No, there isn't a Muslim country being run by the model you suggested as the rule outside of ISIS to say nothing of establishing your vision as the rule. Is there violence against minority populations? In the hot spots there has been. The Christian community in Egypt, by way of example. But again, it so self apparently isn't the orthodoxy of Islam to "kill or convert" that you should be charged to produce proof instead of claim on the point. I've given you ample counter.
You and I live in one of the most violent societies going and war like to boot. When we didn't have an enemy to pursue we fought one another. We're a study in war and for most of it have been a Christian nation. I noted Europe's problem with religion and violence literally in the name of...so, that's mostly men being men.
Either you're right or the majority of Islam is...either way, weak or more informed a win is a win on the peaceful front.
You speak as if before ISIS the rest of the world didn't have to worry about jihad. It did.
The reason it did was because Mohammed and the koran advocated and advocate violence against people for no more reason than because they disagree with Mohammed/the koran. This is clear from both simply looking at the life of Mohammed or simply reading the koran. And beyond that, when asked to justify their violent behavior after Mohammed died, jihadis have pointed to both for more than 1300 years.
That's why people from muslim countries shouldn't be allowed into the US, not because we want to censor them, but because the people in the US need to be protected from them.
What particular verse are you speaking to on that? I know that contrary religious views didn't fare well in the OT.
Contrary religious views did not fare well in the theocracy of Israel for obvious reasons. But even then, foreigners that did not believe what the Jews believed were not treated as sub-human, as people are treated in countries that are controlled by muslims.
No, you said another thing which is why you got a different response. Again, I've not only never supported the notion of rebutting a rule by exception (unless the claim is for an absolute) I've routinely lectured some here on the errant nature of foisting anecdotes as anything other than illustration of an established rule. That said, you first have to establish the rule.
One should never trust a man that cannot discuss a topic in generalities - he's trying to cheat you.
It's the same thing.
Have I ever said you weren't right wing? Not in the least. And if you want to enhance that functioning definition with other particulars, to further clarify on a point of importance to the argument or simply you I'm all for it.
I'd say you've mistaken error for generosity and made whatever conversation follows an invitation to confusion for others, and without reason, supra. So if JoeTom wants to tell me he hates black people but he's not a racist because racists do something about it and he only has a quiet opinion, however valuable that is to him I reject it, find it intellectually bankrupt and I'm not about to agree to proceed under the pretense. So he can be a racist who also believes in live and let live, or whatever qualification he want's to add to his position in relation to the actual meaning and that's fine. What he can't do is usurp clear meaning for some subjective desire. And I won't help him or permit it within the confines of my discourse.
Here's how it can go. You consider yourself a right winger? If so, understand what the usage entails to most people and qualify as you need to, the way some liberals will say, "I'm liberal in general philosophy, but I oppose abortion and socialism, so I have other facets to me that I'll speak to and it won't be as a representative of that mindset." Or, better yet, talk to the issues alone, define yourself by considered position. I've met very few people who could be encompassed by one definition, even those who wanted to be.
You've said that right wingers are conservatives and that conservatives love censorship. But it's only when you mix right wingers with conservatives, and then conflate conservative with people that want to conserve despite their political leanings, and it makes you come to a wrong conclusion.
I'm trying to help you, but you are bound and determined to fight and die on every hill. Calm down with dissecting my every word and look to discover truth in the overall outline instead.
I've been more than a little gracious with you, Yor, routinely giving you a full consideration and answer you as routinely deny me and I haven't done much more than note it in passing. So stop complementing yourself as though it will move me. Call yourself gracious and intelligent for what I call peculiar and unproductive capitulation and get on with the thing that matters and that is undeniably supportive of a larger invitation to consideration by others.
You've certainly been generous with your verbosity. What you haven't done is tried to discover the truth of the matter.
Here is an example. When confronted with the clear foundation of jihad in the vast majority of islam, you quibble about the nature of the abuse jihadis perpetrate on non-muslims.
It was a simple time.
But more seriously given the history and struggle that followed, we can be pretty sure that a dominant majority of Americans were fairly racist for most of our history.
This doesn't follow at all. The KKK was founded and run entirely by leftists, and the proof of that is when
That means by your way of looking at it most of American would have been liberal for most of its history. And I don't know anyone else (and no historian) who would support that idea.
Thus, your conclusion doesn't follow, either.
No, that's trying to set a rule by anecdote since we can't really follow them about for even a day.
That's your bias speaking for them because you don't like what they say. It's you altering the meaning of words at the other end. Neither gracious or demonstrably true. Back to what they set out, the thing that upsets another of your applecarts, this attempt to right it notwithstanding, as I noted a good while ago, there's a substantial number of people in the Democratic party who oppose abortion, just as there are a not inconsiderable number in the Republican ranks who support a woman's right to decide the matter. People are complicated. Trying to dismiss that and simplify the distinction between your partisanship and the other fellow's may feel good, but it's not going to stand much objective scrutiny.
Au contraire. We can see patterns of behavior of groups of people. They say they believe in God, but they follow nearly every political error that atheists do. You can tell what a man thinks in his heart by what he does.
