true' one. I accept the standard definition. The definition of Christianity is pretty easy to get to, they all have a belief that Christ in the son of god. Daft though that is, it's what defines them all - including you.And saying that the largest Christian sect - 1.2bn people - who define themselves as Christians are not Christians even though they follow the teaching of Christ and read the same mythology as you is quite frankly rediculous.

Who is it not protecting adequately? Muslims are and were explicitly intended to be under its umbrella. Our Founding Fathers included Islam

Beliefs are held by individuals. Individuals act based on the beliefs they have in their own mind. And the only way I can know the beliefs of an individual is by speaking with the individual herself. I have known a lot of Muslims. When I was in Africa, half the people around me were Christian, the other half were Muslim. Except than the choice of names given to them by their parents, I honestly wouldn't have been able to tell who was which.In the US, many (perhaps most?) Islam-inspired crimes were foiled by law enforcement with the assistance of tips and informers from the Muslim community itself.

• Many Muslims are willing to commit heinous crimes.
• Many Muslims support terrorists but would never themselves get involved in a plot.
• Many Muslims are opposed to terrorism but blame the victims of terrorism.
• Many Muslims oppose terrorism without reservation.
• Many Muslims are working to stop and end terrorism.

Replace "Muslim" with any other religion or political ideology and you're likely to have a list that is just as accurate.A person is responsible for their own beliefs, not the beliefs of other people who happen to share the same label. A person is accountable for her own actions, not the actions done by other people.- In my opinion, what's suicidal for a democratic republic is giving the state the authority to act against individuals for beliefs they don't actually have and to punish them for crimes they haven't committed.

Point was already made. No need for repetition.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Sounds good if you don't really get what Islam is, in reality it's national suicide.

Killers who kill in the name of Jesus too.

People who have no horse in the race should pay attention to people who have spent a lot of time studying the history of these things. You are conflating murderous ideologies with harmless ones because of your utter ignorance of the history of these things. You don't care right now, but you may some time in the future.

I think it's more important to know who the individual Muslims are, and forgetting that is national suicide.

Are you aware of the statistics that show a great majority of Muslims, very nice peaceful Muslims, support the terrorists? That's because they know the terrorists are serving Allah according to Islamic doctrine.

From Wikipedia: -But besides that, saying "great majority" is an admission that the characterization isn't universal. Individuals still should be judged on their own merits. All the "great majority's" beliefs should mean, at worst, is that the stringent vetting process for the Syrian refugees might possibly not be excessive.

I'm glad you're for extreme vetting.

For the record, I do believe process that the Syrian refugees have to go through should probably be relaxed a great deal. But I don't know what the ideal process should be, and I'm willing to accept that the proper balance between the safety and well-being of the refugees and the legitimate security concerns of US citizens can be the subject of reasonable disagreement between people of good faith.Within limits, of course. It is possible that I may become convinced that the current process is a terrible violation of basic decency.

You mean white slave owners? Speaking for myself, I'm glad that part got amended out.