They are!

Never stop thinking for yourself.

This world will continue to be hell if we encourage selfishness instead of selflessness

Thank you. I completely agree. It's insane. Liberals' support of Islam is a slap in the face to LGBT rights and women's rights.

Liberals support Muslims, real life humans, not Islam.

You need to learn what the definition of a moderate muslim is my friend.

I bet you know a lot of muslims. A yuuuge amount!

You played yourself.

Okay, well the real life humans are being oppressed, they are spreading an ideology of hatred, Islam intertwines politic and religion. I mean, what would happen if an man told a feminist woman that she could not wear bikinis. Could only where restrictive clothing. That's how Muslim women are treated. They're treated as inferior to men. And that is only in "progressive" Islam. That's all around us every day. In its more extreme instances Muslim women are lashed to death for being raped. Homosexuality is forbidden, and in certain parts of the world it is punishable by death The same goes for homosexuality.How are liberals okay with that? How are they able to ignore these atrocities? Muslims are the victims of a violently oppressive ideology, and they are unwilling to surrender it. They will die for their religion. That is horrifying. How are liberals able to stand by and support an ideology so viciously anti-liberal, anti-Western thought, anti-feminism, anti-LGBT? I get sick of hearing them make their arguments. None of them makes any sense. And even if the radicals only compose (scroll down to the bit about worldwide support for radical Islam, Pew Research btw) let's say 10%. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. You do the math.

In Islam's more extreme instances, Muslim women are lashed to death for being raped. Homosexuality is forbidden, and in certain parts of the world it is punishable by death How are liberals okay with that?

They aren't

And that is only in "progressive" Islam

I think you mistaking progressive for conservative.

How are liberals able to stand by and support an ideology so viciously anti-liberal, anti-Western, anti-feminism, anti-LGBT?

Did you even read his comment? Liberals don't support Islam they support peoples right to be a practicing muslim even if they disagree with those views, they support tolerance towards people of different background. I agree with you that a lot muslims hold incredibly dangerous and backwards views that are incompatible with western society. As a liberal myself we feel we have to what we can to help these refuges by making them integrate into western society, pushing them way makes it impossible for them to change their ways and only fuels their cycle of ideology. We feel that we as westerners should ' be the ones show them the light' so to speak. Remember we support the individuals not their religion and ideology as a whole.

I think a big mistake I made in my comments was the haphazard use of the word "liberals." I've noted it in the original comment. You're right about "progressive" v "conservative" in the current usage. What I meant is that even in the less extreme subsets Muslims are practicing something that is anti-liberal. I guess what I meant is, how are the burka and the hijab not a problem? Why are they allowed? I ask that sincerely. And I just feel like it's not possible for them to integrate. From everything I've seen and experienced, Muslims are expected to remain apart from the Western societies they inhabit. Anyway. One thing I think we can all agree on is that it is a weird time to be alive. And I truly believe that, at the heart of it, we all want the same thing: For the world to get better.

What would your metric(s) of integration be?

Great question. I don't think Muslims can integrate into Western society. And I don't understand why they, belonging to the most anti-liberal ideology on earth, keep flooding into Europe and America, the most liberal places on earth.

So no Muslim can ever integrate into Western society?

You may wanna talk to my theatre director about that.

And my ex-girlfriend.

And my old professor from college.

All of whom were first generation Muslims and integrated just fine. And I'm pretty sure they're not the only ones.

Plus, I'm still curious what your metric(s) for integration are for anyone.

There are exceptions, certainly. But they still belong to an ideology that systematically oppresses women and homosexuals. They may be the nicest people ever, but they still belong to an ideology of hate. I'm an immigrant myself. Irish to America, though I have dual citizenship. So I know a thing or two about immigration and assimilation. The Irish were treated awful when they first arrived in America. We're not always great about assimilating, tbh (I'm thinking of NYC), but we're also not a threat to the Western way of life.

SJW's are mentally ill (delusional and borderline psychosis). Glad you have the guts to speak up! I'd stand by your side.

We agree more than we don't.

Aren't you of the opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness?

So why would you dismiss SJW's yet say you'll stand with a homosexual?

Aren't you of the opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness?

No, I said my opinion is, confused. Either way, they are aren't hurting anyone or themselves.. so, what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business. I've always made that quite clear..

No, I said my opinion is, confusion.

Your opinion is confusion? What does that mean?

what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business.

If it's none of your business, why announce they're mentally ill in such a manner as to try to discredit them?

Your opinion is confusion? What does that mean?

My opinion is gay people are confused. Just a personal opinion. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be friends with a gay person or not stand with them. I actually have a few gay friends/associates.

If it's none of your business, why announce they're mentally ill in such a manner as to try to discredit them?

Discredit who? Rocky, have you been hitting the bottle tonight? You should really stick to tea ;)

My opinion is gay people are confused

Yeah maybe

I actually have a few gay friends/associates.

Well then that toooootally nullifies everything you've said against the gays.

Discredit who?

The gays.

Yeah maybe

A fetish?

Well then that toooootally nullifies everything you've said against the gays.

What have I said? I said, imo, they are confused...

The gays.

I never discredited gays.

Wait.. Do I hear a train whistle blowing in the distant? Closer, closer, choo-choo deraaaaaaiiiiil!

Get bent Rocky..

Hahaha. You are full of shit my friend.

Why?

Not OP, but I think it's because you think that their being "confused", whatever he fuck that means, is a better explanation than them just having different sexual preferences.

Do they actually have any credibility to take away?

Who, Putin_loves_cats? After that user announced we should take what they say with a grain of salt - Not really.

He is saying gays being gay doesn't hurt anyone. SJWs are there to get in your face to provoke change.

and often act mentally ill.

How?

Mentally ill is not a very precise term. A lot of people acts mentally ill sometimes, that doesn't mean that they are ill, they could just have some kind of annoying personality trait, but that isn't an illness and most people have traits that someone will find annoying.
On the other hand lots of people have mental illnesses but will hide it from others and not really show any outward sign of illness.

So it won't make much sense to call a certain way of acting a mentally ill way of acting, unless you actually specify what you mean by that

so, what two consenting adults want to do is none of my business

But they should still be labeled as mentally ill, if they actually choose freely to demonstrate for vegan muslim safe spaces or genderneutral names for utensils, or whatever thing they're doing this week?

So why would you dismiss SJW's yet say you'll stand with a homosexual?

SJWs shame people who don't PROMOTE homosexuality or ENDORSE it.

I simply CONDONE it.

I don't support homosexuality but I do condone it.

SJW's

oh the same sjw that made gay marriage legal in the u.s? LOL

What SJW made gay marriage legal?

Sjws didn't make gay marriage legal the court did

I'm sorry, did you think the higher courts suddenly had a change of heart and thought "Hey, I really care about this small minority of the population now, let's stop persecuting them"? They legalized it because regular citizens pushed them too, and it wasn't just gays doing the pushing.

Not saying it was but it wasn't voted into the courts

The court doesn't take normal peoples opinions into account when making a decision. The closest you could come to saying so is who appointed them and who voted for that President.

Gay marriage was voted DOWN over and over and over and over, even in liberal bastion California. I'm sorry, but they ruled based on the constitution.

But then it wasn't cool anymore. So they moved on to other things like transgenders to keep on shaming.

The Supreme Court made gay marriage legal.

The world isn't as enlightened on the subject of LGBT. Europe and us are far but these are countries that were just 20 years ago making gays jump off tall buildings.

A few generations of progressive movement there and you'll be able to hold hands in public there.

But the human right that Muslims there want, is to not be bombed and droned. Don't compare your hurt feelings to their pain.

Don't they already hold hands? Like, not a gay thing just dudes like to hold hands and walk around.?

Good point, you are right. They do show a lot of affection without it being sexual it sounds like. Sounds culturally as if it is friendly. Or maybe I misunderstand it.

It used to be done during Victorian times in Britain until people decided it looked a little mincey.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in the Ottoman Empire before many European states. It was Europeans that, at the time, brought about homophobic laws because they hated gays then.

This thing is not a linear progression.

Thanks for the insight. I didn't know that.

Source?

I looked it up based on curiosity. True story:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Turkey

That said, Erdogan is a piece of shit, and the Armenians suffered greatly.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Turkey

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 25572}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Turkey

That is a lie.

They throw gay people off buildings over there and throw rocks at them until they're dead.. don't act like muslims have a monopoly on suffering there.

But the human right that Muslims there want, is to not be bombed and droned. Don't compare your hurt feelings to their pain.

They don't want human rights. They want Islamic fascism. You're dead and terrifyingly wrong about what the average person thinks from those places. They are not yearning to be free. They want to subjugate everything and everyone to Islam.

Lol did you read the article?

It literally states the opposite of what you are saying, some highlights:

"The survey also asked Muslims whether people of other faiths in their country are very free, somewhat free, not too free or not at all free to practice their religion; a follow-up question asked Muslims whether they consider this “a good thing” or “a bad thing.” In 31 of the 38 countries where the question was asked, majorities of Muslims say people of other faiths can practice their religion very freely. (The question was not asked in Afghanistan.) And of those who share this assessment, overwhelming majorities consider it a good thing. This includes median percentages of more than nine-in-ten in South Asia (97%), Southern and Eastern Europe (95%), sub-Saharan Africa (94%), Southeast Asia (93%) and Central Asia (92%). In the Middle East-North Africa region, nearly as many (85%) share this view."

"Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land generally agree that the requirements of Islam should apply only to Muslims. Across the regions where the question was asked, medians of at least 51% say sharia should apply exclusively to adherents of the Muslim faith. This view is prevalent even in regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, where there is overwhelming support for enshrining sharia as the official law of the land."

I really don't think LGBT/Human rights is a matter of droning or bombing; it comes from years of oppression and hate. I doubt your idea that a few generations will make it progressive, it's still legal to kill gays by stoning or throwing off buildings. I HIGHLY doughy anyone of us gays will be there holding hands on the streets of Lebanon...

20 years ago? Pretty sure there's a few ISIS productions out there throwing or making gay people jump off of buildings

I was talking about the Iraqi videos of gay jumpers

They're called Hypocrites and yes. Some of them are brain dead.

Homosexuality is forbidden in all Abrahamic religions, and I wouldn't be surprised if polling numbers for Christians were similar. I would expect that as Muslims become more and more exposed to the ideas of same-sex relationships, their views will evolve and become more tolerant. Western Christians went through the same process, it's just that it happened earlier.

As of now though, Muslims are killing gays more often than Christians are.

I completely agree, and the treatment of the LGBT population in ME countries is inexcusable. I probably didn't make myself clear, but I was talking about Muslims living in western countries (in response to OP's question).

Yeah no worries, I understood what you were trying to say and I agree. Over time as they're exposed to gays they'll be more accepting, but for now they're stuck in the past...

PEW polls all show that Muslims fundamentally are incompatible with Western values.

I have some muslim friends, some ME friends who aren't muslim (a really important distinction to make here, not every single ME person is a muslim. Even if they wear the typical clothes, that's part of the culture, not necessarily a part of their religion), and they perfectly life in countries as culturally accepting as Germany and Canada, with zero problems, and we haven't collided even once in opinions, me being a Spanish atheist with pretty liberal thoughts .

Much of the time, it seems like Christians are too.

At least they didn't throw the gays off the roof.

Fall from a roof is better than getting tied to the back of a truck and dragged to death.

No, they just bombed schoolchildren instead.

I'm anti ALL Abrahamic religions - but Christians gave birth to liberal democracy. They had a huge hand in the modern world. This observation is independent to the merit of the religion as a whole.

Lol, wow. Maybe the stupidest comment I've seen in this thread so far.

That explains why majority Christian countries are in shambles and ruled by crazy religious leaders. Oh wait...

Tell that to the libtards who want to flood us with these incompatible people. I have MANY Muslim friends but we still need to see the forest through the trees. 90% of my Muslim friends agree with me.

Well, there is an issue with the simple fact that the refugees from Syria and other middle eastern nations haven't been living in western culture. The Islamic people in Europe haven't been integrating particularly peacefully in many cases either. Allowing this to continue is allowing hardliner right wing brained Islamic people into the nation who, after skin tone ultimately have much more in common with the right than the left as far as values and ideals go.

None of this is to say Muslims are bad people inherently, just that the violence in that part of the world, along with a culture and religion that accepts it has created something that can't be easily integrated into western culture. The US still has a duty to take on refugees, but a bit of a wake up call is needed on the left when this is going on. They need to acknowledge the problems instead of telling everyone that it isn't happening, or calling people racist for saying anything about it.

You know the best way to change that going forward? Have Muslims and gays live in the same communities and interact with each other and learn that we are all humans with human problems. Not everyone will change, but most will. Over generations. Or, we could just stay forever separated and hate each other from afar until it boils over.

Throw the lambs in the Lion's den

Do you think all of our bombs somehow miss the gay ones?

War Killings ≠ Civilian Killings

Not sure which war you're talking about, certainly not any of the ones the US has engaged in recently.

Surely you're not saying there were no gays in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Afghanistan, etc....

Not sure I agree. The religion of peace teaches non believers should be killed. Christianity teaches to love others as yourself. Not that all Christians practice love but I think more are catching on its not their job to judge others. Not so sure the sharia law folks will ever come around on accepting this...

I'm sure that's a fair point - I haven't studied Islamic theology, and despite being raised Christian I'm not religious in any way, so I really can't claim to speak intelligently on the subject!

Then be a good boy and edit your OP

Nah, I'm good.

I haven't studied Islamic theology

You clearly haven't.

I have often wondered why folks on the left have such odd pairings in their coalition

Because the left believes in human rights for all, regardless of what book said people might believe in.

And as long as their own "human rights" surpass everyone else's

And as long as their own "human rights" surpass everyone else's

What does that even mean?

It's literal nonsense.

It means in order to live in the world where everyone has equal rights, the person who creates the baseline for these "rights" inherently has more rights than everyone else. See Stalin, mao, North Korea if you don't believe me

What's a single thing Muslims are asking for that's putting their rights above yours?

Uhhh conversion to Islam or be labeled an infidel? Again, I know that not all muslims take these parts of the Koran and Hadith literally-but some do.

And I wasn't talking about muslims, rather ppl who consider themselves "left wing". I swear these "left wingers" are more annoying than the racist on the far right were when Obama got office

Oh no the Muslims down the street think I'm an infidel and the Catholics down the street think I'm a heretic. What ever will I do /s

And the muslims across the ocean think I'm a heretic infadel who needs to be destroyed and has dropped hundreds of bombs on Muslim ppl

The problem arises when you let people into this country who don't respect or want human rights for all, and that's what the left is doing.

We already have millions who don't believe in human rights for all, what's a few more?

Can you explain what you mean by that?

There are enough white and Christian people who do not respect human right. To disqualify muslims because of that would by hypocritical.

uh, have you looked at religion in the states at all?

Christians who want to ban gay marriage and want to pass legislation to enforce that ban. pretty good start u think don't you?

You're so right. They've just been voting for Hitler for 100 years now.

P.S. you are looking for ghosts where there are none.

The left, much like the right believes in money. Organized politics is a racket for the most part.

Unless you're a straight white male

Because the left believes in human rights for all

Not in the free speech rights of the right wing they don't.

Because the left are cowards

That's not true. Islam doesn't say non believers should be killed, it says non believers who ATTACK Islam and / or an Islamic country should be attacked OR force them to pay an annual sum of money in exchange for peace. And by non-believers Islam, means warriors / soldiers and not elder people, women, and kids. Also, during a war, destroying trees, palms, or animals is forbidden.

Now, whether Muslims or extremists respect these laws is a complete different story.

So if you want to defeat a Muslim army, one should ride in on horses?

No it does not. Please show me proof or a source that proves your assertion that Islam teaches the killing of non-Muslims. Please show proof that the Quran, the Sunnah or Sharia Law actually encourages the killing of non-Muslims. And no, I don't mean some out of context quotes from the Quran that are easily explained, I mean some actual proof of your bold claim. I'll be waiting. If you don't even know the truth, please don't be spreading bullshit. How are we supposed to have a proper discussion on the topic if you are using lies to try and prove your point??

Here's 109

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

You're linking to thereligionofpeace seriously? That website has so much blatant lies and misinformation on it, how am I supposed to believe anything written on there? If that's where you're getting your information from, no wonder you are so misinformed. Please use an impartial non-biased source if possible.

Also, I read through some of those verses on that disgrace of a site. Did they literally just group together every verse that has the world kill in it to try and prove something? 109 out of context mentions of the word kill. Nice proof.

Can you try and post just ONE verse from the Quran that, when read in the proper context and everything, blatantly and outright gives Muslims divine right to kill non-Muslims. Just one actual in context verse that calls for non-Muslim murder. I'll be waiting.

Can't wait for the incoming cherry picked ayas.

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

Lol, and so I get a reply of out of context quotes that can easily be explained. Good job proving my point.

You quoted two verses that both pertain to times when Muslims were being attacked, times of war, not general everyday living. The first one, the verse directly before it says that if you kill one person, it is as if you have killed all of mankind. Why didn't you quote that as well? Does it not fit your narrative? It then says the punishment for waging war against God and his prophet for no reason other than their religion, and the punishment for spreading disorder or corruption, should be judged and carried out according to the nature of the transgression. The punishments might sound harsh, but all the verse is saying is there should be punishment for those who wage war or cause disorder. It doesn't give Muslims carte blanche to attack or kill non-Muslims. The next verse then literally starts by saying "Except for those who repent", and that God is all forgiving. Meaning that punish those who attack you for your religion, but if they repent, then show mercy.

The second verse, I don't even know what to say since its clear you didn't even read the verses you are quoting. That is also a bad translation you are using. Again, why didn't you quote the verse just before it that says to fight those that fight you, but not to exceed the bounds set by God. It then goes on saying that IF THEY FIGHT YOU, then kill them because disorder/attacking God is worse than killing. The next verse says if they desist from fighting, then God is all forgiving. But if they continue to fight, then continue to fight against them until there is no more disorder. It then again repeats and says if they desist, then to stop fighting them.

So, both verses are in relation to Muslims being attacked because of their religion, both say to fight those that wage war against you because of your religion, and both say to stop fighting when they stop fighting you. Neither of these verses gives Muslims divine right to kill non-Muslims, not even close. But then you already knew that and quoted out of context verses anyway to try and prove a lie. Well done.

The New Testament teaches that. The bible as a whole has a lot of contradictions about it.

Not that all Christians practice love

And not all muslims practice killing people who are gay.

We support them because it's the right thing to do. The muslims will learn to do the same.

It's seriously disgusting to me to see Christians trying to sit on the tolerance high ground. They burnt gay people at the stake, hung them, dragged them behind their trucks for most of history until the left fucking dragged them by their ears to the point of having baseline respect for the human dignity of gay people.

Extermination of Muslims? You're super dumb, implying that 1.8 billion people are going to be wiped off the earth? How autistic.

implying that 1.8 billion people are going to be wiped off the earth? How autistic.

Sick burn

Yes, but when's the last time Christians publicly did such a thing? I can list examples of muslims doing that in recent times, if you want. Are you gonna bring up the crusades too? Or maybe the old "Hitler was a Christian" special to go with that?

The Crusades were actually very tame compared to the age of colonialism and imperialism, when Europeans committed slavery and genocide on a global scale, with missionaries always being the first ones to step off the boat.

Slavery in the US was a religious as well as ideological institution, with the predominant belief being that the black race was invented by God in order to serve the white one, and its affects last to the present day.

Or maybe the old "Hitler was a Christian" special to go with that?

I don't really care about Hitler, he was a nut into all kinds of dumb occult garbage, it'd be dumb to try to associate him with Christianity. However, the vast, vast majority of Nazi foot soldiers and regular German civilians who actually turned the nuts and bolts of the Holocaust were undoubtably Christians, and explicitly faulted the Jews for killing Christ among their other alleged conspiracies. Concentration camps were run by Christians, Christians ran the trains and operated the gas chambers, Christians tossed cadavers into mass graves and bulldozed over them.

And, for the record, roughly 1/5th of all hate crimes in the US are motivated by homo- or transphobia. These include robberies, assaults, and all sorts of murders.

There's the good old LRA

There's more but that's all I have off the top of my head. It's also worth noting that Christians in America are still fighting every day to restrict the legal and civil rights of gay Americans. They're trying to turn back the clock and you're a rube if you think they have any stopping point in mind.

And, again, it's undoubtably the case that Christians have been less violent in the past 50 years towards homosexuals, but this isn't because of any kind of inherent moral superiority in their religion. It's precisely because leftists dragged their asses out of the dark ages while they whined and protested every inch of the way.

You know, people can be non religious also.

Not to sound edgy, but both Christians and Muslims can go fuck themselves. They follow vile, needless hatred.

I've met enough people of both faiths, and of no faiths, to say with certainty that both belief and non-belief are useless as predictors as to whether someone is a good, kind, compassionate person or a heartless bastard.

We are not talking about the individual, we are talking about groups. Your atheist father beating you isn't relevent to the discussion at what rates different groups systematically execute gays. Which atheists rank well below Muslims and Christians historically.

So you're just gonna ignore the entire first half of the bible

Have you read the Quran?

The religion of peace teaches non believers should be killed

Do you have any objective evidence to support this claim? Because it is false, and is probably a lie you picked up and started reciting from FoxNews or something without every fact checking. Muslim extremists do not follow Islam as it is written

Islam doesn't command such a thing willy nilly. Don't lie. I am a Muslim

I have often wondered why folks on the left have such odd pairings in their coalition.

It's only confusing if you think all Muslims are the same.

Yeaaaah. God is an all knowing god of love. That's why he creates poor blokes knowing they'll burn in hell. For eternity. Couldn't he just send the not so bad people to a middle place? Like Cleveland? And send the hitlers and ted bundys to the fire-y one?

Correct me if i am wrong but dont muslims also molest male kids? I know i remember reading their religion allows sex with boys if they are hairless and girly but i might be wrong.

That's not part of Islam that's part of Afghani culture.

Come one, let's not act like raping children is punished in Islamist countries.

You're actually right, but this subreddit is bursting with liberals post-election

bursting with liberals

Almost like there's some checks being cut er somethin...

http://freebeacon.com/politics/david-brock-super-pac-2018-plans/

It's the changing of the guard. As conservatives take power in the whitehouse, they buy in to the government again and become the bootlickers. The liberals, formerly being the bootlickers, now become disenfranchised and everything the government does is wrong. It's simply the way things go when power transfers from liberals to conservatives and vice versa.

Hmm, it's almost like this thread should be taking place in a conservative political sub instead of /r/conspiracy. If there's a difference anymore.

You're actually right, but this subreddit is bursting with liberals post-election

wow.

You must have a very liberal definition of liberal.

to me /r/conspiracy is becoming an extension of /r/T_D.

I honestly think it's both, just one was relevant at the moment. More to the point, a lot of casually political people are making a temporary nest in r/conspiracy right now since American politics has been so...you know...conspiratorial.

ok.

That i can agree to, it is both its sad to it go that way, give me back my UFO/ breakaway civilization/ V2K/ MK ULTRA back

It's not really punished in western countries with large Islamic populations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal?wprov=sfsi1

Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse :

Councillors and council staff in particular were criticised for "avoiding public discussion"; some through fear of being thought racist, and some through "wholesale denial" of the problem.

So the local town council covered up these child fuckers for fear of being seen as racist. Literally covering up child molestation because racism is worse.

Many here would say it is not punished in the West.

Yup, Bacha Bazi

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bacha+bazi+afghanistan

Jesus there is some ignorance happening in this thread. Christians molest people too

It's actually pretty funny how many incidents about christian priests raping (not in the "forcing" side, but more in the "i'm an authority and you are going to obey me") little boys have been in the past, are arising now, and happening in some.

Nobody is defending them, i hope God is real and every one of those molestors burn in hell. At least the Pope publicly condemned child molestation (the Church has been caught defending priest molestors but at least they are publicly against it). You are completly missing my point: child molestation is allowed in middle-east and nobody is speaking against it.

Have you heard of the Catholic church?

At least the Church condemns that behaviour, when did the Muslims condemn it? Yes, there are those who got caught covering for priest pedos, but the Pope did say that those who molest and those who help them hide it are not real christians.

i think you are thinking of the catholic church that also went out of its way to cover it up.

I already wrote a response to the "hurr durr christians are rapist too", read before replying

This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever seen... Are you serious?

When is the last time Christians were throwing gays off roofs? I am not even a Christian and I know that Christians are plenty accepting to the LGBT community. There is absolutely no comparison between Christians and Muslims in regards to this matter.

Christians have not taken their holy book on a word for word basis in a very very long time! The Bible says a multitude of things that Christians do not take literally and they are viewed as analogies. This is the entire problem with the Muslim world right now. They believe the Koran is 100% literal and must be carried out word for word. This is why they kill people on Jihads, treat women as a subservient, kill non-believers, and kill homosexuals. The Muslim religion as a whole does not appear to be taking any steps to move away from this literal interpretation of the Koran like the Christians did HUNDREDS of years ago.

To hear you spew this garbage narrative from the media is absolutely disgusting and shows just how entangled liberals are in this brainwash stupor that is being spread by the MSM.

The US doesn't exactly have a great track record towards the LGBT community. Just because it doesn't get uploaded to liveleak, doesn't mean it doesn't happen here, too.

There are no gays being thrown from buildings in America... Are you crazy?!

They get dragged behind trucks here

This may be hard for you to comprehend, but literally ever single type of person has been murdered at some point in the U.S. whites, blacks, asians, Hawaiians, Hmong, gay, straight, trans, male, female, ugly, pretty etc. whatever box you can put someone in, they've been murdered.

Not only gays have been drug behind trucks here, and it's not sanctioned. It'd be a crime regardless as to who the victim was. If the victim was gay there'd be a hate crime enhancement- this allows for additional punishment, not less.

I

This may be hard for you to comprehend but you completely missed the point of that post

It's straight up legal and encouraged to murder gays in Islamist countries. If you noticed in that link you just posted every single one of the people who were caught faced consequences. Now does that happen in Syria, SA, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc? No, it does not.

1) you have no idea whether killing gays is encouraged 2) you have no idea whether they are punished fairly or prosecuted

Dude, it's literally against the (sharia) law to be gay. It is a country ruled by sharia law and sharia law says gays need to be killed...

2) you have no idea whether they are punished fairly or prosecuted

You can't be this ignorant man. Come on.

No it does not. Please show me proof or a source that says gays need to be killed according to Sharia Law. And no, saying "X Muslim country throws gays off buildings" is not proof, please show proof that the Quran, the Sunnah or Sharia Law actually encourage the killing of gays. I'll be waiting. If you don't even know the truth, please don't be spreading bullshit. How are we supposed to have a proper discussion on the topic if you are using lies to try and prove your point??

They also arrest women for being raped

Downvoted for asking for proof I see. Again, please show me proof that ISLAM ITSELF calls for the arresting of women being raped. Can you not separate the difference between something a country does as part of its laws and something the religion actually asks for? It's no secret that none of the Muslim countries that exist today follow the Shariah as it was outlined or as it was supposed to be followed, so I don't exactly know what your point is.

Also, please stop referring to Muslims as "they". There are over 1.6 billion Muslims around the world, the majority of which have no link or relation to the Middle East besides the religion itself. Muslims are not some monolithic entity, so stop treating them like one.

Sharia Law calls for 100 lashes for anyone that commits Zina (not death). Zina includes homosexuality and any form of pre-marital sex (including being raped). I'm not sure if 100 lashes is better or worse than being arrested. I guess it depends on how long a prison sentence would be.

Side note, I'm not going to buy into your PC bullshit. I can't believe the word "they" offends people now.

Do you know nothing? Have you ever tried to objectively look at information and make an opinion? Are you capable of that?

Have you ever tried to objectively look at information and make an opinion?

Making or having an opinion won't change whether or not the information is factual to start with. Having another opinion about the information still won't make non-factual things true or change the facts stated in the information

That you compare the two (presumably) in ernest means you're either an idiot or you're brainwashed.

It is a, if not the, world leader in human rights for the LGBT community. Everyone can improve, but to pretend that there is something better is completely false.

You may be a christian, but that does not mean that you can speak for all christians. I have met christians of all different interpretations, including literal.

Sure, christians, in general, have gotten less literal, but they've also had some 600 more years to do so.

Some examples of christian beliefs on homosexuality: Major Ron Paul Supporter Favors Death Penalty for Gays. Who’s Helping Finance Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill? You Are. "Much of Africa’s anti-homosexuality movement is supported by American evangelicals". Christian Pastor Celebrates Nightclub Massacre: “There’s 50 Less Pedophiles in This World”. (UK)Christian lawyer proposes bill which makes it legal to murder gay people. Ted Cruz and the Anti-Gay Pastor. Man, 70, Stoned to Death for Being Gay. Anti-Gay Hate Crimes. LGBT people are 2.4 times (or more) more likely to suffer a violent hate crime attack than any other group in the U.S.

It seems like the real reason that the U.S. doesn't have such an extreme problem as majority Muslim countries is that the former has a secular government, which has let other voices in and pushing christians, in general, to be more accepting.

So now you are saying the only reason Christians are not violent is because of our Government? How about the societal and cultural norms that have grown through the years and the fact remains Christians do not carry out the literal word of the Bible. Your anecdotal evidence of a fraction minority does not discredit this fact. However Islam has consistently carried out the literal word of the Koran through terrorist killings and daily cultural practices. This is the problem.

And if these people are 600 years behind in societal and cultural development as you say, then why would we even think of bringing them into our society? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that is not going to work. You need to drop the narrative and explore facts using your own critical thinking and judgement. FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS!!

So now

Did we talk about this before or are you categorizing me in some out-group that you disagree with?

you are saying the only reason Christians are not violent is because of our Government?

No, no, no, not because of the government per se, but because people in the U.S. kept the government secular rather than letting christianity control the government and the narrative. Though, I would say that there are probably some out there that think again because of the legal consequences.

Christians do not carry out the literal word of the Bible

If you make a broad statement like that, then a fraction minority does discredit that claim because it shows that there are those that try to (by actually stoning a homosexual to death, for example) and those that talk and push for the literal word of the bible to be carried out, even trying to make it law. You could say most instead of leaving it a blanket statement, but then I could equally say most Muslims...and we can go back and forth because making general statements about groups of people, especially ones that number over a billion people, is ridiculous.

a fraction minority does not discredit this fact

so people that preach at mega churches and get the ears of republican presidential candidates don't show that there are definitely a portion of christians that support such thinking?

most muslims are not terrorists. a fraction minority does not discredit this fact.

why would we even think of bringing them into our society?

Well, because I care about people no matter their religious beliefs. Let's leave out all males 10 years or older, you are still saying "Fuck off" to women and children. It's called integration, maybe it was left out of your text books. These people need help, not to be tossed aside. Also, there's this awesome thing where people can learn, develop and, though you may want to crucify me for saying this, evolve.

How about getting off your high horse, take off your blinders and take a look at the world. All religions have been and still are being violent in different areas of the world, including christianity.

What narrative? I don't watch mass media, is this something you picked up from watching that shit. I actually do use critical thinking to form my own opinions with facts and evidence, always questioning, maybe you should try the same.

So now you are saying the only reason Christians are not violent is because of our Government? How about the societal and cultural norms that have grown through the years and the fact remains Christians do not carry out the literal word of the Bible.

So, I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else, but I can certainly see this being the case.

For example, Mormons changed much of their doctrine based on what the government dictated, and also to conform to social norms. For example, the only reason that Mormons gave up on polygamy was because the government was going to place financial sanctions on them if they didn't. Same with accepting blacks.

So now you are saying the only reason Christians are not violent is because of our Government? How about the societal and cultural norms that have grown through the years and the fact remains Christians do not carry out the literal word of the Bible.

So, I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else, but I can certainly see this being the case.

For example, Mormons changed much of their doctrine based on what the government dictated, and also to conform to social norms. For example, the only reason that Mormons gave up on polygamy was because the government was going to place financial sanctions on them if they didn't. Same with accepting blacks.

600 more years to do so

Are....are you 13? You do realize Islam is much older than Christianity..right?

Judaism is older than both. Them christianity,islam is the youngest. It was founded in roughly the 7th century. Soooooo who's 13?

Are....are you 13? You do realize Islam is much older than Christianity..right?

No, but even a 13 yo will see that once you do 30 seconds of research, you'll see that you are wrong and probably want to delete this comment so you don't look bad.

I'll make it even faster: Here

No...no its not

Oh wow lol. This is exhibit A of why you should Google before posting something you're unsure about. Especially if you're going to be so smug about it.

When is the last time Christians were throwing gays off roofs?

In America it was pretty common to burn them at the stake...then later to lynch them...and then by the late 20th century the most popular method was street violence or dragging them behind trucks. Gay people still suffer a disproportionate number of hate crimes and it's not Muslim-Americans doing most of them, not even close.

I am not even a Christian and I know that Christians are plenty accepting to the LGBT community.

I'm an ex-Christian and I know that this is true or false depending on exactly which Christians you're talking to, how many beers they've had, and whether or not you think they'll agree with them.

[All Muslims are the same, all Muslims are fanatics, all Muslims are pure literalists, more Islamophobic garbage]

If the left had bought into this kind of thinking 50 years ago then there'd have been a concerted campaign to wipe Christians off the Earth. Luckily, most leftists realized that not all Christians are the same, not all are irredeemable, they are all human beings, and so even though Christians resisted the entire time, the left managed to drag them to a state of basic tolerance of gay people.

All those hate crimes are punishable by law, not enforced by it. Sit down, clown.

No, the polling numbers are not similar at all. Christians in America are way more tolerant toward gays in all Muslim countries.

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf (p. 81) http://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Support-for-SSM-by-Religious-Affiliation-copy1.jpg

I think I addressed this in another comment, but I was referring to Muslims living in western countries (in response to OP's question).

Muslims in western countries don't poll much better, the majority still believe gay people should be imprisoned

According to this, a greater % of white evangelical protestant, black protestant, latino protestant, mormon, and JW's in the US are opposed to same-sex marriage than muslims.

that means that approximately 1,400,000 muslims (300m pop x 0.9% muslim x 51% of muslims against) in the US are opposed to gay marriage.

vs approximately 61,000,000 non-muslims (300m pop x 34.3% of pop in those groups x 60% avg against). I know the math is wrong on this, but it still gives you a general idea.

so...yeah.

Dude if you want to mention muslims in the western countries, you should clearly say that. It's a big difference. Many SJW regressive libtards in the west only know assimilated, western muslims, but they naively comprehend that as the behavior of all muslim. Try Pakistan for 2 months.

Well in that case, we should compare Christians in Uganda to Muslims in those countries. I'm sure there's not life imprisonment for having gay sex.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 25638}

Uganda meanwhile is also a member of OIC. Well, there are also Carribean nations that ban homosexuality, and there are 'family rights' groups in Mexico and France. But at least there are also many Christians who don't subscribe to violence, and the best thing is they're campaigning that, like the Christians in the west, or my local example from Communion of Churches in Indonesia in their recent statement that the churches should open their doors to all people. It's a shame that around the same time, the national Islamic clergy assembly (MUI) called for a ban of LGBT "activities". So if western muslims don't want to be bashed by right-wing extremist, they better start to preach to chunks of their community about respect.

I know that there are moderate, peaceful muslims. I know personally some of them, and they are good people. While many others are reactionary bigots, imagine a redneck saying takbeer, and I personally know some of them. They believe deeply in the bloody verses of the koran as deep as you believe in human rights. They don't wanna hear whatever you say. Millions of moderate and peaceful muslims are irrelevant if they don't start teach the same values to these part of the muslim community since they don't wanna listen to outside sources. It's only them who can start doing something.

I would be really glad if the migration to the west can make more openness in Islam. Seriously. Because then, I can mention it as an example to my next-door local muslim here. I detest Trump's executive order since it's actually putting LGBT people from ME at risk, but many other people from the area are not so different than I described. Just stop welcoming them with regression to defend their outdated values.

That wasn't like that 40 years ago.

Didn't know Western Christians were shoving gays off of buildings 40 years ago.

no no, they tried shock therapy and let them to die from AIDS.

Not directly evil as throwing them off buildings but not a shining example of western morals.

There aren't all that many Western Muslims shoving gays off of buildings either

There aren't all that many Western Muslims shoving gays off of buildings either

Because they would be arrested?

Because they would be arrested?

And how many Western Muslims have been arrested for shoving people off of buildings?

Muslims play the PR game just like anyone else.

PEW polls showed something like 80% of BRITISH Muslims think the Danish cartoonist should have been prosecuted. Think about that.

So, I've have though about - if everyone plays the PR game, i guess it's assumed that the PEW polls does too?

You didn't answer my question about how many westerners had been arrested for shoving people off of buildings, or how the law was supposed to keep them from doing so?

So, I've have though about it - if everyone plays the PR game, i guess it's assumed that the PEW polls does too? /s

Sure doesn't sound to good if it's true, but what is meant by prosecuted? I guess there's still a difference from getting fined to getting whipped

Plenty shooting nightclubs though.

So many even that the nightclubs they're shooting aren't even gay.

I don't really see what that has to do with people shoving other people from tall buildings, but it is an example of how having a law won't keep people from doing it though

TIL "plenty" = 1

Haha. You ever hear of Alan Turing?

Yeah, he was tried and sentenced to castration. He wasn't tossed off a building.

Not sure which one I'd pick if I was given a choice? Also not sure if you meant to put a /s

That's because the left dragged Christians kicking, spitting, and screaming to where they are now. Now Christians try to take credit for it and look down on Muslims for being exactly where they were a few decades, it's so fucking slimy.

And how do you think Christians living in Tanzania feel about gay folks?

Christians in America are way more tolerant toward gays

Ignorant of their own religion.

All Muslims read or memorize Quran, you can't do basic acts of worship without doing so. Christians don't really study the bible much.

You know who was progressive in that way about 6 years ago???... Syria.

Islam is by design not reformable.

Most christians have been forced to change their views due to exposure. Ignorance is the root of most of this hate, people grow up and have no contact with gays, are told they're evil and wrong, so that's how they view them. Later in life they learn one of their friends or a relative is gay, and they have to stop and think "hmm, maybe they're just normal people too and we can co-exist."

On the other hand in Islam they take the gay friend or relative, throw him off a roof then cave his head in with stones, never come to that realization, and the cycle continues. Difference between a free society and one controlled by an extreme religion.

For muslims to 'evolve' as western society did they would need to have a similar mindset, which they don't.

I once came across the following article: Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences by Nicolai Sennels.

It really opened my eyes on how different the world view of muslims is.

pasting the most relevant part below:

Locus of control

There is another strong difference between the people of Western and Muslim cultures; their locus of control. Locus of control is a psychological term describing whether people experience their life influenced mainly, by internal or external factors. It is clear from a psychological point of view that Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces – ourselves. This is reflected in our points of view, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivation, our surplus, and our way of communicating. These internal factors are what guide our lives and determine if we feel good and self confident or not. Every Western library has several meters of self help books. Every kiosk has dozens of magazines for both women and men that tell us how to create happier and more successful lives for ourselves. Our phone books have columns of addresses for psychologists, coaches and therapists. All these things are aimed at helping us to help ourselves create the life that we want. Some might argue that all this introspectiveness is too much and that just doing what is useful for oneself and others here-and-now would be more constructive, but this is how our culture is.

All these things do not exist in Muslim culture and countries. The very little psychiatry and psychology that is taught, in only a few universities in the Muslim world, is imported from the West. It is mostly taught by teachers educated at Western universities and does not have roots in the Muslim culture.

But Muslims have something else. They have strict external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have a God that decides their life's course. "Inshallah" follows every statement about future plans; if God wants it to happen. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community every Friday. These clerics dictate political views, child rearing behavior, and how or whether to integrate in Western societies.

The locus of control is central to our understanding of problems and their solutions. If we are raised in a culture where we learn that "…I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul," as William Ernest Henley wrote in his famous poem Invictus in 1875; we will, in case of personal problems, look at ourselves and ask: "…What did I do wrong?" and "…What can I do to change the situation?" People who have been taught throughout their entire lives that outer rules and traditions are more important than individual freedom and self reflection, will ask: "Who did this to me?" and "Who has to do something for me?"

Thus, the locus of control is central to the individual's understanding of freedom and responsibility. Even though our Christian based societies may, in certain situations, give too much emphasis on feelings of guilt; it also strengthens the individual's sense of being able to take responsibility for, and change one's own life. In societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influence there may be fewer feelings of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one's own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies, but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless demands on one's surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency, shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked me." Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free will. Even though one's own feelings, when experiencing an insult, can be moderated by one's own point of view, this kind of self reflection does not happen to the same degree among Muslims as it does among Westerners. It only takes one person to beat up another: the guy who is doing the hitting. It also only takes one person to feel insulted. Being beaten and feeling insulted are thus strictly different social events. The latter depends on ones self, while the former is solely caused by outer circumstances. Unfortunately, this fact is not considered in Muslim culture and apparently also not by the supporters of laws on hate speech, racism and defamation.

The difference in mentality is clearly stated by the old Indian proverb:

You can walk around softly everywhere by putting on a pair of shoes, or you can demand that the whole Earth becomes covered by soft leather.

It is a question of locus of control.

Gay men and women were not allowed to marry until very recently, and I'm pretty sure that the current administration is aiming to roll those rights back. Western Christianity still has a way to go.

They're all the same.

Christians believe that a man laying with a man is a sin. Sharia law calls for their death. You tell me the difference.

Western Christians went through the same process, it's just that it happened earlier.

The Renaissance happened 500 years ago. Muslims never had anything like that. Are we supposed to wait around 500 years for them? Are we supposed to change their culture like GWB did? Force feed them democracy? When are just going to leave them alone.

Christian's won't bake a cake for a gay marriage. Muslims throw you off buildings

It's all virtue signal

Look! My virtue-cock is bigger than yours. I care about more obscure stuff than you do.

Or maybe they actually care about other people's right to religious freedom? Just because ""(((the left))))""" is tolerant of Muslim people doesn't mean they agree with all their beliefs.

Also, why do you assume that just because someone is vocal about their convictions that they are just faking it to appeal to a certain group? I think that says a lot about you as a person if you think most people act that way.

I guess it's because they don't give a shit sometimes about some injustice, that are less publicized, but then they go crazy over perceived injustice that are poplar to go crazy over.

Hah, you globalist piece of shit. I'd take a proud American nationalist that loves this country and loves the American people over some shit-show 3rd world immigrant with 14th century world views, that tolerate throwing gays off building, killing rape victims, raping young boys, marrying 12 year old girls off to 80 year old men, and who treat women like property. So get fucked.

Is that like when people drone on and on about Western Civilization and how degenerates and Muslims and Kikes (((the media))) is destroying it?

Rule 1, first warning.

In America, you have the right to be gay and they have the right to be Muslim. Is that so fucking hard to understand?

Gays don't persecute Muslims. Muslims persecute gays. Is that so fucking hard to understand?

Muslims persecute gays

Not in America

Especially in America.

Proof?

umm.. at orlando night clubs?

REKT

Touche..

wasn't it basically proven that the FBI played a part in that?

One lunatic commiting an act of terror does not mean that Muslims systemically persecute gays in the United States. That's not what that word means.

One

that's a hard XD

It's crazy man. This whole thread is fucking nuts.

But that never stopped your side from demonizing ALL Trump supports as being Nazis/fascists/racists/xenophobes/etc.

Then the shooting in Quebec is proof that all right-wingers persecute (and murder) Muslims.

Nah, you snuck the word "all" in there

That was a closet gay guy shooting other gay people

Surpressed and then misdirected sexual energy is the cause of nearly all violence.
And the seed of nearly all religious fervor and extremism.

lmfao. Do people really have the cognitive dissonance to forget about this shit? Fucking Christ.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC....

You're in /r/conspiracy , most people here think that was a staged event.

Open your eyes.

Really dude? You that fucking stupid?

There was that one mass shooting in Orlando... Biggest mass shooting we've ever had the USA...

thats why SOME try to make their own communities http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/caq-dimisses-proposal-for-muslim-neighbourhood-in-brossard

gays don't persecute Muslims

In a thread about how Muslims overwhelming hate and want to criminalize gays with absolutely 0 evidence or sources

Guarantee American Christians have done more harm to gays in America than Muslims ever have. Don't see threads about that

Here again some Leftist tool is defending the barbarisms of modern Islam because Christians did some stuff too.

How about we judge shit on its own fucking merit without comparing atrocities to see who measures higher on the evil meter?

I critizes individuals, not their religion.

Show me a instance of Muslims persecuting gays in America

I criticizes individuals, not their religion.

Why not? If their religion tells them to commit atrocities against infidels in Allah's name, why do you refuse to criticize the religion?

I do criticize the religion, what I don't do is judge people based on their religion without first knowing them.

Im a gay man. I live acorss the hall from a Syrian family, very observant Muslim. I live with my boyfriend. I like baking, whenever I bake I bring some over for their children. They have NEVER TRIED TO THROW ME OFF THE ROOF BUILDING.

Yes, some parts of Islam is horrible, I'll be the first to admit that, but it's not like every Muslim believes every part of Islam, or follows the law exactly. Unless a muslim person personally demonstrates to me their bigotry I don't give a fuck what their religion tells them to believe

N=1 and confirmation bias are remarkable here.

Ah yes, and the guy saying we should judge a billion people based on a passage in a 2000 year old book isnt a demonstration of bias at all

It is valuable if you believe your sample size of 1 is indicative of the tolerances held by a religious entity. Knowing your personal biases is half the battle of achieving enlightenment.

And, both of you are exceptionally wrong, actually. But, that's not what I came here to point out.

Again, thanks for your valuable input. Amazing. Outstanding

I don't understand why you're so salty. I'm just "challenging your opinion", am I not?

No you aren't, you are attacking the way we are arguing, not the argument ourselves.

Did you just use 'salty' to describe a person being angry or upset??! Wow! Such an original insult! Where did you come up with that??!!

Amazing!

Attacking the evidence is a form of attacking the argument. Your evidence is n=1 and isn't a representative sample size of virtually... anything. Your "argument" is invalid because it's non sequitur. Pointing out cognitive biases is useful in helping people deal with their own self-delusions.

I'm going to disengage now. I did appreciate your feedback, though. This was fun for me. Take care, son.

You are not attacking our "evidence", considering we are not providing any evidence. We are challenging opinion, not debating fact, opinion is derived partly from personal experience

You are such a joke. Again, either chime in and lets hear your opinion on the subject or get the fuck out

Do you understand how argument crafting works?

And, listen. You can get all bent out of shape all you want. I simply wanted to call out your personal narrative that's based upon a familial experience with foreign neighbors.

If that's all you wish to base your worldview on, well... I wish you the best of luck out there, son.

Not basing my entire world view on it, it's just one experience I used as an example to make a point. Jesus man, get over yourself. You are a joke

I don't see why you feel the need to keep attacking me personally.

And, I'm glad you admitted to it being a single experience. But, is it really representative of anything?

No? I never said it was.

Again. Read my words, it was just an example from my personal experience.

Jesus man, just give it a fucking break

Like, how can we both be 'exceptionally wrong'. We are challenging eachothers opinions, not arguing fact.

And of course my bias is going to show, since again, we are arguing OPINION and not fact. Opinions are always biased.

I don't get what you are saying. You come in here with no argument and act like we are having an argument bases on facts. We aren't. This is pure opinion.

So either hop in, let's hear your opinion, or BTFO

But your opinions should be based upon facts instead of biases and anecdotes. That's how you're wrong.

I certainly criticize the extremist elements of Islam -- of which there are many -- however so long as the ones coming here do not practice that same sort of extremism, then, like you, I'm totally fine with them!

I just need to be sure that the people we're letting into the country to be your neighbor don't cause you harm. That's not happening in our America. We're better than that, and we need to hold people accountable and not make excuses for them. If you're here, you're American, and you understood what that meant upon coming into this country.

I get what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

So you'd rather let them in and then just roll the dice, ya?

Nope. I just don't see immigration as the #1 source of Islamic extremism in America. The majority of Islamic terrorists are self radicalized Americans, not immigrants or refugees. Same with in Europe. Those are the real threat, not immigration. Making all these strict immigration laws is just a) making then hate us more (I agree this is a bad argument and we shouldn't base our immigration policy on whether or not people will hate us, but it is true) and b) ignoring the real threat

I agree that it might make them "hate us" but these are people who hate us anyways. The reasonable ones among them understand that we're trying to keep our country safe. And I'd hope they aren't buying into the this Leftist line about how it's anti-Islam. It isn't. It's a ban on countries that do not provide sufficient documentation for our vetting process. That's why Saudi isn't on the list -- even though they've been linked to supporting terrorism. It's about verification. But I realize that isn't as flammable as "Ban on Muslims!" is, so thats why the Left runs with that headline.

And while I think I can agree that immigration given proper vetting isn't our #1 threat, it still can be a major threat if proper vetting isn't done. The Boston Bombers were both in this country after their father was approved asylum. So vetting is far from perfect, which is why we need to ensure the countries we're allowing people in from provide us all the documents we need. And while you disagree, this is why I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Stop immigration from countries that don't provide the needed paperwork so we can keep immigration safe for all parties involved.

As for home grown terrorism, I don't know how to handle that short of going full out totalitarian and cracking down on people's access to the Internet and freedom of expression and thought, black helicopters and kidnapping subversives in the middle of the night, etc. All we can do is show that this isn't about Muslims.

Obama banned all Iraqis from coming into the US for 6 months. No one batted an eye. So the hypocrisy is just a bit rich for my taste as of late.

The take away here is that people are only scared of Muslims because of what the Media has shown us over, and over, and over, and over again. Our government and their lap dog media made us fearful of Muslims in hopes we'd be OK with the war in the Middle East. WMDs! Osama! AlQueda! ISIS! ISIL! Etc. So now that we're scared, now we're being told we're Islamaphobes? LOL. This fucking two-faced bipolar media of ours needs to get it together. If they don't want people to fear Muslims then stop bombarding people with Muslim terrorism and fanning the fires.

I agree that it might make them "hate us" but these are people who hate us anyways. The reasonable ones among them understand that we're trying to keep our country safe. And I'd hope they aren't buying into the this Leftist line about how it's anti-Islam. It isn't. It's a ban on countries that do not provide sufficient documentation for our vetting process. That's why Saudi isn't on the list -- even though they've been linked to supporting terrorism. It's about verification. But I realize that isn't as flammable as "Ban on Muslims!" is, so thats why the Left runs with that headline.

This is entirely reasonable. I just hope you aren't implying I am calling the immigration ban a "ban on Muslims". I've never said that, nor do I believe that, even though I tend to sway to the left on most issues.

And while I think I can agree that immigration given proper vetting isn't our #1 threat, it still can be a major threat if proper vetting isn't done. The Boston Bombers were both in this country after their father was approved asylum. So vetting is far from perfect, which is why we need to ensure the countries we're allowing people in from provide us all the documents we need. And while you disagree, this is why I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Stop immigration from countries that don't provide the needed paperwork so we can keep immigration safe for all parties involved.

Again, reasonable. I would just like to point out that the bombers themselves were the terrorists, not the dudes father. And IIRC they were radicalized long after coming into the states. They lived for years as good ol' American boys before deciding to kill innocent people. I don't think improper vetting of the father was the cause. Do you know what I mean?

As for home grown terrorism, I don't know how to handle that short of going full out totalitarian and cracking down on people's access to the Internet and freedom of expression and thought, black helicopters and kidnapping subversives in the middle of the night, etc. All we can do is show that this isn't about Muslims or hating Islam and hope they come to their senses? I don't know.

Agree 100%. I don't have the answers either. Thankfully us two arent the ones making policy decisions lol

I do find it odd that Obama banned all Iraqis from coming into the US for 6 months. No one batted an eye. But Trump does it, his reasoning is the same as Obama's, but the Obstructionist Left falls over themselves in being offended. The hypocrisy is just a bit rich for my taste as of late.

I can speak to this a bit. Obamas ban was a direct reaction to a specific threat. A dozen or so Iraqi insurgents infiltrated the refugee system, some even got as far as Kentucky before getting caught, so Obama proposed a ban until the security breach could be investigated, identified and rectified (the proposal was also devoted in Congress, IIRC). Furthermore, the ban was only on new refugee applications, not existing ones, and it didn't cover green card holders and other people who were already here legally. So if an Iraqi citizen had a student visa during that time and happened to be outside of the country, that person was still allowed in. Trump's ban is much different, it's not addressing a specific threat, it's addressing a potential one, and it's hurting a hell of alot more innocent people than Obama did. I agree there's some hypocrisy, especially in the overreaction of the left, but I do not think the two situations are that comparable.

Really I think the take away here is that people are only scared of Muslims because of what the Media has shown us over, and over, and over, and over again. Our government and their lap dog media made us fearful of Muslims in hopes we'd be OK with the war in the Middle East. WMDs! Osama! AlQueda! ISIS! ISIL! Etc. So now that we're scared, now we're being told we're Islamaphobes? LOL. This fucking two-faced bipolar media of ours needs to get it together. If they don't want people to fear Muslims then stop bombarding people with Muslim terrorism and fanning the fires. But it sells. So they run it.

Time will tell. :)

Yep.

Hey, thanks for the conversation. It's a rare thing that two people from opposite sides of the debate are able to have a discussion without resorting to petty argument tecniques and personal attacks. It gives me hope in a world where hope is lacking

Can I ask you what you thought when Trump called for a ban on muslims?

At first I thought that it wouldn't stand up in court. A ban on Islam is against the law and its just not American.

So I opened up the text of the EO. (It's not very long.)[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states]

Basically it references some very serious issues that occur within the culture of the countries targeted. It isn't Islam specific, though those nations are majority Muslim.

So once I understand that he was making the ban more about the area these people are coming from and not Islam itself, I understood it a bit better.

Really, the ban is a 90 day hold. That's it. It gives the Trump team enough time to figure out how they want to proceed.

I also think it's disgusting that a lot on the Left are saying this will only push more towards terrorism against the US. It's a disgusting thought because it implies that Muslims and those from the Middle East are so easily manipulated and weak that something like this could push them into violent acts of terrorism. Frankly every Muslim should be offended at this insinuation.

If a Muslim is wanting to come to America and is currently blocked, I'd hope that they realize that this is just America trying to be safe rather than sorry. And I'd hope they are patient with us as we change Presidents. I also hope that after the ban is lifted they have the opportunity to come to America and prove that they are just as hard working and dedicated to America as the white guy or black woman that lives next door to them.

I'm talking about when he called for a ban on Muslims while running for president.

Ah. Honestly I just thought it was hyperbole. I really didn't pay attention to him because I didn't think he was going to win.

Surely it's not a coincidence Trump calls for a ban on muslims then signs this EO?

I wouldn't think so, no.

You find it disgusting because it implies people from already a religion already widely linked to terrorism and a region you just said yourself has problems with terrorism may be pushed towards terrorism?

Like you said

Why don't we judge things on its own fucking merit

Yes, let's do that. Except we are talking about people here, and a holy book a person adherez to is not a good demonstration of one's merit. A persons actions demonstrate merit, so let's judge that.

Too bad we're talking about Muslims not from america and bringing the over; otherwise you may have a point.

No one even mentioned that? I assume OP was talking about American Muslims

Ah but in America it's old white people who persecute gays. Not muslims.

Not just white -- the black community is VERY homophobic, almost more so than the white community.

Yeah but for the most part, people of color are not the ones making laws. It's generally always been white Christian males. And the one black president we had, made more strides towards equality for gays than any other president before. So the record tends to show the opposite of the point you're trying to make.

This is true. I was just speaking as a gay person who has interacted with both the black and white communities. But you're right that old white people are generally the ones with law-making power.

I agree, that is def a fair point for you to make.

Most old white people are gay.

Christians persecute gays.

Show me some footage of Christians throwing gays off a building or chopping their heads off. I can show you videos on how Muslims treat gays if you want.

How about if we treat all people with respect and empathy.

“As a young person, I feel it necessary to show the great nation that we live in that there doesn't need to be this kind of violence and hatred in our world. And that loving one another doesn't mean that we have to compromise our beliefs; it simply means that we choose to be compassionate and respectful of others.” ― Judy Shepard

I'm all for it. Just convince ISIS and we'll be good.

Ok I'll convince them you convince the christian right and the white nationalists. We will meet back here and discuss steps forward.

The funny thing is I can go talk to who you mentioned and not get decapitated and when you go to talk to ISIS you will get decapitated.

The funny thing is I would have to take a plane and several other vehicles to get there and you could complete your task in your own home town. Assuming you live in the US. The other funny thing about that quote from Judy Sheppard is she is the mother of Matthew Sheppard he was killed for being gay in America.

They'll ignore you when they can't defend against your point.

Or when it doesn't appear talking to you is doing anything.

Maybe if they brought up some new facts that'd be one thing, but when Leftists bring up the same old tired arguments that we already know to be wrong, ya, no on listens. Nor should they.

That's rich

Then you haven't been paying attention. Sounds like a personal problem and not mine to fix.

Gays don't persecute Muslims.

You seem to forget that the US military has been accepting gay people for decades now.

Muslims persecute gays.

Not all of them, nope. And plenty of Christians persecute gays, but not all of them.

Is that so fucking hard to understand?

What's hard to understand about judging people on an individual basis, not their religious identity?

The conversation isn't about the ones in America. Nobody is trying to infringe upon their rights. The debate is whether we should import foreign nationals with regressive and dangerous ideology into our country.

That debate is only done amongst domestic nationalists with regressive and dangerous ideologies in our country. Handful of which have terrorized other innocent americans in sickening acts of violence.

Handful of which have terrorized other innocent americans in sickening acts of violence.

Any debate necessarily has two sides. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say to be honest.

Not a nationalists here. Fuck America and white ppl, see?

But even I see the clear and evident danger of bringing in refugees. Where are all the refugees in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, Iran, or (gasp) Israel?

Why would you fly these people halfway around the world from their homes?

Not to mention Obama has had jsoc units body snatching these people's family members for the last 8 years, while trump wants to "bomb the shit" out of them.

Yeah, let's give a group of people a VERY righteous reason to hate our guts, and then let's invite them into our home.

I know all muslims obviously aren't bad. But if just 1 or 2 refugees attempts a mass killing, it would trigger a stage of events that would probably end up with Muslim ppl being put in camps circa WW2 Japanese ppl. That wouldn't be fair to the muslims who have made the west their home.

At least if America takes in refugees they will be more likely to adopt American values.

Not taking them in isn't going to make them change the way they think. If anything, it's just going to be another reason to resent the United States.

I agree. I just worry that they don't need any more reasons not to like us. If I grew up in Baghdad I would probably hate America as well

That debate is only done amongst domestic nationalists with regressive and dangerous ideologies in our country.

Hah, you globalist piece of shit. I'd take a proud American nationalist that loves this country and loves the American people over some shit-show 3rd world immigrant with 14th century world views, that tolerate throwing gays off building, killing rape victims, raping young boys, marrying 12 year old girls off to 80 year old men, and who treat women like property.

So get fucked.

Rule 10, final warning.

That debate is only done amongst domestic nationalists with regressive and dangerous ideologies

That's a bold faced lie, and it is cowardly for you to result to those tactics to prove your case.

The debate is whether we should import foreign nationals with regressive and dangerous ideology into our country.

The debate is whether you can judge a person based solely on their national origin and/or religion. Right wing hateful identity politics say yes, the left says no.

Just like any other ideology you can judge the adherents to said ideology. Nobody would argue that adherents of National Socialism were good. Even if the individual nazi party member didn't herd people onto cattle cars and send them off to prison camps they're still complicit in the atrocities of the ideology as a whole by giving support and credibility to it.

Skin color and gender are things we can't control, but we can control what ideology we subscribe to. We can certainly judge choices.

Yeah they don't get it. Don't bother. I've had more intelligent conversations with my Tomato plants

Hah, you globalist piece of shit. I'd take a proud American nationalist that loves this country and loves the American people over some shit-show 3rd world immigrant with 14th century world views, that tolerate throwing gays off building, killing rape victims, raping young boys, marrying 12 year old girls off to 80 year old men, and who treat women like property. So get fucked.

So we are only thinking about America? I thought there were, like, no borders you bigot!

Is that so fucking hard to understand?

You're cute when you're naive.

I was a lifelong Democrat but Trump has always supported gay rights and didn't just switch sides when it became politically convenient like Obama and Clinton. I seriously don't know what happened to the Democrat party. They've gone full retard. Why would they want to import a bunch of gay hating women oppressing religious fanatics?

...because they're being literally slaughtered. No one opposes rural food or business aid programs because they're a bunch of gay hating women oppressing religious fanatics in those areas.

...because they're being literally slaughtered

Who is killing them?

The actual violent extremists.

Supplied by whom?

Well depends on your choice of extremist. Though Russia, America, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran among others are active in the region.

The important one in that list is America. So we drop thousands of bombs on their countries and kill their families and neighbors. We also supply the "rebels" that are actively wrecking their country on the ground. The only reason they don't have a working country is because of American influence. Is it unreasonable they might be holding a grudge?

The whole idea is akin to taking in German refugees during WWII.

If the left really cared about these people they would have been in the streets five years ago when we systematically began making their country unlivable.

Well they're all important. Though I think we're going to diverge on the sequence of events that got us here and who's "wrecking the country". Though only one side in the conflict has air power.

If the left really cared about these people they would have been in the streets five years ago when we systematically began making their country unlivable.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm getting this logic, are you saying they forfeited the ability to care about people? Like "Argh I knew I should have protested before Assad started dropping chemical weapons... oh well, guess I can't care about the issue now."

No I'm saying they don't care at all. I'm saying they're only using the opportunity to protest Trump.

Oh my mistake, but you're pretty wrong on that assumption. A lot of SocJus types feel very strongly about the refugee situation, though making it a muslim ban probably helped drive a lot more people into the streets.

The fact that Trump did it and not Obama is the only real factor. You're giving people too much credit. They're conditioned to be outraged by Trump so they're outraged. They're conditioned to give Obama the benefit of the doubt so he got it.

They're conditioned not to be outraged at all. The fact that Americans get off their couch for something other than their local sports team is surprising. I don't doubt Obama probably got a more benefit, and honestly probably deserved it. But still he didn't attempt anything like this (I know, i know, "IRAQ WAIVER PROGRAM!" - not even close).

If you want to see a more partisan outcry, civilian casualties is back on the menu.

Even in your mind killing people is less outrageous than banning them from the country. I guess you know what I'm talking about.

Even in your mind killing people is less outrageous than banning them from the country

I didn't really come close to saying that. No need to put words in my mouth or make things up when I'm being pretty open and frank.

Cheers.

I don't doubt Obama probably got a more benefit, and honestly probably deserved it.

I applaud your open mindedness. And I also agree, democrats seem to have lost their heart, as if they were trying to compete with Republicans at being republican. So odd.

It's not odd when you see the money and power afforded to the GOP in the Nixon and Reagan era. That's why Clinton and their ilk of Republican-Democrats gained power and took over the Dems - they won - didn't matter if it was a horrid GOP plan - they won.

Indeed. They sought power and wealth over the agenda of caring for people.

This^

If you are even involved in politics you are part of the problem. This isnt going to be solved on a polical level. it needs to be solved on a person to person level.

Trump has always supported gay rights

Pence not so much tho

How much is Trump's life insurance policy?

One Pence.

the VP is powerless tho

He's Trump's advisor...

And? Trump is not one to seek consultation before taking action, CLEARLY.

This is the Clinton's claim to fame. Triangulation. Take positions that are closer to Republican ones to disarm their opposition and pull some of their supporters.

People actually believe Trump wants to deport gays. People are damn stupid

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

"I just don't feel good about it," Trump said. "I don't feel right about it. I'm against it, and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage."

How is that not considered changing his views?

They've gone full retard. Why would they want to import a bunch of gay hating women oppressing religious fanatics?

The thing is that they don't want to judge someone based solely on their religion. That's the kind of identity politics the right engages in but doesn't realize it.

I thought the ban was based on country of origin.

They've gone full retard. Why would they want to import a bunch of gay hating women oppressing religious fanatics?

I got whiplash from reading this.

Don't worry, you have the right to care about gay rights and will do a terrific job using you as a prop.

Liberals don't want to let muslims reduce your rights, we want to boost everyone's rights. Muslims won't get to infringe your rights just like you don't get to infringe theirs. It's really quite simple.

Bro we can't be taking in people from war torn countries. we need to help them in there own country. the whole migration thing is to destabilize the country. same thing is happening in europe right now.

No, bra. There's plenty of room. Plenty of people. They aren't going to be changing your breakfast cereal. You'll still get to own your car and get around. Life as you know it will not change one iota. None of the countries have produced a single terrorist on American soil since 9/11. You are afraid for nothing. The current admin wants you afraid because it empowers them. They are using you guys to stuff money in their pockets. Ya'll were so afraid of the government stealing your stuff that you put thieves in the government with all your keys.

I have no fucking idea what you are are talking about. Im not some cookie cutter person that the media is selling you. Im not afraid of any of that shit because it doesnt effect me. You really need to stop watching the news my friend. And fast.

Im looking at the whole picture. Its got nothing to do with room. It has to do with our country destabilizing their country by though the funding of war for the sole purpose to destabilize western civilization in order to push an agenda. Further control over everyone's lives. You are falling right into the trap. You think that immigration protest thing was grass roots? its nothing of the sort. this is problem, reaction solution. They created this situation to further this agenda.

This is part whats called eugenics, pushed by evil people to try and diminished the freedoms of all peoples in all countries and bring about a one world government.

Ah, hah. Sorry my friend, I forgot what subreddit I was in.

You're a loon.

Hey, you can call me whatever you want. Just look into it yourself. The sign of intelligence is when you can not attack someone so that your belief system isnt threatend, it's easy to dismiss people because its very hard to to accept viewpoints that run counter to what you believe. its called Cognitive Dissonance. Look that up as well.

Im not trying to be condescending, I know what its like to be threatened by ideas that run counter to my own.

It's like you learned all the words and the themes, but don't put them together into coherence. It's amazing really.

Yeah, im not so good with that. Sorry. Its a flaw I have very similar to dyslexia.

The guys big idea is to stick his head in the sand lol fuck him.

Shit. Alright, that's real. I like real.

Patterns are really important, I agree. But maybe we're really good at seeing patterns that aren't really there. Maybe the world is much more concrete than we give it credit for.

Thats possible. I guess it's up each of us to determine if we are seeing things that are not there. Thats why I just want people to look into things so we can work to find the truth.

Ok yeah you're right , nothing will happen. Everything will be juuust fine.

you realize that 30% of Americans think you should be in a mental institution for being gay? Also, it isn't hypocrisy because Muslims aren't asking shit, it is the liberals who are protesting. lol

More than 55% of Americans will make up a statistic when arguing a point.

Sources for your stat?

Well it isn't normal. Being gay is a mental disorder and should be treated as such not normalized.

Exactly that. Brainwashed by MSM

Why? look at South Korea, they were the petri dish for the plan rolled out to the rest of the Western world.

Republicans don't respect yours either. Shut the fuck up, are you serious

Not all Republicans hold the Bible high and rant about gays being evil and deny women's rights.

The problem is that we're not as loud as those embarrassments.

Removed, violation of rule 10, repeated violations will result in a ban from /r/conspiracy.

SJWs mask selfishness as collective concern by buddying up with other 'victims' to virtue signal. You were a prop for feminazis and other SJW's. They never cared about you. You were a shiny attachment to add positive emotion to their bullshit causes. Now that a new shiny prop has come about, you were tossed aside. Gay people are virtue-signaling fads. It's all about the muslims and trannies now.

For you to try to point out this hypocrisy is to ruin their chance to virtue-signal, to curate their image as a benevolent being. The image is all they care about. Their goal was never to bring attention to the gay community, it was to bring attention to themselves by association.

But what if they did care? What would they do differently?

No idea. But a good signal to a gay person on how people view you...Are you a friend...or a "gay best friend"? If the latter you're a prop to gain points.

Fuck you, stop spreading hate.

What about pointing out hate where it already exists?

I had a friend in college who was always trying to seek out gay guys to find a "gay bestie". Never happened, thankfully. I'm hopeful they saw right through it and just noped out of that "friendship".

Okay, but not many people are doing the latter. They are doing the former. You just chose to harp on those that seem to do the latter.

Reject institutional discrimination (i.e. collectivism) in all its forms, and be intellectually independent.

A free-minded individual doesn't live in the eyes of others, he prefers living in conscience and truth than to be liked.

So, what they would do differently is they would advocate liberty, rather than identify with a group and regurgitate what everyone inside that group agrees makes you look intelligent/virtuous.

I ultimately agree with this. It's a false notion to fight over 'who has it worse'. None have a say in the outcome. There may be 6 different classes of slaves, but none make the rule.

In a 'free' society government cannot impede upon your individual, as an individual without government is natural, and the joining a collective is voluntary. In today's world, governments will imprison you for all sorts of behaviors that offer little detriment.

The ones in charge aren't bound by these laws. If those bound were in charge, they wouldn't make such laws. These 'laws' which serve the unjust are just manifestations of enslavement.

In so much as the disguise works and the many don't practice self-rule, it's fine. Time is short, and if you waste your life on a 'protest' which does not simultaneously outright reject and propose an alternative, you've already lost.

There is a big bicycle powered bus driving off a cliff. You can't stop pedaling but you can elect a new driver. However the driver says that it's the brown, gay, yellow, pedalers that are the Real issue.

And in so much as groups of people are stupid enough to believe that, groups of them have agreed to kill gays in reply. Can u participate in a free society with such insignificant mental capacity?

I would suggest not. If you are so easily turned into a beast, you'd have no place in a modern world. The rule of beasts is fundamentally different from the rule of equals. Sometimes you got to put in place laws they don't understand to limit their populations.

Sometimes you got to put in place laws they don't understand to limit their populations.

Laws that who doesn't understand? And limit whom's population? That sounds totalitarian.

Sir, you are a wise man

• You are spot on but I don't think that is what u/dr_warlock had in mind.

Advocate Liberty!

A free-minded individual doesn't live in the eyes of others, he prefers living in conscience and truth than to be liked.

I would have to disagree. A free-mind, and a wise person, will be able to see the issues from many different eyes, and come up with a solution. If I refuse to see the pain and suffering through the eyes of those I am going to harm, then I lack empathy. I would be a tyrant.

This.

They wouldn't support Sharia law for a start

No one supports Sharia law in the US. No one. If you think there's actually a groundswell of support around Sharia law, you're absolutely mental.

Lol you serious? We have plenty of Muslims in America. Go to a Somalian neighborhood and ask them if they support sharia law and most will probably say yes. Shit forcing women to wear hijabs is like sharia law lite. Non Muslims might not support it, but they enable it by not denouncing it.

and most will probably say yes

What scientific rigidity, surely everyone will be convinced by your well-thought out and tested hypothesis.

Are you sure about that? Seems the leader of the Women's march on Washington says otherwise. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/orgs-leaders-show-support-women-s-march-co-organizer-imarchwithlinda-n712286

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/25/womens-march-organizer-linda-sarsour/

She clearly thinks Sharia law is something different than you or I do, something very benign. Further, that's just one person among millions, and she seems to be very lonely in her support for it among even her most devoted fans.

I'm not even sure how to take this seriously, if you really think there's widespread support for Sharia law. More likely you're just being dishonest, a way to win points in some argument.

Go ahead and check it out for yourself. I have no desire to argue, win points or whatever you are claiming. I am not being dishonest. You stated no one supports Sharia law, I was pointing out that is not true.

Pedantic at best. You are lying to yourself as much as me.

She's lying about it for support not misunderstanding it.

Stop inviting and enabling people who want to throw you off tall buildings.

What does a person do when they care about a 'victim class'? They show common courtesy like they do to anyone else and walk away like nothing happened.

But that's glamorous is it? No 'good person' points for you.

If that was the way then segregation, hell slavery would still be the norm in the US. People care about other people, happens all the time.

Nah, that's fucked up. The "SJWs" that are like that are very few, but very loud. The majority of people can see that people should have equal rights no matter what their sexuality, that people should have rights no matter their religion AND that religion can't be used a shield for shitty views.

Rather than painting "the left" as all one shitty way, how about look at what they actually say. Most liberals are willing to call out Muslim terrorism, and call out Muslim beliefs.

Level-headed comment. All ppl should have equal rights, period. This is not mutually exclusive to stopping those who want to exterminate ppl.

Can you give me a quote where Hillary uttered "radical Islamic terror" or an equivalent term in the last election campaign?

Can you point to a single stance Hillary took that was actually Liberal?

Minimum wage increase, expanding Obamacare, raising infrastructure spending. There's 3 off the top of my head.

She was forced into all of it, and, so far as I could tell, had no intention of keeping any promise or attempting to get it passed.

Now, she did vote for A Wall between Mexico and us while she was a Senator, so I guess that could be considered infrastucture spending.

8 years ago she said gay marriage should be illegal.

Yep. The second that the polling said 51% of Americans were cool with it. ;P

Interesting story (to me.) There was a little kerfluffle about HRC saying that Nancy Reagan was a friend to teh gays and was amazing at all the political capital she gave to Aids Rsearch - at Nancy's funeral.

So, I went and looked to see what Bernie was doing during the Reagan years. Turns out, he was a mayor of Burlington, and during the same time period that Ryan White was getting firebombed out of his house, Bernie was making it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation for housing. Not much was written on it, but as far as I could tell, it was Burlington and San Francisco that did that. That's it.

And the Clinton's? They were selling tainted blood to Canada, since the US said they didn't want to use HiV+ blood anymore. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/arkansas-bloodsuckers-the-clintons-prisoners-and-the-blood-trade/

God damn what a reputable source. Can you find a link to the Probasco report that the article cites? I looked around a little bit and could not find it. The only thing that ties Clinton to anything is that report. I found a lot of links to the same story, but none of them cited the source, itself, said where they obtained it or linked to it. Would like to see it.

Are you trying to imply to the reading audience that it never happened? For shame! Any google search will do ya!

But here is a wikipedia link. With a lot of sources! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal

I was very clear. I wanted to see the primary source about the investigation to see if it was just the one guy saying Bill was the financial arm of it, if the cop wrote anything about whether he believed it, etc. His reference was a random blogger quoting the report, quoting someone untrustworthy.

You know, there is a difference between something being illegal and something not having a legal framework. Being gay and married was not illegal, no one was being arrested or jailed for gay marriage, there was just nothing in the legal definition of marriage that included same sex marriage. It was wrong, but it's a bit disingenuous to suggest she wanted gay marriage to be illegal.

I believe her exact words were marriage is between a man and a woman.

Right, so not "illegal" then. If something is illegal, it caries penalties for performing or partaking, which gay marriage did not. In fact, her previous support for labeling marriage as between a man and a woman carried a caveat that she believed in same-sex unions, while keeping the term marriage as between to only refer to opposite-sex couples. This was for sure a calculated move, but demonstrates at least her desire to see same-sex couples afforded the typical rights of married couples (visitation, financial support, etc) while appeasing the religious crowd by keeping the "institution" of marriage technically opposite-sex, something the religious community considered important.

Don't remember a caveat with that particular statement but if it makes you feel better....

Perhaps not that particular statement, but it wasn't the only time she spoke on the subject. Take from it what you will. It's no comfort for me, I don't particularly give a shit about Clinton, though she's have made a better president than the wannabe king.

Better infrastructure is what every politician claims they want but never do anything about.

And as far as Obamacare goes, since when is funneling money into the insurance industry a "liberal" thing?

Obamacare was one of the most ridiculously NON-LIBERAL things we've ever done. Maybe it was liberal in the neoliberal sense?

She was for $12 before she was for $15 and only changed because Sanders made her look bad

No I can't. I'm not sure why that matters. I don't follow her, or support her. I found her to be the ultimate in political expedience. She only does what gets votes, or what appeases those she needs to appease.

Her stance on not calling out Islamism was entirely to do with her need to appease those Muslim countries she wanted to work with. She may be right that not saying it would have been better for those relationships and might have even reduced terror, I don't know. But it sure as fuck destroyed her presidential campaign.

Obviously many disagreed with her and still voted for her anyway. But let's not kid ourselves. There were no good options.

Yeah the majority of people in general are normal, but the people making all the noise now are either crazy themselves or severely influenced by the crazies - and they are louder and way more aggressive than normal people so it's a lopsided narrative at this time.

I think his point is that for so very long we have listened to these people talk about how important gay rights and women's rights are-- any gay right and women's right they can imagine-- and then almost overnight, they decide that's it's really important that a very particular group of Muslims who despise those things should be celebrated and put on a pedestal of protection and support. It's extreme dissonance-- something you would expect from a sci-fi mind control device used on a population for experimentation. It makes no sense at all.

It wasn't "over night", it happened right about the time that Trump began saying we should crack down on illegal immigrants/refugees. From what I can tell, Trump is totally cool with gay rights and has no plans to revoke them - so the SJW shifted gears.

The fuck are you talking about? Putting Muslims on a pedestal of protection and support? Is that really what it's about? Or is it more about due process and the rule of law? Are people celebrating Islam or simply trying to be fair to people? Putting someone on a pedestal means putting them above everyone else. Yeah, really put them on a pedestal by honoring their visas and our own laws and values.

Nope. Utter bullshit. There's nothing that hurts gay rights or women's rights by letting more Muslims into the US. When muslims in the US are accepted, they become much more moderate or liberal themselves. And again, letting them in does not have any impact on rights of gays or women. Right wing policies do, though. Nothing about asking for the constitution to be upheld puts Muslims above anyone else, as you imply. Supporting one group does not logically follow that you're supporting their religion.

You want real hypocrisy? There's a giant movement to outlaw abortion from Christians. None of them give a fuck about the death penalty.

Call me crazy, but Islam has a really bad track record of being open minded and liberal when they are the majority. If you can name three countries where the majority of the population Muslim where homosexuality isn't illegal and women have equal rights I'll change my mind entirely about this matter.

Please don't respond with some wild deflection that ignores my challenge unless you think I am already correct.

Albania is really the only one. There are others with legal homosexuality, but they all treat women like shit. Do you think we'll be a majority muslim country overnight if we allow immigration as we have for the last 20 years? How is this relevant to immigration?

The only reason the west isn't like that is due to the Enlightenment and a push back against the church. For most of history, Christians treated homosexuality and women the same way as Muslims. IIRC, the law against buggery in Pakistan that stands to this day was implemented by the British.

I wrote an entire 72,000 word novel about a sci-fi mind control device used on a population for experimentation, and nothing in my book is as crazy as a person who is pro-Islam and pro-feminist at the same time.

Would a SJW be ready to advocate the de-institutionalization of marriage? I understand the argument they put forward on gay marriage, i.e. it's unfair heterosexuals get to do it and we don't. Because when you're married the government makes it easier for a great deal of things (fiscality being one). That's fair enough in my mind.

But rather than imposing a "new" definition of marriage and family, why wouldn't the government stop advocating any? As in, it doesn't care/register if you're married or with whom. All it knows it that consenting adults may establish a private contract (like a shareholders' agreement) and be asked to enforce it if there's ever a disagreement.

Churches would be free to organize whatever celebration/ritual they'd like. They'd have no legal value however and "civil wedding" wouldn't exist anymore.

Would gays or SJWs be ok with that? To conservatives reading this, would you too? That's the liberty approach. And the reason governments institutionalized marriage in the 1st place (protect women) has become obsolete.

Mormons or Muslims could have polygamy, feminists could have polyandry, gays could marry each other, and Christians could retain their traditions/values. Wouldn't that be great?

The only argument against this is that there is "good" in having a mechanism whereby the government can provide a bundle of recognized rights and responsibilities on a couple. I.e., if you commit to supporting each other we will allow things like visitation rights, tax simplifications, etc... instantly and for free. Acquiring these things would take time and money normally.

If you don't feel there is "good" in having more stabilized relationships then this isn't needed. I tend to think having privileges for couples that legally to commit to supporting each other is good, but I can understand and appreciate the other side.

I agree with you, and I do think it's good and virtuous to have stablilized relationships. I just don't think government is the right institution to promote this (case in point, is doing the exact opposite).

Couples could privately commit to supporting each other in a contract. You can give that contract the name of "wedding contract", but don't need to, and it needs be given no particular significance a priori by the State.

Shareholders' agreement are a very good example of such contracts. They are very similar to wedding contracts actually. The only big difference being children (who are not assets but have freedoms in their own right). But yet again I think, even for the protection of children, that it would be better to take the .gov out of the equation rather than giving it yet more prerogatives.

This is truly the way we need to go to be free.

As a loud and proud "SJW" I would absolutely wholeheartedly support the deinstitutionalisation of marriage. There is absolutely no modern reason the state should have anything to do with peoples personal relationships or how they are defined. Yes if straight people can get married than gay people should too, as well as polygamists. But it would be much better to get rid of the institution all together.

Spoken like a true sjw who has no property, investments, children, intellectual property, and doesn't own any businesses and who hasn't considered end of life issues.

Wow you sure got me pinned guess I'll go spend the rest of my life working towards your definition of success now.

Those things don't necessarily mean anything in terms of success.

Seems like I shouldn't have opinions unless I have them, though.

I'm all for it. There's no reason it's a legal issue, it should be a private issue.

ive had this thought for a while now. government has no business defining marriage anyway. as far as i was raised to understand, marriage was a public commitment made in front of your peers and (in the case of the religious) in the eyes of your god to be committed adn faithful to the person you are marrying. im pretty sure the idea was to place great importance on your commitment in that your peers, your community, or your church would all know you made such commitments and support you, or you would face the shame in all your neighbors knowing you are a liar and a cheat.
the way i see it is the govt should get out of the marriage business altogether. some major corporations have already address the "family" aspect of this by allowing you to designate anyone as your financial and insurance beneficiary regardless of relationship status. why couldnt it just work like this in regards to any government benefits related to having a family? if your church marries same sex couples, or does not marry same sex couples depending on your belief, pick another church. or dont have a marriage in a church at all.
maybe im old school or small minded, but i thought that was the way things were supposed to be in the usa. live according to your faith whatever it is, dont worry about people who dont agree, and dont feel the need to call for a law every time someone does something that bothers you. that is the mindset i just dont understand at all.

Are you asking which well known people on the left support gay rights and see Islamism as an issue that conflicts? Well first I'd have to nail down what you mean. For example a massive amount of Christians are anti gay rights.. so there are lots of people that call out ALL Abrahamic religion. Sam Harris is one that comes to mind. Bill Maher is another.

If you mean politicians then I am not sure. I don't follow them all that much.

Sorry if this sounds muddled I'm on my phone and half asleep.

I wish that were true. You have many feminists on the left saying Sharia isn't that bad and they are walking around in headscarfs that women in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have no other option but to wear because they could face physical punishment otherwise. It honestly is something out of science fiction. It's impossible to believe, but it is quite mainstream at the moment.

One women said at the protest had a sign that said sharia=feminism. They are clueless

There are "many"? Please, share with the class the many.

Where are these l8berals defending Sharia? I'm surrounded by ardent liberals but have yet to see anything close to that lunacy.

I remember some stuff from that recent women's march that sent shivers up my spine:

picture 1

picture 2

picture 3

No. First of all a hijab is a fairly innocuous piece of clothing. Non Muslims have worn head scarfs in the past. What they are saying is "Muslims are Americans too", no more. They are not normalizing Sharia or scarves. And most American Muslims don't want to institute Sharia in the US.

Being FORCED to wear clothing is bad but for many it is a choice. Where it is NOT a choice, I disagree and fight it.

And those defending Sharia are in the minority. It is a very small subset. Obviously they exist, and it sucks, but look at the Alt Right. Just one peek at their subreddit and you'll see that Christianity has many of its own fuckwits. Not a large amount but very vocal. And just like Islam, MANY who won't admit the shitty things they believe in public.

If you feel like Googling it you can find a lot of literature written by Western leftists implying that elements of Sharia, if not Sharia itself, are laudable and fully compatible with Western society.

I honestly don't think you're going to convince Americans to tolerate, much less welcome in, that cult. It is dangerous and, while I know that people can be browbeaten into almost any opinion, there is going to be sufficient resistance that your efforts will have minimal impact. People know what Islam is about.

My point was that it was a small number of people, not that it was non existent. And yes, it is too many people.

By your logic the swastika and KKK attire would be significantly more innocuous given those ideas have led to far fewer problems for a far shorter length of time.

This would be like tons of black women marching around wearing Klan hats on behalf of Black Lives Matter in the year 3250. And it would only be similar if slavery was still going, having never been abolished, with no Reformation or civil war, and the Klan ran governments totalling more than a billion people where everyone was forced to be racist and would be killed if they were not.

The swastika and the "ghost suit" were only used by groups that tortured and killed, right? We're there moderate nazis and clansmen?

Many moderate Muslims wear the hijab and are otherwise identical to the average person. I would say the burqa is much more like a swastika because they are almost entirely used by the harmful strains of Islam that get involved in torture and stoning gays.

Rightly or wrongly the hijab wearing is solidarity with moderate Muslims, not ISIS or those commuting honor killings, etc. you may not see a distinction but the protesters do.

That's got nothing to do with Sharia law, silly. It's a scarf.

Thank you. This thread is dominated by alt-right propaganda. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

There was a post on reddit a day or two ago about someone inside of the SJW/Feminist/progressive movement about this very subject. The entire thing was a circle of increasing extremism where anyone who disagreed with the new "extreme" opinion got shouted down by the "extreme" members of the pack, and then everyone else.

I know it seems like it's just the extremes but the people going along with it are just as bad.

Obama refused to even label it as Islamic terrorism while he was droning and bombing innocent women and children in Muslim countries.

I am aware of this. His reasoning was that by doing so it would ease tensions. I really doubt that is true and strongly disagreed with him on that, as did many liberals. Most liberal organizations were very critical of Obama in many ways, but people either didn't see it because they only go to right wing sites OR they forgot it because towards the end of his presidency Obama started to look pretty good next to Trump and Clinton and the criticism stopped.

Well put!

Man, you're absolutely stuck in a bubble. Go outside. Get off tumblr.

Would you care to elaborate? I'd enjoy reading your views.

I mean in reading his comment. It's full of buzzwords and labels and generalisations cherry picked directly from the most extreme groups that are engaged politically. Sure, these groups (feminazis/SJWs) are annoyingly present in social media, and whatnot. But they don't represent the silent majorities or the people who show up at the airports angry about injustice. And in my experience, if you spend your days searching the internet for these sorts of extreme points of view, it will only reinforce your own views that they represent the greater whole or that their over-the-top way of thinking about society is some sort of widespread phenomenon; when really, it's only a loud minority being giant, unintelligent babies.

He's absolutely 1000% not wrong. SJWs as an entire movement are completely egocentric. It is all about the image.

It is all about the image.

So, again, what would these groups do differently to advocate, if they really held these views?

Cool, thanks. I agree that if the propaganda / current hegelian dialectic caricatures conservatives, libertarians and "conspiracy theorists", it is also safe to assume their caricature SJWs. Their goal being to convince everyone that those outside their identity group is are morons/bigots. Divide and conquer.

Personally I loved Michael Moore during the Bush years, although I didn't agree with him on economic policy issues. He rightfully denounced the neocons and war criminals. That is, before he turned around and started supporting the new war criminal in town.

Wtf!? You use of words is quite striking, but redundant in complexity. The point you make about the safe assumption of SJW caricutures goes against your earlier point of critical thought. To practice thought as you detailed shows that it as selective not critical. Don't get too drunk off the narrative you create.

I'm saying that the "common knowledge" about so-called "social justice warriors" is likely wrong (even on r/conspiracy). First-off that label is fake, just like the label "conspiracy theorist" is phony. Second I surmise most "leftists who care" are not bathroom militants, and don't believe a hairy guy is a woman if he says so.

The silent majority have jobs and better things to do than be angry at an airport.

The silent majority must be illegal mexicans because they're the only ones who have jobs anymore, remember?

Wasn't it on a weekend though? All the real Americans work 24/7.

Did you not see the women's March? It was not only organized by a Sharia loving Muslim, but they even had people put on burkas as a sign of solidarity....

I doubt that most people complaining about SJW's even run into them directly someplace like Tumblr. Usually they're getting cherry-picked examples of dumbasses (or trolls...) shown to them by places like TiA or 4chan.

It seems silly that a lot of folks' political beliefs are heavily reinforced by "look at these dumbass 19 year olds that hold an opposing belief system". College aged kids are fucking dumb, it's nothing new. What seems new is the conservative movement to put these dumb people front and center so they represent the other side. Suddenly "everyone on the left" is an SJW idiot and you don't have to argue against adults with well thought out positions.

It should raise a red flag when the other side is hand picking the representatives of a group. Folks arguing against these SJW's should try to imagine liberals disregarding their opinions completely by instead cherry picking the facebook page of some 19 year old coal-rolling racist dumbass from Appalachia and using the stupid political posts therein as a strawman for all opposing beliefs.

Truly a beautiful post. Thank you.

I'd give you gold if it didn't cost anything or take any effort

Look at this cucks post history, who else smells CTR?!?

So do not support any minority group or we might label you a left SJW too.

Seriously though, the way you write "virtue signal" it reminds of "SJWs" in the 60's getting called "nigger lover"

Reminds me more of the ones who called themselves "nigger lovers", completely missing the irony.

Ooh is that worse?

It's not better.

And here lies the disgusting motivation behind all of this.

Yeah, claiming internet comments are the "motivation behind all this" is definitely part of the problem.

Replacing "nigger lover" with "virtue signal" is definitely a problem.

Seriously though, the way you write "virtue signal" it reminds me of so called SJWs in the 60's getting called "nigger lover".

Oh I should have said n-word?

Say what ever you want, I don't listen to hypocrites.

Nor explain yourself apparently.

You use smart-sounding words to mask an incredibly stupid hypothesis. My gay friends are not "props", stop dehumanizing them.

Dude, unplug from Reddit. You've gone off the deep end.

Milo said that gay white men will be the first liberal self social sacrifice

What is that supposed to mean?

Plus he's a professional troll. Pretty much a political comedian. He doesn't have a special insight into the left. The right, maybe, but not the left.

Meaning that the left will ( as they already have) sacrifice (socially & politically) gay white males. They were a stepping stone in the Orthodox Lefts (alt-left) agenda. I don't have a problem with Trolls, the argument that because they're annoying never meant that their logic isn't sound. How does he not have insight into the left? That seems mostly untrue from what I've observed. He's the product of the left, their monster, flaming gay white man that loves black men ( but it's just to get back at mommy). He's the lefts greatest creation.

Meaning that the left will ( as they already have) sacrifice (socially & politically) gay white males. They were a stepping stone in the Orthodox Lefts (alt-left) agenda.

What's the evidence for any of this? What agenda? And how is it worse than the active opposition to LGBT rights from the right?

I don't have a problem with Trolls, the argument that because they're annoying never meant that their logic isn't sound.

That seems fair, but we have to remember that trolls intentionally exaggerate and sensationalize to cause outrage. Doesn't mean they're always completely wrong, but we have to take them with a grain of salt.

How does he not have insight into the left? That seems mostly untrue from what I've observed. He's the product of the left, their monster, flaming gay white man that loves black men ( but it's just to get back at mommy). He's the lefts greatest creation.

Haha what the fuck, dude? You just dove way off the deep end. Because he's gay and willing to date black guys he's a "creation" of the left and "their monster"? Your extreme bias is showing here.

I'm on mobile so I can't cite the exact source on that bit about backstabbing gay white men, but it was originally Milo on the JRE. I see it in media but it's not in full swing yet. How is a queer, interracial cock sucking Brit not the high priestess of the Left?! I have no bias, my post hx clearly shows that. I would encourage you to cite my bias pls

Here's my citation for your bias:

How is a queer, interracial cock sucking Brit not the high priestess of the Left?!

None of that has anything to do with left-leaning politics. The left spends more time and energy fighting for civil rights than the right, sure, but that doesn't make being gay or dating other races a "left" thing.

Okay let me respond to you when I'm off mobile, because you have a few points & I don't want to rush through them and have only half a conversation with you

As far as the media backstabbing gay men, Milo cites it in his JRE appearance. Its worth the listen so I encourage you to give it a shot. If anyone else has a time stamp for those comments pls post. Yes the UK has long been associated with more left leaning liberal politics and society. Clearly they valued left leaning policies towards women and property while occupying India that helped to reshape the caste system and its modern incarnation. I'm not in the mood to debate the liberal blessing the UK has given the world so if that citation isn't good enough you'll have to accept it at moot.

And what is it you see in media where gay men are being back stabbed? I don't understand what you're talking about, or why you think the left would do it. What does it accomplish?

The post modern led Left label white men as either sub or evil, there isn't much leeway. You can't have white men allowed a position of authority/social influence, be they gay or otherwise. I'm sure you can conclude what that accomplished for the left. I think this is the bit about gay white males being censored but maybe not...life is mysterious like that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWYFzpI3IRY

I've done a 180 on my thoughts about identity politics, and it happened in an instant (like an aha moment).

I used to think that only the Left was engaged in identity politics. They seem obsessed with genders, gays, trannies, blacks, immigrants...any minority group. I was actually pissed because I attributed identity politics to why the Democrats lost (which I still in part believe).

But here is the piece of the puzzle I was missing: The Right is every bit as obsessed with identity politics as the Left. Maybe even more so. But it is in the form of being racist, or sexist, or hating gays, immigrants, and people that aren't from their religion. These are people that would never give Obama a chance simply because he is black.

That's .. ER.. pretty succinct

You know so much about how 'they' think. Please tell me more...

Their goal was never to bring attention to the gay community, it was to bring attention to themselves by association.

And evidence for this can be found in the Women's March mission statement. It starts with acknowledging problems affecting peoples of diverse backgrounds, but ends with demanding mostly women's rights.

Yes, the entire culture of liberals and tolerance is actually just the kids on tumblr. I'm a huge asshole, die-hard liberal, and borderline misanthrope. But I'm not religious so I treat gay people like they're people. I hate religion, but not equally. Islam is patently worse for women and gays. It's worth noting that making suicide against the religion is the only thing keeping Christians from being suicide bombers or engaging in mass suicides to get to heaven faster.

The only people who think the way you do spend too much time on tumblr, have never interacted with gay people and think that feminism is solely the 4th wave shit pushed by teenagers online. Surprised you didn't mention anything about how the gay agenda is really just to legalize pedophilia.

The shallowness of it all really points out the feminity of the SJWs. Women, biologically speaking, do not hold as much reverence as men to the dominant power structure a.k.a. main-stream culture. They imitate, but do not have a real clue. "equality", "normal","violence" etc. are all terms that the vacuous SJW are throwing around. Scientific words for very specific use get de-valued, hollowed out. Anyone can play the victim. Stay positive, I say.

Eh, as a gay feminist and "SJW" I disagree.

If you use a loaded label like "SJW", you should at least be required to precisely define it. Who exactly are these "SJW"s I hear so much about?

You are onto something, very well explained.

I feel like the 48 genders phenomenon blew up after gay marriage was passed for this very reason.

They can only go by the narrative that has been fed to them by the TV.

I would like to see a gay militant group that sexualy assaults Muslim men for their crimes against gaylord lord of gays, tho i think many Muslims are in the closet of denial that is why they hate homosexuality so much.

For some reason I imagine Gaylord, Lord of the Gays would look like Idris Elba dressed as Jon Snow. That seems like the fitting image for a man on a peaceful quest, but is clearly able to best you in both verbal and physical combat.

tho i think many Muslims are in the closet of denial that is why they hate homosexuality so much.

500% no doubt here. They practice the raping of young boys. Yea. They're in the closet as fuck.

I don't think you'll find anyone on the left supporting the government of Saudi Arabia, for example. They support Muslim people's rights to believe what they want and not be persecuted for it. Believe it or not, the majority of Muslims don't want to throw gay people from the tops of buildings or set them on fire. I've met gay Saudi Muslims and Muslim women from Iran who don't want to wear a hijab. Their governments persecute them, and every American (liberal, conservative, muslim, atheist, etc) I've ever talked to on this will condemn those governments' actions. I know an openly gay man who lives in Dearborn (the largest % Muslim/Arab populations in the US) and has never had an issue.

Of course certain cultures within Muslim communities around the world have varying attitudes towards this - but they are changing, as are their attitudes towards gay people in general.

I think many on the left are a little more sensitive towards criticizing Muslim communities because they're so often unfairly criticized. Assuming someone who is Muslim (especially in a Western country) automatically hates gays is often unreasonable. Be critical of the actual people/societies/governments that spew hatred, not of just "Muslims"

Dude, have you never been to the south? There's black and white people who don't accept people being gay. Like 50% of them.

The world doesn't make any fucking sense bro. Do what you've got to do to get by. Try and hate the least you can, but defend yourself if you need to. Be level headed and logical, you don't need people's permission to decide what you're for and what you're against, just do your thing. If you're wrong, then learn from mistakes and improve. That's all anyone can do.

The regressive left hates the South. They don't think it's cultural since they live in the same country. The need to read some books about rednecks like cracker culture or black red necks and white liberals.

But the bigger issue for SJWs and the South is that its just a lot of white males. And we know how they feel about respecting them.

And religion that's Christian based.

Ever see that these globalist scumbags will break their backs to defend Islam's atrocities, and will justify the violence of those extremists by trying to attach it to something Christians did?

Well sure Muslims might throw gay people off buildings, but Christians believe in gay conversion therapy! So that's like, the same... and so we should give Islam a pass!

The corrupt Leftist thinking goes that if they didn't personally see people criticizing those Christians, then we're not allowed to criticize Muslims. Because gay conversion therapy is as bad as throwing gays off a building, and you should criticize them both equally or you're an Islamaphobe and your opinion is invalid anyway. See how that sort of thinking always leads to the Leftist being the one on the moral high ground?

Yea I've noticed. But when I took a women studies class the professor pointed it out. She talked about how (at the time 2007ish) white women had taken over the roll of saving the world. Excusing the crazy ways people behave by saying they're not educated enough so it's not their fault.

Now she didn't agree with them, it's how she saw what they were doing. Even by being "good" they were still being condescending and making it so only they could enlighten people basically. SJW types, the regressive left, whatever does the same thing.

"Blacks, gays, Muslims, whatever don't know that racism is still here because they can't see it anymore since it's so hidden and subtle, they don't realize they're being treated differently they're too dumb, etc" is basically what they're saying. I'm not saying that there isn't inherent racsim in some things (most of us have seen studies showing a name can prevent you from getting interviews, and I'm sure other studies somehow refute this) but people have pointed out when a lot of the complaints are super petty or not even real then you've basically beaten it. There will be isolated incidents as well, but that's not a reflection of society as a whole.

Absolutely! SJWs are the most racist, sexist, bigoted creatures on this Earth. They are completely intolerant to any idea other than their own, and would prefer martial law over Democracy.

Oh those poor black people. We must help them, because they can't help themselves. What have they done these past 200 years without our help? Poor people! SJWs to the rescue!

Note, Black people did not ask for help. Black people do not want this help. But the SJWs are going to give it to them anyway.

It's just virtue signalling. They don't give a shit about Black people or the plight of Black people. They care about looking cool in front of their friends and patting themselves on the back when they're drinking wine after the rally. They're mostly middle class white women who've never suffered anything more than a lewd stare or passing grope. They know nothing about real hardship -- thanks to the men they claim to hate.

Lol. True. We'll see probably.

"Blacks, gays, Muslims, whatever don't know that racism is still here because they can't see it anymore since it's so hidden and subtle, they don't realize they're being treated differently they're too dumb, etc"

Which itself, ironically, is extremely racist because it assumes those people are idiots

Disagreeing with someone and keeping that opinion to yourself is different than disagreeing with someone and throwing them off the roof of a building. It's the difference between civilisation and barbarism.

Yeah, I take it you haven't been to the south. I know people who were disowned by their parents over it

Once again; disowned by parents = different than being thrown off the roof of a building.

gays get murdered in the US and they get disowned by islamic parents too, it's not all so black and white

They are literally brainwashed and are bigots to the extreme, while simultaneously calling you a bigot or any slew of other names they have for anyone that disagrees with them

The political atmosphere is so polarized you can only be on one side or the other. Can't even have an intelligent conversation anymore. Goes straight to identity politics.

You mean the left goes straight to identity politics. Ive yet to see that really happen on the donald. If you go there with honest questions and reasonable courtesy (or the ask the donald sub in the sidebar) people there are happy to talk without attacking you

Lol

You can't be serious. Dissent = banning in T_D, and that's after they've called you a cuck.

Or were you missing a /s tag (I don't even know what's real anymore)

Sounds like something a cuck would say...

Takes one to know one, cuck.

Cuck-a-doodle-do mothercucker

May the cuck be with you.

Why did it have to be cucks, I hate cucks.

Go post a dissenting statement on the Donald just for shits and giggles. Come back and let us know when you get banned. It's a pretty easy experiment.

I am so glad you posted this! Pushing against Islam isn't against religion because it in itself is both a cultural and political movement. They want to dictate law which involves anti gay actions and oppressing women. It makes me angry when people defend it claiming they have rights. Why would a "religion" who's beliefs directly oppose our constitutional rights be allowed here? They are taking advantage of suckers and SJWs who are too blind to see that they are somehow fighting for their own rights to be taken one day.

Good for you OP.

And doesn't even see the irony...

the right is devouring its tail.

They want to dictate law which involves anti gay actions and oppressing women.

Why would a "religion" who's beliefs directly oppose our constitutional rights be allowed here?

This could also easily apply to the Christian fundamentalist or the Republican policy makers who claim to be one. (I say this as a non-partisan)

The reason is simple. What's the point of freedom of speech or religion if you only allow the speech or religion that you agree with.

That means allowing the KKK to march the street. That means allowing anarchist protests.

Freedom isn't easy. It involves having your ideals and philosophies challenged.

Normally I would agree with you here but islam is a whole other beast. It's tied to a religious government as a requirement for all Muslims to wage jihad to make that happen and to kill all infidels or convert them by the sword.

Jesus Christ told us to love one another and have compassion and bring his words to all who want to listen. I am no expert and don't claim to be but I am unaware of any Christian movement that requires conquest and conversion by force. Many may like the idea of Christian government but most I've attended from various Protestant branches to my husband's Catholic church it's preaching peace and love and individual repentance and sin.... Judge not others etc. Love the sinner and hate the sin. (We all need to work on this and quit making moral issues laws like prostitution, drugs and gambling etc).

islam has no get along to get along. It mandates conquest and blood and an Islamic state. Anything less means you are not a good muslim.

There are different kinds of islam.

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/anti-extremism/7-islamic-radicalism-its-wahhabi-roots-and-current-representation.html

There were crusades and missionaries sent to africa to convert people but islam is a whole other level

Honestly tho, cause someone else brought up the crusades to me the other day...a thousand fucking years ago. Quite literally get over it

Not to mention The Crusades were the backlash against the Muslim foray into the Roman Empire. This Islamic assault upon the West (or what would largely become "The West"") was initiated by peaceful Muhammad himself, who was slaughtering Christians along the path to conquering Europe.

The Crusades began as a sortie that essentially turned into the rebalancing and reclamation of the Roman/Byzantine lands that were originally attacked and conquered by Muslims.

Exactly. A thousand years ago, shit be fuk'd. How about today?

I mean, with Christianity or Islam? Because with the mass influx of refugees into Europe and the violence and chaos that has accompanied that, it kinda feels like echoes of the Muslim Conquest. Obviously it's not nearly as dangerous... yet. I'm sure the Islamic invasion of the Byzantines was seen as just some isolated raids at first too. I dunno, I don't want to speculate too much, but if Islam is still seeking to invade, the situation right now looks a lot like a Trojan horse. Anyway that's not to mention the daily conflicts and killings between Shi'ites and Sunnis scattered throughout the ME.

Christianity hasn't done much violence in recent times (abortion clinic bombings are about the only thing I can think of, and that is not fresh in most memories), so I would say of the two religions, Christianity tends to be more peaceful. Not Hindu or Taoist peaceful, but still more chill than Islam.

Your point's valid with the Crusades not being a relevant example of modern Christianity; I was just pointing out that they're not even a good example of aggressive violence in Christianity (as so many like to paint it) considering that they were initiated as what was effectively self-defense. I was commenting with intent to dispel some of that ignorance.

Lords Christian Army, not to mention the religiously motivated fuckery in the middle east and unquestionable support for Israel.

Israel = Jewish. Hell Israel is more Muslim than Christian; I'm not really sure what your point is there.

Kony has an isolated cult that claims to be Christian, but follows none of the tenants. Not really the same or even comparable to Shia-Sunni Muslims (which are neither isolated nor unorthodox).

Unquestioning support for israel is a tenant of radical christianity because the jews must be attacked in order to start Armageddon, and they must be attacked there specifically.

I do think that extremist in Christianity will eventually buddy up with extremists within Islam. American domestic religious based terrorism is going to be a crazy thing. Sprinkle in some pure Americana fringe cults & religions & it's going to be a spectacle

I do think that extremist in Christianity will eventually buddy up with extremists within Islam

If history is any judge, this will probably literally never happen. Islamic extremists have been known to wage war against other sects of Islam for not being "Islamic enough." You think they'd really tolerate an entirely different religion enough to "team up?"

American domestic religious based terrorism is going to be a crazy thing

Have we not already seen that in Orlando and San Bernardino? Or are you referring to primarily Christian-based domestic terrorism (like bombing abortion clinics, though I think that's in the past)? The way things look, politically-based domestic terrorism seems to be the greater immediate concern.

America is all about homogeneous culture, in this instance I mean radical terrorists doing the same work from different perspectives, not as a unit.

Orlando etc isn't what I mean. I mean more organized terrorists, whomever Trump sets the dogs against and legitimizes. There's already crazy culture supporting violence etc. left wing extremist Christian trans-fox kind terrorists with a number one hit song and their own superhero-persona on twitter, that's the coming American domestic terrorist

left wing extremist Christian trans-fox

One of these things is not like the other...

I have yet to meet or even hear of a left-wing extremist Christian, let alone one that is a trans-species or whatever. Not saying they don't exist, but it just doesn't seem to fit the Western Christian paradigm.

Other than that yea, I think the growing extremism we're seeing from the left is going to lead to more than firebombing a RNC headquarters or rioting and blocking hospital traffic.

Transhumanism fits perfectly into Christianity but sadly most humans don't understand Christianity. It's all about transforming etc

Really ? Are you that fucking mind deaf ? You are literally putting words refugees and MUSLIM CONQUEST together without a sense of irony ? Refugees from what ? Refugees from WHAT ? CONQUEST ? Oh, please, tell me more ?

"Christianity hasn't done much violence in recent times" https://www.google.com/search?q=militia+groups+who+have+been+arrested&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS730US730&oq=militia+groups+who+have+been+arrested&aqs=chrome..69i57.13469j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Not because of lack of desire.

And cue the rants.

Well, since no one commented with any rational conversation, I might as well.

We have to remember that religious affiliation is at an all time low in Western society, and that during the crusades the 'Holy Roman Empire' and 'Western Society' were one in the same.

It's the same battle, although only one side is still basing it in religion, scary enough as it is.

It's not racist to say that there are a large number of people from the Middle East who want to replace our culture with theirs.

It's not racist to say that there are a large number of people from the Middle East who want to replace our culture with theirs.

I whole-heartedly agree. But I'm also certain that there is a large portion of the US population that disagrees with that statement entirely (i.e. "no, they just want to peacefully adopt our values and seamlessly integrate , and it's racist to presume otherwise").

Though it is kind of funny that it really is the same war. The West has been fighting the ME almost continuously in some form for like 1000 years... that didn't really occur to me until you said it.

The Crusades happened before the printing press, when the Roman Catholic church controlled the scriptures (keeping them in Latin) so the common person couldn't know what they said. The Crusades happened before some translators fought to have the Bible in the common language. The Crusades aren't the evidence of a violent faith, but rather the fault of a corrupt political elite that manipulated the people. Who was calling for war? Political and church leaders based on greed.

You're a fucking star! Well said. I always make a point to distinguish Christianity & corporate Christianity

Exactly what the leaders of radical Islam are doing now. There are peaceful Muslims and then there are other Muslims who are willing to manipulate believers into waging war in order to gain power.

Agreed. It's quite a bit more difficult in modern times to find Christians who are killing people that aren't converting. I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's not common.

You could make the same argument for slavery in the US. The time passed compared to the atrocities that occurred are subjective and even more so in the middle east. Yeah it happened a thousand years ago, but the influence and power the Christians gained still affects people today.

True, so it should serve as a cautionary tale not a point of policy. ALL feminists enjoy the creature comforts of modern western sic, Christian culture. If anyone is being oppressed by Christianity they have recourse to protect themselves with Law.

The influence and power the Christians gained? The Crusades were largely unsuccessful. All of Byzantium and the Levant were be controlled by Muslims for hundreds of years. Christendom had to fight to survive. It did not secure power from Muslims that continues to present. The opposite is true.

The Crusades were the answer to and backlash against the Muslim invasion of Rome/Byzantine the was initiated by Mr. Religion of Peace himself - Muhammad.

Last I checked, no Christian missionaries were converting people at gunpoint.

The 4th crusades were perpetrated against the other Orthodox Christian Churches.

Just like the Islamic conquest began as Muhammad's war against other Muslims.

I wasn't advocating for violence on either side; I'm just saying that it's not like the Christians in Rome just up and decided to go kill some Muslims and invade Persia one day.

The Fourth Crusade was not about the Church of Rome against the Eastern. It just ended up with the sacking of Constantinople after the prince they went to support was murdered and they didn't get the money they were promised.

That's an interesting point about the crusades. I didn't know that

You're not alone. Many people cite the Crusades as an example of the shame of Christianity's violence, and there's some merit to it (the Crusades were carried way too far IMO), but they began as an effort to drive back the invading Muslim forces that were off on their own tear of conversion - which effectively began with Muhammad conquering his former tribe in Mecca hundreds of years earlier.

Last I checked, no Christian missionaries were converting people at gunpoint.

Only because they can't.

But they want to:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2001/09/14/this_is_war

And then there is this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/convert-them-or-kill-them-is-phil-robertson-like-isis-125892/

What? Have you heard of "Uphold the Ch'ing Dynasty"? It was the Chinese response to the Christian invasion of China that started around 1858, and climaxed in 1901 with foreign Christian governments taking military control of Beijing.

"'It is worth any cost in money, worth any cost in bloodshed,' argued one bishop, 'if we can make millions of Chinese true and intelligent Christians.'" - Understanding the American Promise, James L. Roark and company.

Also, two quotes from Christian history:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Mein Kampf

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." - Adolf Hilter, 1922.

Stop with your bullshit history. It's not just Islam. All religions are a drain to society.

Wasn't itAmerican evangelicals in countries like Uganda that convinced the government to make homosexual acts a capital offense?

Now go, attack the Amalekites and utterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

That's a reference from the Torah, or as Christians call it, the Old Testament. The Torah is the basis of the Jewish faith. The post you're responding to referenced Jesus Christ, who's teachings are in the New Testament. Just to help you out, there isn't a teaching of Jesus that calls for or condones violence.

Yes, I know that, I am from a Jewish family :p

But lets face it, Bible Thumpers will take anything out of any part of a book to suit themselves.

You mean, like you just did?

Yeah, its really easy to do.

"And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass"

Hehe.

Which is why it's a very good warning.

First of all, the new testament is quite explicit about upholding the old testament (the law)

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Furthermore, let's just accept that christianity is this peace loving religion. You said the old testament is just for the Jewish faith. So the Jewish faith is a violent religion and should be banned just like Muslims?

They certainly should not be tied into government, and while i am not OP, i would certainly call out anyone advocating for jewish law to be installed, or claimingthey are a religion based on peace.

Ultimately, from what I understand of the torah, it is not preaching gor jewish people to wage holy war, and many of their values are acceptable in our society... so i have no beef.

So what we are coming to understand is that you haven't done enough research to justify your positions?

I don't feel strongly enough on Jewish faith... as there hasn't been any large movement or social push to warrant me spending more time on them. I'm open minded enough to certainly change my view, if presented with credible information though, so hit me up if you feel strongly about it.

Their faith certainly should not be tied into government, and while i am not OP, i would certainly call out anyone advocating for jewish law to be installed, or claimingthey are a religion based on peace.

So how exactly is respecting the Muslim faith with liberals, tantamount to allowing Sharia law in the US? Especially when evvvvvviiiiillll liberals are the only people pushing for LGBT rights in government, and the only people who give a shit are the evangelical Christians?

They weren't just respecting it (which I find repulsive due to its fundamental incompatibility with society, especially the rights of women and gays), many in the march were advocating for it to be instated here... I shit you not.

If you see the hypocrisy in that, then you are now on the same page as OP and others that have been calling out those shenanigans.

To call for an instatement of sharia law is bullshit no matter who calls for it. But being muslim is not the same as wanting sharia law.

Take for example the Muslim mayor of rotterdam who tells fellow muslims to fuck off and leave if they don't like the western values of the country to which they chose to come. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html )

I agree that there is a significant and vocal portion of muslim immigrants who think that their holy book (or more precisely, their interpretation) should be more binding for everyone and hold views on many issues which are fundamentally incompatible with western civilization and feel backed up by their religious teachings.

But the consequence of that is not to conclude that Islam or muslims are incompatible with western civilization.

I shit you not.

Yes, you are shitting, because the only example you are going to give is Linda Sarsour and only then by misrepresenting her points of view.

No, I didn't narrow it down to anyone in specific. There were many wearing veils holding signs to the effect of supporting Sharia Law. If you didn't see any of that, then you clearly did not look at any of it.

Read the Talmud.

i would certainly call out anyone advocating for jewish law to be installed

This would never happen. You aren't in their club and converting is a long, challenging process to keep it that way. The burden of maintaining God's laws is what sets them apart.

i would certainly call out anyone advocating for jewish law to be installed

This would never happen. You aren't in their club and converting is a long, challenging process to keep it that way. The burden of maintaining God's laws is what sets them apart.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-government.html

I suggest reading this short commentary, or at least the last two paragraphs. https://www.compellingtruth.org/Christian-OT-law.html

Just ignore the part where Jesus tells his followers to uphold a law that advocates putting homosexuals to death.

Where exactly did that happen? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in any way.

Source or didn't happen.

"...Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.…"

Jesus never said a thing about homosexuality. The furthest thing the new testiment even says about homosexuality is that the act of homosexual sex is immoral.

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure it's the cheesemakers who will inherit the earth.

I'm actually a cheesemaker irl :o

"The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31

This is the intro to the Parable of the Good Samaritan (paraphrasing here... "Rabbi.... then who is my neighbor?").

For reference, Israelites and Samaritans HATED each other and committed vile acts against each other. Or so I've heard. I'm Catholic. It's not like I've actually read the Bible.

There are quite a few interpretations of this parable. The one I subscribe to follows the thought that even though this gravely injured Israelite is this dude's nemesis, the dude stops anyway and ensures the guy recovers. This after the Israelite's fellow countrymen abandoned him (*).

To summarize, our neighbors include those not on our respective teams. It is just as much of our duty to care for our enemies that it is to care for our family.

• - I've heard a few sermons that note that the folks who refuse to help they guy are not to be viewed as bad people but rather an example of letting fear getting in the way of the above duty. The injured guy could have been a decoy. The robbers who fucked him could be waiting for someone to help and jump them. Shoot, the dude might be in on it and not injured at all. The point is that there are very valid reasons why someone won't risk helping. But we gotta try and get over that fear.
  

That also means the refugees.

I totally agree, although I still believe there should be some level of vetting with refugees.

Eye for and eye leaves the whole world blind. Maybe we should disappear the Jews... Oh wait....

"I come not to bring peace, but a sword" is at least controversial.

Yeah if you actually look at the context of that he is talking about how people's lives will be uprooted by joining the Christian faith not that they need to fight people.

Context ? In the thread where 40 people upvoted comment that billion of muslims singlemindedly want to kill all infidels bla bla bla But context, sure. If you actually look at the fucking context

Ok so what is the context to those parts of the Quran? I'm not saying your wrong but I would like to know because I see them repeated quite often.

So, looking at the context of religious quotes is a thing now? Because most of the arguments against the Qu'ran fly out the window when you actually look at the context. Just sayin'...

Haha, no doubt. Such hate mongering hypocrites.

So what is the context of the commonly used quotes? I've seen them talked about often but never seen anyone try to put them in context.

They usually refer to times of war, when Muslims had to fight for their lives, or they use imagery, like the Jesus quote from above.

Not an expert but you can try googling the quotes

it is controversial and worth more study. The time a sword was brought out in Jesus presence, someone got hurt in His name, Jesus healed the guy and chastised the disciple that used violence.

I'm so glad I've never heard Christian fundamentalist using the Old Testament. Like say, stone a man who lays with another man or suchlike. Or to defend slavery. Or anything.

The difference that OP is trying to make is that the left will gladly criticize this type of thinking while tolerating muslim intolerance.

I've never personally encountered this, but this is the type of thing people bring up when they discuss the "war against Christianity."

I'd imagine this is partly due to gays and women focusing on the religion that is currently oppressing you in your own country, as opposed to the one that could be oppressing you?

On paper, both Islam and Christianity have pretty bad thoughts about women and gays, thoughts that in the modern era we have grown out of. In practice, those bad ideas still emerge, specifically in underdeveloped areas where each respective religion can feed upon xenophobia, hatred, and other unhealthy impulses. The Middle East has a LOT more of the social conditions for this sort of "lowest common denominator" religiosity to form. Fixing those social and economic issues-- in most historical cases-- tends to eliminate the sort of religious fundamentalism that allows one to pretend that some religions are inherently more violent than others.

Pretend.. Lol ok. Some religions are clearly more inherently violent than others.

If you're comparing Christianity and Islam, it's a tie.

But-but-but beheadings, right? Christians would never do that.

Got any proof?

Its pretty self evident. There is a religion in India where they sweep the path in front of them so they don't accidentally step in bugs. There is another religion where they kill people who renounce their faith.

Um... so christians never killed in the name of god? I cannot see how your comparison is self evident

Plenty of people criticize that on the left though.

I know. But OP's post is how that does not seem to be the case. My point was simply that saying "Christian doctrine is bad too!" is separate and apart from what OP is trying to discuss.

The left will criticize instances of Muslim intolerance. The same way they do for Christianity or Catholicism. That doesn't mean they won't be allowed in our country. Hell, the left is all in favor of South American immigrants who are hugely religous, and they are not Muslim.

I generally agree with you. I'm only pointing out that the point of this entire thread is that OP feels exactly the opposite the way you do (that is-- that the left gives Muslim intolerance a pass). And a proper response to that position isn't "but Christianity is bad too."

Personally, I am happy to criticize both Islam and Christianity alike for this type of dangerous zealotry.

So is any sane person. The only surprising thing is that there appear to be so damn few of us.

Maybe they don't tolerate muslim intolerance, they just don't paint billions of people and hundreds of sects with the same intolerance of the extremist minority.

Reality is never simple, it doesn't fall into simple narrative on either. side.

The show me a "moderate leaning" mosque that clearly supports LGBT rights, including marriage. I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/founder-of-europe-s-first-lgbt-friendly-mosque-says-being-gay-and-muslim-is-like-deciding-which-arm-a6905521.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2013/12/20/meet-america-s-firstopenlygayimam.html

https://qz.com/824711/a-gay-mosque-in-cape-town-sounds-the-call-to-pray-for-everyone/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/27/american-muslims-supporting-gay-marriage-speak-up.html

Drop in the bucket. Thanks for trying, though.

The[n] show me a "moderate leaning" mosque

Drop in the bucket.

Do you even logic.

lol he just showed you what you asked for, like real proof that shit is more complex than your simple narrative.

But let me guess, nothing is gonna change your mind is it.

Ignorance exists.

Yeah it's only the common interpretations of Jesus that condone violence.

Go to the New Testament and read the red words. It's a lot more direct approach. The other books can be helpful, but I find reading the red words cuts out a lot of unnecessary stuff.

Most Christians believe God was the author and inspiration of the entire book, making it all "red letters." Also, red letters were an invention of man, to make the text more readable.

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Jesus approved of the law, and was the only one to fulfill all the requirements.

So theological question then - when was the law accomplished? When did Jesus fulfill it? Because most scholars would say upon his ascension. Jews don't believe it's fulfilled, and they are still bound to it (with changes of course, over time). Christians see it as fulfilled and much of the NT is how people should live our their faith in light of it's fulfillment. The book of Hebrews pivots the conversation from OT to NT.

Just to help you out, there isn't a teaching of Jesus that calls for or condones violence.

Oh?

Matthew 5:17

This is the passage in which Jesus specifically instructs his followers to uphold Old Testament law, including the parts where it talks about putting homosexuals to death.

They were descendants of the Nephilim and their genetics had been tampered with. It's different.

Um, that was the Jews, not the Christians. The Old Testament is included in the Bible as an example of how things were run before Jesus changed the rules for salvation, not as an example to be strictly followed.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

So Big Jay-Cee came to expand the laws? He was a big government man >_>

That's kinda off-topic, and not really a counter-point at all. His death and sacrifice filled fulfilled the requirements for sin sacrifices for everyone. Rather than just abolishing the need for sin offerings, He paid the price himself.

That doesn't really have any bearing on the previous conversation though. And wiping out the tribes in that area was never part of the law to the Jews either, it was direct and specific instructions from God (to try and keep the Israelites from getting distracted by the other religions in the area).

And this is where christianity breaks down. If the doctrine of the trinity is true makes jesus a loving god willing to pay the price, yahweh a god who hates those who practice different religions and the holy spirit a comforter(whatever that means). I'm not gonna worship a deity who's not only schizophrenic but harbors a murderous personality. The hebrews killing every other group they stumble across, the inquisition, the crusades, today's xtians who claim to be building the army of god. Nah. No thanks man.

Wait, are you trying to tell me you've never met anyone that's just, merciful, and compassionate in various ways? It's not that absurd a concept, especially if you look at as a whole instead of cherry-picking extreme examples and ignoring the rest.

Sure I have. Christians, Atheists, Pagans. Muslims. My point is If I were predisposed to believing in a deity I wouldn't worship a murderous one with MPD

I might accept that if I didn't still see Christians regularly cherry pick things out of the Old Testament to selectively enforce.

/Also, it doesn't make the OT God any less immoral, but that's a whole different topic.

So, if the OT really has no bearing on the NT for Christians, why does they come as a packaged set? Seems like the NT followers would be better off sticking to the Jefferson Bible, which is Jesus and only Jesus.

It does have bearing, it provides a bunch of context and framework for the religion (and that context is the reason why Jesus' sacrifice was needed, which is the core of Christianity). But just because God told the Israelites to do something specific 3000 years ago doesn't mean Christians today are commanded to do the exact same thing.

The Old Testament sets the stage for the New testament and explains why it was needed. Jesus is fulfilling the Old Testament's laws and prophecies, not throwing it out and starting from scratch. It's not that there's no relevance, it's just that there's a difference between historical record (God telling the Israelites to wipe out specific neighboring bad influences) and ongoing commands for day-to-day life.

And what does that mean? I'll let the Bible speak for itself:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. "

-Romans 8

From Catholic gradeschool I thought I remember this being said as he is not here to get rid of the law but his fulfillment of the law will not need it to be followed as there would be new rules. Take it for what you will but for some reason it's stuck in my head that the abrahamic laws were invalidated (probably not the right word) once Jesus came along.

The laws of the Old Testament point towards Christ's fulfillment of them. For example, Cattle were sacrificed at the temple looking towards Christ's eventual sacrifice, and once that was fulfilled, there was no need for animal sacrifice. There is much that Christ fulfilled, and therefore the old way of doing things was either unnecessary, or more elaborate depending on the situation.

There is a lot of logic behind the Laws of the Old testament, and the teachings of Christ. In the OT, the Hebrews were a new band of people united under a new religion. If you look at the laws in Exodus you can see that they are laws meant to preserve these people and to weed out those who would cause them harm. Kosher dietary laws existed because eating certain things could spread disease back then. In the New Testament, that law was updated because it was much safer to eat those foods and the Kosher law was therefore unnecessary. So, rather than "Don't eat this!" the rule became "You can eat this, but don't eat too much because that's dangerous, too." In the same way, the Hebrews established and protected themselves through war to get rid of the people around them who were a danger to them, as has pretty much every civilization throughout history. As the nation grew more and more stable, that became unnecessary as well, so the peace Jesus preached was because the violence of the OT had been fulfilled and the establishment of a nation through violence was unnecessary. The harsh death sentences of the OT were replaced by more civilized ways of dealing with people.

The laws of the OT were appropriate and useful, and many of them became unnecessary by the time Jesus was on Earth. However, much of Christ's teaching actually expanded upon many of the old laws. You can see this most easily in the verses where He says something like, "You have heard it said that ____, but I say to you ___." He's usually quoting an old law and then saying how it should have been interpretted, or should be interpreted going forward.

A good example of this is in the same passage that the verse you quoted is from.

Matthew 5:21-22 21“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

So, in this instance, he is not saying this law is unnecessary, but that it is in fact more serious than they had thought. Not only should you not kill someone, but holding anger against them is also sinful. This follows the logic I spoke of before. It's unhealthy for humans to harbor hate or anger for others, and it's a good example to show that most sins are similar to a parent telling a child not to run out into the street or touch a hot stove.

TL;DR - Some Old Testament laws became unnecessary over time and were updated, but some needed more clarification.

So did God tell the jews to holocaust the Amalekites?

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-government.html

This was a commandment for the Israelites to go to war that one specific time, not permission for them to just go ahead and go to war with whoever they wants.

Do we have a big problem with christians murdering others in the name of Christ? ill be waiting for your in-depth response.

Christians kill people all the time

when have you ever heard a christian take the old testament torah(specific to israelites) and murder someone in cold blood? Radical islam takes the koran, and teaches children to hate, persecute women, kill gays/lesbians, and control societies. how in the F can you defend this? Ill be waiting

How the fuck can I defend this? I'm not defending anything, mate. Just posted a bit of the bible that I like.

Crusades, Inquisition...

of course. the old crusades that every "christian" hater loves to refer to. yes, the crusades were bad. however if you do your research, you will learn that the majority of the crusades were due to muslims trying to take over the world. christians(so called) started an army and and it was bloody. Im referring to worldwide terror in which radical islam is 99% responsible for. Do you disagree with this?

To answer that I have to ask if you consider war to be terrorism.

war is not terrorism. there are rules of war. sometimes these rules are broken, however most countries try to abide by the rules of war. terrorism targets innocent civilians/children/women to cause fear and create control.

In that case yes there is a lot of Islamic terrorism in the world. However here in the US our terrorism has been mostly domestic. We also have to consider that the US has sponsored terrorism around the world for decades as well as training several ruthless dictators.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

The deadliest domestic terror incident prior to the OKC bombing was done by a Mormon militia. It's a big complicated issue, but read up on the war between Mormons and other Christians (protestants?) in the late 1800's. That's only a 1 sentence summary, but I think that any fearful, hateful group can cherry pick any scripture to justify their acts.

im talking about worldwide, not in an OK suberb. radical islam is responsible for 99% of all terrorism in the world. Its not getting better. It will only get worse. its a freaking problem and its not racist to state the facts. The sooner we state the facts, we can start trying to cure the root cause of all this shit.

OK, facts then. You initially asked for examples for Christians murdering people. Setting aside the fact that the Mormon War was hardly an OK suburb (particularly because it was concentrated in the Missouri area)... Let's discuss global terrorism.

radical islam is responsible for 99% of all terrorism in the world.

Fact: Nope! True, religious extremism has seen an uptick in recent years, but the most recent data shows ~60% of terrorism occurs from the 4 main groups right now (ISIS, Boko Haram and the Taliban). 80% of the deaths occured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.

Its not getting better. It will only get worse.

Fact: Nope! It's literally getting better. Terrorism spiked in 2006, and while last year saw more attacks than the prior year, the trend is in decline. Terrorism will always exist. This is just the latest trend. Before that there was the IRA, Chechan Rebels, Pipeline bombings in Columbia, Kurdistan Workers Party....

The sooner we state the facts, we can start trying to cure the root cause of all this shit.

Fact: Yup! So, do some research, study up on global history, and start stating facts!

Sources: RAND database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents: http://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents/download.html

Global Terrorism Database: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

Global Terrorism Index 2015: http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf

thanks for the response!

You are missing a HUGE fundamental to the understanding of what was going on there. Research Genesis 6, the Book of Enoch, and Nephilim. Those were not "people" they were hybrids, offsprings of demons copulating with human women. It's where the line of giants and mighty men of old come from.

Doesn't really matter, its all a moot point. None of it actually happened.

we can cherry pick lines of scripture from any book all day. What is important is reality. The reality is that most fundamentalism is dying except for Islamic, in which ~15% of muslims already living in western countries support or condone terrorism in the name of religion. In non-western countries that percentage is much higher.

(source; biased but the page is just links to unbiased research): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

I wasn't defending Islam or the Koran.

And this folks, is ignorance based commenting.

Or blatant sarcasm we all missed. I beg its the latter as no one should be that fucking ignorant of the facts.

I think it's somewhere between wishful thinking and general racism

Agreed. And sprinkle on top a lack of knowledge of historical facts of religion up until very recent history.

It's just alternative facts. The same kind that Dylan Roof read up on before shooting up the Charleston Church. But it's hypothetical Muslims that are the violent ones

Comment history full of telling people how old and wise you are and how stupid and foolish they are. If only everyone could have the breadth of wisdom that you do then this world would be different...

Or perhaps not as this story has been replaying the same episode for the past 1400 centuries. If you're worried about the shade of skin color of the people that want you dead, I think I'm going to pass on that 'wisdom'.

Im flattered you went through my history. And nitpicked one or 2 conversations ive had with some small minded and scared folks(add this one to the list)

But, Yes. Because all muslims want me dead. /s thats just fucking stupid fear mongering. See, im a grown ass man that doesnt fear anyone based on religion, ideogy, or skin color. But no problem buddy, embrace your ignorance. Its on display for all to see.

At least you're consistent.

When you talk to children, stupid folks, and immature individuals, you have a right to call them children, stupid, and immature. If folks dont wanna hear it, they shouldnt act like it. But again, im flattered that you know my whole history, kiddo.

At least you're consistent.

I will never understand how people manage to pass judgment on literally millions of other people, most of them decent folk, without meeting a single one of them.

Looks like he was critiquing Islam and facets of the religion , not individual Muslims.

He apparently is calling Muslims who aren't bloodthirsty and powerthirsty bad Muslims. Kind of a lose lose. "If you're not a bad person you're a bad Muslim!" No, you don't understand how the religion works in progress. If you took only the Bible and tried to understand Christianity you would end up with something completely different than the practice as well, though arguably likely in the opposite direction, where reality is worse than the book instead of vice versa.

Do you understand sharia law, and what it entails? That alone is incompatible with our society. It comes from their religious texts, and many polls have found majority support for it, strictly those that practice the religion.

Do you understand sharia law, and what it entails?

Most muslims do not, so you definitely don't.

An your evidence for this statement is what?

I'm a muslim. I don't know what sharia exactly entails, neither does most other muslims I know. Doing a google search for 'sharia bad' and reading a biased page does not make you an expert on sharia.

So, you make an assumption that it's not possible to find things out about Sharia for one, and assume that because you are a secular Muslim that never paid much attention to religion that a non-Muslim couldn't possibly understand what you don't even though you've never bothered to inform yourself about it. Just saying, I'm a Muslim doesn't work.

I know plenty of devout muslims. They all argue over what is or isn't sharia as well. What's your point anyway?

This even Muslims can't agree what is Sharia and what isn't; therefore, it's immune to criticism angle is silly and doesn't follow logically is my point.

But you are not critiquing sharia at all. You're just making knee jerk reactions and hate based on what you have heard from others on what sharia entails.

Do you understand sharia law and what it entails? It's a lot like our common law in practice, where interpretation is left up to your local jurisdiction and the judges therein. Think of the punishments outlined in the Quran as legal maximums according to our law, because the judges are supposed to be merciful, as Allah is merciful, and attempt to bend the sentences as much in the defendant's favor as much as reasonably possible. It's not good optics to actually stone everyone. It's great optics to say "well, I'm supposed to have you stoned, but I won't." Any truly tyrannical government either has popular support due to external factors, or is so unstable as to not be able to last more than a couple human lifetimes. And the caliphates almost all lasted longer than that. They weren't tyrants, they were relatively reasonable (for the time), if warmongering, governments. The Arabs have had tons of innovations in government, all homegrown, which modern Western culture seems to completely ignore in favor of the mental image of the hordes burning the Library of Alexandria or some shit. Yes, that happened, but we wrecked and looted shit in the Crusades as well.

Now, where is this implementation of sharia law today? Well...we kinda blew it up. We've wrecked so many governments in the last hundred years or so that there's no continuity left, no common law precedent left to build upon, no wise judges to implement sharia law sanely. Do I want sharia law, as it would likely be implemented now? Hell fucking no. But as many Muslims think of it being, in living memory, back before we started really wrecking shit, and of course through a healthy layer of nostalgia? It's really not a unreasonable thing for them to miss. The sharia people knew how to keep order. That's seductive when your entire region has gone to shit. And it also means, definitively, self-rule. No colonialism, no Western approval necessary. Sharia means that Arabs get to judge the Arabs, in a distinctly Arabic way.

Please get some context for things, okay? Ask what you think when you think of a term, and what they think when they think of a term. Though the word may have the same dictionary definition for both of you, for them it feels like home, while for you it feels alien and horrifying. And that's okay. We just have to know how to come to understandings. We need to have dialogue. As I've said tons of times in this thread, I just simply don't understand how you can pass judgment on literally millions of people without ever talking to them, discovering what they are really like, what actually matters to them. Books are books, people are people. Don't judge people based on books, or books like they're people.

This is an awesome post.

Spot on post. I would also add that people who want to see Sharia Law in their governance typically want to see aspects of it mixed in with western democracy. They don't necessarily want to go back to an antiquated time where women are silenced and hands cut off for thievery - which is what most people assume is meant by having Sharia Law. Some Muslim countries even have a greater number of women with Master's Degrees than their men. People in the West have a tendency to think when Muslims call for Sharia they mean that old-school barbaric crap, but that's only because the loudest voices have tended to be terrorist's. Try talking to real Muslims. Having known a fair share of Muslims myself, I'd say that even the more conservative folk among them don't want to go back to that world either.

Living memory

past 100 years

Pick one

Most of the last hundred years is in living memory. I only stretched it that far back because I wanted to include the Ottomans specifically, but it's not like all the governments ended exactly a hundred years ago, some ended just a few decades ago. It's nice of you to try and delegitimize me with pedantics instead of trying to integrate new info into your worldview, though. You're really transparent.

As such, I don't really feel like trying to lay out the rest of this beyond that level of pedantry. It's not like I'm a personal expert on all of this. And I don't think you'd appreciate the effort anyway.

I do often hear this use of "sharia law" when trying to denounce Islam as a whole as violent. Then when I tell my real life experience in Islam they say "well those arnt real muslims". People want to attack this religion as a whole instead of focusing on the groups that are violent so bad... the people that practice Islam and fit into modern society are not "offshoots" they are the norm. Muslim Americans fit in just fine.

I'd like to point out that we shouldn't generalise people because of the ideology they choose to follow (unless they are possibly right wing).

You should look up some info about the crusades and the inquisition...all religions are fucked up and have done horrible things in the name of virtue

Agnostic here. I'm not sure how pointing to examples from 1000 years ago counts when referring to what the other person said. I haven't seen any current videos of Christians decapitating ppl, burning them alive, throwing them off of rooftops for being gay, or executing them with an AA gun.

Basically by even bringing up the crusades, you're conceding that "Islamic extremists" are living 1000 years in the past, and the culture is even less compatible than previously thought. Crusades/Christians in general vs. Islam today is a fairly weak comparison b/c you'd have to say Christians are no different than they were 1000 years ago.

Because christians kill people with drones and F-35s.

Ok, THAT is a good way to tear down the other guy's argument. That's all I wanted :) I have a tendency to play devil's advocate. Whether I agree with the original point or not, I can't help but point it out of the points being made are nonsense.

So my goal is achieved. Proceed to dismantle the original comment with the idea that drones are essentially Christian-operated rather than Christians in the crusades.

The way our gov't wages war has nothing to do with Christianity.

I mean, no....

Read up on Blackwater, I mean, shit, the CEO published a book that was very explicitly about conducting a religious war against Islam. I have no doubt that much of the reason we're so active in the middle east is because we're primarily a Christian nation and they're primarily Muslim nations, not to mention the prophecy contained in Revelations that a world war must be sparked in the Middle East in order for Christ to return and take all the good Christians home.

I wouldn't argue that there are those fundamentalist Christians that might have been lured into these misadventures based on such belies, but they are a minority in Christianity and the members of the Cabal or whatever (this is r/conspiracy, right?) certainly give no fucks about Christianity vs Islam except where they can use this to further their aims.

How do you respond to those who say "The way ISIS wages war has nothing to do with Islam?"

I would say that the Quran says different.

The way our gov't wages war has nothing to do with Christianity.

I would say the bible says differently

Are you saying US drone strikes against terrorists are the same as throwing gay people off roofs?

Are you saying US drone strikes against terrorists

Question begging.

What's your point? The topic at hand is about current day Islamic Fundamentalists killing gays....not some thing that happened 700 to 1000 years ago.

Brutal ignorance right here folks. This is a person who has never met a Muslim. Or maybe they have but since they looked like normal people they didn't notice.

Brutal ignorance you say, yet you have decided you can read this person's mind and know who they have met and what they know.

If they had met a Muslim they would know that everything they just said is bullshit. I'm not reading minds just making educated guesses. They, in the other hand, are presenting bullshit is facts. Pretending to know the minds of billions of people.

Yeah? Have you seen pictures of women whose faces have been disfigured by acid? Widespread female genital mutilation? Homosexuality being illegal? There are a people that have fled fundamentalism in the past, but the Wahabis control most of the mosques in the US. They have the backing of Saudi Arabia, the "center of the Islamic world," where people are still beheaded. Have you not seen the polling of Muslim immigrants to the UK and Europe? Seen the Muslim scholars that tour Europe talking about cutting off the heads of homosexuals? This is a myth that all Muslims are peaceful moderates. The ones you are probably talking about are secular Muslims. According to the reformists themselves, they are fighting a battle for the soul of Islam against these Wahabis and their ilk. One can argue that the fundamentalists or whatever you want to call them misinterpret the scripture, but it is a historical fact that Muhammad himself waged war. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, so it is not brutal ignorance or bullshit.

Western Islam. I was born a Muslim. I no longer practice. I am not ignoring that there are obvious Islamic but jobs all over the world (mostly in one area). That is absolute horseshit about the wahabi controlling most of the mosques in the US backing beheadings. If you have ever gone to one and seen the people you would know that. That is the essence of ignorance. Christianity is not in "stark contrast" in the US because more Christian fundamentalists kill here than Islamic ones.

I can't remember/find where I read that, and probably should have looked for a corroborative source, so I will concede that, but you are wrong about fundamentalist Christians killing here. Also, you don't address the cultural differences I mentioned. Nowhere are Christians throwing acid in girls faces or throwing homosexuals off of buildings. Do you not agree that more recent waves of immigration are of a different character which could explain the opinions polled of Muslims living in the West that aren't exactly compatible with Western culture which you likely have more in common with than these people? I never said all Islam was a problem, but you cannot deny the differences between Christian and Islamic scripture and the historical fact that the prophet waged war himself.

This is the problem. My friends and family and the hundreds or maybe thousands of Muslim people I've met are innocent and blanketed in with psychotics on the other side of the globe. People bounce around in this anti Islam echo chamber finding piece after piece of confirmation bias. Twisting information to fit their narrative. They are being cowards and giving the terrorists everything they want. Do you know how I know you are also part of the problem? You say the prophet waged war himself. Growing up it was always taught (not just in my area) that we were never sure if the prophet waged war or if war was first waged against him. Now every talking head not citing their history speaks as if it is FACT that he waged it despite no new historical information coming to light.

There are hundreds of millions that are not so innocent. Who is the one living in an echo chamber? A little criticism of Islam is met with defensiveness. Islam needs to be open to honest criticism if it is to reform. It's true that people are lumping Islamism with all Islam, but people that are just trying to make sense of all this are less to blame than the Islamists themselves and liberal politicians and pundits who have misinformed and apologized. It doesn't matter whether the prophet waged war defensively or aggressively. There is enough evidence that it was aggressive to keep it uncertain, yes? Even if defensive, good or bad, this is a militancy that is completely absent in the NT gospels. Do you not agree that this is ripe for twisting by those that wish to? I'm sure Sharia was in some ways a brilliant system in medieval times, but it's time to update.

Those comments were not criticisms. They were blanket statements. Huge difference. People, you included, seem to think that Islam is one way. You say "it's time to update" Islam like any other religion HAS updated. It has moved with the times for the vast majority of this planet. (I spend a lot of time in Indonesia where I have family it is similar to western Islam here as well) This is why I started off calling this whole thing ignorance. If you or the OP had spent time in a western Islamic community you would have a full understanding of that. But you don't. People are not being critical of Islam hey are dismissing it or attacking it and it's causing oppositional violence toward people I care about. From my point of view the liberal politicians are not apologizing for Islam. They are avoiding putting too much emphasis on Islam as a whole as the enemy so that innocent people are not hurt. Judaism has violent text and you do not criticize them. How about instead you go after the 7 or 8 countries that have used religion in their government to push hostility in Islam. Islam in countries without government religion intervention are all doing just fine with it.

Blanket statements? How do you figure? It was a legitimate question. There are going to be crazy people that decide to take matter into their own hands and do something stupid. That's kind of beside the point. We should be able to ask simple questions like the OP. Why is the Left so bent on apologizing for Islamists who have obvious issues with respecting others' way of life. Being anti-homosexual is not some isolated thing practiced by some small insignificant minority. It's still a crime in like 11 countries to be homosexual, so how can you so easily dismiss such a backward thing? You say Islam has been updated, but reveal that you haven't really experienced life in the heart of Islam. If it has, then why are the reformers in Europe fighting "for the soul of Islam?" The countries whose laws and customs they wish to reform are in the ME and not places like Indonesia. It seems you have this bias you have developed because you have been insulated from the problems that people are rightfully critical of. I can't really trust that your picture of Islam as a whole is entirely accurate because you don't seem to have any experience outside of the secular westernized world.

Holy shit. You're impossible. I've said my point a half dozen times and you havnt even tried to refute it you just keep going "blah blah but OTHER muslims" and trying to act as if it's a religion that doesn't have different factions. You talk about it like it's unified. It is not. That was my point. My point still stands. I really don't care to talk about whatever goal post moving you wish to discuss.

Where did the OP say "all Muslims?" Nowhere is the obvious answer, so what is your point again? You have ignored everything I've said and just come back with reiterating your false premise. You decide a question is a blanket statement, yet you call me impossible. Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Like I said. My point stands. You have nothing to refute it.

I'm the OP? How do you figure? I can't seem to find the post that started this back and forth, but if I remember correctly, instead of answering his question, you attacked him basically by calling the post dangerously ignorant or something like that. I responded to this original attack that seemed to dismiss off-handedly the real and justified concern of homosexuals after fifty of them were slaughtered in the US. He never made any blanket statement. He never said all Muslims and even edited to make that clear. You seem to be saying that this question is dangerous and will lead to violence against innocent Muslims by promulgating this notion that Islam is monolithic which he never did. You went on to say how Muslims are totally peaceful we don't know what we're talking about because you're a Muslim and know better. I suggested otherwise. I don't see the disconnect, or why you can't seem to follow the discussion. Meanwhile more people have died, been injured, raped, assaulted, robbed, in Europe, and people continue to be attacked for daring to suggest that Islam has problems. Indonesia is no exception it turns out. They may be a minority sect there too, but it is far more widespread than you seem to want to acknowledge. Actually can you name a country that has a significant Muslim population that hasn't had problems with Muslims getting along with others? Anyone that attacks someone that asks a relevant and legit question like the OP instead of having a polite discussion about it especially when people in the OP's group have recently been massacred just looks like an asshole imo. Islam has a big problem, and you seem to want to downplay it which doesn't help anyone except maybe the Islamists.

Have any Muslims tried to kill you recently?

This is identity politics at best. Bigotry and misinformation at worst. Stop playing this game.

The taking of native american land is underpinned by a papal bull known as terra nullius. It basically meant that if the indigenous people weren't Christians then the land was considered unoccupied. That was followed by genocide of the native americans.

umm quite frankly you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

No faggot, we gotta get Muslims out, then you and your fucktarf boyfriend are next, then the Catholics and jews.

Removed: R1 and Warning.

In all religions god bleeds for his people. In Islam the people bleed for god.

Im just frightened by the fact this hateful ideology is recognised as a religion. And i think you have every right to discriminate against religion. Religion is a free and personal choice, i am allowed to judge people on their choices. I am allowed to discriminate against them because of it.

But the law of the land rules. Not the laws of god. I condemn muslims that dont shake a womans hand just as much as i condemn a christian for not serving gay-couples. Because thats simply breaking the law, by discriminating people on things they can not change.

Theres the difference. Homosexuality is a sin to some, they have every right to think that. The difference lies in how they act with reality. And im not seeing good things in the future.

I personally don't have a problem with what other people think or believe, and I prefer not to judge anyone for their ideas even if their fucked up, there are always reasons unknown to be considered. It's when they act on those beliefs is where I have an issue. I'm sure I've encountered plenty of people who would like to do me harm, I'm sure someone has probably walked past my home and considered robbing it.

I do however strongly believe in severe and immediate retaliation against the actions of those who attempt to harm myself, my family or my property. I will give you the shirt off my back, but if you attempt to take my shirt by force, I will do my best to make you regret ever trying.

Thank you. There is a pretty big fucking difference between not wanting to bake a wedding cake and systematically oppressing and killing an entire group of people.

If I can't assume things because of someone's religion, then if I'm a proclaimed Nazi you can't make assumptions.

I'd just like to chime in that, no islam does not mandate conquest and blood and an islamic state, however fighting back(with force if necessary) is allowed only when you are opressed, which is pretty much what the west does as well.

P.S I'm a pakistani muslim who has and still does live in pakistan, and a large majority of the people around me are of the same view as mine.

Nice place to live I hear.

Lol thanks, I still wouldn't want to go anywhere else. Not that I haven't had the chance to.

You do realize that Christianity is a HUGE weapon used by people in politics, right?

Even if it isn't written into the doctrine as explicitly as Islam, Christianity is already extremely invasive in our government. I don't see how Islam is a whole different beast when all these politicians refer to their faith in god in every speech.

Normally I would agree with you here but islam is a whole other beast. It's tied to a religious government as a requirement for all Muslims to wage jihad to make that happen and to kill all infidels or convert them by the sword.

Jesus Christ told us to love one another and have compassion and bring his words to all who want to listen. I am no expert and don't claim to be but I am unaware of any Christian movement that requires conquest and conversion by force.

Quite a lot of Christians were responsible for quite a lot of violence back in the middle ages. The Crusades were a pretty bloody set of wars.

I'm guessing you're not familiar with either the Old Testament or the Koran.

It's not all violence. There is violence in the Bible as well. I think most modern day Muslims, like Christians, see that more as pertaining to the past and not the future. There are groups in the middle East who want power and control so of course they preach the violent and oppressive (controlling) parts

Every morning I drive by a church billboard that says that it is their mission "to send as many people to heaven as possible before they die."

All religions are scary as fuck, but most of the people in it don't see the scary part.

Great post.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus from matthew 10:34...it's all about perspective and from the outside , all 3 abrahamic faiths just look like a death cult.

It also costs a $1.05

That's a hefty fuckin fee.

For folks like you and me.

Yeah... all religions are just ideas. We can criticize, challenge, and mock any idea. Not skin colour, but ideas for sure. Sharia law definitely.

I agree with you that freedom of speech is not always pretty. However it is disappointing that every time this is brought up I always see"but Christians". Sure there are fanatic Christians, but they do not make up the majority or anything close to one. Islam has large numbers of adherents that are anti western values.

Equating Christian beliefs to Sharia is ridiculous. I'm an atheist but those two religions are on TOTALLY different levels of fucked-up.

Tell me where I made an equation.

I'll say it. All religion is bad. All of it. Now if that religion is peaceful then we can tolerate it. Islam is not peaceful. The first amendment was penned when the fights were over specific denominations of Christianity. Christianity has left behind its roots of justice by stoning and crusade and burning witches. So must Islam abandon its roots of Sharia law and jihad if it wants to be tolerated.

Quick, someone give Islam a call, he needs to hear this offer you're making.

Wish I could upvote this more.

Ah but you can't riot. Anarchists riot. Not protest.

the pushing against Islam is infact pushing against barbarism. There is over a billion muslims and the ban is against 20% of the countries that are predominantly muslim. Funny how Bahrain, UAE & Qatar ban muslim immigration from other countries and no one says a thing

That's because those countries are effectively gated communities granted sovereignty. Poor people can't get into those in the US without damn good reason either.

Sounds like making excuses.

Sounds like a mindless reply.

People who are putting their identity politics ahead of the realities of a million Muslims murdered by the US since 9/11 probably voted for Hillary. And would probably take Trump over Jill Stein.

How anyone feels about anything is not going to count for shit. Its going to come down to food and water before its over.

This sounds like Mike Pence, he thinks a woman should be at home barefoot and pregnant and thinks that conversion therapy can fix gay people.

Pence has never explicitly stated that he believes in "conversion therapy." That was something Gavin Newsom inferred from something Pence said, so this idea that Pence is a raging homophobe is unfounded, as usual.

Secular law is the only law!

I agree with you and OP. Unfortunately it is on both sides of the aisle, tho. There are hardline Christian Republicans who would Federally ban all abortions and want to wage holy war in the name of Zionism and Armageddon/end time predictions.

There is not a lot of middle ground due to both political parties courting extremism, imo.

So well said. Conceptually allowing Christian business owners to discriminate who they serve based on their "beliefs" is in the same line.

Not the same at all. Refusing to bake a cake for someone doesn't harm anyone; whereas, throwing someone off a building tends to result in the death of that person. Demanding someone do something they don't feel comfortable doing is closer to what the Muslim prescription for dealing with homosexuals is, an infringement on another's will.

True. One is far more harmful than the other. Still not ok with any religion obstructing a persons way of life so long as that way of life doesn't hurt anyone...if that makes sense.

I agree with that statement, but don't see it relating directly.
No one is obstructing another living the way they want by not wanting to bake them a cake. That is someone's private business; whereas, if someone comes into that business and demands/legally arm-twists that person into making a cake for them that IS obstructing another person's choice to live a certain way.

Those suckers are AKA "useful idiots"

I totally agree with you, but I have to play the devils advocate. The whole reason the religion is allowed here is because of the constitution, specifically the first amendment. It's a sort of catch 22; if you allow it, their beliefs go against the constitution, and if you don't allow it, oppressing them goes against the constitution. It is such a nightmare of a grey area that there really is no concrete solution.

And you cannot even talk about problems when ultra Orthodox Jews destroy a school district - without being called anti semitic and literally the same as Nazis. Check out the situation in East Ramapo NY.

Or when they say America oppresses gays and women too, like, yeah some things could be better but it's not even remotely similar situation.

Lots of groups have beliefs (among many other beliefs) that are opposite to certain american values. Many christians don't believe in the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean we shouldn't support their human rights. Zionism supports a right to return which racist at its core- and yet US policy explicitly supports zionism as a political ideology.

As a country, we are the number one state supporter of terrorism in the world, and yet we constantly condemn other countries and movements as terrorist. That doesn't mean Americans aren't deserving of human rights.

Shit- gay marriage JUST became a thing. Don't act like we have some moral highground on the gay issue. We still oppress people. Addicts get jailed every day for their illness.

Are you someone who cheered "USA! USA!" when democrats and republicans voted to bomb iraq, while passing the "Patriot" Act to let undereducated, underpaid, underscreaned government employees touch your child's dick when he goes to the airport?

They are taking advantage of suckers and Trump supporters who are too blind to see that they are somehow fighting for their own rights to be taken one day.

You're bringing valid points but in a way, this is gas lighting because this thread is on one topic and you're throwing at least three other huge things in the pool.

I don't appreciate assumptive references to what I "shouted" or supported. You have no reason to try and criminalize me by projecting things on me.

In short, pointing at other people or events outside the scope of the topic does not provide a valid counter statement to what OP said. Sorry.

OP accused "Muslims" (a term which includes 1.6 billion people) of refusing to respect his human rights.

Your response was "good for you, OP". Was OP "gaslighting" muslims?

I DID make an assumption about your value system and political ideology based on your generalization about muslims and "sjws". And I asked you whether or not my assumption was correct. For many on here, that assumption IS correct. If it's true about you, maybe it highlights the flipside of your argument and points out your own hypocrisy. If it's not true about you, maybe it highlights something for you about others who share just a part of your opinion.

Sorry this is just noise. Large populations of which the radical form of (aka minority) don't follow Sharia law and there's zero ability to tell the difference.

You're far too confrontational for a real conversation unfortunately. Challenge that Muslim populations are not a social threat to gays or women with cited sources and then you get to make a point.

Confrontational? Don't get on the internet claiming that 1.6 billion people don't have a right to demand human rights, and call other people confrontational for arguing against that narrative.

Challenge that Westernized Republican/ Democrat/ Secular/ Jewish/ Christian (take your pick) populations are not a physical (violent) and economic threat to millions (perhaps BILLIONS) of MEN, women and children around the world

fixed that for you. take some responsibility for yourself.

Yeah you're not a constructive solution person. So you deserve to be ignored just for putting words into misinterpretations and spewing hate.

you haven't offered any constructive solutions- just complained about my dialectic style.

again- let's not worry about muslims. fix your glass house and stop throwing stones.

They want to dictate law which involves anti gay actions and oppressing women.

And freedom of speech. That is equally as important. Do not accept that showing Muhammad is wrong, its not and Islam and the West needs to push for that. Freedom of speech is at risk here.

Pushing against Islam

They want to dictate law

Islam isn't a person, who is "they?" If "they" are Muslims, then your anger is misdirected. Be mad at the corrupt governments, not Muslims.

Because they don't exersize any of the things that "directly oppose the constitution" maybe?

People could have a religion which wants to shove 20 dildos up my arse and even though I would think that's wrong, as long as they don't do it they aren't breaking any laws.

See, my issue with this post is the use of "they." Certainly, there are Muslims around the world who feel this way and their faith revolves around a very strict interpretation of these beliefs. But not every one of the millions of Muslims in the world is the same as the ones you are describing. It is wrong to throw a blanket over all of these millions of people because they might have extremist views. At the same time, we should not support the persecution of LGBT people in the name of religion, whether that religion is Christianity, Islam, or any other.

It's so hard to not group people because it's extremely difficult to vet out those with harmful intentions versus those that do not wish harm. The ones that want to have cultural take over even if that means violence will only lie to immigration. So how do you spot that?

Like others have cited and commented on here, people are watching European countries that have led the refugee asylum efforts now struggling with crimes against women which are skyrocketing.

Being kind and assuming any Muslim should be a safe Muslim is almost impossible at this point. I don't think anyone seeking asylum should be blocked, but at this point, current events surrounding Muslims have put people in a very tough decision point.

It's kind of like you know that 1 person out of 10 that had their house burn down and need a place to live is a blatant robber. You have no way of knowing which of the 10 are a robber, but you want to help the other 9 that are not robbers because they don't have a home. Do you let all 10 into your home, knowing that the one will rob you? Or do you apologize and not let any in?

Here's a quote from Mohammed Ali along the same lines though he's talking about his fear of white people:

"There are many white people who mean right and in their hearts wanna do right. If 10,000 snakes were coming down that aisle now, and I had a door that I could shut, and in that 10,000, 1,000 meant right, 1,000 rattlesnakes didn’t want to bite me, I knew they were good... Should I let all these rattlesnakes come down, hoping that that thousand get together and form a shield? Or should I just close the door and stay safe?"

Don't know if that makes any sense at all...I tried.

Your reply definitely makes sense. I don't know if the USA is doing something differently when it comes to vetting, and I know that compared to Europe our refugee numbers are much lower, but there haven't been any acts of terror committed by a refugee since before 9/11 (maybe never?), so something must be working on that front. We've had far more incidents of mass shootings by white dudes in movie theaters/schools/churches than by Muslims. It's a hard discussion to have and I think it can (and should) make people on both sides uncomfortable to talk about. There's no denying that Europe has been negatively affected in some ways as a result of their refugee policies, but they have also helped a great number of people escape death and destruction. I'd love to hear the perspective of a an actual refugee on their experience in all of this.

Why would a "religion" who's beliefs directly oppose our constitutional rights be allowed here?

You can't legislate thought.

Why would a "religion" who's beliefs directly oppose our constitutional rights be allowed here?

Because it has been there from the very beginning?

Oh wait... you weren't talking about Christianity?

LOL Not disagreeing with what you're saying here. But just because Christianity partakes in some challenges to civil rights, doesn't make it any clearer about what to do with Muslims coming into the country. Sounds like they would just compound an already existing issue.

So do a massive amounts for Evangelicals in the US, tho.

I'm 100% pro civil liberties like crazy, and the threat of losing those rights comes largely from the Christian right in this country.

If there's ever a Muslim influence in American law, I'll eat my hat. Honestly, the defense of gay rights doesn't come from the rejection of Islam, it comes from stronger civil defense.

Muslims didn't pass Prop 8, and haven't led any charge against gay rights in the Modern American political landscape, that's been the Christian fundamentalists, and they are still pissed that they're losing.

They are referred to as useful idiots, the same useful idiots who were in the women's March, or who shout down speakers at universities. Easily manipulated kids on the left who have never had a struggle or a challenge and think they are revolutionaries.

You can disagree with a movement while at the same time not wanting to strip its members and countrymen of their basic human rights.

They do have rights. What they don't tell you is that them having rights doesn't automatically invalidate what you're saying. Guilt trips are a common tactic among the left. If you understand Islam enough to have an informed opinion, you shouldn't be afraid to say it. opposing any minority group will get you called racist. That doesn't make it so. And being your beef is with their politics, and not their skin tone, you're not saying anything racist. Anything you say is likely to offend somebody in this new era of trigger warnings and temper tantrums.

Freedom of religion is non-negotiable.

If you want to live somewhere without religious liberty, move to Saudi Arabia.

We loyal Americans don't want your traitorous ass here.

Troll is what troll does.

The "grey" area others have already mentioned is that Islam blurs the line between religion, culture and politics. It's not just a belief system.

So does Judaism. Should we not allow them either?

Actually, don't answer that, I suspect your answer may be rather disturbing.

Oye.

Valid point, but what religions aren't pretty much cultural movements? Even newer ones like Scientology and The Mormons are the worst at this.

OP 10000% agree with you as a woman and a mom. These muslim apologists haven't read the koran or the "supporting books". Haven't seen the rantings of a madman who believed at first he was possessed of a demon and so terrified he tried to kill himself.

The religion is like the bizzaro world. They command the opposite of the Ten Commandments in almost every line. Only honor thy father is there. Sort of. As long as he isn't gay, didn't try to leave islam and convert to something else etc.

No real feminist with a brain can support this theocracy of madness. No true American Constitutionist should be able to dismiss the incompatibility of islam and the Constitution especially the Bill of Rights and freedom of religion.

They still practice slavery. Evil evil slavery that my poor indentured servant ancestors get blamed for in America still but they are doing it today!! The religion does more than condone slavery. It demands it. Along with conquest and conversion by the sword. Lying and deceit and theft. And sexual abuse of women and children too complete with pedophilia poetry.

I don't think enough muslims even understand the rotten core. Or are on denial. Like so many Americans about our govt and 9/11.

Love this! Cults!!!

Hierarchical identity politics. The more oppressed the more they love them. Gay is below Islamist and trans so they have fallen out of their favor. When you are the party of outrage you always have to find something to be offended by. Calm and order is the enemy of the left.

Oh, thats called the progressive stack, its a fundamental component of the oppression olympics.

Or maybe because they're a diverse demographic that doesn't all share the same views and behavior? The same way not all gay people are flamboyant sex fiends

Yes, and since the leaders of the left set the policy of fact and also dictate what is to be believed, followed, worshiped, protested and hated, they are in control of a large "mind share" of the left.

If you want to "fit in" you better shut your mouth and do what the leaders say and think what they think or you'll be outcast and "shunned" and called horrible names.

Nobody wants to be embarrassed in front of their friends and family.

Here's a good place to start to understand what's really going on:

Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals

It's hilarious when the right starts saying the exact same thing the left says about the right in terms of media influence and groupthink.

I hate all of this crap from both sides so much I can't do anything but laugh about it.

This sub used to be a refuge from that.

Believe it or not, he's right

This and only this. No use even talking about it anymore.

Hooray for the 2 party system.

I'm more Agnostic I guess than anything, but I come off Atheist to those who just can't fathom not supporting Christianity. At least, that's what I always get.

Anyways, one day I was having a polite conversation with a co-worker, and we were just exchanging stories, and beliefs, and she asked me, to paraphrase "why do you want the Muslims to take over?"

I was pretty confused, and asked her what she was talking about and why she thought that's what I wanted. Her basic implication was that if I wasn't 100% fighting a war for Christ, than I was actively working to help Islam take control.

It never even occurred to her that I was vehemently against both. But that's what you can expect from a person who wants the rapture to happen in their lifetime. Seriously. She believes the rapture will happen in her lifetime and is excited for it. But anyways, that's a whole other thing.

Actually, it's only the left that's about identity politics. Most people on the right are more concerned with policy and governance.

It's because the left is emotion-driven by deeply and willfully ignorant people. If they don't feel it then it must not be true, even if there's a stat sheet right in front of their face.

Kind of cute that the identity politics being bitched about around here is the same identity politics that started this thread. I like how this sort of cognitive dissonance works on both sides.

This will get ripped apart, but it's the same with vaccinations. You can't be at all critical of any of them. Either all vaccinations are uneqivocally good or you are anti-science. You can't even point out systematic malpractice, woeful effectiveness of unnecessary shots like the flu one, or the massive incentive to either be the supplier or turn profits by cutting corners or deliberatly making people sick.

I pointed out that this kind of discussion was unhealthy back then, and I repeat the sentiments this time too. All arguments should be logical and debate allowed. Bad arguments or reasoning should always fail in open debate, but only if you allow such debate.

Oh yeah, I completely agree.

You can't even point out systematic malpractice, woeful effectiveness of unnecessary shots like the flu one, or the massive incentive to either be the supplier or turn profits by cutting corners or deliberately making people sick.

Hi! I don't mind you discussing such things, IF...you can give good evidence for their existence and IF... you are fairly presenting the science.

woeful effectiveness of unnecessary shots like the flu one

That doesn't really mean anything from a safety, epidemiology, or public health standpoint. I see two points here: its ineffective and we shouldn't administer them (unnecessary doesn't mean anything useful here. Is any health care necessary?).

Here is the effectiveness.

A 2014 study* showed that flu vaccine reduced children’s risk of flu-related pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission by 74% during flu seasons from 2010-2012. Another study published in the summer of 2016 showed that people 50 years and older who got a flu vaccine reduced their risk of getting hospitalized from flu by 57%.

That's not all of it. That's just a couple of studies. But I think the bulk of the evidence says that it saves a lot of lives, reduces a lot of symptoms, prevents a lot of contractions of flu, and saves a whole bunch of labor productivity. So from many different perspectives, its extremely effective.

Now is it a good idea? Its hard to imagine a cost benefit analysis based on science where it isn't a good idea.

All arguments should be logical and debate allowed. Bad arguments or reasoning should always fail in open debate, but only if you allow such debate.

This isn't a debate or forensics. That's actually a terrible way to decide policy. This is a weighing of evidence. Those are different processes. Now as long as we approach this in a scientific way and not a debate class way, it can be productive. Otherwise its just cable tv in print form.

I'm rather passionate about this issue. I am immuno-compromised. So unless you are a scientists that's well-versed in this and qualified to go against scientific consensus, do those of us that are immuno-compromised and much more likely to face complications and death a favor and get the damn shot. Thanks.

Excellent comment. Really looking forward to the reasoned and thought out response....with links to natural news and above top secret

Millions of adults haven't had booster shots in years or decades (baby boomers for instance). Vaccine protection only lasts anywhere from 2 to 10 years. If you're concerned about that, feel free to be a shut in and get your groceries delivered. Not my problem.

Someone just backed up the dumbtruck and dumped a load. Thanks! I award you no points.

You should at least link to their listing of what they consider acceptable studies of effectiveness.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

In the last six years, only one season has had a shot with an effectiveness higher than 50%. Look at some of those earlier effectivenesses too. They have confidence bounds approaching -50%!

I'm immuno-impaired, but any discussion in the public realm was so toxic that even being immuno-compromised was not a good enough reason not to get every shot, including the flu one. I saw entire comment threads calling for people that dare to question any particular shot as deserving of the death penalty and for their kids to be taken away by the state.

I said nothing about how policy should be decided. I was talking about the public realm of discussion.

In the last six years, only one season has had a shot with an effectiveness higher than 50%.

For what risk? You didn't address that at all. So either you don't know that's relevant or you are being disingenuous. Has it occurred to you that imperfect vaccines might have tremendous knockon effects?

I notice you didn't even address the general thrust of my comment though, which was that not all vaccinations are created equally and deserve to be forced onto everyone.

It isn't even clear what that means. Again, it comes down to a cost benefit analysis. You can't reason from cost nor benefits alone. That's basic risk management. You haven't seen fit to present both costs and benefits. So either you don't know that's relevant or you are being disingenuous.

This is why you don't get the deference you feel you deserve. You are clearly ignorant of basic facts.

If you stand in the middle like me, you just receive attacks from both sides. I have no idea how anyone could agree with either party. Sounds extremist to be completely honest.

Same here

to my parents I'm a liberal who believes the world should hand me everything. To my outer group of friends i'm a conservative whose moral compass is broken. Gotta love being the thing everyone hates!

This is exactly what I am to my family and friends as well.

I grew up in Indiana and now live in SoCal. I went from being viewed as a lazy pothead to being viewed as Mitt Romney by changing my zip code.

Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Agreed. This is my life. I can't even get on Facebook anymore without perma-eyerolling.

Haha, same. I see some of my conservative friends posts and think "wow, do you really believe that garbage?" Then I see a liberal friend post and think the same thing.

This is exactly what I do every single time I look at Facebook these days

Step 1: follow meme pages

Step 2: unfollow all non-meme pages

kek will embrace you, son.

Why would you be on facebook at all? Serious question.

I've been seriously debating deleting my account. Having been on since the one of the first big expansions in 2005, it's one of the longest memberships I've ever had, and it's a lot harder to make the choice to bail than I'm proud of. It just isn't a source of connection like it used to be, and I'm sick and damn tired of all the dumb shit I see on there. I've unfollowed basically everyone I know, including family, and it's getting annoying hearing, "didn't you see that thing I posted?" every time I'm with people.

I can tell you with a whole heart: for about a week it's weird, cause it's something you're so used to checking. But that in itself makes you realize that you needed to do it. After that one week (or maybe 2-3?), it's like a weight has been lifted off of your shoulders, and you won't be able to understand why the fuck anyone is still on it. And then, maybe, just maybe you'll look at everyone who still is in a different light. One thing I can guarantee: you WILL be much more healthy mentally.

I can corroborate this with my own experience. Now I see in bold how much time and energy my wife puts into it. It can't be healthy for us humans.

Primarily for the instant messenger to keep in touch with friends and family, but also for other business-related things. But I now have a third reason -- to read all the stupid things "smart" people say!

Muslim condemnations of homosexuality, like those in Christianity, are based mainly on the story about God’s punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah which is recounted in the Qur’an as well as the Old Testament. In essence, the biblical and Qur’anic versions are very similar. Source: https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/21/gay-lgbt-muslim-countries-middle-east

I'm guessing you meant to respond to a different comment? For the record I'm not religious.

The huge difference being that Christians aren't throwing gays off buildings in 2017. Muslims are.

I think it was a general bad idea, trade deals should be done with the two parties trading and the deal made specific to their situations. If we do multiple parties with one trade deal each nation has to accept each of the other nations stipulations.

Yeah I'm more a centrist but depending on when you catch me I'll swing a little to the left or right. More and more I can't have any political discussions with most people I know because they're getting closer to closer to an extreme, either side, as time passes.

It's fucking infuriating.

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers on the right...

Here I am....

To be fair, one side seems to defend while the other attacks even if unprovoked.

I am in middle ground too. I agree with some of Trump's actions and decisions, but also disagree. I hate that everyone has to be on one side or the other, and sadly it's usually the most extreme right and left voices that get heard most.

I can see why people would hate both Republicans and Democrats if all we hear is the most extreme right and left.

I with there were more influential and loud voices that were moderate, logical and reasonable.

Everyone hates a centrist in practice. They stand in the middle trying to angle for moral superiority over both sides while not accomplishing anything.

Lol... I just look at myself as seeing both sides and trying to engage in constructive dialogue, trying to find a compromise...

I do agree with your analysis too. I think there are many types of centrist or moderate right/left. We all have different motivations. I, personally, don't claim to have a moral high ground. Another goal of mine is just to help extreme people from either side to recognise and understand the other side's argument based on their perceptions. I also try to make people aware of their bias or the bias of their source of information.

In many cases the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes.

TFW Rand Paul will never be president.

Feels bad man.

A house divided cannot stand. Those running things want to quash political discussion and divide people against each other so the ruling class can stay the ruling class, the rich can keep most of the power and money, and continue to destroy the middle class while we peasents squabble amongst ourselves, never strong enough to stand up against the plutocrats.

The first time I was ever called a socialist was when I told someone that I didn't care for Trump. Little did they know, I despise Hillary and Bernie equally as much.

yap, people have become very defensive. Everyone just want to WIN. To be the RIGHT one. Instead of figuring out what actually is RIGHT. lol :(

Well to be fair you don't have to like Bernie or Hillary to be a socialist :D

And you don't have to like Trump to be a conservative.

It's ok I'm a half Asian trump supporter, but after I disclose that I become just another racist white guy. All my Mexican Republican relatives are now racist white guys too, it's the whitest any of us have been. But hey at least now I get called racist instead of gook so I guess that's better.

Now you are on the winning side...LOL shit really has gotten fucked up

lol racist gook

I believe MOST people are somewhere near the middle, nowadays. The media just blows the extremist drama up and it's all you see so it feels like the whole country is divided. The loudest from both sides finds every chance available to be loud so you also hear from those folks on social media. The loud mouth assholes poorly represent the rest of their party but it's always their views that we are forced to read/see, unfortunately. My beliefs are libertarian, but not even libertarians had a good nominee to vote for this time around.

It's bittersweet to see I'm not the only one. Bitter to know others are in the same boat Sweet to know that I'm not alone

This. When in discussion with Democrats I'm a right wing authoritarian, when around Republicans I'm a bleeding heart liberal.

To me this means I'm doing something right. 98% of the voting public are insane for supporting either party. It is completely and utterly indefensible.

If both sides are attacking you, keep it up, you are probably right.

I'm standing right in the middle just watching both sides bicker. So tiring.

The amount of hypocrisy on the left is astounding though.

Yeah, its mind blowing.

I always find myself kinda conflicted, like I really do despise just about everything the far-right stands for, but I also respect their conviction and ability to get shit done. Just look at the clusterfuck that was the "Women's March":

• It wasn't actually a women's march, multiple genders were represented
• Most protesters showed up to demonstrate but a small group of radicals decided to get violent and effectively bait the police
• They turned away people who were pro-life even though they wanted to protest against the same guy
• And yeah, they want to unilaterally defend a religion that, much like their homegrown far-right enemies, fucking detests the idea of a woman making a decision. Islam is a religion of peace -- a peace which is maintained by women's uninterrupted silence.

small group of radicals decided to get violent and effectively bait the police

You talking inauguration or womens march?

Oh that is right, there were no arrests during their march, they attacked Starbucks on Friday. Starbucks, a company who gave my close friend a $2K hardship grant when he got buried in debt after a cat accident...good pick assholes

Islam is a religion of peace -- a peace which is maintained by women's uninterrupted silence.

Wahhabism*

Only two genders there bud. I'm right wing. Women have rights and I'm totally fine with them making decisions. Kelly Anne Conway helped make a trump presidency.

You can fuck right off with your two gender bullshit, it might play well on other parts of this sub but seriously. Fuck off and take it somewhere else, capisce?

"And here we see the delusional tumblrina in its natural habitat, trying to push its more than two genders bullshit mental disorder upon the sane peoples of the world."

Scientifically there are only two genders along with the extremely rare anomoly i.e. abnormality. It's an idea supported by science while yours is not. Why isn't he/she allowed to have this opinion?

There is research supporting a distinct difference between biological sex and gender identity, suggesting the gender is a component of the psyche. This Nat Geo article is a great overview and does a good job using a real human lens to explain it.

Here is an study concluding that around 2% of children are born outside of the clear male/female designation, so I wouldn't really call that a supreme rarity. The link will not properly embed so here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2%3C151::AID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO;2-F/abstract

The reason it's shitty that these opinions still exist is because you won't pay attention to the science so that you can continue to discriminate against people who are different. The reason it's shitty is because you're not going to read what I linked before telling me that I am wrong again, and even if you did read it you'd just cherry-pick anyway. For a sub that is supposed to be open-minded and reject many forms of social conditioning, you all seem perfectly content with the forces that condition us into assuming one of two social identities.

I didn't say he wasn't "allowed" to have the opinion, but that is immediately where you guys always take it. Is it supposed to make your argument stronger by making it seem like you are...I don't know...oppressed?

He is allowed to say whatever scientifically-unfounded, hateful things that he wants -- I just thought this sub would be better than to let itself be spoon-fed the same repressive narrative that helped form the Cold War generation, especially considering the way that our understanding of biology and psychology has completely exploded in the past 50 years. There is plenty of information, but time and time again you'll go out of your way to defend opinions that do hurt real people and are not based on real, current science. I don't understand that in general, let alone on a sub that is based on skepticism and critical thinking.

Edit: another thing I have been noticing with many forms of hate like this is that the person reaching out to be hateful typically has nothing to actually gain from it. What do you gain from supporting a narrative that tells other people the way their brain is organized is unacceptable? Anything you do stand to gain is dwarfed by what others lose in freedom of expression. For example, I understand why middle-class white voters were strongly compelled to vote for Trump, they've been a neglected socioeconomic class for generations and saw a clear advocate for their cause. But I don't see anything parallel to that when discussing gender identities, since straight/cis people have literally always been the "default".

I voted Trump, but i dont agree with all of his policies. But the more conversations that i have with people on the left, the further right i seem to be leaning, even though im fairly centered in my political alignment.

You should have slapped an ITT on your comment.

Goes straight to identity politics.

Did you just assume my sexual orientation?

IMO, asleep people are the polarized ones.

Muslims are in the water drowning. LGTBQ folks are in the water drowning. The poor are in the water drowning. Women are in the water drowning.

White, wealthy, heterosexual men are in the yacht watching.

Muslims pushing down on LGBTQ folks won't get them out of the water. LGBTQ folks pushing down on Muslims won't get them out of the water.

There is no good sense in trying to drown second.

identity politics.

This, sadly.

Someone told me that if we band together we can solve everyone's problems and I'm a racist somehow for not seeing women's issues and black/brown issues as completely separate things. I apparently did a crappy job of trying to explain why we should join together as people rather than in our individual interest groups.

Still better than voting for the party that wants to take those things away.

I voted my conscience, did you? Anyone who voted their conscience - however their conscience told them to vote, and for whatever reasons - voted the right way.

If Hillary had been elected everyone would assume they were safe and no one would be paying attention, even when our rights were further stripped from us and the status quo was strengthened. Trump being elected is good in the sense that everyone's paying attention - now maybe people will learn who benefits from the status quo (after all the new bonfires he lights get put out).

It is possible that bad things are simply bad and there is no silver lining. I'm not sure this isn't one of those times. We have some nihilistic psychopaths running things that want to burn it all down.

Which nihilistic psychopaths are you talking about?

I'm talking about the ones on Wall Street and in the medical/insurance/pharmaceutical industries, et al.

I don't vote for those people. I don't see the relevance to this discussion.

Those people are the ones who have access to and a great amount of influence upon the people we do elect. IOW, the donors. You could also call them the oligarchs.

Point being that Trump is not the only nihilistic psychopath running the country.

All billionaires aren't evil oligarchs. Some are trying to end poverty and disease.

Yes, that's true.

But the ones who are doing good are doing good. The ones who are buying influence of our politicians are the other ones.

But muh diversity means putting everyone into a separate folder on my laptop and keeping them there while basing the entirety of my judgements upon exactly that which I continuously rail against.

It's because they are addicted to their outrage and virtue signaling. Most people (should) know objectively you can only make change by coming to an agreement and not just shoving your opinion down other people's throats.

They did think we should come together, but only in our interest groups for some reason.

So judging people by their faith isn't identity politics all of a sudden?

I agree that this is regrettable, but OP implies that people who don't recognize others rights don't deserve to have their rights recognized. What about people who commit crimes? Do they forfeit their rights? I can't imagine that reasonable people would condone killing someone's children without a trial just because they hold problematic views

The strange thing is.... this comment is still top comment. But id it's content was completely true it wouldnt be here, does it?

I think it's not that bad... it's just very... complicated to have a normal conversation about this topics...

I'm in academia, I know how hard it is to have a real conversation about trump. Nope, doesn't happen. I can't even bring up the topic without people starting it off with "fuck trump".

So what? Doesn't stop an intelligent discussion. Hehe... maybe even starts one. No, but if you think that it is impossible to have a normal discussion, because you opponent said "fuck Trump" it's more your fault that you get emotional as well, since there are MANY good reasons to say fuck Trump and still be intelligent. If you want to defend Trump, I think you should do the argumantative approach, because no, sane person would see how someone could actually defend Trump.

See my original comment.

But now you are just refusing to do any kind of conversation. It's not always the fault of the people who have another opinion.

No, I'm just pointing out that this person believes anyone who likes trump is insane.

No, you did that now. And you still owe me at least some kind of proof, that it isnt the case. Of course, plain clinical insanity would be wrong, but you should know, that I dont mean that kind of lack of intelligence in discussions nowadays and so do you mean not that kind of insanity, I guess. It's about the plain old why the heck did you do that? Because there are obviously a lot of people who dont understand, but you just say "I cant talk about that", you really dont see the circle? You havent even tried to talk about that, at least here with me.

But most people who voted for Trump do exactly that! Don't you see that this "not explainations" are just as worse as saying: "I voted for him cuz I hate dem foreigners." I doubt, yet, that you did because of that, but if you dont say anything, that's the thing most Trump supporters, that talk, say, why they voted for him, thus I just have to conclude, that statistically most, possibly you too, voted him because of that, until I hear something else.

The second most heard reason was: "I hate dem Clintons." Which I think would fit you more. But what is it finally?

I don't owe you shit. Let's be clear on that. You are making a lot of assumptions about someone on the internet. People voted for Trump for different reasons. I'm not going to sit here and explain why every person voted for him. Let's look at the rust belt, most of those states were blue last time. Maybe they liked his economic plans. Maybe people voted for him for his plan on congressional term limits or ban on foreign lobbying. Maybe the media propaganda against Muslims for the last 16 years has done its job and made people worried about American safety. Maybe people are tired of identity politics, maybe they're tired of people calling them insane. Maybe people really do believe abortion is murder. Maybe people believe the government needs to be smaller and that there should be less restrictions. Maybe people voted for him because the Democratic party pushed them away rigging the primaries. Maybe people read the Podesta emails and couldnt vote for clinton.

You just lump trump supporters as one monolith like they all voted for him for the same reasons. If you read his platform maybe you could see why people would have voted for him. Go to the Donald and ask your questions, I am sure they will tell you why they voted for him if don't go in there acting like you're better than them.

Dont lose your ballsack dude. I dont want to here from why anyone voted for him, but why did you. Gee. Furthermore, I explained why someone, me, who wants to understand the political mess, has to generalize, when no one explains shit. Additionally, I will not go to his plattform. I dont believe propaganda from anyone and if you think that he of all people, doesnt do propaganda, than you are naive. And lastly, yes, I am making a lot of assumptions. What you gonna do? Forbid it? Is that the "less restriction" part Trump supporters stand for? Or the restriction on decisions made for them? I mean, they want to restrict the freedom of a woman who wants to make an abortion, after all. And they really think this cell cluster is life? But they have no moral problem with eating meat or plants? That's the part which is insane! And it is just that. saying: I love life! So I am gonna destroy the life of some stranger, by forcing them to get the baby she cannot care for, so it may be starve to death painfully, but goddamnit better this way than killing this poor thing when it doesnt feel anything. Gimme my brutally murderes cow sandwich. You dont see the insanity, right? The other things are pretty reasonable. A little naive again, but reasonable.

You really are missing my point and I'm done talking to you. Get your head out of your ass. That fact you won't even go look at his platform says it all. Reading his platform isn't going to give you a disease. A well educated person gets the facts themself and doesn't depend on other people to summarize information for them. You can sit here and argue with some random person online because it makes you feel better. It's not me especially since you can't do your own research. I'm done replying to you.

Dude! I just wanted to talk, I didnt even called you insane, I never even said insane. I talked bad about an abstract group and you go full emotional. So "Get your head out of your ass" this is something you should go by. "That fact you won't even go look at his platform says it all. Reading his platform isn't going to give you a disease. A well educated person gets the facts themself and doesn't depend on other people to summarize information for them." Now you just stopped thinking for moment, this platform of greatness by him is even that: By him. Meaning I am still dependend on a person with my information. And everybody knows that, if you want information about person it is quite stupid to ask the person himself, he lies about himself, everybody does. If you want to know a person you have to talk to his friends aka. his supporters. And yes, it makes me feel better, to know the far world beyond my own horizon, if you are happy in your little world, so be it. But when this narrow perspective gets into politic people like me want to know why, how and if it nessecary. You know... that is research. I just use better sources. More believable ones. And those sources draw a clear picture. You fit right in it. You wont believe that, because you are SOO different from the others, right? Those liberals? Those special snowflakes? Those who neglect the reality?

This is a problem and you've fallen into it too. Rephrase it - the media is unable to present a nuanced argument but we as individuals should still be able to hold a relatively complex opinion.

Therefore, it's possible to both be against homophobia and islamophobia at the same time, recognising the Venn diagrams of oppression involved. We need to move away from reinforcing blind dualistic thought IMO.

Goes straight to identity politics.

I don't disagree with what you said but isn't that basically exactly what this post is? As X, I'm more oppressed that Y. etc

Yeah that's exactly it. So many people are only able to see issues as black and white, when in most cases there are so many subtle tones of grey in between that are ignored. Compromise, civil discussion, empathy, these things don't exist on either the far left or the far right.

It is so polarized because of rampant censorship and of course the extreme bias of liberal media...

Ever listen to NPR? The entire morning they were pushing anti-trump propaganda like they normally do...

If everyone had a say, the polarization would end. But people use the excuse of "hate" to silence the opposition. And so bubbles/safe spaces/etc get formed...

That's the liberal excuse. We aren't against discussion or speech, we are against "hate".

If muslims refugees demand that lgbt groups be shut down because lgbt is hateful to them and their religion, I wonder if their tiny liberal brains would explode.

It's funny how reddit liberal trash says they are against "hate" speech. But depending on who the mods are, hate is allowed. For example, by atheists against christians. Democrats against republicans. Liberals against conservatives. Liberals against whites. Liberals against traditionalists. So on and so forth...

These people are going to be in for a shock when the tide changes and the censorship powers that they fought so hard for is used against them...

I stopped listening to NPR during the primary season because they were so clearly biased towards Clinton.

This morning, they did a segment on internet privacy ( facebook, etc ) and protecting yourself in a world where Trump is in charge. Don't remember them warning me about obama.

Then they did a report on how trump is a sociopath businessman because he is a billionaire while juxtaposing trump with warren buffet - a generous billionaire who doesn't care about money. They did 10 minutes where his daughter was saying how buffet doesn't care about money.

And then some bullshit with a NY attorney general who was shitting on trump relentlessly and claiming that 16 state attorney generals supported sally yates while conveniently ignoring that 34 state attorney generals didn't.

It is the worst kind of pathetic liberal circlejerk around.

It's federal funding needs to be pulled and it needs to be put out of business. It is pure propaganda.

It's like everyone discredits RT news because it's supported by the state, but NPR has been pumping out propaganda nonstop.

It's the other guys who push propaganda. Our guys spread "news".

It's an age old propaganda tactics. We speak the truth. They lie.

But it's all propaganda.

extreme bias of liberal media

Lol are you really gonna act like right wing media is perfectly objective? Try comparing the journalistic integrity of NPR with Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars. Though I wouldn't expect someone who uses the term "liberal trash" to be capable of much coherent analysis.

If muslims refugees demand that lgbt groups be shut down because lgbt is hateful to them and their religion, I wonder if their tiny liberal brains would explode.

Tiny liberal brains? Check the stats. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/17/red-state-stupidity-confirmed-9-10-education-states-america-vote-republican.html

Furthermore, your hypothetical is absurd, mainly because sexuality is real and observable whereas religion is mythological.

Lol are you really gonna act like right wing media is perfectly objective?

No. Right wing media is garbage propaganda too. Foxnews is crap just like the nytimes, npr, latimes, chicagotribune, washingtonpost, cnbc, bloomberg, the list goes on...

The difference is that the right wing media is tiny and a reaction to the liberal domination of media. Foxnews was created just 20 years ago precisely because of the one-sided nature of "media/propaganda".

Try comparing the journalistic integrity of NPR with Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars.

I do. They are all garbage propaganda.

Though I wouldn't expect someone who uses the term "liberal trash" to be capable of much coherent analysis.

I can. Because I'm not an agenda driven liberal trash like you.

Tiny liberal brains? Check the stats. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/17/red-state-stupidity-confirmed-9-10-education-states-america-vote-republican.html

Lots of liberals in red states and lots of conservatives in blue states... I'm from a blue state BTW...

I hate trash equally.

The self-loathing must fit nicely with the cognitive dissonance of believing in souls and living forever after you're dead.

I'm atheist retard...

Oh god what a deranged liberal cockroach.

Ah, the famed right-wing class and brilliance on display once again.

I'm not right-wing. I despise them as much as I despise deranged left-wingers like you.

I'm independent.

I was gonna hop in and suggest that you're probably a

FUCKING WHITE MALE™

but I'll hang back and eat popcorn.

I identify is a martian. Don't put labels on me you bigot.

Regardless of your political affiliations, you've displayed a maturity level fit for the_donald, so it really shouldn't be surprising that your repeated accusations of derangement come off as simple childish projection.

Regardless of your political affiliations, you've displayed a maturity level fit for the_donald

Thank you. I'll try harder and bring myself down to a level where I'd be accepted in /r/politics.

so it really shouldn't be surprising that your repeated accusations of derangement come off as simple childish projection.

That must be it.

I see that you are getting a bit upset. Can I suggest you go hide in your safe space?

I'm up in this cesspool of a sub rebutting your circle-jerk disparagement of liberals, and you resort to a safe-space talking point? Are you oblivious to the irony of the vast majority of whining about safe spaces coming from echo chambers that ban dissenting commenters?

Have you run to your safe space yet?

I'd ask you to figure that one out for yourself, but that's probably too tall a task.

It's a mountain too high to climb...

Liberal this, liberal that, liberal trash, liberal media, meanwhile Fox news is a beacon of truth right?

Nope. Foxnews is rightist propaganda.

Thank you. As long as we can be consistent

Where was I inconsistent?

I wasn't being sarcastic, even though I disagree with your original post at least you can admit Fox is propoganda

Almost all media has become propaganda at this point. 5 companies own 90% of all TV, movies, radio and news and they are all owned and run by the 1% and nearly every one of them has a bias and agenda.

wow, nice edit, way to take it straight to douchetown

You need directions to your safe space?

No, but you're already there even though you're surely in denial about it. Enjoy your t_d echo box and it's recent spillover into r/conspiracy. Your original post was just such typical bullshit it wasn't even worth arguing with. So I make an easy quip and even give you credit for not falling into the trap, and you edit your posts to add insults after the fact. Grow up dude

I'll send you directions to your safe space.

Sounds like this special snowflake needs their safespace. Sorry, bad Joke but this is a serious response you get so often on reddit for bringing up cogent points as a way of mocking and distracting from the relevant issues they bring up. The mindlessness and shills on reddit have robbed the site of it's enjoyment to a large extent and the constant anti Trump propaganda you see on subs like r/pics is almost sickening. Sadly a lot of low information people fall for it and it works on the young and naive.

This applies exactly to the OP as well. Pushing against the banning of Muslims isn't an endorsement of their policies and culture.

the hypocrisy of muslims demanding we respect their human rights but they refuse to respect mine.

You can believe whatever you want, but nothing gives you a unilateral right to act on whatever it is you believe in. We can protect against action (i.e. preventing persecution through violence, harassment etc), but we can't protect you from other's beliefs. Nor does anyone or any entity have a right to forcibly police other's beliefs. That's why you shouldn't go ban Muslims because of their beliefs about homosexuality. That would be policing their beliefs and an act of persecution.

Likewise, we can do everything we can to prevent persecution of homosexuals. We can't protect you from belief systems and other people's thoughts. We can protect you from actual acts; practical manifestations of those beliefs. But we can't protect you from the mere existence of a contrarian belief system. We can protect from making it able to criminalize homosexuality (an act of persecutuion), but we can't protect you from the existence of their belief that it should be.

Culturally, you can educate, inform, advocate and pressure them to change their belief system. Make your voice heard. Just don't cross the line into harassment and persecution of them.

The prevailing US view about Muslims in the Middle East is perhaps demonstrative of how effective our media is at creating scapegoats, while ignoring the history of US intervention in the region over decades.

• Installing brutal, repressive dictators in countries like Syria, Libya, and Iraq.

• Providing those dictators the weapons and support they'd need to put down resistance.

• 1953 coup in Iran over control/ownership of oil resources - which crushed the first democratic government in the country.

• Leveraging the 911 inside job to make Islam/Muslims the face of terror

• Lying about WMD's and Al Qaeda ties to launch a $2 trillion dollar war in Iraq to topple the man we installed in first place.

• Destabilizing the entire region and creating the situation that's exploded in the region and created the very refugees we're turning away.

• Droning peoples' moms, dads, kids and grandparents

• All of this only serves to create the terrorists of tomorrow.

If we really care about innocents who are killed in cold blood by a bunch of misguided fanatics, we might do well to weigh the millions we've killed in the middle east over years - all in the name of peace and democracy.

Leveraging the 911 inside job to make Islam/Muslims the face of terror

Wait... wut?

it would appear from our wholesale bombing of innocents in the region till our hearts' content, that the normalization of murdering little boys on a grand scale might be right up their with other normalized atrocities.

Yes, whatever we need to make it whities fault.

I feel like we need to evolve the conversation beyond the visceral and reactive blaming of individuals and/or ethnic groups to seeking out and addressing root causes, two of which are readily visible in this context: the corrosive effects of greed and power.

Or we could just detain legal permanent residents of the USA at gunpoint for 17 hours, all because they committed the horrendous crime of being born on the wrong patch of dirt.

I think 17 hours is worth a life or fifty.

Some old dusty piece of paper called the Constitution disagrees.

But isn't that exactly what OP is doing? He is saying he supports gay rights so he can't support Muslim rights (since many are anti-gay). The more consistent position would be to support everyone's rights.

You are so racist for this post gawd!

So true, if I am for X but against Y the second I say I'm for X no one will ever believe I'm against Y.

That's the liberal lefs fault. Not conservative side.

Divide and rule.

Thank you for saying this. I tried asking a question the other day on r/politics and got my shit jumped and accused of wanting to love under authoritarian rule. It's like the movie Ghostbusters. If you didn't supported it you were against women.

I hate not being able to have open discussions.

As a woman, that movie was eh, wasn't bad, but it def wasn't great.

Yeah, I often ask people, during these discussions about muslims, if they have gay friends and if so, what do they think the majority of Muslims believe. They don't want to believe that most have extreme views on homosexuality. Do they not care about the rights of their gay friends or family? I work with a lot of Muslims and best you can get out of some is that "you have to respect the laws of this country". Most flat out say homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal. Some say they should be murdered. Some think they "eat the poo poo". I'm not joking. This is a mix of older immigrants and first gen younger ones, male and female. The kids do not have more solid "western" values for the most part. Of the Muslims I know, most will, if given the chance, vote to take away rights of the lgbt community.

this is what happens when you find children at the center of political discourse... and that's essentially what these college-age liberals are, diaper babies.

polarized you can only be on one side or the other. Can't even have an intelligent conversation anymore. Goes straight to identity politics.

Its really harsh right now. We had this really strong left wave with the PC craze and a lot of failed politics, and naturally every strong movement has its counter movement, so we see a right uprising to counter that, which then hopefully/should neutralize themselves

It's really sad. I've been banned from quite a few political subs for "concern-trolling" and "sea-lioning"... Whatever the fuck those mean. Apparently trying to have an open discussion or pointing out flaws in logic is 'trolling' and a bannable offense now. If you don't subscribe the the mod-approved group think you need to be silenced. God forbid people think or speak for themselves anymore.

This is by design. It creates a situation where no real debate can take place, while repeatedly dividing and segmenting the population then pitting them against each other.

Divide and conquer.

It's absolute insanity all throughout.

Oddly, the only violence I'm seeing is being carried out and condoned by people who are anti-trump, not the other way around.

As an independent, this has really got me down today. It's so frustrating. I can't say that I agree with the anti-trump protests, for example, while also saying I'm concerned that Soros is funding the organizing behind them.

Identity politics has been pushed for so long and hard by the media that many people don't want to believe the party they identify with so strongly and is almost a part of who they are has lied, used and betrayed them. They close their eyes to their party's corruption and only blame the other side, never questioning their leaders and that is how they like it (both parties are guilty of this). Considering 90% of our media is owned by 5 companies (article is out of date due to recent merger) including all TV, movies, radio and news, most of which have a bias and agenda this is a big problem and they are all owned and run by the 1%. Obama contributed significantly to this by allowing these mergers to occur and by repealing laws that prevented fake news and government propaganda. It amazes me how so much of the pubic just falls into line without even questioning who is pulling the strings. This deepening divide keeps people distracted from looking at the real problems of big business and the oligarchy who keep oppressing the public and taking away our rights and our money.

Maybe it's because there aren't a lot of intelligent conversations to be had.

This is exactly what I mean.

No. I mean polarized individuals who refuse participate in open discourse lack the intellectual capacity necessary to understand facts, logic, and reason.

I'll agree to that.

Muslims that moved to Holland demanded freedoms, but go on a gay on women with skirts hunting rampage. Indeed the OP has a point.

You answered your question: they're brainwashed.

Yes. Why must we tolerate their intolerance.

Gay here.. Lived in muslim country for 3 years (malaysia). When people found out I was gay, the amount of sexual advances from married people I got was huge. I don't think that muslim people actually understand sexuality as sexuality in general to them is not taught but instinctively learned. I think that evolution of thought could happen, but not until the extremism attached to islam ends. Islam from my experience is a be all end all. People will proudly go to jail for islam, proudly die for islam, and proudly set fire to their friends for islam. I don't recall a time in history where any other religion was so defiant to social behaviour like islam. Christianity may have been barbaric, but there was a human conscience attached to it for a very long period of time that allowed it to evolve. I don't see that conscience attached to islam.

This !!

Christianity got hijacked by dying rome and then Charlemagne. They hid some of the gospels from us and twisted some things like the church being between us and God. Jesus said where ever we come together is our church even under the shade of a tree.

And yes many people used Christianity for their barbaric and despotic ends. But they had to twist it to make it apply. Love thy neighbor and the message of peace didn't fit their agenda so it was forgotten or added on stipulations.

Islam at its core is vile. It's really the anti Christian belief system. Killing and lying, slavery and rape are all encouraged. Also pedophilia.

From what my research has shown me its not homosexuality to have sex in the giving end with young men or boys especially ones easy to dress up as feminine. There is even poetry... sick poetry and I know soldiers who are haunted by the boys they saw turned into sex slaves. Even stories about them . being brought into the military encampments as rewards for their muslim guides and a see no evil, hear no evil etc policy too.

But any same sex couple in love and exclusive or devoted to one another is a death sentence.

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies

And yes many people used Christianity for their barbaric and despotic ends. But they had to twist it to make it apply.

Really? ...

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:12)

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15)

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:1)

Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. (Leviticus 21:17-23)

I'm no christian scholar, but let's not pretend Christianity is the all daises and lollipops.

Christ overturned the Old Testament. You're not a scholar, but that's common knowledge.

Then why do prominent Christians cite the Old Testament for their beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and gender roles?

They're idiots.

"They're idiots" because you know God's true intent. You're a heretic because they know God's true intent. Why is it so hard to see theism itself as The Problem?

I think it's one way for arriving at a functional society based on shared values. Just because religion has problems, doesn't mean it is "The Problem". It solves many other problems.

Is it true? Does God actually demonstrably exist in reality? If not, then religion is a lie. No matter how "useful" it is, there is no excuse for controlling humans by lying to them.

How is it a lie..? Amongst many other things, religion establishes a code of conduct that people agree on in unity, and that's far from fake.

Also, I'm going to guess you're too atheist to believe me or whatever, but a decent of Christian's actively recognize, including me, that god isn't really there. I'll grant that it isn't an easy thing to gauge, as saying "so you get that god isn't there, right" can potentially be pretty insensitive... but anecdotally, I haven't met any that actually thinks that way. A fine amount non denominational Christianity (which is the best I can speak to) has a degree of subjectivity. I can say I saw God, which in my eyes I have, and that sounds insane, right? It would be, if God didn't represent something else for me. To me, god is the essence of love and community coming together. I leave God responsible for the greatest achievements in my life- meaning, the love and support of a like minded community. Not some interdimenional omnipowerful universe creator or something.

It's not a lie, it's a thought box. Theres a reason bible study exists- for explaining every sentence and how it's a symbolic representation of something else. You make of it what you will. The disgusting aspect arrives when people manipulate foolish, malleable souls into believing they are solely controlled by some mad god, and the only way to please it and not burn eternally is to be a racist, hateful, usually anti-gay cunt. Whenever you have something lovely available to an insane amount of people, there are always some fuckers that will abuse it and bastardize it. Few are proud of that.

OK. THIS is the problem. "God isn't really there" means (by definition) you are no longer a theist. I can ask 100 "Christians" what they believe and get 100 different answers. But of course YOU are the enlightened one with all the answers. YOU (and your self-selected echo chamber) know HOW to read the magic book of riddles. But GOD FORBID someone else looks at the same book and -after CENTURIES of study by rabbis and priests and clerics- comes to a different conclusion; those fuckers just abused and bastardised YOUR holy book. Everyone else are uneducated fools that don't know better - but not you and yours.

THIS is how and why religion separates us. YOU have the right to claim some kind of higher knowledge - "because God". And then you have this whacky, ill-defined, nebulous, impossible to nail down definition of "God that is a symbol". If you're a Humanist (you sound like one), just say THAT. You're not a good person because of a carefully-studied reading of the Bible- you're a good person because that's the fucking obvious way to be a civilized human.

Why choose the Bible if it's (by your admission) not the inspired word of God? Why not the Eddas? Or Gilgamesh? Or Harry fucking Potter? I can "study" The Lord of the Rings and come to all kinds of conclusions about deeper meaning in the world. The fact is you decided the conclusion first and then justified it by "studying" a collection of bronze-age myths that was mangled by several editings. Next time you "look deeper" in your "study", ask yourself: "if this book didn't exist, how would I live my life?".

... uh huh. Loving all the CAPS LOCK and quotation marks.

Did that not prove my point? That it's subjective, and you make of it what you will? You said it perfectly- you'll get 100 different answers. Being real here, I can't say mine is the best answer, but what I said what I did based on your statement "Does God demonstrably exist in reality? If not, then religion is a lie." That makes absolutely no sense. That is such a trademark argument for someone who thinks Yep, religion is merely a tool for control and everyone who follows it is a monkey. Hoped I could relate to you in some way by saying otherwise, but hey, not everything works out.

Besides, I pointed out that he is there and isn't. Is depending on how you perceive what God is or may be, God is there. Existent. But, it's easy to recognize that with no feasible evidence for this current physical form existing, so that much can be pointed out.

The only people I said were bad or uneducated were people who use it to hurt others. It's wrong because it's fundamentally against the modern teachings of the religion anyhow, and severely against the way our culture is moving. I might call that generally incorrect. Not sure i'm the only one who feels this way either? maybe it's just my church and priest or something...

Also only said I could speak to non denominationals, that's where all my experience is. You can believe whatever you want- you're not necessarily stupid for thinking there is a real, physical god- maybe somehow there is? But scientists haven't found anything conclusive yet, so it's pretty easily accepted to be that way, from those who are educated. So yeah, I guess you could say I am one of those godlike enlightened beings far above humanity for going to school and learning some simple science. If there's mounds of evidence that the world is billions of years old, there's no point in fighting that.

And uhh... That's a weird question for choosing the bible. Christianity had a lot of political roots in its founding, and there was probably a reason for having a unified text. Harry Potter wasn't around by then, and religious texts happened to be produced in a simple and easy to read manner for the general public. They weren't for a time, which i'm sure was politically based. Easy to divide people when the uneducated populace of the streets couldn't compare to the holy educated priests who could read god's word, right? If you want to study LotR for deeper meaning, that's a pretty cool project. I get what you're saying, you know, but you can do that with anything. The bible is thankfully so rich in content and interpretive that it happens to be better for this than other texts, if anything.

It's an enjoyment to study and think about, for some, and for others, more. Some people think the bible is the way you should live word for word, others not... Which is again, where it gets confusing, but whatever.

Personally, if the book didn't exist, I wouldn't live any differently. I don't even go to bible study man, I sat in on some once and did some reading on specific texts. Through this, I can recognize why such a thing as bible study is important- it's fucking hard to understand at face value. It's taken a lot of people a lot of time to decipher what they find as symbolic, and it often makes lots of sense. I work and sleep, and help my comrades when I can I guess? It's always cool to get different perspectives and learn new things, especially from such complicated text. There's a lot of shit goin on in there.

Oh and uhh, as far as how it separates us, I already mentioned it's not worth going and telling others to disavow their beliefs, it's highly insensitive.

I'm not sure this is worth my time.

I value truth. But do not assume the same of others. You make the assumption that every person's thoughts are situated based on a search for truth. Each of us are one in 7.5 billion people on this planet, and many people have problems that go way beyond them having the time to pursue truth to the degree that you do. Most of those people don't have the time or desire to come to a place like /r/conspiracy.

If it was beneficial to us from evolutionary standpoint for our brains to seek truth over our other needs, then wouldn't that be the case?

Your definition of "controlling humans" seems pretty broad as well. Wouldn't it be controlling people to make them not to adhere to their religion through governmental force? How do you think that stopping people from lying, as you would believe it, would be helpful for the people who use religion to guide their lives or give themselves greater purpose or meaning? (Or even just a more intuitive understanding of the world that allows them to live their lives more easily.) How is potential for adverting human suffering not an excuse? What will you replace it with?

You declare religion as "a way for arriving at a functional society based on shared values". My question is, is this "way" built on actual reality - or a series of bronze-age myths with the same credibility as Zeus throwing lightning? Why not choose a "way" based on demonstrable facts and human compassion rather than "This is bad because man in the sky says it is bad".

Further, I see it is a BAD way at arriving at a functional society because now you claim you work God's will, and He may not be gainsaid. And the next town over has a different view of God's will. This "functional society" you propose inevitably has lead to violent "us-vs-them" conflicts for literally all of recorded history. Religion is a way of BREAKING society into fragments that then have more to fight about than agree upon.

So, Christians who misinterpret their religion are idiots, but when Muslims do it, they're evil?

Where did I say anything about Islam? Anyone who uses ancient texts to incite violence is an idiot.

You're right. Sorry. You didn't mention it, but other commenters seem to be. My bad.

No, Islam is very, very straight forward about killing innocents and molesting children. It is very different than ANY "hypocritical" Christian biblical law you can find in the Bible. There is no -interpretation-, that is where people in the West get confused. Island and Christianity are very different.

So You're saying that every single Muslim believes in this strict interpretation? Cuz I work with both Muslims and gay people, and to date we have had zero gay people thrown off our building. Our current vetting system is more than adequate to weed out the few bad apples. Banning all Muslims, including legal residents, from certain countries is disgraceful.

Yes, Islam is Islam, there is no "interpretation" it is a cultural thing. Ask any soldier who actually has experience. Watch some of this woman's videos and stop believing what the people you work with tell you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSbxTOimTk&t=3s

So I should believe you instead of actual practicing muslims who do not rape and/or kill people? I'm not disagreeing that Islam says those things, but that doesn't mean that everyone who identifies as Muslim follow those rules. Being high and using the internet at my job is forbidden, yet here I am high and arguing on Reddit. You're generalizing billions of people because you're scared.

Huh? I'm not scared. I live in the best country in the world with the best military. But, yeah, I'm not going to argue with some stoner who can't do research.

It must suck to realize that a stoner is much smarter than you and way less paranoid.

It must suck to have such a shitty job you have to get stoned and act like a little bitch on Reddit.

Actually, having a low stress job that I am able to do while slightly intoxicated is pretty fantastic. You should give it a try.

Those Christians don't fully understand Christianity.

Because Christ didn't actually overturn the Old Testament.

Did he? Then why do modern Christians still read it? Why is it even still in the Bible if it was made irrelevant 2000 years ago?

Because you don't just erase history when things change....

We had slavery. Now we don't. So burn anything that talks about slavery?!

Geez dude. That was an easy one.

I see your point, but maybe at least think about separating the book of absolute truths from the book of absolute truths that turned out to be made up? Unless we're just waiting to find out that the New Testament is all bullshit too so we can remove everything in one shot.

Made up? Christians believed that it was made obsolete. Not that it wasn't true at its time of use.

Just like how you have a single history book in high school that contains things that happened in the past that are no longer relevant...

It kinda just sounds like you hate Christianity, that's fine. But you should do your research first, and at least understand what you are hating.

So it was true, and then it suddenly wasn't? Btw, you're very right. I have too much stored up vitriol to engage in a real conversation about this so it's probably best if I just excuse myself.

How can the infallible word of god be obsolete?

If his word is infallible... like you said. Then for sure he can say what is obsolete or not.

Set yourself up for that one :)

But if what he says is obsolete, then he's not infallible.

Wait are you serious? Because things change. People change. Overall climate changes.

According to Christianity, God said it was time to do away with old laws, and define new laws. That speaks nothing of fallibility. No mistakes, no errors.

Old laws for pre-Christ times. New laws for post Christ. In Christianity, Christ played a significant role for the "rules" on earth. So when Christ came to earth, and atoned for the sins of man, then died, it was time for new laws.

Obsolete does not mean erroneous or with mistake. Just out of date.

So the infallible, all knowing god forgot to factor in the prophesied return of his son when making the rules for the world he created and controls? He didn't see that one coming?
Sounds to me like god realized he fucked up with all that fire and brimstone stuff, and sent his kid down to fix his mistakes. You can't just change your mind and still call yourself infallible.

Lol. Oh ok. Dunno why I wasted my time trying to explain. Your hate is overflowing buddy, might wanna patch that up a bit.

Religious tradition. It's still considered "Divinely-inspired," even if considered outdated and barbaric by the average modern Christian.