Gingrich's Outrageous Call to Deport All Practicing U.S. Muslims

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feanor2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LastStand said:
Deus vult.

Religions that are incompatible with Western civilization have no place here. Our concepts, ethics, and culture are not a suicide pact.
Click to expand...
Islam, in and of itself, is not a threat to our western culture if we are willing to maintain it.
The imposition of sharia would, because of its theocratic nature and violations of individual rights, require numerous changes to the constitution. Virtually impossible.
The 1st Amendment only restricts Congress. The President has the necessary authority to bar the entry of any more Muslims.
Click to expand...
If they are considered a threat, yes.
 
Spare us the fake incredulity. You cannot erase Southron pride, heritage, or history.

I probably would have fought with the Iron Brigade had I been alive back then, but I will not disparage brave men whose only crime was defending their homeland.
 
Last edited:
Feanor2 said:
Gingrich shows a startling ignorance of the constitution and basic tenets of the Muslim faith.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, his reckless, emotionally charged rhetoric actually has an effect on some people who take it in. I’m sure he knows that, and relishes in it.
 
Last edited:
LastStand said:
Spare us the fake incredulity. You cannot erase Southron pride, heritage, or history.
Click to expand...
Eh, nothing fake about my incredulity. Southern pride and heritage… Spare me. As for history, no reputable historian uses the term “Northern War of Aggression.” With good reason.
 
That reason being that the victors decide what goes into the history books. They do not like to use that name because it reminds people that the average Confederate soldier was not fighting for slavery but to defend his homeland from another army.

That would make it so much harder to continuously make condescending remarks about the South as if they were some special kind of evil.
 
Last edited:
Yet the side for which he was fighting was fighting to maintain slavery. Feel all warm and fuzzy for them if you like. They were still on the wrong side of history. And morality.
 
Talk to me about being on the wrong side of morality when a foreign army burns your house down, loots your property and kills every man they see because they might help the enemy.

“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Abraham Lincoln)

Sounds like the other side was fighting for something else other than freeing all the slaves. Makes sense to me, otherwise why would slave-holding states have supported the Union?
 
War Between the States would be another proper name, but it certainly wasn’t a civil war.
 
Gingrich had other “quotes” from the same interview. At the risk of spreading his “quotes”, and going against my better judgement to ignore him, here is another song and dance from the same interview, enjoy:
“Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups - that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.”
Click to expand...
A felony for visiting a website. Good idea. :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
It wasn’t a foreign army. Look, it’s irresponsible to force this thread to drift any further. But should you ever start a thread on this subject (or read through the many threads that have included it over the years), you’ll read the point that the secession was invalid.

(Apologies to non-US members. I can’t imagine how boring this is for you.)
 
Ridgerunner said:
But that depends on whether the alternate explanations of Sharia are credible.
Click to expand...
I work for a large law firm with offices in the Middle East.

The only Sharia law stuff I ever see is when American (or British or European) companies do business in the Middle East and agree to do business in accordance with Islamic finance law, which prohibits usury, just as usury was forbidden by the Church in medieval Europe.

There are also American banks beginning to get into the business of Islamic finance-compliant loans to borrowers in the United States.

That’s really the only application of Sharia in the United States that I’m aware of, and it doesn’t really worry me.

It’s true that it does come up sometimes in divorce cases, where one or the other party may claim that a marriage contracted under Islamic law in another (Muslim) country is not valid in the United States, usually to avoid a US decree of divorce and the resulting alimony payments or property division, or a couple getting divorced under civil law may also include in the settlement a requirement that both parties consent to an Islamic divorce (much as a Jewish couple might write into their divorce settlement a requirement that both parties cooperate in obtaining a get). But US (state, actually) law always governs in these cases.

None of this worries me.
 
Do the descendants of the winning side in your Civil War treat the losing side and their descendants like pariahs 150 years after the fact?
 
I only know a little bit about the Irish Civil War, the main disagreement being over whether to boot the British entirely off the island or let them stay in the northern part of the island right?
 
Not to diminish the severity of it, but surely reconciliation on a national scale was helped by the fact that both sides could honestly claim that they fought to do what they believed was best for Ireland? Though I imagine that the wounds between families who fought on opposite sides run deep still, especially with people alive now who witnessed the war firsthand.

By comparison, our war had no such salve. The South, right or wrong, wanted out entirely, not just to change the government. Relationships between the sides were better in the past though, especially shortly before your Civil War started. In 1913, tens of thousands of Confederate and Union veterans met to commemorate one of the key battles. Later on, Confederate veterans were treated the same as Union veterans by Congress.

Nowadays, such courtesies would not be given to “evil, slaveholding racists”. Instead, people of a certain political persuasion use the memory of the war as a bludgeon to push for policies that they want. I remember one columnist who argued that gun owners should pay extra taxes and that those extra taxes should be higher if you happened to be white and live in a Southern state because of the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
LastStand said:
Not to diminish the severity of it, but surely reconciliation on a national scale was helped by the fact that both sides could honestly claim that they fought to do what they believed was best for Ireland? Though I imagine that the wounds between families who fought on opposite sides run deep still, especially with people alive now who witnessed the war firsthand.

By comparison, our war had no such salve. The South, right or wrong, wanted out entirely, not just to change the government. Relationships between the sides were better in the past though, especially shortly before your Civil War started. In 1913, tens of thousands of Confederate and Union veterans met to commemorate one of the key battles. Later on, Confederate veterans were treated the same as Union veterans by Congress.

Nowadays, such courtesies would not be given to “evil, slaveholding racists”. Instead, people of a certain political persuasion use the memory of the war as a bludgeon to push for policies that they want. I remember one columnist who argued that gun owners should pay extra taxes and that those extra taxes should be higher if you happened to be white and live in a Southern state because of the Civil War.
Click to expand...
For crying out loud…

Let it go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top