Appeals Court up holds the stay preventing the Trump Immigration ban

[One Bad Pig]

When you have a religion who's stated goal is to destroy America and western civilization and institute a theocracy, at what point do you say "enough is enough" and declare it an enemy instead of welcoming them into your country so they can destroy you?

Anything goes in the dar al-harb. What could possibly go wrong?

[Tassman]

Again, how can it be a Muslim ban when 40 Muslim countries are not included? And the fact that with the seven included countries Muslims are not singled out or even mentioned.

It makes no difference whether ALL Muslims are excluded or just some Muslims. At its core, Trump's executive order discriminates against members of a particular religious group.

Right, those are people IN the country. It does not apply to those in foreign lands who want to come in. Period.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

No, the EO does not single out Muslims, I personally would like to see a seven year pause on all immigration. Like we did in the past.

[Starlight]

When you have a religion who's stated goal is to destroy America and western civilization and institute a theocracy, at what point do you say "enough is enough" and declare it an enemy instead of welcoming them into your country so they can destroy you?

I consider fundamentalist Christianity an enemy for pretty much this reason. Christians have done a lot more to hurt people in my country than Muslims ever have.

[Adrift]

I consider fundamentalist Christianity an enemy for pretty much this reason. Christians have done a lot more to hurt people in my country than Muslims ever have.

No they haven't. Christianity ended cannibalism in your country. It ended slavery in your country. It ended genocide in your country that included the staking of women and children. It ended forced marriage and domestic abuse. You have an extremely warped understanding of your own nation, and an extremely warped understanding of the positive role that Christianity had on it. Did Islam have anything to do with any of that? No. It didn't. There is no comparison to what Christianity did for your nation versus what Islam did for it. Stop trying to make comparisons where there aren't any.

[Tassman]

No they haven't. Christianity ended cannibalism in your country. It ended slavery in your country. It ended genocide in your country that included the staking of women and children. It ended forced marriage and domestic abuse. You have an extremely warped understanding of your own nation, and an extremely warped understanding of the positive role that Christianity had on it. Did Islam have anything to do with any of that? No. It didn't. There is no comparison to what Christianity did for your nation versus what Islam did for it. Stop trying to make comparisons where there aren't any.

Unlike the USA, Christianity has never had an explicit role in major NZ contemporary political parties, although it interferes in lives at the personal level and often does harm among the vulnerable. The same applies to Australia.

[Starlight]

Unlike the USA, Christianity has never had an explicit role in major NZ contemporary political parties, although it interferes in lives at the personal level and often does harm among the vulnerable. The same applies to Australia.

He's deliberately conflating colonialism with Christianity. He means that when the Europeans arrived and enforced British law on the natives (who on the whole weren't particularly morally virtuous by any modern measure, and who mostly bought as many guns as they could from the Europeans colonists and then wiped each other out in a long series of wars), that it was therefore "Christianity" that was responsible for all the goods (and, naturally, in Adrift's skewed mind, none of the harms), that came from that colonialism. In Adrift's mind, since pretty much every European person was "Christian" until recently, anything and everything good that they ever did in history can be lauded as proving that Christianity is great, and anything they ever did that was bad they did in spite of their Christianity, hence Christianity is proven to be awesome because he says so, and we're stupid for not recognizing that obvious truth.

[seer]

It makes no difference whether ALL Muslims are excluded or just some Muslims. At its core, Trump's executive order discriminates against members of a particular religious group.

No it doesn't, again the EO never mentions Muslims, and your point is irrational - if all Muslims are not excluded then it can't logically be a ban on Muslims. As far as I know neither Christians nor Yazidis are being allowed in from those countries.



From your link:

.

I agree with the first part, but the second underlined part is pure speculation of the writer, there is no case law supporting his view. And why didn't you get your panties in a wad when Obama stopped immigration from Iraq for six months?

Another good reason to get out of the UN, hopefully that will happen soon.

[Adrift]

In Adrift's mind, since pretty much every European person was "Christian" until recently, anything and everything good that they ever did in history can be lauded as proving that Christianity is great, and anything they ever did that was bad they did in spite of their Christianity, hence Christianity is proven to be awesome because he says so, and we're stupid for not recognizing that obvious truth.

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're deceitful. Often ignorant. And usually hateful. But not stupid. You yourself said in another post that just about everyone before the common period was a "Christian". So I think it's odd that you bristle at that now when it goes against your point.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think you're stupid. I think you're deceitful. Often ignorant. And usually hateful. But not stupid. You yourself said in another post that just about everyone before the common period was a "Christian". So I think it's odd that you bristle at that now when it goes against your point.

Yeah, I don't think Starlight's stupid either (IMO, he's one of the smarter atheists here); I just think his view of reality is quite warped by the extreme leftist bubble he hangs out in.

[Sparko]

It makes no difference whether ALL Muslims are excluded or just some Muslims. At its core, Trump's executive order discriminates against members of a particular religious group.

So basically you are saying that even though it isn't a ban on all muslims, you are going to characterize it as such because that fits with your hate-filled narrative.

[Sparko]

I consider fundamentalist Christianity an enemy for pretty much this reason. Christians have done a lot more to hurt people in my country than Muslims ever have.

right. and you and your ilk have no problem forcing Christians to comply with anti-religious laws and rules, and condemn them for not liking homosexual marriage or saying homosexual behavior is a sin, or that abortion is a sin, or any other Christian beliefs, yet you welcome with open arms a religion that will happily burn homosexuals at the stake and force everyone to bow to their religion or die. Completely insane.

[Starlight]

right. and you and your ilk have no problem forcing Christians to comply with anti-religious laws and rules

When I read that phrase I suspect I think of quite different types of laws (e.g. banning church services, the Romans demanding that Christians renounce Christ or be martyred) to what you think of (e.g. not getting to shout "I object" in the direction of the marriages of 1000s of people, religious groups not getting tax-exempt status).

yet you welcome with open arms a religion that will happily burn homosexuals at the stake and force everyone to bow to their religion or die.

Welcoming a person is not the same as welcoming their ideas and not the same as welcoming the most extreme fundamentalist version of a religion they might subscribe to. And lets say that we scale up by 5 times the number of Muslims we take... then the Muslims in our population will go from 1% to 5%. And then what? Nothing. Even if every single one of them takes to the streets and demands sharia law be implemented tomorrow, the other 95% of the population is just going to laugh, and if they start an Islamic political party and all vote for it then it will get 5% and will lose abysmally in elections. They will have no power and will achieve nothing.

And, frankly, the Muslims that want to come to liberal countries like ours are generally pretty liberal themselves that's why they want to come here. The want to get away from the fundamentalists running their home countries and have freedom. So 90%+ of them come here without any sort of thought of turning our country into a country like theirs, and they come here because it's not a country like theirs. And what happens when they come and live here is that their children grow up here in our culture, and go to our schools and make friends with our kids and watch our TV and read our books, and their kids and their kids' kids become assimilated. They are just not any sort of serious threat to us or our way of life, they simply aren't.

I get that as conservatives you hyperventilate over imaginary fears, and work yourselves up into frenzies of paranoia, but it just isn't rationally or logically justified.

Completely insane.

If you think a huge proportion of the intelligent and educated population is completely insane, maybe you haven't understood their views or the situation very well?

[Tassman]

No it doesn't, again the EO never mentions Muslims, and your point is irrational - if all Muslims are not excluded then it can't logically be a ban on Muslims. As far as I know neither Christians nor Yazidis are being allowed in from those countries.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

From your link. I agree with the first part, but the second underlined part is pure speculation of the writer, there is no case law supporting his view.

no matter to whom it applieshttp://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...utional-214722

And why didn't you get your panties in a wad when Obama stopped immigration from Iraq for six months?

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack...n-immigration/

Another good reason to get out of the UN, hopefully that will happen soon.

Yes, leave it to the secular countries to be compassionate and help the desperate refugees; obviously the (allegedly) Christian USA is unwilling.

[seer]

Again that is stupid, how can it be a Muslim ban when the ban does not apply to 40+ MUSLIM countries!

no matter to whom it applies

Listen Tass, it is on you and your author to prove the point, not that recent case law SUGGESTS.

Yes, he did, it was not a total ban but effectively it was a ban for the majority of those trying to get in.

Yes, leave it to the secular countries to be compassionate and help the desperate refugees; obviously the (allegedly) Christian USA is unwilling.

Yes, because we Christians are not INSANE. Do you really want all the problems that Sweden, Germany, France, etc... are having? We should carve out a safe area in Syria and Iraq and shelter in place. Again Tass - why is Germany paying Muslims to go back to their home countries?

[Sparko]

When I read that phrase I suspect I think of quite different types of laws (e.g. banning church services, the Romans demanding that Christians renounce Christ or be martyred) to what you think of (e.g. not getting to shout "I object" in the direction of the marriages of 1000s of people, religious groups not getting tax-exempt status).

Welcoming a person is not the same as welcoming their ideas and not the same as welcoming the most extreme fundamentalist version of a religion they might subscribe to. And lets say that we scale up by 5 times the number of Muslims we take... then the Muslims in our population will go from 1% to 5%. And then what? Nothing. Even if every single one of them takes to the streets and demands sharia law be implemented tomorrow, the other 95% of the population is just going to laugh, and if they start an Islamic political party and all vote for it then it will get 5% and will lose abysmally in elections. They will have no power and will achieve nothing.

What percentage of the population were the terrorists who blew up the world trade center?

And, frankly, the Muslims that want to come to liberal countries like ours are generally pretty liberal themselves that's why they want to come here. The want to get away from the fundamentalists running their home countries and have freedom. So 90%+ of them come here without any sort of thought of turning our country into a country like theirs, and they come here because it's not a country like theirs. And what happens when they come and live here is that their children grow up here in our culture, and go to our schools and make friends with our kids and watch our TV and read our books, and their kids and their kids' kids become assimilated. They are just not any sort of serious threat to us or our way of life, they simply aren't.

sure. keep thinking that. Look at Europe and England who are being swamped with Muslims and who are now starting to demand special treatment and wanting to impose their beliefs on others. How do you think Islam spreads? Once they have enough muslims in an area, they take over. Will that happen in the US? who knows? doubtful, but that wasn't my point anyway. My point was why do liberals want to coddle Muslims who are a hundred times more "conservative" than the most right wing Christian? They make us look like liberals. You all do everything you can to put down Christians, make us follow your ideals, shut down our beliefs, and you want to welcome in a group that is worse than we are and have a history of violence and revolution? Are you completely insane?

I get that as conservatives you hyperventilate over imaginary fears, and work yourselves up into frenzies of paranoia, but it just isn't rationally or logically justified.

I am just pointing out the ironic hypocrisy in liberals fighting conservative Christians while welcoming muslims. No they are not "liberal"