No Muslims Allowed

[oldcatholicguy]

My points are made. the continuity of my thinking is clear. And as I said pointing out the US Catholic extremism label we are all subjected to this. So we are talking a complete modernization 2014 with Islam and Catholicism in relation to “todays” constitution. And btw I never assumed what you said, I asked questions. Nor am I supporting the OP but I am thinking about the bigger conversation. Sometimes you have to allow an individual to speak to understand where they are coming from.

Assimilation- It doesn’t actually matter in regards to this discussion. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that enough time has gone by for the Muslim community in general to assimilate into our society, the fact remains that we are talking about a very small minority of Muslims in the US engaging in extremism. Assimilation would matter if say after several generations we see a large portion (and it could even just be a very large minority) of the general Muslim population engaging in extremism.

International Muslim extremism and terrorism- Doesn’t actually matter since the probability of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks in the US are extremely low. The vast majority of terrorist attacks that take place in the US are conducted by “homegrown” terrorists and don’t involve Muslim extremism. I’ll have to look for the article (I think it was a TIME article), but an American is 4 times more likely to be struck by lightening than to be a victim of a terrorist attack (this includes attacks that don’t cause fatalities or injuries).

Muslim extremism within the US- Yes, it’s a security concern, but since not all Muslims are Muslim extremists and since not all Muslim extremists engage in violence it’s really not grounds to label all Muslims within the US or in the world as a safety concern. If we wish to use a person’s faith as criteria for determining if a person is a safety concern or not in regards to US domestic security, we’d have to conclude that Christians, not Muslims are a security risk (this based on the history of terrorism as conducted in the US, the rise in the number of self-identifying Christian hate groups and organizations that view violence as justified by the faith, the % of the population of Christian extremists versus Muslim extremists, etc).

-Islamic extremism due to the teachings of Islam- I’ve responded to similar questions in other threads. Yes, Islamic extremism is an effect or product of Islam. It is so because of the errors within Islamic teachings and the lack of a central authority within Islam. This is similar to Protestantism (which, if you review self-identifying Christian hate groups and similar self-identifying groups you’ll find is the version of the Christian faith under which these groups would fall; and to my Protestant brothers) but only amplified because Islam’s teachings are more in error and further from the truth than Protestant teachings.

-“No Radical Muslims Allowed”- If put up as an exercise of free speech- I see no legal or moral objection to it. If acted upon- well that depends on what services your business provides and if the denial of said service is just discrimination.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I will go with the words of Netanyahu, sometimes the comparison is valid. Also, there is that picture of Hitler talking to a Muslim leader that is easy to find. There is a lot of information on this factual history. And I’ve also seen purportedly Muslim allies in Nazi type of gear. I think it’s spoken of that Hitler even spoke about the genocide against the Armenians. Did he get the idea from somewhere??

A Fez is a type of hat one saw in World War II Germany?

Welcome serbianna.com - BlueHost.com

Apparently the Doctor is a Muslim extremist.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Assimilation- It doesn’t actually matter in regards to this discussion. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that enough time has gone by for the Muslim community in general to assimilate into our society, the fact remains that we are talking about a very small minority of Muslims in the US engaging in extremism. Assimilation would matter if say after several generations we see a large portion (and it could even just be a very large minority) of the general Muslim population engaging in extremism.

International Muslim extremism and terrorism- Doesn’t actually matter since the probability of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks in the US are extremely low. The vast majority of terrorist attacks that take place in the US are conducted by “homegrown” terrorists and don’t involve Muslim extremism. I’ll have to look for the article (I think it was a TIME article), but an American is 4 times more likely to be struck by lightening than to be a victim of a terrorist attack (this includes attacks that don’t cause fatalities or injuries).

Muslim extremism within the US- Yes, it’s a security concern, but since not all Muslims are Muslim extremists and since not all Muslim extremists engage in violence it’s really not grounds to label all Muslims within the US or in the world as a safety concern. If we wish to use a person’s faith as criteria for determining if a person is a safety concern or not in regards to US domestic security, we’d have to conclude that Christians, not Muslims are a security risk (this based on the history of terrorism as conducted in the US, the rise in the number of self-identifying Christian hate groups and organizations that view violence as justified by the faith, the % of the population of Christian extremists versus Muslim extremists, etc).

-Islamic extremism due to the teachings of Islam- I’ve responded to similar questions in other threads. Yes, Islamic extremism is an effect or product of Islam. It is so because of the errors within Islamic teachings and the lack of a central authority within Islam. This is similar to Protestantism (which, if you review self-identifying Christian hate groups and similar self-identifying groups you’ll find is the version of the Christian faith under which these groups would fall; and to my Protestant brothers) but only amplified because Islam’s teachings are more in error and further from the truth than Protestant teachings.

-“No Radical Muslims Allowed”- If put up as an exercise of free speech- I see no legal or moral objection to it. If acted upon- well that depends on what services your business provides and if the denial of said service is just discrimination.

Yes it does and for the same reason I mentioned.

Hypocrisy never ends according to Teddy. Evangelical Christianity and mainstream Catholicism is listed with Al-Qaeda and Hamas as forms of religious extremism. We are on par because of medieval reasoning I would have to think. We all know the degrees of Catholicism as well as the degrees of Islam and the caliphate theory. Still what Teddy said is relevant in relation to all us good muslims and christians? Course, Teddy was talking sole loyalty which either we good muslims and christians must admit is a reality or according to Teddy we are not assimilating.

This is the real relativism. Replace Catholicism above in your post with anything Islamic.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Yes it does and for the same reason I mentioned.

This is the real relativism. Replace Catholicism above in your post with anything Islamic.

Relativism- the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Pray tell how my comment is an example of relativism?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Relativism- the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Pray tell how my comment is an example of relativism?

You missed the point I’m not talking about your example I’m talking about mine which is an accurate comparison thus being relative. We as Catholics place God and the Church and our ministers before the USA Constitution as with Islam. We would have to admit that for the conversation to proceed without hypocrisy. Thats what Teddy is saying.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You missed the point I’m not talking about your example I’m talking about mine which is an accurate comparison thus being relative. We as Catholics place God and the Church and our ministers before the USA Constitution as with Islam. We would have to admit that for the conversation to proceed without hypocrisy. Thats what Teddy is saying.

Teddy who? I’m working on zero sleep so my comprehension abilities this morning are extremely low.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Teddy who? I’m working on zero sleep so my comprehension abilities this morning are extremely low.

The President, Roosevelt who I quoted from the on-set to get to this point. I’m sure todays President would agree with his thinking today. We all came here to assimilate to an American way of life. God Bless America. Yes we have all had issues which we could account for all day and some for sure more extreme than others. But when we come here its not to change the American way of life to what we came from thats my understanding of sole loyalty he is talking about. And it seems to me this is where the issues reside.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The President, Roosevelt who I quoted from the on-set to get to this point. I’m sure todays President would agree with his thinking today. We all came here to assimilate to an American way of life. God Bless America. Yes we have all had issues which we could account for all day and some for sure more extreme than others. But when we come here its not to change the American way of life to what we came from thats my understanding of sole loyalty he is talking about. And it seems to me this is where the issues reside.

The history of immigration in America does not support your conclusion. The history of immigration in America shows that when people come here (and here I’m talking about ethnic groups/nationalities in general) and do their best to hold onto their ethnic/cultural identity and to change American culture to be more like their culture “in the old country.” Proof of this would be the continued existence of “insert ethnic/national/cultural group here” neighborhoods and areas, the radical changes in American cuisine over the years, the changes in American English, phrases, and concepts within our language, adoption of non-native (as in arising outside of) American events, celebrations, and customs into American culture, and the continued usage of “Hyphen-American,” etc.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The President, Roosevelt who I quoted from the on-set to get to this point. I’m sure todays President would agree with his thinking today. We all came here to assimilate to an American way of life. God Bless America. Yes we have all had issues which we could account for all day and some for sure more extreme than others. But when we come here its not to change the American way of life to what we came from thats my understanding of sole loyalty he is talking about. And it seems to me this is where the issues reside.

Not that it matters, but the first immigrants to come to America in 1620 did not come here to assimilate into the existing culture. They came to replace it entirely with their own, which they did very effectively.

 

[GaryTaylor]

do their best to hold onto their ethnic/cultural identity and to change American culture to be more like their culture “in the old country.”

Thats what Isis wants to do as a radical example or the extreme Catholicism mentioned? No good muslims and Catholics assimilate and are allowed their aspects of worship not contrary to the priority of the American way of life, which is why they come here to the land of the truly free. Thats why my family came here yours too right? If I became Christian radical or extreme and couldn’t assimilate I would suspect my behavior would be rejected by good muslims and christians who are Americans.

My conclusion is in agreement with the President, are you saying you disagree with his and mine? Which part of the Presidents quote I’m confused?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not that it matters, but the first immigrants to come to America in 1620 did not come here to assimilate into the existing culture. They came to replace it entirely with their own, which they did very effectively.

They came here running from the Pope and Kingdoms as I read, which is why Catholics were looked at in a skeptical view and Catholic presidents are limited in all honesty. It does matter though that extreme anything undermines the USA way of life we all uphold and thats regardless of whoever they are. Much has changed for Catholics as Kennedy was President and we will have an American muslim for President too. Probably after a female.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Thats what Isis wants to do as a radical example or the extreme Catholicism mentioned? No good muslims and Catholics assimilate and are allowed their aspects of worship not contrary to the priority of the American way of life, which is why they come here to the land of the truly free. Thats why my family came here yours too right? If I became Christian radical or extreme and couldn’t assimilate I would suspect my behavior would be rejected by good muslims and christians who are Americans.

My conclusion is in agreement with the President, are you saying you disagree with his and mine? Which part of the Presidents quote I’m confused?

Why are we even talking about people who refuse to assimilate into American culture? The people who are banned from Jan Morgan’s gun range are presumably fully assimilated American citizens, whose only crime is attending a Mosque instead of a synagogue or a church or nothing at all. (Supposedly she does not ban atheists or any other religion.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They came here running from the Pope and Kingdoms as I read, which is why Catholics were looked at in a skeptical view and Catholic presidents are limited in all honesty.

That’s right. Both Catholics and Muslims were greatly distrusted in the early days of this country.

 

[Path_Finder]

Fully assimilated Americans, presumption, Wrong.

One of those she met at the club couldn’t even speak English.

There only wrong is going to a Mosque, too bad there is no source for this reasoning.

Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/officially-declare-business-gun-cave-indoor-shooting-range-muslim-free-zone/

I can’t believe some people would defend a Theocracy that has stonings of women and killing of children and it has happened in the USA called honor killings.

 

[GaryTaylor]

presumably fully assimilated American citizens, whose only crime is attending a Mosque instead of a synagogue or a church or nothing at all.

Presumable all tax paying Catholic extremists are too who’s only crime can be substituted above. And we are here because my post needed to be elaborated on and here we are. So we exceeded the narrow minded limits and entered the great wide open of the American way of life. Anyway my point is made and you are welcome not to respond or be my guest. I fail to see the conflict?

 

[Hobbes42]

I am guessing Jan Morgan would probably kick any and all Armenian, Lebanese, and Iraqi Christians and Catholics off her range.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yea, from the start even muslims found this eye raising. You see how the Catholic first alliance then American becomes problematic in relation to Islam?

 

[Path_Finder]

She has put no sign in her window, just as likely of an interpretation is that she got into verbal confrontations with Muslims so this rule may be explicitly for them. It’s just as likely as any negative interpretation from anyone defending a theocracy with honor killings and stonings of women.

 

[J_Peterson]

I was wondering if she could tell the difference between and African American Christian and an African American Muslim.

 

[Path_Finder]

I was wondering if she could tell the difference between and African American Christian and an African American Muslim.

I was wondering if anyone defending a theocracy whose book calls 109 times for hate or violence against those who do not convert or submit to Islam know for a fact that this rule could be anything more than pertaining to those who she apparently had verbal arguments with. I think that is the right of a proprietor to say if people are being a nuisance, they are not welcome.

But this doesn’t fit in with the bigoted white person discourse.