State leaders speak out about plans to expand the Islamic Academy of Alabama

Lukaris said:

Sounds like preaching a doctrine to me.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not even close. I was merely pointing out to someone else that the non-hidden existence of people who don't believe in any god demonstrates that people can be perfectly fine without religion or doctrine.

Lukaris said:

I reject your beliefs and am a threat to you.

Click to expand...

I have stated no beliefs for you to reject. Your beliefs do not scare me (or interest me.)

Lukaris said:

I wouldn’t say that if I was in some (alleged) enlightened atheist forum. Carry on as you see fit I guess.

Click to expand...

Say what?

Larniavc said:

But they both have members who call for the death of the gays today.

Click to expand...

Sure there are those that do. However, in many Islamic countries death is codified in law. And in America where Christianity is still dominant for now, there is no such thing. Let the Islamists take over and there will be.

Larniavc said:

Like the Christian Nationalists in America?

Click to expand...

Islamism is a much greater threat than Christian Nationalism.

rjs330 said:

Islamism is a much greater threat than Christian Nationalism.

Click to expand...

Not to me, it is not.

rjs330 said:

Sure there are those that do. However, in many Islamic countries death is codified in law. And in America where Christianity is still dominant for now, there is no such thing. Let the Islamists take over and there will be.

Click to expand...

That homosexuality is not a capital offense in the US is not because of Christianity’s dominance, but in spite of it. When have American Christians ever been protective of the rights of gays? When have evangelicals ever been opposed to the death penalty?

For the last 35+ years, all I’ve heard from evangelicals is how homosexuality is an abomination and how affording it any rights is tantamount to destroying the family. You don’t get to pat yourself on the back for being restrained by libs.

iluvatar5150 said:

An op-ed, written by what appears to be a grad student, that doesn't support your claim that "Islamism is the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today." Cool.

Click to expand...

Did you expect that every single piece which lists the threats of Islam would specifically say that? I don't know why you would expect that.

iluvatar5150 said:

Perhaps it has something to do with your wild statements and your failure to understand the sources you provide to attempt to substantiate them. Did you even read those pieces beyond the headlines? Nothing in there supported your claim that "Islamism is the biggest and most deadly threat in the world today".

Click to expand...

See this is why i dont bother posting links anymore. You and other progressives just ignore them. And your whole shtick of "gee it was 30 years" ago so it doesnt count is ridiculous. It was dangerous then and xan you say it's gotten better? No its worse.

I absolutely read the pieces. Every word. They justify the fact that it is the most dangerous in the world. Read every word of each one and combine them all together and they show exactly why.

iluvatar5150 said:

Nice little goalpost move there. First the complaint was that they were creating "separate communities." Now it's that they're creating the wrong kinds of separate communities.

Click to expand...

Nope, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or did you just forget?

iluvatar5150 said:

Tell me - in what jurisdiction does Sharia law supersede the regular civil and criminal laws?

Click to expand...

Places in the UK and also in Texas. Dallas to be exact. We all know that in many Islamic beliefs and communities women do not have the same rights as men. A man may get a divorce in a Sharia court and a woman has no legal option to representation and US courts will not intervene. Women won't take that to court because they know what will happen in their communities to them if they do. I heard an interview with a woman who was able to get out and share her story. She won't go back becauae she was afraid foe her safety. Many women are not that strong.

iluvatar5150 said:

I have a special dislike towards hypocrites.

Click to expand...

No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support so many hypocritical things from the left. Your special.dialike is not for hypocrites its for conservatives who recognize some truths in the world that you do not wish to confront. Such as the dangers of Islamism.

iluvatar5150 said:

You should tell that to all of the fundamentalists I grew up with, because they leaned pretty hard on the physical separation. In fact, I'd argue that American Evangelical Christianity has gone MUCH farther down the road of physical separation than the spiritual one. They've got their own schools and media ecosystems, and church programs most nights of the week so one doesn't even have to find other avenues for socialization. What they haven't done at all is excised themselves of the greed, power-seeking, corruption, consumerism, and idol-worship that is supposed to be a mark of wordly spirituality.

Click to expand...

Once again you misunderstand scripture. Evangelicals live in the world. We do not separate ourselves from it. Its telling to me that you decry the fact they wish to spend time with each other studying the word of God. Somehow that is a bad thing for you?

What I am finding is that too many churches are running toward friendship.with the world. Following and supporting worldly things. And quite frankly too many Evangelical churches are starting to do the same. You are correct in that there has been a movement among some churches toward those things you mentioned. Particularly in the mega church movement. I won't deny it.

Larniavc said:

But they both have members who call for the death of the gays today.

Click to expand...

While that may be true, that's still not the same things as consolidation of power between church and state.

And like I noted, over the past 70 years, one religion has a much higher batting average with regards to those consolidation attempts.


It should be also pointed out that when that kind of stuff happens, even people on the Christian Conservative side tend to criticize it.



Whereas, if roles were reversed, would any conservative Muslims in Islamic countries be criticizing Christians for mistreatment of a gay person?

BCP1928 said:

Which one of those provisions violates the 1st Amendment?

Click to expand...

Actually, 2 of them would definitely be...

They're state actions respecting an establishment of religion.

In that city,
if I cranked up the speakers and blasted Van Halen at 6am and 10pm, I'd get a ticket for a noise violation.
if I was slitting animal throats in my back yard without stunning the while they were still alive and conscience, I'd be getting hit with animal cruelty fines (and probably some sanitation violations)

However, they get an exemption to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer through loudspeakers at those times. That's religious favoritism.

As is the backyard ritual slaughter thing. If a neighbor complained and said "what are you doing, you've got a screaming convulsing goat bleeding out in your backyard, my kids saw that!!", I'd be getting arrested. However, they get a pass on it because it's "respecting a religious tradition"


As far as the Halal compliance on school lunches as a matter of funding and policy, if I was a city council member in any other city, and we decided to carve out extra funds for a more expensive version of school lunches for a secular reason (like tailoring it to our preferences, just cuz) we'd likely have some voters to answer to. However, if it was being done specifically for the benefit of one religion, that likely runs afoul of 1A.

That one is a case where "the reason matters".

For instance, if a city provisioned money to supplement school cafeterias to stock Coca-Cola products instead of PepsiCo products.

If their reason given was "Yeah, it's a little more expensive, but the Pepsi stuff wasn't selling, we were throwing a lot of it away, and the Kids prefer Coke", then that wouldn't be a violation.

However, if their reason was "Well, we're about 65% Baptist in this town, and PepsiCo did a Pride themed ad campaign we didn't like, so we don't mind using public money to make sure the school can buy from a different that didn't get into all that gay stuff to accommodate the Christians in town who want to have a different brand"

Then that rationale wouldn't pass the Lemon Test.


Changing laws, making exemptions to laws, and public funding allocation that is done explicitly for the purpose of accommodating one religious viewpoint cuts against the first amendment.

Belk said:

Not to me, it is not.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the problem. In Europe they are finding that out almost too late.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

There are more Christians living in Muslim-majority countries than there are Christians living in the United States of America.

Consider the potential impact on Christian communities if a local newspaper in Baghdad or Karachi reported that the United States would not permit the establishment of an Islamic educational institution because Americans fear Islam is threat to American society?

Are you concerned about Christians' safety in Islamic countries, or your concern is only about American Christians?

Click to expand...

Actually, there's a slight problem with your line of reasoning there (on a few different fronts)

1)
Comparing the Christian population of 1 country, against the Christian population of 55 different countries isn't a valid comparison.

The inverse would be true if I picked one country, and then compared it to the entirety of Muslims living Christian-majority countries. There are more Muslims living in Christian-majority countries than there are Muslims living in quite a few different individual Muslim-majority countries. Should any of those countries have to self-censor, tolerate huge cultural shifts, or create policy carve-outs for the benefit of the 10% of their population that are Christian out of fear of what may happen to their religious brethren in other countries?

If that rationale was applied going in the other direction, many on the more progressive wing would most certainly label is as "imperialism".


2)
The very fact that you have that concern is proving your opponents' point for them.

The "don't provoke them, or they'll hurt people" rationale isn't sending a very flattering message about the global Muslim population.

Your assertion is, in essence, "You better walk on eggshells when it comes to Muslims, because a majority-Christian country 4,000 miles away passing a law they don't like may just be the thing to set them off which will jeopardize the safety of Christians"


Or, to frame it in a different way
They're saying: "If they gain a stronghold, we're worried that they'll use force, up to and including violence, against people who don't share their religious values"
You're rebuttal to them is: "Why would you say that??? Don't you know that may provoke them to use force, up to and including violence, against people who don't share their religious values in order to retaliate in places where they have a stronghold?"

It's weird how don't have that same fear/hesitation about other cultures. I don't recall anyone fretting about the potential for violent backlash when Weird Al Yankovic made the "Amish Paradise" music video.

The fine people at South Park Studios have poked some good-hearted edgy comedic fun at a wide variety of cultures and religions and nationalities, only one has ever been "pulled" over fears of violent backlash, you wanna take a guess at which one that was?

rjs330 said:

Yeah that's the problem. In Europe they are finding that out almost too late.

Click to expand...

I'm not in Europe. Multiple reports have detailed that Right wing extremism is the threat in the US.

Do not get me wrong, I find the extremism of Islam troubling, but it is not currently the overriding worry.

Belk said:

Do not get me wrong, I find the extremism of Islam troubling, but it is not currently the overriding worry.

Click to expand...

I'm glad at least you are troubled. But you know what? The stuff in Europe, they weren't too concerned and didn't have any overriding worry either. Now they are. And in places in the US it is headed that way. I'd rather not wait until we are in the same place as Europe.

rjs330 said:

And in America where Christianity is still dominant for now, there is no such thing.

Click to expand...

The fact remains that there are Christians in America calling for and celebrating the deaths of gay folks. And there are Christian’s Nationalists who want to rule America.

Remind me how that is different from American Islamists who want to do the same?

rjs330 said:

Islamism is a much greater threat than Christian Nationalism.

Click to expand...

Not to me it isn’t. Christian Nationalism is far more likely.

rjs330 said:

Places in the UK

Click to expand...

Don’t be silly. Name them.

rjs330 said:

Yeah that's the problem. In Europe they are finding that out almost too late.

Click to expand...

No we aren’t! Your view of Europe and the UK is silly.

rjs330 said:

Oh? How so? Are you putting words in my mouth again?

Click to expand...

Why don't you put some of your own words there instead and answer my question about how these Muslim immigrants will get past the Constitution and the majority of the voters.

rjs330 said:

Islamism is a much greater threat than Christian Nationalism.

Click to expand...

We don’t have an Islamist president.

rjs330 said:

Sure there are those that do. However, in many Islamic countries death is codified in law. And in America where Christianity is still dominant for now, there is no such thing. Let the Islamists take over and there will be.

Click to expand...

It is outlawed and punishable by death in Uganda where the population is well over 80% Christian.

GoldenBoy89 said:

It is outlawed and punishable by death in Uganda where the population is well over 80% Christian.

Click to expand...

Clearly a strawman.