Well here in Minnesota, “charter schools are tuition free independent public schools that are open to and welcome all students, no matter ability or need, and are governed and operated jointly by licensed teachers, parents and community members.”
There are three specifically aimed at our Somali community. Here’s a picture of the students and staff at one of them. Clearly there is no ‘uniform’, but the girls are wearing more traditional dress.
Mormons aren’t polygamists.
I was born and raised in the UK, and my family is Indian (but Hindu, not Muslim). Concerns about Muslim segregation are largely overblown. Every immigrant community in the UK is largely segregated, and the difference is mainly one of degree.
When I was growing up, I saw perhaps three or four mixed-race couples, ever. Granted, I was in the West County, where there aren’t many nonwhites, but generally speaking the idea that a white person would marry a nonwhite was virtually unthinkable in the 80s. Even racially progressive TV programming like Desmond’s didn’t show interracial couples. Enoch Powell stayed in Parliament until 1987. This stigma seems to have been particularly true of whites and South Asians - more so than whites and blacks.
That all changed quite quickly in the early-to-mid-1990s. My brother married a white woman in 1995, and his best friend (a white Briton) married a woman of Indian origin around the same time. Nowadays, British TV is practically awash with interracial couples - black, white, South Asian, whatever.
The point is that it wasn’t very long ago that even today’s “model” UK minority communities weren’t well integrated. Hell, Leicester is still practically an Indian ghetto, but nobody seems to worry much about that.
State schools. And you have it backwards. The private school system is much more robust than in the US, because historically the powerful and even the middle-class have educated their kids privately. What I suspect you mean is that the parochial school system is much less robust, and that’s true. There are hardly any truly religious private schools in the UK. Virtually all of the private schools are non-secular, but they’re nearly all Anglican, and the Anglican faith is basically just ceremonial deism in a party costume.
It is plausible.
And how is that plausible in your world?
Islam does right now and has done so in the past. Islam was spread by the sword, by force. As for the majority, it takes a special type of crazy to do Jihad which often ends with the cost of the attacker’s life. I’ve seen studies and large numbers of Islamic practices are for Jihad attacks, sometimes with visible applause.
In the greatest numbers yes they are, and when small in population in a given area, yes they are. Just admit it, out of all the major religions Islam is the most violent and is also the most violent against its own people.
You have a point, yes they flee religious mad people who also practice Islam.
You do not understand. ISIS wants to kill the West whether we sit on our hands and do nothing or attack. Why can’t the Muslim population, who numbers in the millions stop a group who numbers around 100,000? The new USA President isn’t sitting on his hands, he’s actually eliminating these sad excuses for human beings.
Secondly, as you do not understand these immigrants become terrorists, and really do not want to embrace their new nation. They want their own laws, which are anti western values in many cases.
It’s a war culture. Have you read the Koran? There are 30+ references to hate. As far as other Muslim groups, they don’t like each other! Perhaps you do not know the history of Sunni and Shia Islam?. So you see Islam can’t even tolerate itself. Your mind is closed on the facts, history and the reality of the situation. I have seen honest Clerics in the UK admit, hate is in the DNA of Islam.
Okay, good to know. Yet your defend Muslim terrorism / backward law and try to pivot by saying they are just like everyone else. No, they are not like every other major group in 2017. If you want more data, let me know. The facts, data, and recent history side with me.
Democracies reflect the will of the electorate. If enough members of the electorate want Sharia, then Sharia is what they’ll get. There’s nothing inherent to democracy which prevents citizens from freely voting for religious tyranny.
Hope that clears this up. Please do let me know if you require me to explain any more incredibly simple things.
Claim without proof, yet you keep demanding that we all admit it.
Not factually correct. We have been at war with ISIS. How can you even make such an absurdly false claim?
Another claim without evidence or proof.
But you don’t have facts, you have opinion.
As often as this gets debunked on this board, one would hope that posters would stop repeating it.
When the successors to Mohammed came in conflict with the Byzantine Empire, they were successful in establishing their own. As emerging empires are wont to do, they tended to expand, (violently, if you will). However, there were no forced conversions to Islam during that early period of expansion. (In fact, Islamic law prohibited it.) Instead, people in the newly conquered M.E.N.A. regions decided to go with the ruling powers and tended to convert on their own. Similarly, when Muslim conquerors invaded Northern India, the conquest was political, not religious, and the conversions followed when people decided to go with the rulers. Indonesia and surrounding regions were converted by proselytizing missionaries, not by invading armies. One could make a better case that Northern and Eastern Europe were converted by the sword to Christianity than that “Islam was spread by the sword.” Certainly, South and Central America were “Christened” by force.
Once Islam was established in a number of areas, (Iberia, Northern India), some Muslim rulers copied the Christian practice of conversion by force, but despite the erroneous propaganda, that is not how Islam spread, generally.
And yet, your version of Jihad is not persuading millions of Europeans to convert and the absolute majority of Muslims in Europe have already begun to assimilate into the European secular society. “Studies” that show support for “Jihad” tend to be flawed by a number of issues: misunderstanding of the word “jihad” between the questioner and the respondent and the audience, temporary feelings of the respondents based on recent events, (much like Coulter’s demand that we forcibly convert Afghanistan following the WTC/Pentagon attacks), and similar problems.
Eurabia is a masturbatory fantasy by a few nutcases (Geller, etc.) who are looking to sell books by yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater. It is not reality and there is no way that Islam is going to “take over” Europe.
Never read the history of Christianity, I see.
They flee an aberration that arose from the recent development of Wahhabist theology that is not mainstream Islam.
That is true of a tiny minority. We should fight them, not everyone who happens to be Muslim.
You obviously have no knowledge of the history of the Eastern and Western Christian church or the history of Western Catholics and Protestants. I have no idea whether your mind is closed, but you have demonstrated no actual knowledge of history or reality.
bwahahahaha!
You have not even presented any facts; most of your claims have been errors of misunderstanding or of accepting xenophobic propaganda.
Cleared it up so much your snark got reported.
Let’s talk democracy. How is it plausible that a western democracy whose population is quite overwhelmingly Christian gets Sharia rule?
And another fun question for you to try to answer without snark/rudeness: Do you even know what Sharia is?
Again, I’m not a fan of Islam theologically or of mass immigration (whether the immigrants be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or whatever else) as a social phenomenon. If you want to debate whether Muslims and Christians (or Jews and Christians) worship the same deity, I’m happy to argue in the negative. That being said your historical summary of Islam is incorrect in a bunch of particulars.
I don’t think “Sola Scriptura” (i.e. picking up a religious text and seeing what it says at face value) works for Christianity, this is part of the reason why I’m not an evangelical Protestant. So it’s unclear why it would work for Islam either. I’m at least as much interested in the hadiths and traditions of Islamic jurisprudence as I am in the Quran. Unfortunatley I know almost nothing about any of the three, so I’m going to have to be silent for the moment on what islam ‘really’ says. As for ‘hate’ though you can find the word in the New Testament too, e.g. when Jesus says “this you have in your favour, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”
You’re flatly wrong that Shia-Sunni relations are poorer historically than intra-Christian relations. Between the fifth and the seventeenth century, and even later in some cases, Christian states routinely punished Christian heretics with death. I don’t think Sunni and Shia generally view each other as heretics although I might be wrong.
Christianity was expanded by the sword in Europe, via the threat of Crusades against pagan kingdoms (which were basically large scale looting opportunities for sale by the Church). Want to avoid a crusade against your kingdom and instead, gain opportunities to do so against others? Convert. Let us send in missionaries. Burn your heritage and embrace your new path, or burn with the rest of the Pagans.
Read up on the Crusades. The ones against the Arabs as well as the local European ones like the Albigensian Crusade in France.
The pope’s letter to the Mongols basically said “You’ve really got GOD angry by attacking Christians, so we’re sending you a couple of guys to baptise you into our Church so you won’t do that anymore.” Quite a bit of arrogance. The Khan replied “Yeah, no. God gave us the Earth and everything in it. You will personally lead your kings to submit to me or I will know you’re my enemies.” Fortunately for Europe, he died before he could carry out his vengeance.
But beyond that, we keep seeing the idea that Sharia Law will come to the USA or UK when they can never tell us exactly how that is supposed to happen in our lifetimes.
It is as silly as the conspiracy theorists (read: False Prophets) that said Obama would declare Sharia Law, when it wouldn’t be physically or legally possible for him to do so and what, everyone is just going to go “Ok, I guess we’re muslims now”? :dubious:
So if you’re in this thread and keep repeating this nonsense about Sharia Law, please know that this idea discredits you as a person from any rational argument regarding Islam.
Monty, you are consistently snarky in GD. Schoolmarmish tone policing doesn’t become you. Especially since you asked “And how is [your claim] plausible in your world”, implying (snarkily), that I was so out of touch with reality that I may as well have been commenting from a parallel Earth.
Anyway, I think you’re goading me in order to report me. I think it’s sly, and calculating, and behaviour reminiscent of the archetypal schoolyard sneak, which, if your board persona is anything to go by, you almost certainly were.
I don’t have the energy to pit you so I’ll just block you, bow out of the thread, and take the warning or whatever. Feel free to have the last word.
Not Sharia rule but a Western democracy can quite easily get areas of Sharia law. France currently has a Muslim population of around 10%. This 10% figure can easily become 20% in a generation. In a Western democracy with 20% Muslim population I fail to see how such a state will withstand a good dose of Sharia law.
Perhaps you should read up on those western democracies’ constitutions. Then explain how those western democracies “can quite easily get areas of Sharia law”.
They already have Sharia law in the UK. It cannot override UK law. If however, you are coerced into abiding by it through the religion then the metric changes.
I think reading these constitutions would be a worthless excercise. The constitutions of Western democracies should not allow large scale rape of teenage girls by Muslim gangs under the full knowledge of police and authorities. Neither should Western democracies allow female child genital mutiliation, or no go zones, or arranged child marriage. None of these things should be happening under our laws and constitution. However, they all happen to varying degree in the West. Plus, I suggest the 5th French Republic may just become the 6th French Republic some time in the future. At that point its current constitution is worthless. It’s therefore barely worth concerning myself with France’s current constitution when discussing its possible dystopian future.
Thanks for the report. Generally, unless it’s spam we prefer to not publicly indicate a post report.
Do not personalize your arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner. In addition, it is against the rules i to indicate that another poster is on your ignore list outside of the Pit so do not do that either.
[/moderating]
Do you see Gestalt and Novelty Bobble? When you seek to find supposed problems based on some feature of an ethnic group or a religion, you get this list of prejudiced tropes.
What these posters have brought up, in order, are regulation of civil law, misunderstandings of the purpose of a Constitution in Western democracies, gang violence, youth violence, sexism, gender inequality, myths in perpetuating stereotypes (the so called no go zones), marriage law and child development, and the willingness to believe in silly dystopian futures despite all evidence to the contrary. They ascribe these problems to Muslims specifically, but these problems are broad issues in any Western democracy. It’s not as if there wouldn’t be issues like these, to some degree, if all the Muslims picked up and left. It’s counter-productive, in fact, to tie these problems to Islam or Muslims.
