Vehicles - the new Muslim weapon of choice?

Those are pretty serious implications.

Show me the inexact quotes then. If you do, and I agree with the implications, I will not only apologize but join you.

 

From the text."The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States

 

Right!

 

Or I could just continue debate FS and ignore you. I think I'll go with option B. It requires less work on my part.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, how does that ban Muslims?

Do you see the word "immigrant" in any of my posts in this topic?

 

1. SHE CAN'T DE-CONVERT - at least she can't if she doesn't want to risk a fellow Muslim following Allah's wishes to kill her, as the Islamic texts imply to kill apostates. She would also be completely shunned by her family - that's because religions are so fanatical and extreme (like when Mohammad said to kill black dogs, for example.) Modern Secular Humanism is far more accepting than religions are.

2. I reject a ban on the religion of Islam, today.

3. No, I don't have to blindly follow all science. Besides, I do think that science would define belief in orcs as "delusional". And that's exactly like belief in "angels", "demons", "Satan", for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Heck, I'll also join you too, since I'm against gas chambers for Muslims.

- - - Updated - - -

Deflector!!

 

1. Attempting to kill someone is already illegal in America.

2. What does that mean in practical terms? Because I have a feeling that if a ban on Islam was passed, you would sit by and do nothing, maybe silently cheer as people's freedoms were violated because you hate religion.

3. But when theists reject aspects of science and don't blindly follow it in order to protect their worldview, you condemn them for it. Are you a hypocrite?

 

Those will never, ever be a plus. Just an awful idea. In addition to their needing a human driver to pay attention and take over where the AI and its sensors may fail, and fail they will, they will also be prone to hacking and other forms of deliberate manipulation by others.

People don't need self-driving cars. They just need to put their ******ned little toys down and pay attention to the road!

 

So is driving a vehicle into a bunch of infidels and then jumping out and trying to kill them with a butcher's knife (to get to rape 72 hot virgins in an invisible place in the sky), but a Muslim did just that in Columbus, Ohio yesterday!

 

And the police killed him for it. Had he survived, he would have been tried and convicted of attempted murder and terrorism.

But because of that we should restrict the freedoms of peaceful people?

 

I would only support a ban on Islam if we have a solider of Allah follow the Qur'an's instructions to wage Jihad, in America, ON AVERAGE EVERY WEEK. Otherwise, no, I would not support a ban on Islam.

How OFTEN would a Jihad attack in America have to happen before you'd support a ban, Q?

- - - Updated - - -

The burqa should also be banned because it's used as an instrument of female repression.

 

Nor would putting them in camps, which has also been suggested twice in this thread alone. This is Trump's end goal IMO, camps for Muslims, Hispanics and everyone else he calls an "enemy" If not his it's certainly that of his followers

The United States is no stranger to concentration camps. We may have originated them, in fact, for the Cherokee in the 1830's. We certainly had some of the earliest recognized as such, in the Phillipines in 1899.

 

1. Again what does that mean? How exactly would you reject a Muslim ban? Would you stand with Muslims in resisting its enforcement?

I would NEVER support a ban on Islam, because I unlike you actually believe in freedom of religion.

2. So you support freedom, just not the freedom of people to wear the clothes they want.

 

Let's try to prevent said terrorism IN THE FIRST PLACE - just like let's ban Sharia Courts so that, IN THE FIRST PLACE, Muslims aren't almost forced to leave Islam (to avoid Sharia "justice".) It's too late AFTER they are killed/threatened for apostasy.

Can you condemn Allah/Mohammad for saying to kill apostates?

 

It's not much of a war. The number of attacks and their effects are miniscule, even next to the butchery our gangs commit every single day, and next to automobile-related accidental deaths. On the whole, attacks by crazed Muslims is a very minimal threat. Even in Europe! There have been a handful of bad attacks, but it's easy to overestimate the danger from those. That's something people do very commonly, unfortunately. We even formalise the sentiment by saying "better safe than sorry." Well, in the real world, we can only be so safe. There will always be a little risk in living, always some danger of violent crime. But again, the danger is not actually that great statistically speaking.

 

The burqa is a special situation - used to repress women.
Speaking of which, do you condemn Q4:34, which instructs the superior Muslim male to BEAT the (apparently) inferior Muslim female? Do you, Q? Or is saying that a book that instructs to beat women is barbaric too politically-incorrect for you? I don't know.

 

Allah/Muhammad also said that there is to be no coercion in religion, so which one is supposed to be more valid than the other?

I am opposed to coercion, period. Including you wishes to use coercion against Muslims.

 

Not all Muslim women see it as that. Many of them see it as a symbol of their faith and as a mark of their humility, but I guess you need to be their mommy and protect them from themselves instead of allowing them the freedom to make their own choices.

Physical abuse IS ALREADY ILLEGAL in America. Why do I have to condemn spousal abuse in this specific case when I oppose spousal abuse period?

 

Wrong - 30,000 Jihad attacks since 9/11 alone! (Thereligionofpeace.com has the list.) BTW, I care about people in every nation, not just America or Europe. Also, this war will only get worse before it gets better. The Buddhists are also even having a serious problem with Islam.

Islam is so violent, that 20 people could get blown up in a Shia mosque in Iraq, and that story would not even show up in the New York Times, since Islamic violence is so commonplace today that that story would not even "rate" as a top news item!

 

Why would he want to put them in camps when that would mean they were still here?

 

Deflector deflects away from the evils of Q4:34 (which says to beat women)!! His well-used super-powers of deflection are to be admired!! Muslim-apologists world-wide marvel at his impressive skills!!

It's like "I REFUSE TO CONDEMN THE HOLOCAUST, EVEN AFTER YOU ASKED ME TO, BECAUSE I'M AGAINST MURDER, PERIOD!!"

The deflection is strong with this one!

 

Well, realistically, the government can ban and do pretty much anything. They have the power. We do not.

 

In a burqa THEY CAN'T SEE!!!

 

Yeah, if you count the Middle Eastern countries, then there have been a lot. It's just that for us in the US and Europe, the threat is minimal, almost non-existent. I'm not going to worry about it happening here.

 

You will as Trump's new laws have the effect of getting Muslims to want to fight back against his policies, down the road.

 

Why should I have to condemn spousal abuse specifically by Muslims when I'm against spousal abuse period?

It would be more like me saying "You said you don't support murder, but you didn't say you oppose *government sponsored murder*, therefore you must support the Holocaust". Why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would a special category make a difference?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay. Let's put this a different way:

You supposedly believe in freedom. Why should I, as a male atheist, not be allowed to wear a burqa if I want to?