Is Muslim Immigration a Form of Conscious Invasion That Should Be Resisted?

False comparison. Poltical Parties have undergone radical change and operate today on completely different values than even 30 or 40 years ago. You might find some common principles that have survived but on policies and actions they are unrecognizable from 50 years ago.

On the other hand, religions pride themselves on how strictly they adhere to their historic beliefs. No one is worse about it than Christians. They claim their morals not just from the founding of their own religion, but the founding of the religion they aspire to replace. The moral arguments I hear the loudest from today's evangelicals are based on Old Testament teachings. Even the notion of a flat Earth is built into their vision of up to Heaven and down to Hell. I see no repudiation of the religious ideals of the Crusades, only moderation in execution and often not even that.

I have spent some time studying many of the world's organized religions and ultimately find none if them compelling. From one who does not have any vested interest in any if them, the death struggle between Jews, Christians, and Muslims resembles a highly ironic inter-family squabble. The only thing that exceeds the irony of this fight is the hypocrisy of its participants. It is a trait I have found in most religions.

 

You're misjudging what was (and is) going on in Saudi Arabia. There is and has been significant dissent in Saudi Arabia. But, it's a dictatorship!

In fact, one of the considerations made by the "Project for a New American Century" (a group that had huge overlap with the Bush administration) believed we needed to conquer Iraq and make THAT our major ME base of operations, rather than SA, because of the level of opposition to that in Saudi Arabia.

OBL believed that attacking the US would raise the cost of us being in SA - a presence that he and many of those in SA believe is propping up that government and is a religious desecration, besides that.

That didn't work out for him, obviously. The SA government is stronger than that.

The Sunnis in Iraq have been screaming bloody murder since before we left. We pushed them into a government led by the very guy who helped the USA disenfranchise Sunnis!! Who do you think was going to listen to the Sunnis and oppose the government we established during our occupation? Would GW have listened to the French? Russia? China? Iran? Nobody but the US was in a position to do anything, and we chose not to. We owned Iraq when this started.


And, let's remember that both the Iraqi government AND ISIS were/are killing Sunnis. But, ISIS at least offers Sunnis participation in government, while Iraq did not. So, Sunnis didn't mount a big effort against ISIS.

What do WE offer Sunnis?

 

Gorn, it is not sensible to fashion a solution to a problem without first clearly understanding the nature of that problem.

You are asking me to stop thinking and be illogical, the same thing ISIS is attempting to do.

Additionally, I am not by myself qualified to decide how such a problem as this should be handled. Consensus by many knowledgeable people is required to fashion a practicable solution.

If I could give you the answer you want, I would be jockeying for some sort of position in the State Dept., not answering the same question from you three times in a row.

You win three stars for persistence, though, if that helps. ;o)

 

Good. I've seen too many suggest we should forget our constitution and do ridiculous stuff.

And, the "problems" so far sound more like fear of the unknown - which is more rationally solved by information.

 

haha.
how naive.
consensus by the 'big corp' will decide a profitable solution. also known as the illuminati, or you might know them as the G8. knowledgeable? knowledgeable about what exactly? Life? Business? War?
What?

 

I don't have any kind of phobia.

 

and religions don't change? I guess you never heard of the reformer Martin Luther no im not talking about Martin Luther King im talking about Martin Luther the one that started the Lutheran denomination then you have the Episcopalians that broke from the Catholic Church they wanted transformation and change and so you have the Baptist the Methodist the Mennonites and the Amish you have thousands and probably more different denominations with in the Christian faith all with different beliefs and practices the only thing that ties them all together is just one thing and that is the belief in Jesus so you full of crap saying religion doesn't change just having more then thousand different denominations with in the Christian faith is the glaring undisputed proof of that
so your full of crap saying "religions pride themselves on how strictly they adhere to their historic beliefs" if that was the case you wouldn't have had the thousands of different denominations break away from the original Catholic church or from each other and only having one simple common bound and that is the belief in Jesus Christ the exact opposite is true and change is still going on today there is still different denominations forming changing transforming that is the beauty of the Christian faith because there is only one simple requirement to be a Christian and that is the belief in Jesus Christ nothing more

 

Everything.

We supposedly live in a democracy in the US, remember? If we really are there are plenty from all fields that can contribute.

 

Go ask France. Our problem is more about illegal Hispanics who refuse to assimilate. And we're letting it happen due to ignorance and PC.

 

Please expound on the nature of ignorance to Hispanic nonassimilation.
I feel you are probably correct about this from a few experiences I have had, but don't have a clear picture yet of the dynamics.

How would this differ from Muslim nonassimilation, or would it be the same?

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/6/frank-gaffney-muslim-brothers-cant-bring-themselve/

Washington Times has a good article on the justification of the Jordanian pilot burning, which the Muslim Brotherhood is unwilling to challenge. As this is part of the dynamics of the Muslim belief system that are being assessed in this thread I thought it appropriate to link to here for any who are interested.

 

Planning on another Council of Nicea? If I recall correctly, that was where Constantine decided that Jesus was a deity and then slew every "Christian" that didn't agree, which at that point was still a sizable minority.

I am quite familiar with Martin Luther and his religious issues with the Pope. It did not challenge the Bible or its teachings, only on the authority of the Church and its traditions. The "sola scriptura" held that the Bible alone held salvation and the Church was not the sole pathway to God. Similarly, the various sects of the Protestant church different in interpretation only, all holding the Bible in its various translations as the sacred word of a God despite having been assembled by men.

So no, in comparison to other world religions Christanity has remained stable for about 1600 years. The one notable exception has been with the Church of the Latter Day Saints which added the prophetic teaching of Joseph Smith to the Bible. But even allowing for that, the Abrahamic religions have remain relative stable for nearly 4,000 years. Compared to other world religions and philosophies, the differences between Christians, Jews, and Muslims are notable but rather minor.

 

Its their nation, the mexicans. If anybody is illegal it is euro americans.

 

Mexicans are descended from Spanish immigrants.

 

the ones who arent descended from spanish immigrants are the ones iam referring to, obviously.

 

most Mexicans have Spanish blood.

 

Obviously the ones im referring to are the ones that arent spanish, plus the millions of brothers and sisters they have in South America, you know, the real americans.

 

call them "Americans" and you won't leave the same as when you came.

 

come again?

 

The US is who's nation? Mexican's? You delusional? Mexico belongs to Mexicans/drug dealers. The US belongs to citizens, NOT illegals.

 

America belongs to native americans, its not a satellite european military base where you can launch your wars against humanity from.

 

Mexicans are not a race or an ethnicity but a nationality.

But the Spaniards did have a problem with the Aztecs. They just didn't like them just like most of the indigenous natives who occupied what is Mexico today, Nobody ever liked the Aztecs. Might have to be with the practice of cannibalism, sacrificing of young virgins when they could find one and that the Aztecs smoked to much of the bud. The Aztecs were just one indigenous Indian tribe occupying New Spain/Mexico.

While the Spaniards were taking care of the Aztec problem they were at the same time impregnating the women of all of the other Indian tribes in New Spain. (Mexico)

Except for the Yaquis, neither Spain or Mexico were able to defeat the Yaquis or impregnate their women.

 

Land belongs to anyone who controls it. Native Americans couldn't control their own land, so its not theirs any more, much like land all over the world. It all changes hands many times. The US ceased being in control of England a while ago, but you knew that=)

 

Tired of people coming to your country, taking it over through deceit and treachery and robbing your wealth and keeping you and the generations after you poor, I think you are referring to the British/ European conquest. What the muslims could not do in 5 centuries, the British managed in two centuries