Muslims become more liberal the longer their here. I’d link but he does not seem interested in facts. Reminds me of TS.

And that nominal thing needs to go because you are using it as not a True believer not devout type thing. There are devoted liberal believers in all three Abrahamic religions. Just because someone is more to the liberal side does not mean they are nominal or not a true believer or not devout.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam


There have been some down right hippie sects of Islam. Why do you get to decided the liberals are nominal or not devoted? Because the dont fit with your interpretation of Islam which is the only True devoted Muslim is the extremist?

Why not call the far right Christian who thinks im not an American and needs to go because im an atheist not a True Christian? And the more liberal one who does not want me cleansed the devoted Christian?

Personally i dont like to excommunicate any believers. But if i did strat wise the choice is easy. Its funny dark counterproductive humor that often the people most critical of Islam, or Christianity or Judaism for that matter, support the extremists interpretations of it as the True believers.

again. logic. right wing extremists only exist within the right wing. islamic extremists only exist within islam.
if you think my comparison of 50% to 1.1% is unfair, because all right wingers aren't extreme, are you implying all muslims are extreme?
no matter how slice the proportions, it supports my case.

Do you read the posts your respond to? Or do you just babble?

let's ignore the biggest foreign lobby in the u.s., aipac.
here's a link to the top individual donors to the dnc and rnc: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php
also, here's a link to a pdf of the "clean break memo"
written by 4 members of the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy in 1996 for b. netanyahu. 5 years later, two of the members (perle and feith) became undersecretaries of defense in the bush admin and formed the "office of special plans" in which the fabrication of womd originated. https://zfacts.com/p/139.html#Q1
read section: "moving to a traditional balance of power strategy". here's the c/p:
'Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.'

or what about the lavon affair? or the uss liberty and supposed 6 "trials" of which no documentation has been presented? you really think a supposed ally can remain in u.s. alliance after all of this without internal influence?

Here is a database tracking US domestic terrorism from 2008-2016. It counts 63 Islamic-based terrorist plots of which 76% were foiled leading to 96 fatalities. During that same time it counts 115 right-wing extremist plots of which 35 were foiled leading to 79 fatalities and 17 left-wing extremist plots with 7 fatalities.

You're all over the place in your reply, so I'll try to cover the main points.

I claimed that America's relatively open society, which includes but is not limited to accepting lots of immigrants and allowing them to become citizens, is one of the primary drivers of our success historically. Do you disagree with this claim? I'm not asking about bans or moratoriums, or even the demographics of immigrants here. Just as a baseline, do you agree that historically our high immigration rates, entrepreneurial business culture, basic human rights, etc have helped the US become successful?

Of course, this is only a relative claim. For instance, at the same time that the US first has a huge population of black slaves and then a legally-enforced subclass of black citizens. Furthermore, as you point out, the US has discriminated against specific groups in their immigration policies.

However, I do not consider this the norm. Probably the most important such ban was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and related policies that limited immigration from Japan and other Asian countries during the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century for largely racist and anti-competitive reasons. Is this what you want to use as a precedent (I'll note that in 2011-12 the 2011-12 the US Congress passed an unanimous resolution apologizing for these policies).

I'm not aware of any example of the US banning members of a specific religion from immigrating to the US. I do take religious freedom as integral to the American ideal, especially since so many of our national myths are about religious dissidents fleeing persecution to come to America.

You also argue that the US should be understand as a white Judeo-Christian nation that shouldn't let in too many outsiders as it would then become a multi-ethnic multicultural society.

So, first, insofar as you are concerned about preserving a white Judeo-Christian society, focusing on Muslims is misplaced. As of 2017, there are over 4.7 million Chinese and Indians living in the US. The largest number of immigrants from a Muslim-majority country is 400,000 from Iran. There are also over 2 million from the Phillipines, 1.4 million from Vietnam, 1.2 million from South Korea, and so on. Of course, this is swamped by the almost 13 million Mexicans living in the US.

In general, the number of Muslims in the US is quite small, around 1.1%. They're growing - projected to increase to 2% of US population by 2050. Scary. This is why I don't regard concerns about preserving America's Christian heritage as a serious argument for a Muslim ban policy. It clearly doesn't match means to ends.

In this same vein, again, taking into account your concerns about preserving America's whiteness and Judeo-Christian nature, I also think it is misplaced to focus on Islam, and especially Arabian and Persian versions of Islam as the biggest threat. "Judeo-Christian" is a popular term these days, but the term you use earlier ITT "Abrahamic religions" makes more taxonomic sense. Islam is generally fairly similar to both Christianity and Judaism, having had a a great deal of impact on the theology and history of both, certainly much more so than Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, or Shinto.

Furthermore, unlike with the Far East, the Middle East and Northern Africa have always been part of the culture of Europe. The Eastern Roman Empire was based in modern-day Turkey and the Ottoman Empire had a profound effect on Europe's history. The cultural exchange between these civilizations has always been quite strong and draw from the same original sources.

Anyway, Europeans are not all of the same ethnicity - they speak different languages, have different cultural norms, different religious denominations, histories, etc. The US has always been home to different ethnicities, even if they were relatively closely related (and note also the inaccurate estimates of historic non-white US populations as already noted by Aaron). Also, to be blunt, Iranian and Arabians are pretty pale-skinned so, uh, you got that going for you I guess.

Okay, so leaving that argument aside, you also claim that Muslims hate American culture and don't accept American values and so shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the US.

Now, it is pretty difficult to argue against an unfalsifiable belief like your view about Muslim values. For instance, you claim that we can't infer anything about the actual values of US Muslims from their stated values because the US is comparable to a totalitarian dictatorship with a secret police enforcing party ideology aka Nazi Germany. Nope, not buying it.

You also appeal to a survey of UK Muslims as evidence of this:

Unfortunately for you, this is another example of you not bothering to read your sources. That same survey shows 56% of UK Muslims say they feel very strongly that they belong to Britain and 37% who say they feel this "fairly strongly." On the other hand, less than half of UK Muslims say they either tend to support or strongly support the introduction of aspects of Sharia law into Britain. How is this possible when according to you "actual Muslims" don't want them separated? Even your own data bears out my view, that there is much more variety among Muslims on these topics than you assume. Again, I don't take a collectivist approach to Muslims, but rather assume that just as with all religions, individual Muslims understand and emphasize their religions in different ways, typically so as to make it more compatible with their local culture.

What facts? What evidence? What people? Also, you still don't get it. Let's say that only 20% of Muslims in Iran support liberal values. Should the US ban them from coming here if they want because the other 80% don't have liberal values? Collectivist nonsense imo.


---------------------------------------------
You have a nasty habit of assuming you already know what other people believe and why. Here is a list of where you are wrong:

I clearly said this was in Christianiy's past as well.

I don't know since I've not argued this.

Making up arguments and claims about equality that I neither claimed nor accept.

Why is it that in all our conversations you feel the need to assume I'm going to make some argument or have some position before I state it? It speaks to your own arrogance and lack of respect for the people you speak with since you always describe these views and arguments as ridiculous and obvious wrong. This is why you can barely go three sentences in your post here without claiming p is obviously wrong. If it is so obvious, then why am I disagreeing with you? Let me guess:

Hmmm...

Don't be a hack. Defend your argument or withdraw it instead of trying to derail into your conspiracy hobbyhorse. I pointed out that the US has done much worse to many other countries than to Palestine, but yet we don't have the problems in these domestic communities you are afraid of here. Drawing a line from, x group has a cause of grievance against the US to we should ban x group is not a good argument, as shown by America's own history.

ok. i'll agree that perceptions of muslims is somewhat overblown by conservatives. this does not negate the fact that per capita, they are far more likely to commit terrorism. this, by definition, makes them statistically a dangerous group. coupled with the fact that we, as a nation, bear the right to discriminate based on who is most likely to provide value, assimilate, and who is least likely to be a danger to our society.
or maybe you can provide some evidence that muslims bring enough value to our society to compensate for all of the deaths they've caused, and future deaths they will cause.
https://ibb.co/TkdFy4g
https://ibb.co/pZwxjbQ

Since we are banning Muslims and they are more liberal in the US then evangelicals can we ban them too. If we are going to **** all over the meaning behind the 1st amendment we might as well go all out. Though if you really wanted to save life's i know another amendment to **** on that would save more...

there's a big difference between kicking people out who are rightfully here as citizens and inviting people in who have no right to our obligations. i don't believe in displacing people, or denying constitutional rights to any citizen. no foreigner has a right to become a u.s. citizen. this means, we have every right to control our borders and discriminate between who enters and who doesn't. the fact that muslims are a net negative to our way of life, prosperity and safety makes it a no-brainer.

I didn't say kick them out. I said dont let evangelicals outside the US immigrate here.


And get out of here with the our way of life crap. Thats not how America works. America is about freedom which means as long is it is within our laws everyone has the right to their own way of life. Even up to including challenging those laws. If you dont like that someone does not integrate to your satisfaction. Suck it up they have the right not to.

Do you object in any way to the existence of the Muslims that are currently in the US as citizens? Do you believe that they should have their freedoms in any way inhibited?

Who is the "we" in this statement? And how exactly are you defining "our" way of life?

This inflates the importance of terrorism in the US. From 1975-2016, which includes one of the worst terrorist attacks in history, only 3438 people have died from terrorism in the US. As for the value they bring, I have no idea how you are making the judgement that Muslims are a net negative so easily. Many US Muslims have provided value to our country, perhaps most famously athletes like Muhammad Ali, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Apple, our most valuable company, was founded by Steve Jobs, the son of a Syrian Muslim.

Also, I think it is kind of disingenuous to have a long argument about how Muslims suck and should be banned from coming to the US and use as part of your argument that relations between Westerners and Muslims are not very good.

Anyway, in general, I think your attitude here goes against our best traditions. Here is George Washington writing to the Touro Synagogue in 1790:
That is my view. To become a US citizen you must swear to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same." If someone can sincerely swear this oath, I'm satisfied. Their religion is not my business.

Wonder what the stats are on Muslim criminality and monetary success compared to other immigrant groups.

Here is it by religion:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...igious-groups/

Muslims are right in the middle.

Here is it by ethnicity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

But this is a lot harder to parse as there are a lot of Muslims from a lot of different countries, so you have to know about the countries before you can sift through it.

I wasn't able to find criminality numbers by religious affiliation or ethnic origin, probably because that's not data that they collect when they do criminality data.

wow. this says a lot. i figured if i was to restate your position as above, you'd claim i was straw-manning you.
yes, i do think it is bad immigration policy to invite groups of people in who generally have bad relationships with the native population. your priorities clearly don't lie with america or it's citizen's interests. and instead with some sort of abstract, globalist, utopian ideal.

and dude, afa naming some muslim athletes as if that's gonna make up for the vast majority that are on welfare and bringing societal distrust amongst the population (should be be prioritized over wealth but w/e), the vast majority of athletes are black. are you suggesting the black population is a net positive to western society? of course, i already know your answer. would be fun to hear you defend it.

you're essentially asking me to restate my position while implying.....?
well i'll answer anyway. i do object to muslims living within our borders. that said, i recognize their right to be here as citizens. whether they're here by mistake or not, we have laws.
"we" is the majority. the same majority descended from western europeans. what should be the posterity of the founders and their ilk.

Yes. I'm implying that you're not being 100% truthful.

Yes, we have laws. But do you believe that any laws should be written that selectively impact those you object to, either in principle or in practice, even if they are citizens?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235793/...ood-thing.aspx

Also:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...pients-to-stay

Do you believe that this way of life is what ought to be? After all, that's what the majority is saying...

Do you believe that it's possible to get the numbers in the polls above without the majority of those "descended from Western Europeans"? (Which is a smaller pool than "non-Hispanic whites" as the limitation to Western Europeans restricts your access to several ethnic groups that you are trying to count...)

Also, do you agree or disagree with the Chinese Exclusion Act, either in principle or practice? How do you feel about Japanese internment camps?

Do you object in any way to the existence of blacks that are currently in the US as citizens?

Okay? I don't know why you would think this as my summary seems completely factual. You linked to a 2006 survey showing that most people in the US thought relations between Westerners and Muslims were bad. You (I guess) assume this is all on Muslims, but given your own negative attitude towards Muslims as an example, it could just as easily be ascribed to Westerner prejudice. Again, that seems like a disingenous argument to me. "Bad relations" is a neutral phrase with regards to blame here. For instance, I would say that right now there are "bad relations" between African-Americans and the police in many communities. That is simply a description of the facts, not a matter of saying that the police or black people are at fault for these bad relations.

Lol. I know that some conservatives these days like to use "globalist" as a synonym for "caring about morality." Yes, I do believe in doing what is right. That includes caring about people who don't live in the US. However, having an open immigration policy is no utopian ideal nor is it not in America's best interests. Instead, it is and has been standard American policy for most of its history. As I argued in my discussion with DODN, America's history of being a relatively open society is one of the reasons it has been so successful - the richest country in the world for 130 years now, with more soft and hard power than any other country, with better universities, a better business environment, and so on. We've never (as far as I know) banned immigration on the basis of religion. As in the passage I quoted earlier from George Washington, the father of our country (assuming you are American), a prototypical American attitude is one where your neighbor's religion is their own business as long as they are willing to follow the laws and Constitution of our country.

Actually, as noted by Aaron, Muslims earn slightly more than the average American. Your "linked" study is only of Middle Eastern refugees, not immigrants, let alone Muslim immigrants (I'll also point out that some Middle Eastern refugees are Christians fleeing persecution as well). Immigrants are a net plus for the American economy as they increase national GDP.

However, even refugees are a net plus to the economy. A recent NBER paper estimated that over their first twenty years, adult refugees work more than the average native and end up paying $21K more in taxes than they received in benefits. Your data is only a snapshot of when they arrive, but it doesn't take into account the future. This is like saying native-born 14 year-olds are a net drain on society since they receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Well duh. It's an investment for the future.

EDIT: Oops missed your bit about black people. Yes, obviously black people have been a net positive to America. Our popular culture is dominated by black people. Not only does this improve the lives of all Americans, but it is a significant part of American soft power globally. Furthermore, many of our greatest political leaders and reformers were black people, making the US a more humane and better place to live for all. But this is just at the elite level, ordinary Americans, black, white, or otherwise, contribute to our country's success just by working, having kids, and being active members of society.

What I do think is that racism towards black people has been a drain on America throughout its history, including being one of the greatest contributors to that societal distrust you are worried about.

no. again, law or not, my preference of groups is not enough to morally justify displacing anyone. esp people forcefully brought here. are you suggesting i want to carry out the same thing the arab muslim world did to their african slaves? either killed off or made into eunichs? you might wonder why you don't see many blacks in the arab world today despite them taking about 150m african slaves as opposed to the u.s. who took .5m slaves. and that's not counting european slaves est around 1 million taken by arab muslims.

Thanks.

Also damn... / / ///AutoZone. Stright up keep em separated folk.

No Irish need apply.

Again, do you actually read anything that others write, or do you just ramble on and on? I have said nothing about displacement.

Do you have a problem with the fact that they are simply here? Does it bother you? Is it objectionable to you? You were happy to answer that in the negative about Muslims. What is your answer for blacks?

I want to here his take on Jews and if they control the banks.