No Muslims Allowed

[Path_Finder]

Speaking of Africans, blacks, I have heard some say that slavery exists and slaves are even sold in the shadows of Mecca, sometimes blacks. Sudanese Christians were sold into slavery.

Sure, just websearch “racism” in these instances and see what you find. But this doesn’t fit the narrative of trying to associate racism exclusively with white people.

And obviously, IS has been reported as being involved in slavery.

Nothing to see here folks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You missed my point. I was not referring to the Muslims that Jan Morgan met. I was referring to the Muslims that she has never met, and who are fully assimilated into American society, speak excellent English, and are otherwise indistinguishable from any other American citizen, but who still fall under the ban she declared. I also said that she is fully within her rights to refuse entry to any specific Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who give her cause for concern because of their behavior, by the discretion mentioned earlier.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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

Well, you can go right on wondering because no one here is defending that.

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.

If her rule is to exclude those who are being a nuisance, or people who have argued with her in the past, then that is what the rule should be. I would have no argument with it. But when the rule bans even people who are not a nuisance, who have never argued with her, who are regular American citizens whose great great grandparents were American citizens, it is illegal (and impractical) to try to ban them too.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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.

Yep, no sign in her window, just an article on her website by her titled “Why I want my range to be a Muslim free zone” with a poorly written article filled with her rather ignorant understanding of US law (which is rather shocking given she’s viewed as a 2nd Amendment Rights activist), Islam, and what she is allowed to do. Yep, It’s clear that she is just referring to Muslim extremists. I mean it’s not like she makes a statement like- “I do not care about their religious beliefs until or unless those beliefs command them to commit violent crimes against innocent people and I witness those crimes increasing, as we all have lately.” which in itself shows how poorly she thought out her actions given that she claimed earlier in the article that Islam wasn’t a religion (“I view Islam as a theocracy, not a religion.”)

Do we even need to go into her complete butchery of the term “theocracy”? It is, after all rather hard to have a theocracy without a religion involved somewhere.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You missed my point. I was not referring to the Muslims that Jan Morgan met. I was referring to the Muslims that she has never met, and who are fully assimilated into American society, speak excellent English, and are otherwise indistinguishable from any other American citizen, but who still fall under the ban she declared. I also said that she is fully within her rights to refuse entry to any specific Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who give her cause for concern because of their behavior, by the discretion mentioned earlier.

A person’s civil rights (the US legal system) and the justness/unjustness of discrimination (the moral aspect) are not based on how well or poorly they are assimilated into society. They are inherent. In fact, citizenship is not even required for someone to have their civil rights protected under US law.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Speaking of Africans, blacks, I have heard some say that slavery exists and slaves are even sold in the shadows of Mecca, sometimes blacks. Sudanese Christians were sold into slavery.

Sure, just websearch “racism” in these instances and see what you find. But this doesn’t fit the narrative of trying to associate racism exclusively with white people.

And obviously, IS has been reported as being involved in slavery.

Nothing to see here folks.

I also heard that there are some Muslims, and please prepare yourself for this, who don’t like ice cream. Shocking right? Well we don’t hear about it because it wouldn’t be politically correct to mention and you know how those liberals can be. All sorts of coverage about lactose intolerant Christians not eating ice cream, but not one mention of Muslims who don’t like it. Thank goodness we have a woman like the range owner who will not allow Muslims to use her range because some Muslims don’t like ice cream.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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?

I looked up the President’s quote so I could see it in context. Mr. Roosevelt’s reference to sole loyalty" was that of a particular strain of nationalism which placed one’s allegiance to one’s nation above all else. Last I checked, such nationalism is condemned by Church teachings.

We can also discuss the implied valuation of all things “American” above anything “non-American” within this particular quote and all writings of his on this subject. In other words, “if it’s not American, no thanks.” Not only, it’s rather artificial given that his version of American culture was drastically different then the American culture of the Revolution.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Go to her Facebook page and you’ll see pretty quickly she’s an attention getter with an agenda. She’s lapping up all the attention, more business for her “Gun Cave”.

 

[Path_Finder]

On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told CNN more than 100 Americans have pledged themselves to the group that declared itself a Caliphate in June after conquering Iraq’s second-largest city. Hagel added, “There may be more, we don’t know.” On Thursday, a Pentagon spokesman walked back Hagel’s remarks, saying the United States believes there are “maybe a dozen” Americans who have joined ISIS.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/05/how-many-americans-in-isis-no-one-knows.html

Ah, yes, but they must NOT have gone to a Mosque ever in the USA.

We may even see this in some of the English language videos that have come out.

Glad the experts set us straight.

Glad fundamental facts to the story have to be charted out!

By the way, I think now there is a story of some Americans fighting alongside the Kurds as well. This is probably a positive.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I looked up the President’s quote so I could see it in context. Mr. Roosevelt’s reference to sole loyalty" was that of a particular strain of nationalism which placed one’s allegiance to one’s nation above all else. Last I checked, such nationalism is condemned by Church teachings.

And its considered extremism be its Catholic or Islamic, which brings us to the point of American nationalism and who is assimilating to it. Point is there is a double standard in this conversation of relativism

We can also discuss the implied valuation of all things “American” above anything “non-American” within this particular quote and all writings of his on this subject. In other words, “if it’s not American, no thanks.” Not only, it’s rather artificial given that his version of American culture was drastically different then the American culture of the Revolution.

So its America from the the time of the strident KKK and others areas discussed so why revert to relativism if by your own words we are talking present day or the past 50 years as I mentioned which leads us to both Catholic extremism and Islamic in our government today. .

Its all well and fine placing the Church teaching in front of American nationalism but then you should expect others like islams extremism to do the same. And that wouldn’t be according to the American way of life the good christians or muslims are assimilating. And that is what the President spoke on with immigration of other nations and their idealology.

The point is indeed valid and I see no one wants to address their own narrow mindedness. Easier to deny it I suppose. If the two are not conducive to an American way of life then its a failure to assimilate from one to the other and coincide the two or synthesis the two.

Like I said I read it too we could always go over it sentence by sentence if you believe there is a misunderstanding, to reconcile any misunderstanding you may believe exists.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I’m sure there’s a belfry there somewhere.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

And its considered extremism be its Catholic or Islamic, which brings us to the point of American nationalism and who is assimilating to it. Point is there is a double standard in this conversation of relativism

So its America from the the time of the strident KKK and others areas discussed so why revert to relativism if by your own words we are talking present day or the past 50 years as I mentioned which leads us to both Catholic extremism and Islamic in our government today. .

Its all well and fine placing the Church teaching in front of American nationalism but then you should expect others like islams extremism to do the same. And that wouldn’t be according to the American way of life the good christians or muslims are assimilating. And that is what the President spoke on with immigration of other nations and their idealology.

The point is indeed valid and I see no one wants to address their own narrow mindedness. Easier to deny it I suppose. If the two are not conducive to an American way of life then its a failure to assimilate from one to the other and coincide the two or synthesis the two.

Like I said I read it too we could always go over it sentence by sentence if you believe there is a misunderstanding, to reconcile any misunderstanding you may believe exists.

You keep referring to extremism and relativism in regards to your usage of Mr. Roosevelt’s quote. Please explain to me what exactly you are talking about. As far as I can tell you are taking Mr. Roosevelt’s quote out of context (he was not referring to extremism, but the need to make every immigrant adhere to the American culture of his day or get out) and charging me with relativism. Since our conversation has gone on for several hours and there has been confusion in the past, please clearly state to me what exactly you are trying to claim.

 

[Path_Finder]

You missed my point. I was not referring to the Muslims that Jan Morgan met. I was referring to the Muslims that she has never met, and who are fully assimilated into American society, speak excellent English, and are otherwise indistinguishable from any other American citizen, but who still fall under the ban she declared. I also said that she is fully within her rights to refuse entry to any specific Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, who give her cause for concern because of their behavior, by the discretion mentioned earlier.

In July, Olsen told the Aspen Institute that the U.S. intelligence community estimated there were just over 100 American citizens who had gone to fight in Syria with extremist groups. “And of course, now we’re talking numbers that are very rough and may well be conservative,” he said. “Because these are some degree of identification we’ve made of these individuals so the number is actually likely to be higher than that.”

thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/05/how-many-americans-in-isis-no-one-knows.html

There goes the never went to a US Mosque line.

The Secretary of State, Hagel says similar as well, if this source is not good enough.

 

[Path_Finder]

I’m sure there’s a belfry there somewhere.

Wow, if one said that same kind of thing about a person of color.

 

[Path_Finder]

Well, an English speaker is in another ISIS beheading video, can you imagine those English speakers ever went to a Mosque in the USA or UK??

And Secretary of State Hagel has said over 100 Americans have gone to fight for ISIS and in fact, some have possibly joined Al Nusra too. Can you imagine those English speakers ever went to a Mosque in the USA or UK?

Looks like Morgan has been vindicated, she might be pushing an agenda. I think in the end, a great number of us are.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

]In July, Olsen told the Aspen Institute that the U.S. intelligence community estimated there were just over 100 American citizens who had gone to fight in Syria with extremist groups. “And of course, now we’re talking numbers that are very rough and may well be conservative,” he said. “Because these are some degree of identification we’ve made of these individuals so the number is actually likely to be higher than that.”

There goes the never went to a US Mosque line.

The Secretary of State, Hagel says similar as well, if this source is not good enough.

Yes, too bad the poster you were replying to didn’t use the “never went to a US Mosque line.” In fact, your above does nothing to address anything in the post you quoted. Also, and I’m asking because you keep talking about or linking articles on Islamic extremism outside the US, do you think a person just being Muslim is grounds to be concerned about what they do?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You know, I think you might be right after all. I read Jan Morgan’s blog more carefully, and there is no indication that she has taken any steps to ban all Muslims. All she has done is write her desires in her blog. I may disagree with her reasoning and the way she seems to lump all Muslims together, but it does not appear that she has done, or even tried to do, anything illegal yet. So maybe this whole story is just an overblown reaction to one woman’s blog, and the comments I made about illegal discrimination are at this point only hypothetical and don’t actually apply to the current news story.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Well, an English speaker is in another ISIS beheading video, can you imagine those English speakers ever went to a Mosque in the USA or UK??

And Secretary of State Hagel has said over 100 Americans have gone to fight for ISIS and in fact, some have possibly joined Al Nusra too. Can you imagine those English speakers ever went to a Mosque in the USA or UK?

Looks like Morgan has been vindicated, she might be pushing an agenda. I think in the end, a great number of us are.

Given that Morgan banned all Muslims from her range she could only be vindicated if one believed all Muslims were involved in terrorism. Do you believe all Muslims are involved in terrorism?

 

[GaryTaylor]

You keep referring to extremism and relativism in regards to your usage of Mr. Roosevelt’s quote. Please explain to me what exactly you are talking about. As far as I can tell you are taking Mr. Roosevelt’s quote out of context (he was not referring to extremism, but the need to make every immigrant adhere to the American culture of his day or get out) and charging me with relativism. Since our conversation has gone on for several hours and there has been confusion in the past, please clearly state to me what exactly you are trying to claim.

I already did and don’t plan on repeating myself a fifth time. If you can’t comprehend what I am talking about then how would you suggest I misunderstood anything or have anything out of context.?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I already did and don’t plan on repeating myself a fifth time. If you can’t comprehend what I am talking about then how would you suggest I misunderstood anything or have anything out of context.?

I don’t comprehend what you are talking about because you keep changing what you are talking about, then claim the conversation is going circler when called on this. This is not the first time you have done this. And, if you’ve already explained yourself 5 times as you claim, one more time should not be an issue.

But here, let me try this- Why exactly are you quoting a clearly racist President talking about the need for all immigrants to fully assimilate into his version of what is truly American in a discussion about a woman in Arkansas violating the civil rights of American citizens who happen to be Muslim by denying them access to her open to the public place of business based solely on their faith.

My conclusion based on your usage of Mr. Roosevelt’s quote is that you view being Muslim as somehow “un-American” and that failure of Muslims to stop being Muslim is somehow a failure of them assimilating and cause to label them as dangerous.