No Muslims Allowed

[Path_Finder]

OCG:

At the same time, I think I read some posts in the ebola thread. Quarantining possibly flights. Why? One could say aren’t we discriminating against some people who would not be carrying the ebola virus? One could say that but obviously, this is about safety.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

OCG:

At the same time, I think I read some posts in the ebola thread. Quarantining possibly flights. Why? One could say aren’t we discriminating against some people who would not be carrying the ebola virus? One could say that but obviously, this is about safety.

But he replied, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.

 

[TEPO]

But he replied, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.

“1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”

…im assuming this is what youre getting at? Then why dont you agree with me that the discrimination against Jews and Christians in the Koran is also a form of religious discrimination. Or do you think the laws of God through His Holy Church do not apply to Muslims?

Because according to the article also:

III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY

1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood."

…the human and Christian brotherhood should include Muslims too. Social Charitt does not include discriminatory violence or taxing.

 

[Path_Finder]

But he replied, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me.

Moore Oklahoma, the Muslim tried to convert co-workers, argued for stoning of women as being proper, he ended up getting fired and came back and beheaded the woman and was trying to kill another.

Arkansas right next door, the lady knows the Koran well, got into debates about it, allegedly her life was threatened.

You can toss out all of your verses, a shooting range isn’t the same thing as a grocery store.

I’d say the ownership’s actions could even be interpreted as scoring a victory against an oppressive medieval governmental system that subjagates women and oppresses others.

Making wild judgments about intentions could have wild judgments made back.

If the store is discriminating, she can be sued.

 

[ringil]

I thought I heard the Holy Father condemn the acts of Terrorists.

Bu not Muslims and not Islam.

Reading this thread reminds me that there are 2 Americas. . . . .

One siding with this delightful and sophisticated lady in Arkansas and the more sane who reject discrimination.

 

[ringil]

I’d say the ownership’s actions could even be interpreted as scoring a victory against an oppressive medieval governmental system that subjagates women and oppresses others.

Making wild judgments about intentions could have wild judgments made back.

If the store is discriminating, she can be sued.

Her tactics are more akin to the US prior to the era of civil rights with the Blacks Only water fountains and businesses serving Whites Only.

And remember well that a few right here on CAF would defend a business right to refuse to serve Blacks or anyone else they deem undesirable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now i caught you red-handed with that “equality” talk ive been speaking about here. There is no good reason to compare Catholicism to Islamism. None at all.

Can we please stop drawing these imaginary links that make no sense? All religions are not equal, and the Catholic Church does not teach that. Thats radicalism.

The subject of this thread is policies that exclude Muslims from a business that is open to the public, in a society that has laws that attempt to treat all religions equally. That is a fact of American society from its founding. America is not a theocracy. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect that American law should treat Islam and Catholicism differently. Different acts can be treated differently, based on their objective moral nature, but merely belonging to a certain religion cannot be used as a basis in American law for discrimination. Yet that is just what you are calling for if you expect your rights to ride a public bus as a Catholic to be protected by law, and yet you expect civil rights of Muslims to go without that protection.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can toss out all of your verses, a shooting range isn’t the same thing as a grocery store.

That is correct. And if the lady with the shooting range wants to keep out those who might pose a threat to her establishment or her other customers or the society at large, she should certainly do that. But the** way** to do it is not to specify that Muslims are not allowed. What she could have done is set up rules about age limits, background checks, required gun safety classes - anything she wants - as long as it applied equally to all religions.

 

[ringil]

That is correct. And if the lady with the shooting range wants to keep out those who might pose a threat to her establishment or her other customers or the society at large, she should certainly do that. But the** way** to do it is not to specify that Muslims are not allowed. What she could have done is set up rules about age limits, background checks, required gun safety classes - anything she wants - as long as it applied equally to all religions.

But Muslims are scary and they look different than her and act different than her and her customers . . . . .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then why dont you agree with me that the discrimination against Jews and Christians in the Koran is also a form of religious discrimination.

The vast majority of Muslims in the US do not actually practice the discrimination you claim is called for in the Koran. I don’t know exactly how they reconcile that position with their profession of Islam, but they do. It is similar to how Christians do not go about plucking out their eyes when their eyes are an occasion for sin, as called for in the Gospel. That is because we realize that the admonition that it is better to pluck out your eyes than let them be an occasion for sin is not to be taken literally. So I imagine most mainstream American Muslims have come to terms with their interpretation of the Koran, and the practices that you cite from the Koran are not actually part of the practice of their faith. Note, I am speaking of American Muslims here. I realize that in other places around the world (I am looking at you, Saudi Arabia) there are more Muslims that do take those verses literally. But that faction does not represent even a tiny fraction of American Muslims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think it’s a bit more complex than to assert she is discriminating against a faith. Does the Roman Catholic Church say not to discriminate against religions like the Aztecs had that practiced human sacrifice?

It is the **act **of human sacrifice that is to be opposed. Not the identification of being an Aztec. They might be “Reformed Aztecs” who substitute chickens as the sacrifice. No reason to discriminate against them.

 

[grotto]

Freedom is fuel for the soul. Free will given to us by God is what runs on the fuel. Free will is the driver of choice. Slavery is the absence of freedom. It means you have no choice. It can only exist when your soul surrenders. What is important to survival? Does denying a couple of people to use your property by paying a monetary sum equate to forbidding them their freedom? The bottom line is: NO. Even when a sign reads “No _____ Allowed”, free will is not damaged. Free will leads one to pass on by and with some satisfaction know that the monetary sum will not be a plus.

If a service is offered, it is also offered by use of free will through freedom. The one who offers the service can choose to not serve.

How did Our Lord teach us to serve others? Do better at that and know you can refuse if your service would lend to evil and harm.

 

[Path_Finder]

Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range owner Jan Morgan said in an online post that she was banning Muslims **out of fear **that one of them might slaughter other customers.

“This is not a coffee and donut shop. This is a live fire indoor shooting range,” Morgan wrote in the bizarre missive, posted Sunday and reported by the Arkansas Times.

“The Koran (which I have read and studied thoroughly) … contains 109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam,” she said.

“Why would I want to rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me?”

On the site, Morgan identifies herself as a “nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate,” NRA certified firearms instructor, journalist, Tea Partier and gun-rights lecturer.

Her shooting range is in Hot Springs, about an hour south of Little Rock.

In the post, Morgan said Muslims have threatened her life and cited 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Fort Hood massacre and the recent beheading at a Oklahoma food distribution center as reasons why they cannot be trusted.

“This is more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate my position that muslims can and may follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.”

nydailynews.com/news/national/arkansas-gun-nut-declares-shooting-range-muslim-free-zone-article-1.1959308

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does denying a couple of people to use your property by paying a monetary sum equate to forbidding them their freedom? The bottom line is: NO. Even when a sign reads “No _____ Allowed”, free will is not damaged. Free will leads one to pass on by and with some satisfaction know that the monetary sum will not be a plus.

And if blacks are not allowed to sit in the front of the bus, their free will should lead them to pass on back to the back of the bus. Their free will was not damaged, right?

 

[Path_Finder]

But Muslims are scary and they look different than her and act different than her and her customers . . . . .

Oh, and how is this? I would encourage you to look past skin-color and realize as our declaration of independence says “all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’- Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Her tactics are more akin to the US prior to the era of civil rights with the Blacks Only water fountains and businesses serving Whites Only.

And remember well that a few right here on CAF would defend a business right to refuse to serve Blacks or anyone else they deem undesirable.

What you just stated here,Ringil,is inflammatory and intellectually dishonest.
Never,in all my time have I seen anyone state what you are implying.
Also,to equate SSA(pretty sure this is what you were implying)with the racial inequities of the pre Civil Rights Era is just plain shameful.

 

[ringil]

What you just stated here,Ringil,is inflammatory and intellectually dishonest.
Never,in all my time have I seen anyone state what you are implying.
Also,to equate SSA(pretty sure this is what you were implying)with the racial inequities of the pre Civil Rights Era is just plain shameful.

I wasn’t referring to ssa at all as that has nothing to do with the op. I don’t know what would make you think that

 

[GaryTaylor]

The subject of this thread is policies that exclude Muslims from a business that is open to the public, in a society that has laws that attempt to treat all religions equally. That is a fact of American society from its founding. America is not a theocracy. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect that American law should treat Islam and Catholicism differently. Different acts can be treated differently, based on their objective moral nature, but merely belonging to a certain religion cannot be used as a basis in American law for discrimination. Yet that is just what you are calling for if you expect your rights to ride a public bus as a Catholic to be protected by law, and yet you expect civil rights of Muslims to go without that protection.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” Roosevelt

We haven’t proved assimilation with Islam and because of its process of conversion by the sword and being social politically inclusive in its religious practice I’d say its in conflict today with above as its definitely a contrast concern to the American way of life by insistent agenda and violence. Its incompatible without separation of Church and state. We have already assimilated to this here. We have no issue here with violent Christians killing in Gods name contrary to Americas laws and constitution. Islam began flourishing here approx 50 years ago. How many years have we been back and forth with islamic terrorism 35? This has never occured with any assimilation process. Id say we have a major issue.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

“1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”

…im assuming this is what youre getting at? Then why dont you agree with me that the discrimination against Jews and Christians in the Koran is also a form of religious discrimination. Or do you think the laws of God through His Holy Church do not apply to Muslims?

Because according to the article also:

III. HUMAN SOLIDARITY

1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood."

…the human and Christian brotherhood should include Muslims too. Social Charitt does not include discriminatory violence or taxing.

I don’t agree with you that the discrimination against non-Muslims (the fact you limit said discrimination to just Jews and Christians either means you have no issue with the discrimination of non-Abrahamic faiths by Muslims due to the teachings in the Quran; or you lack even the basic understanding of what the Quran teaches) in the Quran is also a form of religious discrimination? Good question. Prior to answering that, I have one for you- you mind citing for me where I claimed or implied said discrimination isn’t unjust? I’m sure you aren’t trying to engage in dishonest behavior by throwing words into my mouth in order to discredit me and therefore my argument. I’m sure you will be able to cite for me where I’ve made such a claim in this thread or in other threads. I’ll even let you ignore my posts in other threads where I’ve been rather straight forward about the in-built unjust discrimination within Islam toward non-Muslims. So please, cite for me where I’ve made such a claim, or retract your statement.

That being said, could you share with me where the Church teaches that what other faiths do or teach is justification for immoral behavior on the part of Catholics and/or justification for Catholics to ignore Church teachings?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What you just stated here,Ringil,is inflammatory and intellectually dishonest.
Never,in all my time have I seen anyone state what you are implying.
Also,to equate SSA(pretty sure this is what you were implying)with the racial inequities of the pre Civil Rights Era is just plain shameful.

You haven’t seen anyone on here who would " defend a business right to refuse to serve Blacks or anyone else they deem undesirable"? Really? Have you read the comments in this thread alone of people supporting this woman banning all Muslims from her business? Or do Muslims not count as people?