heywood on 7/6/2017 at 17:55
The analogy to Krush's position is that since all Nazis were Christians, all Christians were potential Nazis.
It's supposed to sound absurd, because it is.
Renzatic on 7/6/2017 at 18:01
Yeah, I know. But I'm pedantic, so I had to correct you.
Sulphur on 7/6/2017 at 18:05
People in glass houses, dudehombre.
Renzatic on 7/6/2017 at 18:13
It's dudebrah, Sulp. Dudebrah.
Queue on 7/6/2017 at 18:24
Quote Posted by Krush
If you're referring to WWII, Europeans fought and defeated the enemy.
Actually, Russia is North Asia; so technically the Asians (with an assist by Great Britain, which is not European, and the United States, which is no where near European though a good chunk of its population is of European descent) defeated Germany, which is in Europe.
So, Asia defeated Europe...stop being so confused.
Renzatic on 7/6/2017 at 18:27
ITT we discuss the US civil war against Germany.
Pyrian on 7/6/2017 at 18:40
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Well...sorta. Kinda. Not really.
Meh? ISIS and its spiritual kin are routinely condemned by the Islamic establishment. The Nazis were relatively chummy with the pope.
Renzatic on 7/6/2017 at 18:47
They weren't outright hateful of Christianity, but their core ethos could be pretty much described as all Nazis, nothing else but.
Daxim on 7/6/2017 at 20:43
Quote Posted by Starker
So how do you propose to do things like banning muslims from entering the country without giving up the idea of religious freedom?
I'd let anybody in, provided their acting upon religion and ideology does not interfere with the established baseline. Religious freedom is obviously less important than compatibility of culture and values, so someone entering the country or living in it must necessarily self-restrict. Freedom never means unlimited freedom as soon as there are two humans together in one place, so this idea of exercising moderation and acceptance should not come to anyone as a surprise. What I said is not abstruse or extraordinary; it's national law where I live and also part of the ECHR.
Quote:
And painting whole groups of people as an enemy based on the actions of a few is a well-trodden path in history that we know has disastrous consequences.
Not necessarily, I think there's nothing wrong with enacting an ordinance for putting mild collective pressure on the Muslim population as a whole, recognising that the number one ideology for terror world-wide and in Europe is Islam¹ and Muslims insufficiently condemning those terrorists. I concretely have in mind:
1. You are a state recognised religion, act like it. Places of worship must be part of the public. It is not acceptable to self-segregate behind private associations when there are 400000 adherents. You have one year to become a facet of society in the open and not in the shadows.
2. The existence and sources of monetary support or missionaries/religious teachers sent from abroad must be made public.
3. Failing the following compatibility test means the loss of privileges.
* Abandoning one's religion should be…
a) tolerated
b) punishable by death
* Acts of homosexuality should be…
a) tolerated
b) punishable by death
* Adultery should be…
a) tolerated
b) punishable by 100 lashes
* Associations with unbelievers should be…
a) tolerated
b) avoided
* Drinking alcohol should be…
a) tolerated
b) punishable by 80 lashes
* Insulting God or the Prophet should be…
a) tolerated
b) punishable by death
* Stealing should be…
a) punishable by up to three years of imprisonment
b) punishable by amputation of hand
* The final say over who a woman marries has…
a) she herself
b) the patriarch of the household
* Unrepentent unbelievers should be…
a) tolerated
b) taxed under jizya
c) killed
* When I notice someone preparing an attack against unbelievers, he should be…
a) reported to the police or state attorney
b) tolerated
c) commended for increasing the glory of God
¹ followed distantly by communism
Renzatic on 7/6/2017 at 20:53
Quote Posted by Daxim
I'd let anybody in, provided their acting upon religion and ideology does not interfere with the established baseline. Religious freedom is obviously less important than compatibility of culture and values, so someone entering the country or living in it must necessarily self-restrict. Freedom never means unlimited freedom as soon as there are two humans together in one place, so this idea of exercising moderation and acceptance should not come to anyone as a surprise. What I said is not abstruse or extraordinary; it's national law where I live and also part of the ECHR.
I can agree with this to a point. The thing is, the vast majority of Muslims, at least here in the US, have well adapted to our culture. We've millions of them living here natively, yet it's only been, what, 10 who have stirred up trouble?
To sum it all up nice and succulently: I have no problem with the FBI and CIA using all the (legal) tools at their disposal to look into potential terrorists, and handling them accordingly. We are trying to protect ourselves against a group of people who have declared America, Europe, and its peoples as enemies of their worldview. I only start taking issue when we start demanding the whole to bear the punishment for the actions of the few.
