Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
I am open to a constitutional amendment that bans all religions.
LOL.
You clearly missed the point made where most of the terrorists that attack the west AREN'T poor.
So billionaire bin laden, and his upper middle class minions needed a path to whatsthatagain?
Well sure. What part did I lose you on? You said you were for open borders but only for Western nations. You wanted open borders so people could seek opportunity. The reality is that more come to the US than leave for opportunity.
So explain where we split.
IS trains 400 fighters to attack Europe in wave of bloodshed
We are lead to believe this is just the beginning of Islamic terrorism in Europe.
We split in that I have no idea what the hell you're talking about... except that you don't understand me and cannot seem to do so.
They prayed a lot
So take some time to explain. You took the time to tell me I'm wrong but not how. I have made 2 posts to you so it's not like you gave me some long explanation.
Doesn't that describe people of every religion? When they're strict followers they are no fun...
Welcome to the internet. You're obviously new.
In my mind I've just dressed you all in black with a twirlable moustache proclaiming, "THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!".
Lay off the hyperbole dude. The beginning of attacks occurred quite a while ago.
Let's turn it around. What would you like to discuss about this topic?
I can engage in meaningful discussion. Most people that have engaged me in this thread have done so... with less than good intentions. You seem earnest, so can we start fresh? What do you want to talk about?
I'm going to delete my nonsense. Up to you what you do.
Then just go back to what I asked before. You are for open borders with other "Western" nations. You believe it makes for a better world when people can seek opportunity and better themselves. Many more people come to the US than leave. They come for a better life. That means the US offers something that the other place did not which is a better life.
Do you disagree with any of that?
As for the religious, yes. When people are less religious the seem to nicer and have more fun in my experience. Most religions have stupid and or sadistic rules. Killing a woman who gets raped because she went somewhere alone and did not cry out loud enough is evil. We are better off as a world when people are less religious.
I don't think you can jump from more people come to the US than leave it to basically any conclusion. So yeah, I disagree with some of it. I don't want to suggest that I'm building to my own conclusions on that idea.
We're on the same page with regards to religion (or close enough that I don't think we're going to be challenging each other's positions).
Is there some middle ground between open borders and "ban all Muslims"?
Is it fair to target such restrictions towards the refugees themselves, ban Syrian / Iraqi immigration? Designate the worst offending countries / most likely to harbor terrorists and isolate them?
So then why do you think they come to the US? They are not being forced, and I presume they do not come here to have the same or worse life. It is reasonable to think that they coming here because they think it will be better.
The idea that I think you advocate for is the hope of a better life. Without that hope, future investment becomes stupid for most. Why spend time and energy if you are going to die the next day right? The more we can get those people out of their culture and into our western one, the better off we will all be.
You also dont want to let in everyone in. Some places are far to messed up right now to have an "open" border. That was where I said that you are not opposites, just at different levels. Someone like Trump says ban all Muslims right now, whereas you would say dont ban all people of that group, just some of that group. I say some of that group because I would presume that some of the areas you would keep out are countries that are 90%+ Muslim.
Still on track there? I said a lot so I figured I would stop and check. I'm making conclusions and building off of them, so I dont want to go too far.
We already do something like that, which is subjecting people from violent/terrorist-y areas to way way more scrutiny than people from more peaceful ones.
Commitment to the five prayers per day isn't much to be talked about. In fact it's the basic act the muslim should ensure, to be considered muslim in the first place. "The line between us and them (infidels) is the prayer" as the prophet said.I know many Christians who pay a lot and then judge and lie. Just because someone prays a lot does not mean they are devout. If they were drinking they were breaking a pretty clear rule of Islam. Breaking that rule has a pretty clear punishment by most scholars. Even the prophet flogged someone who drank.
So, they were not very devout but I'm sure they were very much Muslim. Sounds like you were able to have fun because they were not very strict followers.