How about suspending all those mosques with foreign funding as a start?
How could that possibly be allowed in the first place.
You wouldn't believe how much mosques are restricted in their speech, between ME & the West.
How about suspending all those mosques with foreign funding as a start?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?
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.
You don't think some are forced? And being forced doesn't mean they can't also have a better life, which I definitely think is a primary motivator.
I never said I don't want to let everyone in. I never said to ban anyone. I'm not sure where that is coming from...
I am open to a constitutional amendment that bans all religions.
Judging people and lying?
I'd bet those sins? don't even phase most Christians
I'd consider men and women who turn their entire life over to God as devout in Christianity
Priests, nuns etc
Anyways, I had a great time with those who didn't drink too
That's an interesting idea but probably very difficult in practice, for the USA at least. Both freedom of speech and freedom of religion would quickly come into conflict with such a law.How about suspending all those mosques with foreign funding as a start?
How could that possibly be allowed in the first place.
You wouldn't believe how much mosques are restricted in their speech, between ME & the West.
Relative to the numbers coming in very few are forced. If you are talking about displacement because of things like violence then they fall into the category of seeking opportunities.
You said you are for having open borders for Western countries. I took that to mean that you did not want to let everyone in but at least you think the Western ones were safe enough for open borders. Anyone from a non Western country could be let in but with things like background checks. That is how I understood it.
Most Christians are not very devout. That is a good thing. They have a bit of a history.
What do you think would happen if most Christians were devout?
What do you think would happen if most Christians were devout?
They would turn their countries into theocracies like they used to have. Lucky for the world, Christians shed lots of that crap and mellowed out. I would hate to live in a time when they were Christians of old.
Why do you ask?
I asked because I was curious why you typed that
Where all have Christians turned their countries into theocracies?
Why did Christianity demand a theocracy?
Spain, Italy, France ect all had them long ago.
They form them to get/maintain power. All of this is basic history.
I don't think we covered that in basic history
So what happened? The devout Christians over threw their leaders and installed Theocracies?
Which are being exploited quite obviously by some groups, with some medieval - yet living in the 21st century - Islamic groups on top of that list.That's an interesting idea but probably very difficult in practice, for the USA at least. Both freedom of speech and freedom of religion would quickly come into conflict with such a law.
Japan is a homogeneous nation where Muslims would have a harder time blending in. It would be very easy for them to crack down on them if they tried to pull this s**t.The point is Japan has a much easier way to control their borders than the entirety of Europe or the United States.
Then your Canadian history is horrible. We still have an example of a modern one called the Vatican. You can look up European history and see examples of the theocratic policies of governments during their Inquisitions.
Your question about overthrowing is weird though. Most governments emerge over time. Theocratic ideas get put into place because there is a large popularity and when that has happened bad things have happened. I don't know of a Christian nation that was secular and became a devout, but I do know of many Christian nations that were devout that became secular.
Do you mind getting to your point though? Your questions seem to be disconnected and it would be much easier for you to get to what you want to say.
My questions shouldn't seem disconnected
You can see you made statements and I was replying to them
I think we learned that there were kingdoms and monarchies.
Then when Christianity came along lots of the Kings etc accepted them playing a part in their kingdoms. State religions ect
Some Kings made up new ones to fit their lifestyle better
Lots of Christian countries still have "theocratic policies" or "Theocratic ideas", they are not considered theocracies though
The Vatican was the only example of an actual Christian Theocracy I could think of
Seriously, wtf do you actually know about Islam?
How many times have you read the Qur'an?
How long ago did you start studying the religion?
What religious scholars' works (both Islamic and non-Islamic) did you consult during your studies?
How much study did you do with the Sunnah?
How much do you understand about the various interpretations of the various hadiths?
How well do you understand the main sects of Sunni and Shiite and where and why they differ?
How about minor sects like the Sufis?
Or was it all just a few hours cruising the interwebs.
Inquiring minds and all that.
When King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and the pope would not allow it, he formed the Church of England and made himself the pope of it. Ruling as king and pope simultaneously, he then used the power of the state to execute those who opposed this new religion for heresy and other crimes of a religious nature. Whether or not that is theocracy I do not know, but it's a lot closer to it than forms of government we have now.
When you look back through European history, it often isn't clear when something could be called a "theocracy" per se because there are degrees of church/state separation. It's fair to say that church/state separation used to be much weaker than it was and also that it has progressively strengthened, particularly in the past 300-400 years.
Are you projecting anxiety about your own country (the uk)? At the rate muslims are reproducing, they'll be a majority in your lifetime (50 years). When the no-go zones start hitting, you guys are fucked. I'd be very nervous if I were you. Or you can move to the U.S., we'll take you in.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.
No go zones!Are you projecting anxiety about your own country (the uk)? At the rate muslims are reproducing, they'll be a majority in your lifetime (50 years). When the no-go zones start hitting, you guys are fucked. I'd be very nervous if I were you. Or you can move to the U.S., we'll take you in.
Ignorance is bliss my friend.No go zones!
That's a blast from the recent past. Get it...blast?!?
Take a shot!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...els-homegrown-terrorism-isil-column/82050112/For a time, after the November bloodbath, there was talk of “no go” zones in major European cities — areas, particularly Arab-dominated — where police have been unable to penetrate routinely, without the kind of massive show of force that preceded the seizure of Abdeslam. The reality is that these zones are less places cops don’t dare go than places where they get few useful results when they do show up. The police, quietly, with sensitivity and understanding, with a deep knowledge of the languages and customs of each such neighborhood, need to be there all the time. And they’re not.
More than 20 years ago, Count Alexandre de Marenches, longtime head of French intelligence, told me that the greatest threat to his nation’s security was “an entire nation living within our country whose language we do not speak, whose customs and religion, whose hopes and fears we do not understand.” He was referring, even then, to the Islamic communities that have only multiplied in recent years and promise to multiply even further with the arrival of thousands of new refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s a question worth posing not only in Francophone Europe but in the United States as well — the danger of the multiplication of communities where little intelligence emerges and few forces of order are truly plugged in.
In the specific case of Abdeslam, there’s the excuse that French-speaking and Flemish-speaking Belgian cops have difficulty communicating, and that neither group has much expertise in Arabic. There are other issues as well — the conflict, particularly in France, between domestic and international intelligence agencies, historically all too often at odds.
All these are issues worth an urgent look in the United States. In the U.S., ISIL sympathizers can’t simply jump in a car as in Iraq or Syria, pass porous frontiers and in a matter of days wind up in sympathetic communities only blocks from the targets of potentially deadly attacks. Even so, America, too, must understand enemies sheltering among us. Complacency in America may be as deadly a sin as ignorance in Europe.
David A. Andelman, a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors, is editor emeritus of World Policy Journal and, with the Count Alexandre de Marenches, longtime head of French intelligence, co-author of The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism. Follow Andelman onTwitter: @DavidAndelman
Ignorance is bliss my friend.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...els-homegrown-terrorism-isil-column/82050112/