No Muslims Allowed

[oldcatholicguy]

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.

The title of her article, the last part of her article, the part in her article where she tries to justify her actions by claiming Islam isn’t actually a religion and therefore Muslims are not protected from religious discrimination, her comments about being prepared for lawsuits, her comments on her twitter and facebook accounts about being proud she is receive support for her decision does not indicate to you an intent to act?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Then you should quote the point you don’t understand and we can discuss them, but at some point I need to move on since the point has been made. Perhaps its a matter of thinking about it and digesting what is said.

But here, let me try this- Why exactly are you quoting a clearly racist President

Show me the racism in the quote which invalidates any point. Thats a thrown bone I don’t plan on chasing. Thats what has been going on in this thread with relativism and further by your own words we should be talking today if you want to see your quote its here…

it’s rather artificial given that his version of American culture was drastically different then the American culture of the Revolution.

Then we are talking the last 50 years which I suggested and the quote is still valid. So why talk of revolution and American Indians and slavery? We could just talk extremism today as I suggested. And by your quote you agree.

And his quote applies to today otherwise the burden is yours to show why it doesn’t from its context quoted. Which I invited you to do several times to exactly point out the issue.

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.

And his quote applies to today otherwise the burden is yours to show why it doesn’t from it context quoted.

And she is extreme and is what I am talking about, reacting to extremism by extreme measures. Doesn’t change the avoided conversation.

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

And my conclusion is…

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]

Then you should quote the point you don’t understand and we can discuss them, but at some point I need to move on since the point has been made. Perhaps its a matter of thinking about it and digesting what is said.

Show me the racism in the quote which invalidates any point. Thats a thrown bone I don’t plan on chasing. Thats what has been going on in this thread with relativism and further by your own words we should be talking today if you want to see your quote its here…

Then we are talking the last 50 years which I suggested and the quote is still valid. So why talk of revolution and American Indians and slavery? We could just talk extremism today as I suggested. And by your quote you agree.

And his quote applies to today otherwise the burden is yours to show why it doesn’t from its context quoted. Which I invited you to do several times to exactly point out the issue.

And his quote applies to today otherwise the burden is yours to show why it doesn’t from it context quoted.

And she is extreme and is what I am talking about, reacting to extremism by extreme measures. Doesn’t change the avoided conversation.

And my conclusion is…

Yes, obscurification and misdirection. It’s a shame. This conversation started off so well to. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to wait for our next conversation on another topic and hope it too doesn’t somehow mysteriously go all circular.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, obscurification and misdirection. It’s a shame. This conversation started off so well to. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to wait for our next conversation on another topic and hope it too doesn’t somehow mysteriously go all circular.

Have no idea what your talking about. If you don’t understand what I’m saying why be so bold to comment like you do repetitively? Thats what is circular and the same point also I have addressed and invited you to get to the specific point instead untrue generalizations. Anyway I timed out for the day and have to leave. Its not a personal conversation or critique of you.

 

[TEPO]

Yes, obscurification and misdirection. It’s a shame. This conversation started off so well to. Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to wait for our next conversation on another topic and hope it too doesn’t somehow mysteriously go all circular.

The problem i’ve noticed with your posting style is that you seem to turn every discussion into a personal argument -rather than sticking to the ideas and refuting with logic, you seem to take offense by attempting to assume peoples motives. But hey, if its only about winning, then i guess any kind of logic can be ignored without thinking twice.

I hope you arent offended my my analysis, but thats just me trying to help. Besides, the forums are meant for content mostly. Not for discussing posters.

 

[Path_Finder]

Gun Cave, it’s actually a common name for gun shops apparently,

Oregon, Illinois. That seems to be enough examples.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The title of her article, the last part of her article, the part in her article where she tries to justify her actions by claiming Islam isn’t actually a religion and therefore Muslims are not protected from religious discrimination, her comments about being prepared for lawsuits, her comments on her twitter and facebook accounts about being proud she is receive support for her decision does not indicate to you an intent to act?

Indicating an intent to act and acting are two different things, especially with this woman who is totally absorbed in making an impression. Of course I disagree with most of what she says, but the fact that she is saying it should not have been given this much coverage.

 

[Hobbes42]

“Therefore, the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion. Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the sacred Council earnestly begs the Christian faithful to ‘conduct themselves well among the Gentiles’ (1P 2:12) and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace with all men (cf. Rm 12:18), and in that way to be true sons of the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 5:45).”

 

[ishii]

“Therefore, the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion. Accordingly, following the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, the sacred Council earnestly begs the Christian faithful to ‘conduct themselves well among the Gentiles’ (1P 2:12) and if possible, as far as depends on them, to be at peace with all men (cf. Rm 12:18), and in that way to be true sons of the Father who is in heaven (cf. Mt 5:45).”

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Mt 7:15

Ferocious wolves.

My initial comments were more or less supportive. I don’t know - it never ceases to amaze me how liberals are willing to defend liberalism - even if it means compromising safety: the TSA folks will search an 80 year old nun, but not a man from the Mideast - that would be “profiling” and liberals can’t allow that! Now we have a woman who is basically saying, “I don’t care, most terrorists are muslims so no more muslims can enter my business.” And liberals are horrified! Discrimination! It amazes me that a muslim will commit a terrorist act, and the first thing liberals say is: “but let’s not profile.” That is their biggest concern - not safety or security. I honestly don’t know if this business owner is doing the right thing. But, if that is what she wants to do, who am I to judge? If I don’t approve, then I won’t patronize her business.

Ishii

Ishii

 

[TEPO]

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” Mt 7:15

Ferocious wolves.

My initial comments were more or less supportive. I don’t know - it never ceases to amaze me how liberals are willing to defend liberalism - even if it means compromising safety: the TSA folks will search an 80 year old nun, but not a man from the Mideast - that would be “profiling” and liberals can’t allow that! Now we have a woman who is basically saying, “I don’t care, most terrorists are muslims so no more muslims can enter my business.” And liberals are horrified! Discrimination! It amazes me that a muslim will commit a terrorist act, and the first thing liberals say is: “but let’s not profile.” That is their biggest concern - not safety or security. I honestly don’t know if this business owner is doing the right thing. But, if that is what she wants to do, who am I to judge? If I don’t approve, then I won’t patronize her business.

Ishii

Ishii

Liberal Catholics can’t accept not patronizing her business. They much rather go into personal attacks against her by picking at her character, implying she’s ignorant, building straw mans against her by assuming she’s racist, etc.

But hey, that’s the Catholic way I guess. We beat discrimination through stigmatizing people’s personal character. That’s how they believe Jesus would do it. Bravo, bravo…

 

[ringil]

Liberal Catholics can’t accept not patronizing her business. They much rather go into personal attacks against her by picking at her character, implying she’s ignorant, building straw mans against her by assuming she’s racist, etc.

But hey, that’s the Catholic way I guess. We beat discrimination through stigmatizing people’s personal character. That’s how they believe Jesus would do it. Bravo, bravo…

Those who would discriminate based on ignorance and xenophobia show their character to be suspect.

I certainly, and explicitly, will state that I don’t care for this woman’s character or that of anyone who would practice discrimination.

 

[TEPO]

Those who would discriminate based on ignorance and xenophobia show their character to be suspect.

I certainly, and explicitly, will state that I don’t care for this woman’s charter or that of anyone who would practice discrimination.

Sorry, I erased the post because this thread has been stressing me out a lot. Too much sarcasm and character mockings for me. But thank you for not mocking my soul -you gave an honest response and I respect that.

 

[TEPO]

I meant “not mocking” -I edited that already.

 

[ringil]

Sorry, I erased the post because this thread has been stressing me out a lot. Too much sarcasm and character mockings for me. But thank you for not mocking my soul -you gave an honest response and I respect that.

Questioning anyone’s soul is not something you will ever read coming from me. I have my own soul to consider.

 

[TEPO]

I guess I just can’t say that all Muslims believe in the Koran -that’s the morality of what I’ve learned today. I just have to assume that they just don’t believe what their religion teaches unless proven otherwise. Because not all Catholics believe in Catholicism. We have to think on a secular level for true understanding.

 

[TEPO]

Questioning anyone’s soul is not something you will ever read coming from me. I have my own soul to consider.

I think you’re a good person ringil. In real life, I think we would be friends.

…I just get confused sometimes.

 

[ringil]

I think you’re a good person ringil. In real life, I think we would be friends.

…I just get confused sometimes.

THe internet often makes nice people into. . . . less nice.

I use different forums for different purposes. I am on a forum related to my hobby which never, ever gets heated. It’s a nice change from CAF.

 

[Path_Finder]

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.[1][2][3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Setting out punishments carried out by the state such as with Sharia law. A good debate could be had on whether one is following a religion or a Theocracy.

If someone steals and the State feels the divine dictates are to cut their hands off, that’s not a religion doing that.

This probably has to do too with some of those laws about rape where in some countries with Sharia law, a woman actually needs witnesses to the rape and so on. Every so often, a story comes through that a woman who was raped, is faulted and stoned or something.

Sounds like our constitutional rights protect us from discrimination against race, creed, religion (not theocracy), age, disability, gender, etc.

 

[Path_Finder]

Those who would discriminate based on ignorance and xenophobia show their character to be suspect.

Those who discriminate because people follow the dictates of a theocracy to behead, muder and hate as their Koran commands to do 109 times are no different than those who discriminate to not serve a person under the influence a drink.

She is not xenophobic and when you accuse others of ignorance, we can all look into the mirror buddy.

I certainly, and explicitly, will state that I don’t care for this woman’s character or that of anyone who would practice discrimination.

Those who discriminate because people follow the dictates of a theocracy to behead, muder and hate as their Koran commands to do 109 times are no different than those who discriminate to not serve a person under the influence a drink.

So according to you, bartenders should serve anyone a drink who asks for it.

According to you, listening to Mozart, the Beatles or Justin Bieber is no different, if I choose to listen to the Beatles over the other two, I am discriminating.

 

[TEPO]

Setting out punishments carried out by the state such as with Sharia law. A good debate could be had on whether one is following a religion or a Theocracy.

If someone steals and the State feels the divine dictates are to cut their hands off, that’s not a religion doing that.

This probably has to do too with some of those laws about rape where in some countries with Sharia law, a woman actually needs witnesses to the rape and so on. Every so often, a story comes through that a woman who was raped, is faulted and stoned or something.

Sounds like our constitutional rights protect us from discrimination against race, creed, religion (not theocracy), age, disability, gender, etc.

That’s true. Our Constitution would allow punishments to be based on theocratic principles if the majority were of a certain religion. And any religion is free to become the majority.