They don’t even follow a lot of the New T.
OK but countries around the globe aren’t spending billions of dollars and spending thousands of man/hours to fight terrorists yelling “Jesus Akbar,” they are doing so to fight terrorists yelling “Allahu Akbar.”
And pointing this out doesn’t mean I, or any serious people, want to put Muslims into camps, etc, and no serious people. It does tho make sense to limit new Muslim immigration until Islamic terrorism, sympathies for it, and ideologies which seek to make Islam the law of the land, subside. I’m not even a Trump supporter and I say this.
See, this is why its hard to have a serious conversation about this; liberals try to make this a race thing, when its not. No one cares that many Muslim aren’t white skinned; its what happens in the name of Islam that people are about. And sensible lowering of Muslim immigration wouldn’t be limited to outside Europe either.
Pretty much.
I’d say yes. Especially since modern in this context means not Stone Age barbarism.
There is far more to “Westernity” than Christianity. After all, our system of government is based upon British common law, which itself is an amalgamation of Nordic, Roman, Greek, and French influences and traditions. Many of the people who formed the Constitution in 1787 were convinced that they were building a country that was the ultimate expression of Greek ideas of Republicanism.
Add to that the capitalist heritage, the scientific revolution, the desire to live in a world of change and your belief in your ability to navigate it… yes, to become an American is to become Westernized.
And, yes, the Amish have modern Western values. They may not be as “modern” as the rest of the developed world, but their lives and traditions are firmly grounded in the Western traditions of civilization.
Except he’s not saying some Christians. He’s making incorrect statements about Christian beliefs and theology, and he’s making broad sweeping assumptions about Christians, so I’m correcting him.
This place is about fighting ignorance, and not perpetuating stereotypes and incorrect information, right?
Islamic terrorists reinforce it with their silly genital mutilations, silly stonings of adulterers, and silly burning alive people. I know I know, but what about the Crusades?
If only Christ had said something about the “law” . . . oh wait,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 truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.(Not that Jesus’ understanding of Christianity should trump Paul’s . . . or anyone else’s for that matter!)
CMC fnord!
You want to debate moral law vs. ceremonial law or what you believe to be Christian hypocrisy, start a new thread. I’ve attempted to correct a broad stereotype of Christians, as well as an incorrect statement on Christian theology, but I’m not going to hijack any further.
Here are the “rational defenses” I have heard:
Trump has said that we should prevent entry of Muslims onto the US: Only as a temporary measure until we can figure out what is going on. There are many good Muslims, but the bad Muslims will disguise themselves as good & we can’t tell the difference. Once we figure out how to weed out the terrorists, we’ll lift the ban.
Kill terrorist’s families: We are playing by a different set of rules and need to be more strategic. We are like the Red coats lining up to be shot, while our opponent is not following the rules and winning. When fighting terrorism, all options are on the table.
Negotiate to write down the national debt: Now if there is anyone who knows how to make a boatload of money, while legally not repaying his debts, it’s the Donald. He took millions and turned it into billions & he can do that for the US of A. Besides, the US forgives foreign debt all the time. It’s a good bargaining chip.
Did you miss the “families” part?
Defenses indeed, but not rational.
We can’t tell the good Muslims from the bad? How do we tell the Muslims from the non-Muslims?
Ordering a soldier to kill the wife and five year old son of a terrorist is way past rational, no matter what tactics the enemy is using. Not to mention the wave of terrorist recruits such a move would create.
There is a reason that US debt has a very low interest rate, it is considered the safest investment in the world. Suggesting we might not pay back in full will undermine that.
Muslims look Middle Eastern. It is not the Swedish immigrants who are blowing themselves and others up.
That’s what they are doing and it is effective. We should embrace the same level of unpredictability so we can win the war. The end justifies the means.
No it won’t.
I don’t know if that was snark, but unless the person is wearing a hijab or a male has the traditional Muslim garb, trying to go on skin color alone risks mistaking Indian non-Muslims like Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc. for “Muslims.” Also, what about Arab non-Muslims and people who aren’t Arab but have dark non-black skin, like Yazidis, Druze, Bahai believers, etc,
It really isn’t about skin color, nor should it be. Its about safety and culture. Those who would like it to be about skin color, from either side, have no place in the debate.
The smart option would’ve been to limit immigration to case-by-case from countries where either ISIS has a certain presence, polls showing widespread antipathy for America, or people having an outsized amount of crazy views, found here.
Can you link to terrorist attacks in the US by immigrants from those areas?
That is among the most loathsome statements I’ve ever read on this board. You should be ashamed.
Your statement does not match reality. Please explain how Trump basically filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy for the United States will not make interest rates go up, costing us billions of dollars.
I don’t think that the democratic party is as race or as gender conscious as you make them out to be. I think what matters for non-white voters is to have someone on a ticket who demonstrates an understanding of the challenges that non-whites are confronted with. Speaking purely in terms of race, white voters will still constitute, at minimum, a very large plurality if not an outright majority for the foreseeable future. Keep in mind that despite being a technical minority, California still has a white governor, who identifies himself as a progressive. I don’t think white progressives see diversity as a challenge or a threat the way that republicans do – maybe because of the fact that modern republican ideology is premised on social darwinism, neo-Calvinism, and socioeconomic elitism. For far too many white conservatives, life is a zero-sum competition that occurs day-in and day-out. White progressives do not tend to view the world through that prism, as they tend to be collectivists, not individualists. They don’t gurgle at the utterance of the phrase “spread the wealth.” For white progressives, that’s what just societies do.
And while republicans like glibly retort that it was democrats who defended slavery and Jim Crow, it was Richard Nixon who sought to capitalize over the implosion of the Southern Democratic party and invite them into their house for dinner. Claiming that Democrats are the party of racism is like saying they’re the party of Southern Baptist religious activism, and nobody in the republican party would dare to suggest that.
It’s not just a personal, idiosyncratic concept of “my religion” those people have that’s telling them to ignore that part of the Bible; it’s a later part of the Bible itself, the New Testament. In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles (to whom Jesus had given authority) famously got together to discuss the controversy over some people saying that gentile Christians had to obey the Jewish laws. They decided that the only thing that was necessary was to “abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” As someone said upthread, this has pretty much been mainstream Christian doctrine since the New Testament is written. Contemporary Christians aren’t just making it up out of thin air like you and Johnny L.A. keep saying.
It’s hard to have a rational discussion when one side of the argument is lacking even the basic ability to understand the simplest economics. I mean, we’re talking about people who likely don’t understand credit card debt here. My brother in law is confused about why he has to keep making his truck payments. He OWNS the truck after all - it’s in his driveway - why should he keep paying the bank? That’s who we’re dealing with here.