Indeed. In fact, I might go so far as to say we have a cancer within this board. Well, maybe an influenza. Or a bad case of athlete’s foot. Whatever.
Well, you’re displaying an incredible lack of understanding of my point. A business does have a right to refuse customers. What it does not have a right to do is to refuse those customers on the basis of the customer’s belonging to a protected class (I’m not sure of the correct legal term). In other words, the business can’t say, “I refuse to serve Blacks and Asians but I’ll happily take care of all White people.”
p.s. I did not make a blanket defense of a business refusing customers. I clearly indicated that I wasn’t making a blanket defense by this particular part of my earlier posting:
Perhaps you forgot te read “within the law” in that posting?
I guess that explains this.
Based on your first statement, (assuming that you are really pretending that Stalin and Mao were acting as part of the worldwide communist domination movement), then it is safe to say the worldwide democracy movement is responsible for the millions of deaths of indigenous peoples in the U.S., Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, and a few dozen more locations.
Of course, those who do not paint the whole world in ridiculously simplistic terms of “us” and “them” recognize that while Stalin was a student of world-wide Communism under Lenin, once he had power, himself, he changed his tune and conducted all his policies from the twin perspective of grabbing and holding power for himself and establishing a secure Russia (U.S.S.R.) by extending its control to neighboring states while engaging in little more than harrassment of distant nations with the goal of keeping his enemies (U.S. and U.K.) at bay. One further notes that while Mao started off as a “communist world domination” student, once he had fought his way into actual power, he concentrated almost exclusively on holding that power internally in China while securing his borders from attack, as well. (Albania and Peru’s Sendero Luminoso are examples of internal bickering within communist parties and efforts to distance themselves from “Russian” communism and none of them were actually exported efforts by China.)
As I noted, the concept of worldwide communism pretty much died in the 1930s (aside from the periodic academic or powerless loon–such as the leaders the the CPUSA). It is simply the rallying banner hung out by various nationalist movements so that one can more easily identify whether they buy their weapons from the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.
As for facts: you have provided nothing resembling a fact in this discussion, simply more “hate them” rhetoric.
- ::: shrug :::*
I don’t remember if it was TomnDeb (or **bluethree)**that posted the thought, but I’ll add to the whole poverty angle on “Islam as a threat”.
In 1993 and 1994, I was in the Peace Corps in Mauritatnia (Nouakchott). For those of you not up to speed on West African anthropology, Mauritania is a historically poor state right on the border of the tradional Muslim/Central African boundary (gross generalization to call all Central Africans non-Muslim, but I saw it to be generally so). When I was in Nouakchott, the economy was relatively healthy. The fishing was doing well, and various other exports were doing fairly well.
In 1993, around X-mas, there was a shift that caused the general population to become much poorer (not sure what happened…possibly gov’t interference in income, etc.). At that point, Islam enjoyed a solid resurcence (form what my predecessor tells me). The keys were free schooling at a madrasa, a support network that kept anyone from going hungry, and a sense of belonging.
IMHO, when you have a movement that joins a religion with relatively harsh law (and the imams do preach Shari’a in Mauritania) with a population of the economically disadvantaged, you get a group that will tend to view themselves as outsiders who are very much on the lower rungs of socety. Lacking any economic, social, or capitalistic power, they’ll move slowly toward physical aggression as a way of calling attention to their issues.
I know that this doesn’t directly address the OP, but I hope it will provide some (localized) background as to why I think Muslims tend toward aggression when coupled with extreme poverty.
-Cem
Religion, philosophy, movement…are you describing just one thing here or three different things? Is it Islam itself that is about world domination? Is it inherent in Islam that Islam is getting more conservative and fundamentalist now, 1428 years after it began? Is it in the nature of Islam that it is increasingly successful? Is it inherent in Islam that the west is corrupt and democracy is sinful abandon? (I know the answer to the last four questions. It is “No.”)
Isn’t your point here supposed to be that Islam is different from Christianity and Judaism?
Heartwarming story of a Jewish school that Muslim parents line up to enroll their kids in.
Except, why is the UK funding a Jewish school at all? Or does “state primary school” not mean publicly-funded in the UK? The article does say, “local-authority supported,” but does that mean taxpayer-funded or not?
Anyway, here are some excerpts:
I’d say that’s pretty accurate.
bluethree: It’s obvious to those who, unlike Valteron, can see that it’s not Muslims per se that are a threat. Otherwise, the Israeli Defense Forces wouldn’t even permit them to join, let alone promote them to senior ranks and award them honors.
There are plenty of people from other religions attending schools sponsored by religious groups. For example, BYU says this about its student body:
Here’s a neat thing from a Catholic school site in Indiana:
It seems to me that the people who would be most worried about Muslims if Valteron’s thesis were true aren’t worried at all about Islam itself. They’re worried about particular individuals.