We can let your beliefs stand against reality, if you really want. Or you could just admit error, clear up your ignorance, and stop claiming “prejudice” and"ignorance" every single time you’re shown to be wrong about yet another thing. Just for a smattering:
-you claimed that the fact that Syria’s president is legally obligated to be a Muslim doesn’t show that “a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land.”
-you claimed that the fact that Iraqi law makes it illegal to create any laws which are in opposition to Islam doesn’t show “a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land.”
-You claimed that Dex was somehow wrong to point out that non-Muslims would have a massively difficult time visiting Saudi Arabia, when in fact there are no tourist visas at all and unless you’re working there, visiting family or a Muslim on religious pilgrimage, you can’t get into the country to visit.
I’m not sure if you’ve made a correct statement in this thread, to be honest.
Feel free to call that prejudiced and post a rant about American media, or something.
And here, of course, you admit that of yep, you were distorting Dex’s comments. He was talking about visiting Saudi Arabia, which is impossible as they do not give tourist visas and you either need to be there on business or a Muslim visiting for religious reasons. In point of fact, your talk about “visas” was either ignorance-based or obfuscatory as there are no tourist visas given, so Dex was 100% correct in nothing that it’s a bitch to visit Saudi Arabia if one wanted to and wasn’t on business or a Muslim.
Except, of course it is, as Muslims are the only ones allowed to visit for reasons other than business. But that’s okay, we’ll just chalk this up to another error you refuse to admit.
Ah, a delightful word salad with a gibberish vinaigrette.
Of course, this is yet another error you refuse to admit and cloak in nonsense about personal attacks. Yet again, in the nation where the president is obligated, by force of law, to be a Muslim you claimed that the Law of Personal Status was somehow differentiated for each religion. Naturally, you ignored yet another area where your ignorance caused you to speak in error as, already ited by me, “With respect to custody laws, all Syrians, including Christians, are governed by Sharia-based personal status laws”. I’ve lost track of your errors, is that up to an even half dozen yet?
Except, of course, when you cite it as evidence of your claims. As soon as it’s shown that you’re wrong, well, it’s not really important so let’s ignore it. Mmm hmm. And, of course, this is in the context of you crafting a palpably lame dodge in order to avoid addressing the fact that, by law, the Syrian President must be a Muslim and that does indeed evince that “a single religious belief is fundamental to the laws of that land.” I think you even know you’re wrong, which is why you’re now reduced to citing not just wikipedia, but wikipedia in a foreign language.
Yet more nonsense babble about dastardly American sources, and more bullshit about how I didn’t “know the term” when, as I cited, you were using the wrong term and I had to correct you. We’re well above half a dozen of your unretracted errors, at this point I’m afraid. Why not just admit error and, ya know, fix your position? Or claim more persecution, rant about ‘American sources’ and imaginary ‘prejudice’.
World’s tiniest violin.
Playing a dirge.
Very sad.
Tears.