Religion of peace strikes again

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

WDMSO has nailed it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He must have missed the nail and hit you upside your head.

[Sea Dangles]

The wheels on the bus go round and round
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

When I breezed by this on my way to the classifieds, i thought this thread was about Charlottesville. Silly me

[detbuch]

Interesting conversation from another ex-Muslim with Molyneux. Stefan is not as annoying as he usually is and it's a worthwhile talk. It is not at all inflammatory as the cover picture suggests, and covers a lot more than No Go Zones:

[detbuch]

Islam is not a nationality or ethnicity. And it is not merely a religion. As well as being a religion, it is a political ideology. It is an ideology as expansionist as Communism. It is more authoritarian than Communism and can be as cruel as Nazism, with the exception that you are allowed to convert or suffer economic slavery or death. So-called "moderate" Muslims know how unaccepting of others it becomes when it is the law of the land, when it comprises the majority population. So, in countries where they are minorities, especially in the U.S., some are attempting to convince their leaders to reform. At this point that is more of a wish than an accomplishment. They do succeed in quietly establishing a sort of tacit moderate practice of the tenets of their ideology, and are friendly, wonderful, normal people. The problem is when they become a majority, their religious leaders impose the true, unreformed nature of Islam. And the larger Muslim conclaves being established in Europe do, as the video above points out, become no-go zones, even for police, so assimilation is totally and intentionally avoided, and a more fundamentalist Islam is practiced.

So Muslim immigration is not equivalent to various ethnic, non-Islamic, immigration. When you have an influx of a large number of Muslims all at once, it not only makes assimilation difficult over the shorter term, it is more akin to inviting an ideology that is inimical to Western values and to U.S. legal norms. The comparison would be more like inviting potential Communists or Nazis, rather than Buddhists, or Daoists, or Jews, or Christians, or atheists.

I wish the video above didn't have that ridiculous cover picture. It really is an interesting rational discussion. It is not dogmatic or extreme. It should be watched as an aid to understanding a little bit more than most folks are informed about.

[Sea Dangles]

I am not too sure there is a ban, have you heard about the vetting process?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy asked a great question about assimilation. Another reason why this is often associated with Muslims, and not a big deal with the Amish 9who aren't overly assimilated into modern western culture), is that the Amish aren't a threat to become a significant enough portion of our population to tilt our national identity in their direction.

If you look at European nations which have allowed a lot of Muslim immigration...Muslims are becoming a significant percentage of the overall population. Muslims have large families, and white Europeans do not. It only takes a few generational cycles, before you see a noticeable shift in national demographics. The Europeans didn't consider this. Many of them are regretting that they didn't factor that into their immigration policy.

I'm not worried that much of our country is going to look like Lancaster, PA where the Amish live. It scares the hell out of me, that we would take even a tiny step, in looking more like the Middle East. That's what is happening in Europe (to some degree), and they are scared sh*tless.

[zimmy]

That was well written Jim. I have faith in our constitution and our system (unwavering faith until the past 9 months). We would never have systems of government like those in middle east. As far as the cultural aspects, there are lots of them in all kinds of cultures that I disagree with, but I am pretty sure we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That was well written Jim. I have faith in our constitution and our system (unwavering faith until the past 9 months). We would never have systems of government like those in middle east. As far as the cultural aspects, there are lots of them in all kinds of cultures that I disagree with, but I am pretty sure we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture.

In case you missed it a few posts before this, let me repeat:

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

You say "we should not make immigration decisions based on religion or culture." How about on the basis of political ideology?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Right, but why don't we ban "Christian" white guys because of Dylann Roof or Jeremy Christian or James Jackson or Robert Lewis Dear or Eric Frein or Frazier Miller etc.

Christian dogma based on its new testament Bible is not a threat to those who do not wish to be Christian. Christianity is not a political system. Christ specifically said to render unto Caesar (the government) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Islamic dogma based on the Koran, which does not yet have a new testament, is absolutely inimical to Western culture in general, and specifically so to our constitutional system of government. Islam is not just a religion. It is a political system. There is no separation of power in Islam between mosque and state. There is no separate renderings to government and God. God and government are one and the same.

Those who are nominally Christian, but commit statutory murder, are apostates, not really Christian. Those who are nominally Muslim, and in the name of Allah kill those who are not Muslim and are part of anything that is contrary to Islam, are not, at this time, apostates. There has not yet been an official reformation of Islam which says to render unto Allah that which is Allah's and to the government that which is the government's. That would be a tautology. Allah is still, in Islam, the government.

If you believe that it is a good thing, a strengthening of diversity in our country, to invite immigrants here who have a political allegiance to an ideology that is contrary to our system of government and our Western values, then I would assume that you would be OK in importing Communists or Nazis or political fascists or any other anti-liberty authoritarians--for diversity.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Limiting the Second amendment endangers the lives of the entire nation by incrementally unlimiting government."

So if the government wants to ban bump stocks,

What do you mean by "the" government.

. . . it's reasonable to assume the next step, is they will, what? Kill me and take my IRA? That's tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

From what those in the "federal" government have been doing and further trying to do for around a century, it's reasonable to assume there will be a next step. You're absurd examples of what that might be are weak, not at all persuasive in assuming there won't be a next step. Using illogic to feign logic not only lacks persuasion, it implies that the reasoning is illogical--it sounds like tin foil counter argument.

Again, the founding fathers made it clear through their actions, that the Bill Of Rights isn't absolute.

They did not. The Bill of Rights, as well as all the other inherent rights, are absolute within the Constitution's scale and meaning. Outside of that, the Constitution has no absolution, but has various influences and implications.

You're a mathematician. Does 2+2 always equal 4? No, not in nominal, ordinal, or interval scales. But in ratio scales 2+2 always equals 4.

The Founder's actions, if "interpreted" within the political scale in which they wrote the Constitution, do make those rights absolute. That has been explained several times in previous posts in other threads. You either don't understand the explanations, or just don't accept them. You counter them, not with legal arguments, but with emotional ones and irrelevant or absurd analogies.

"you don't actually believe in the purpose for which the Amendment was written. In which case, the most logical proposition would be not to tweak the Amendment, but to abolish it."

OK, so unless one thinks bump stocks should be allowed, one has zero regard for the US Constutution. Not everything ends up at one radical extreme or the other. Again, I can go on TV and call the President horrible names, the First Amendment gives me that right. But I can't threaten him or anyone else. The freedoms are not an "all or nothing" scenario, and I cannot fathom you would state that they are.

The Constitution is not radically "extreme." It was rationally hammered out as the best way to insure equal rights and freedoms before the law. Implying that individuals are prone to error or lawlessness must therefor mean that laws have limits leaves us, and would have left the Founders, with either creating anarchic government or a system of government for which there is no end to exceptions.

Exceptions for human transgression against law in cases of extreme urgency can always, without creating laws for every possible exception, be implied. It would be absolutely reasonable to understand the existence of such a right. No law need be written to express that idea. That would be inherent in human nature. Probably part of those vast residuum of rights left to the people which are outside of the government's enumerated constitutional powers. But the threads of human nature are too vast to be defined.

Government, on the other hand, and its laws, must necessarily be defined. Loose definitions cannot suffice for law. For there to be compliance, there must be definite parameters to law, extreme exceptions to compliance notwithstanding.

So defined government has little to no room to legislate outside of the scale to which it is constitutionally bound. If there is no constitution, no scale, there is no boundary and government can do as it wishes.

It could be understood that there may arise a very extreme circumstance that a constitutionally limited government would have to act outside of the scope granted to it, usually involving some sort of an existential threat to the nation. That is why a strong executive was created by the Constitution, but such a circumstance would have to be of the utmost danger. The mass shootings, common murders, etc., are not at that level of threat to the nation. It is far more of a threat to the people of this nation if their right of defense against tyranny was limited because of criminal disturbances in various states.

As for freedoms not being an all or nothing scenario as you put it, they must be discussed in terms of the Founders understanding of freedom. That has also been described several times in various threads. In what way is the Founders view of freedom not absolute?