Can we agree that Islamist radicals are a threat to all of us? Christians and Atheists generally agree upon a basic moral philosophy in America. Killing people because they are gay, or killing people because they represent anything other than radical Islamist dogma is insane!!!! Let's stop arguing Let's start locking our arms together to defeat this death cult.
Don't take this the wrong way but, 'they're a threat, we need to stop them' sounds like their message, just a little. Maybe get some nuance in there? Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
The post specified Islamist terrorists, rather than a blanket condemnation of all Muslims. That's nuanced enough for me.
I would say that religious extremism in all forms is dangerous, be it Muslim, Chrisitan, or ancient Norse gods. Any religious tenet followed the promotes hatred of others, diminish over others, or death to folks is bad.
It says Islamic radicals. There's already a concentrated effort globally to combat terrorists, regardless of their individual ideology. What if atheists, Christians, and Muslim's too, unified, even in just this narrow space of a forum, against all extremist positions, be they religious or strictly political in nature? Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
So, how should we go about "defeating" them? In my experience, the ones that need convincing that we're on their team are not-yet-radical muslims.
Oh, you ask for our help now... but when we try to eradicate all religions we're suddenly called mean names like Stalin.
I've heard it's like herding cats. It's amazing what a shared enemy can do in the way of bringing disparate parties together.
Sure.... except the Right then go one step further and say "ALL Muslims are radical Islamists" and demand we acede to bigotry against an entire religion or else we are "soft on terrorism."
Except that's not how game theory works. Atheists will do what they've always done. They'll ask the Christian majority to defy the bad religion, then we'll point go how terrible religious wars are and call it secularism. Then we can slowly take over the establishments such as schools and hospitals under the disguise of free stuff, and we can drive a wall between them and religious because we have separation of church and state.
That's one way. Another is recognizing community and what benefits and/or harms it and then acting accordingly. I'm not sure I've seen this long and continuous history of atheists asking the Christian majority for anything in the way of a defense. You'll have to point out the long list of cases where this has happened. We usually start with the idea that religious wars are terrible and try to avoid them, not start them, and I've never seen anyone provoke a religious war and call it secularism. The rest of your slippery slope dystopia doesn't just flow naturally from where you started either. Atheists aren't using the guise of secularism and baiting traps with 'free stuff' to infiltrate schools and hospitals, and the wall is being driven by atheists between the religious and who? Who's left at the point? Work on your narrative; it's a mess. And for the future, if you don't really understand game theory, you might want to avoid pretending to use it. Maybe you do understand it, and my apologies if you do, but if you can't convey that understanding, it's as valueless as not actually knowing and completely unnecessary. It sets the conversation back instead of moving it forward.
Yes they are. And yes we can. Can we all agree, every muslim is not a radical? Can we all agree to be tolerant towards all people who are out to only live their lives as they wish and not intentionally infringe on others rights?
Of course every Muslim is not radical but, the problem is, unless we can properly vet Muslim refugees, we don't know which one is radical. BTW it looks like Mateen's parents were refugees in the 80's when Russia was in the ME. His father is a Taliban sympathizer.
We don't know how many of these are out there waiting to go off either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States Do we vet 100% of all people on our soil? I see the wiki link missed some. Sandy hook, Columbine, etc.
No we don't and that's a good point. Mateen was obviously greatly influenced by his father and ISIS. It's amazing that the FBI actually investigated him and then dropped the investigation. Unfortunately this is the result of a very weak President with regard to Islamist terrorism. I was discussing Muslim refugees only.
Do you think obama is aware of every case the FBI investigates? Since he was a security guard, I assume, the company he worked for also did background checks. If they are an up and up company. OK. Refugees are sort of a catch 22.
I think it's a Presidential mindset of avoiding any mention of 'radical' and 'Islamist' in the same sentence. Obama has appointed Muslim activists to powerful positions. http://theblacksphere.net/2013/04/devout-muslims-in-key-positions-in-the-white-house/ I think Obama is submerged in the Muslim philosophy and his Christianity is for political consumption only. It wouldn't be a problem IF he didn't seem so oblivious to the Muslim terrorist threat we are facing.
Tomorrow I need to go to my telco, I'm having trouble with the sim card in my mobile phone, or possibly my mobile phone itself. I hope the Muslim lady is on duty. In her late 20s, Persian looking and really knows her stuff. She's also very easy on the eyes
Well western expansion took care of the Vikings, and the renaissance happened already, so that leaves one. Christianity largely abandoned obedience codes hundreds of years ago.
Guns. The potentially radical Muslims? I'm not sure we can reach them. But the Muslims that have little or no potential for radicalisation yes they are on our side. - - - Updated - - - What right says that?
Good. Never thought they were. Never was intolerant, nor have I intentionally infringed on anybody's rights. Can we stop having to defend ourselves against things we never did?
