OH. The godfather's pizza guy.
At the end of the day, it's his cabinet, sure. But it's still the beginning of the day. Isn't it worth seeing what we can tell about the man from what he says?Your example makes no sense. You're President, you don't have to accept random strangers and if you do have to, there's no point in questioning the Muslim, you have to accept him.
Would you feel the same way if he said he wouldn't appoint women? Or Jews? Or, since he's black, whites?
He originally said no Muslims, before walking it back. If he's elected, that will be his right, but it's damn sure a reason not to elect him.
I would feel the same way. If he won the election, he can appoint whoever he pleases.
I don't think what he said deserves the "ZOINKS!" response. I've explained what I thought he meant, and that I agree with it.I think you're just choosing to see it in the worst possible light, to err on the side of caution. Or is it because he has an R next to his name, he must hate all Muslims?
At the end of the day, it's his cabinet, sure. But it's still the beginning of the day. Isn't it worth seeing what we can tell about the man from what he says?Your example makes no sense. You're President, you don't have to accept random strangers and if you do have to, there's no point in questioning the Muslim, you have to accept him.
Would you feel the same way if he said he wouldn't appoint women? Or Jews? Or, since he's black, whites?
He originally said no Muslims, before walking it back. If he's elected, that will be his right, but it's damn sure a reason not to elect him.
I would feel the same way. If he won the election, he can appoint whoever he pleases.
I don't think what he said deserves the "ZOINKS!" response. I've explained what I thought he meant, and that I agree with it.
I think you're just choosing to see it in the worst possible light, to err on the side of caution. Or is it because he has an R next to his name, he must hate all Muslims?
then why would you be able damn sure to have a conversation with a muslim who joined your cabinet as opposed to a person of another faith?
My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
Muslim faith = OK.
Sharia Law = not OK. Incompatible with our Constitution.
Here's the thing. At least to me. There's this rather fine constitutional law point that you seem to be trying to make that somehow ascribing to the Muslim faith means that you must 100% accept all the tenets of their holy book, which includes Sharia law, which is incompatible with Sharia law. Thing is...there's a lot of nutty s#&% in the bible NO christian I know would get behind. Have you read Leviticus?
It's an interesting argument. Regardless, the nutcases I see and hear are not making this argument, they are flipping their s&#@ at the idea that someone, somewhere wants to IMPOSE Sharia law on the US. Which is patently absurd! It's just extremist nut-jobs stirring the pot and encouraging nation-wide islamaphobia.
I'll be frank. I don't like Islam. But I don't like any religions, organized or otherwise. As an atheist it's a very hard pick because we've come to accept that about 85% of the general population are religious in one form or another and virtually no one that has held public office claims to be an atheist.
Basically, it's all the same sort of insanity to me, and the idea that a bunch of ingnoramuses who think someone wants to force their wife to wear a scarf are going to choose the next president based on who will protect their wives heads from these errant scarves is abhorrent.
FWIW, though I only agree with Ron Paul on about 50% of his platform, he's the only Republican candidate I have unfailing respect for.
My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
Did you see the onion article about the politician who planned to supply aid to his state after a hurricane, or some such, by cutting taxes? Too close to the mark.
|
My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
"lopsided distribution of wealth"???
Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
One last thing: thejeff, if you're waiting for a candidate who never has a single controversial viewpoint, never has even a moderately important policy position that you disagree with, or never says something that flat-out ticks you off, you're gonna be waiting a looooooooong time.How about one who isn't openly prejudiced?
There are plenty of things about Cain that I disagree with. His entire economic policy to start with. The Islamophobia just puts him over the edge.
What is wrong with his economic Policy? We need a National Sales tax to tap into the vast underground economy that exist. The over 20 million illegals in this country that currenty pays no taxes, would be taxed. And it is a better system than the European Value Added system which inflates the price of goods and services. Tax burden is hidden in the cost of the product or service with a Value Added tax, making those goods and service less attractive in a wider open market. With a sales tax everyone knows exactly how much they are being taxed for a product or service. Plus products remain competitve in a larger world market. It is about keeping businesses going and creating jobs.
I agree with you about his prejudices though. I find it ironic.
Later,
Mazra
|
My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
Yes because the entire republican party rejects science, denounces all regulation, encourages greed, and has no problem with the CEOs of major corporations screwing their employees over to enrich their own pocketbooks. You sure have pegged us well over here. Now if we could only make dentisting illegal I'd be able to marry my sister cause she wouldn't take no issue to ma teeth beein not right.
|
Yes because the entire republican party rejects science, denounces all regulation, encourages greed, and has no problem with the CEOs of major corporations screwing their employees over to enrich their own pocketbooks. You sure have pegged us well over here. Now if we could only make dentisting illegal I'd be able to marry my sister cause she wouldn't take no issue to ma teeth beein not right.My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
You forgot converting the country into a Christian theocracy.
Every Republican is trying to do that too. <eye roll>|
|
Yes because the entire republican party rejects science, denounces all regulation, encourages greed, and has no problem with the CEOs of major corporations screwing their employees over to enrich their own pocketbooks. You sure have pegged us well over here. Now if we could only make dentisting illegal I'd be able to marry my sister cause she wouldn't take no issue to ma teeth beein not right.My feeling on the GOP and their relevance in the modern world of real things like science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, is pretty much the same as Christian Slater's comments on those two high school football players in Heathers.
"Now that football season's over, they have nothing left to offer the school but date rapes and AIDS jokes."
You forgot converting the country into a Christian theocracy.
Every Republican is trying to do that too. <eye roll>
Dangit I always forget one.
So, although you've said you would treat all faiths equally, you agree that he should demand extra loyalty proofs from Muslims but not from people of other religions?I'm confused.
Because that's what he said:
BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?
CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t.
Herman Cain has a problem with Sharia law. Muslims (not all) follow Sharia Law. Catholics and Mormons don't have Sharia law. Since he PLAINLY said that's what he has a problem with, why in the blue ... would he question a Mormon or Catholic about Sharia Law?
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because that idea is not backed up by the quote from the interview, which makes it sound like he would put Muslims through more stringent screening than people of other faiths via a loyalty oath.
So, although you've said you would treat all faiths equally, you agree that he should demand extra loyalty proofs from Muslims but not from people of other religions?I'm confused.
Because that's what he said:
BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?
CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t.
Herman Cain has a problem with Sharia law. Muslims (not all) follow Sharia Law. Catholics and Mormons don't have Sharia law. Since he PLAINLY said that's what he has a problem with, why in the blue ... would he question a Mormon or Catholic about Sharia Law?
Why is this so hard to understand?
|
|
Which is why I try to distinguish between the regular people who are registered and usually vote Republican, the activist base who donate, canvas and vote in primaries and the actual politicians and major donors who run the show.
The effort to distinguish the "regular people" from the crazies is appreciated. Thank you.
I don't assume every liberal registered Democrat is a member of Code Pink after all.That said, have you been following the presidential debates? As far as "science, regulation, greed and the lopsided distribution of wealth, they're competing to see who can offer the lowest taxes for the rich, the least regulation and the most denial of climate change and evolution. Huntsman is the only one who's pushed back on any of those and he's far too moderate to have a chance.
The base is eating it up.
I HAVE been watching all the presidential debates and that's why I'm confused. We seem to be watching different debates.
Lowest taxes for EVERYONE (not just the rich) and least regulation ON BUSINESSES starting and expansion (not safety regulations): yes. That's because it's the Republican solution to how to stimulate the economy, lower unemployment and get everyone living better.
Not going to argue whether it's right or wrong, but all the candidates are pushing these things.
As far as climate change denial and evolution, I don't remember EITHER of these being brought up in ANY of the debates thus far. You have quotes? My memory is far from infallible. I'm willing to accept I may have forgot those questions being asked.
As for the base "eating it up", I'd beg to differ. Poll numbers aren't SUPER for any of the candidates. Not horrible, but certainly not "This guy is da-BOMB!!!" :)
Because that idea is not backed up by the quote from the interview, which makes it sound like he would put Muslims through more stringent screening than people of other faiths via a loyalty oath.No it's not. But it IS backed up when you look at how he's further explained his stance.
IMO, he's already shot himself in the foot. Prejudice is hard to explain away or rationalize unless one shares said prejudices.
|
|
Links please? I thought that was the further explanation of his stance.
Sure. Link is the same article.
"However, the next week, Cain hedged his retraction, telling the Orlando Sun Sentinel that he would only appoint a Muslim who disavowed Sharia law, but that “he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal.”"
His problem isn't with the Muslim faith; it's with Sharia Law.
"Climate Change"
Typical Rep: Yeah, this are getting hotter, that doesn't absolutely mean that it is man-made and not just a natural cycle of the environment. I still don't find the evidence for those claims (it is man-made and not a natural cycle) to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Typical Dem: See, you are science stupid!
And a lot of the pushers for acceptance of man-made climate change fall into the no-true-scotsman trap. "There are some scientists that are not convinced, what do you have to say about them." *rolls eyes* "Yeah, they are really 'scientists'. If they were real scientists they would agree with our position 100%."
Links please? I thought that was the further explanation of his stance.Sure. Link is the same article.
"However, the next week, Cain hedged his retraction, telling the Orlando Sun Sentinel that he would only appoint a Muslim who disavowed Sharia law, but that “he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal.”"
His problem isn't with the Muslim faith; it's with Sharia Law.
a lot of this sounds like the old "have you tried not being evil?" trope.
|
|
"lopsided distribution of wealth"???
Wealth is EARNED! It is not something taken from those that earn it, and given to those that don't. Currently the top 10% of wage earners in the US pays nearly 70% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pays less than 3% of all taxes. I think the distribution of wealth is plenty lopsided as is.
I think your numbers are wrong. Or more likely you mean federal income taxes where you say all taxes. Other taxes fall more heavily on the poor. For example, the rich save or invest more of their income so less is subject to sales taxes than the poor, who spend practically their entire paycheck. Payroll taxes are capped, making them quite regressive. Most wage earners will have more deducted for SS& FICA than for income taxes.
To actually look at the income tax numbers in context: according to the Tax Foundationin 2008 the top 10% had 45.77% of total AGI and paid 69.94% of the total income taxes. The bottom 50% had 12.75% and paid 2.70%. So it is still progressive, but nearly so lopsided as ignoring the actual income numbers make it seem.
You are using the same statistics that I found. I said the top 10% paid nearly 70% of income taxes. 69.94% is nearly 70%. I said the bottom 50% paid less than 3%, well 2.70% is less than 3%. The wealthy are paying a larger share. And most do not have a problem with this. But the great masses that are in the Bottom 50% want to take even more. But, you are right, I should have said Federal Income Taxes, but then this thread is about Herman Cain and the Presidency of the United States, so it is the Federal Income Tax system for where Herman Cain is making his proposal.
Wealth is even less evenly distributed than income, so since the top 10% have ~70% of the wealth and the bottom 50% less than 1%, I agree that's plenty lopsided, though not in the direction you suggest.
As you already pointed out, the current numbers are already progressive. Wealth is already being redistributed. My problem with your train of thought is that the redistributing wealth is never enough for you and those that hold to a socialist viewpoint on economics, where everyone should receive the same benefits whether they earned it or not. I believe the people that earned it should should enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. And I believe those that are sucking on the teat of government welfare should have to pay a greater sales tax for their cell phones, big screen TVs, etc.. I would have no problem if, like in the State of Georgia, food items and other necessities were exempt in the sales tax calculation. So having a tax that taxes everyone evenly based upon their consumption is a very fair system. If you want to play...you pay.
BTW- There is a huge amount of income going under the table that is not being taxed in the US. Having a National sales tax would tap some of this hidden economy. I have read estimates that the hidden economy is nearly 2 trillion a year.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Obviously he wouldn't question a Mormon or a Catholic about Sharia Law. That would be just stupid. He could ask a Catholic to prove that he'd put his loyalty to the Constitution above his religious obedience to the Pope, which is similar if not quite the same, and was a common objection before JFK's presidency when anti-Catholic prejudice was more accepted. He could ask a Jew to prove he wouldn't put loyalty to Israel over loyalty to the Constitution, also a common anti-semitic claim.
He could ask if a Christian would put the Ten Commandments above the Constitution (or enact any of the other, usually sex-obsessed, supposedly Biblical laws, like Covenant marriage or bans on contraception)
But he wouldn't because he's only obsessed with Sharia.
I would call his platform FAR from "obsessed" with Sharia.
The MEDIA made it more of a matter than he did.If you said he was "obsessed" with the economy, you'd be on.
But -hey- since I'm typing on the Paizo boards now, I must be obsessed with it. Whatever.
But back to the topic, you'd have a leg to stand on if the Pope came out and said "You know what? It's cool if you stone homosexuals. And women? Yeah, they're second class citizens that can't own any property or ... well... anything."
All those other religions teach stuff that meshes with our Constitution.
Sharia? Not so much.
The whole idea that there's a secret movement to force Sharia law on the US and it's already happened in Europe is nonsense. It's prejudiced conspiracy thinking on a par with "Jewish banker conspiracies" or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Muslims in the...
Yes cause it's just crazy if say Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.
That would just be nuts!
Obviously he wouldn't question a Mormon or a Catholic about Sharia Law. That would be just stupid. He could ask a Catholic to prove that he'd put his loyalty to the Constitution above his religious obedience to the Pope, which is similar if not quite the same, and was a common objection before JFK's presidency when anti-Catholic prejudice was more accepted. He could ask a Jew to prove he wouldn't put loyalty to Israel over loyalty to the Constitution, also a common anti-semitic claim.
He could ask if a Christian would put the Ten Commandments above the Constitution (or enact any of the other, usually sex-obsessed, supposedly Biblical laws, like Covenant marriage or bans on contraception)
But he wouldn't because he's only obsessed with Sharia.So it's okay because he has a problem with one religion's supposed higher loyalties but not with others?
Let's be realistic here. People, real time, are living Sharia law. It exists, here and in the middle east. No one follows Leviticus. Even modern Isrealis and Jews do not stone people, and Chrsitians don't kill their own children if they convert to another faith.
These things just are not a concern from these faiths. Muslims that follow Sharia law DO THESE THINGS.The whole Sharia thing is just a front for Islamophobia. Not that there isn't such a thing as Sharia law and not that I don't find large chunks of it repugnant, but that
There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.The whole idea that there's a secret movement to force Sharia law on the US and it's already happened in Europe is nonsense.
It is already happening in America and in Canada.
Google Sharia Law and Canada or Michigan or America.Read it, and come to your own conclusions. If you prefer video, search the same on youtube.
I see this thread has... *ahem* flourished during my absence. How about we skip the economic "debate?" Re-iterating positions for the nth time is pointless.
I believe the purpose of this thread was to discuss Cain's perceived viability as a candidate in the wake of his Florida victory. With that in mind, I'm calling it now: There is no chance Cain will get the nomination. Now if I turn out to be wrong, you guys can link this post and I'll have to admit it.
|
|
Obviously he wouldn't question a Mormon or a Catholic about Sharia Law. That would be just stupid. He could ask a Catholic to prove that he'd put his loyalty to the Constitution above his religious obedience to the Pope, which is similar if not quite the same, and was a common objection before JFK's presidency when anti-Catholic prejudice was more accepted. He could ask a Jew to prove he wouldn't put loyalty to Israel over loyalty to the Constitution, also a common anti-semitic claim.
He could ask if a Christian would put the Ten Commandments above the Constitution (or enact any of the other, usually sex-obsessed, supposedly Biblical laws, like Covenant marriage or bans on contraception)
But he wouldn't because he's only obsessed with Sharia.I would call his platform FAR from "obsessed" with Sharia.
The MEDIA made it more of a matter than he did.If you said he was "obsessed" with the economy, you'd be on.
But -hey- since I'm typing on the Paizo boards now, I must be obsessed with it. Whatever.But back to the topic, you'd have a leg to stand on if the Pope came out and said "You know what? It's cool if you stone homosexuals. And women? Yeah, they're second class citizens that can't own any property or ... well... anything."
All those other religions teach stuff that meshes with our Constitution.
Sharia? Not so much.The whole idea that there's a secret movement to force Sharia law on the US and it's already happened in Europe is nonsense. It's prejudiced conspiracy thinking on a par with "Jewish banker conspiracies" or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Muslims in the...Yes cause it's just crazy if say Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.
That would just be nuts!
Actually the bible does call on me to stone my wife. Literally, by the bible I am supposed to stone my wife for her past indiscretions and also stone anyone who tells me they're cristian, but try to not take the bible word for word. Believe me, i've been holding a bible study at my house for months now and I've read the passages. Unfortunately that's what you get with a 2000 year old religion. You get passages that call for more violence than is acceptable to modern sensibilities. But that's the problem you have people who realize that and you have crazies who don't. The Problem is that anti-muslim sentiment is high right now and unfotunately Herman Cain is uneducated about the faith (that doesn't mean he doesn't know about the faith, just that his only perspective is an outsiders perspective) and as such he is caught up in what I call old thinking disease. Like old white folks who still make racist assumptions even though they've met and dealt with black people, because they're too stuck in their ways. Honestly, it is really unsettling which is a shame because if not for that, I was %100 behind him.
|
|
I still find it disingenuous to claim, truthfully, that the top 10% pay 70% of taxes without also including the percent of income they make.
The key operative words in your phrase here is "THEY MAKE." Herman Cain's mother was a maid and his father was a Chauffeur. Cain came from a poor background yet EARNED a degree of wealth much on his own ingenuity and drive. His message is to have a system in place that rewards ingenuity and drive. It will reward success, empower entrepreneurial ownership in businesses, and that will in turn employ the masses. I still have issues with the ROBIN HOOD mentality of so many that it is OK to take money from those that EARNED it and give it to those that didn't. At what point is stealing from the rich enough?
Later,
Mazra
|
|
I see this thread has... *ahem* flourished during my absence. How about we skip the economic "debate?" Re-iterating positions for the nth time is pointless.
I believe the purpose of this thread was to discuss Cain's perceived viability as a candidate in the wake of his Florida victory. With that in mind, I'm calling it now: There is no chance Cain will get the nomination. Now if I turn out to be wrong, you guys can link this post and I'll have to admit it.
My question is why do you think that exactly, because as of the latest poll that another poster linked, the victory has caused a huge jump in his recognition and has given him the lead.
But you're not stoning your wife.
You're not claiming you have a right to based on the Bible.
You're not doing those things, and it doesn't even occur to you to do it. You are not petitioning local law enforcement to let you, under the guise of the 1st Amendment. You realize that under freedom of religion, you are free to follow your faith as long as it doesn't adversley affect another person's right to not follow it.
Followers of Sharia, will and have.
See the difference? This isn't a witch hunt for Muslims for no apparent reason. This is a concern about a particular sect of Islam that follows Sharia Law to the detrement of society. This is a legitimate, reasoned position, not Islamophobia.
It would be a phobia if it were not rational, or there were not examples of this happening accross the planet.
Jenkies!
Include Michigan and Canada in your searches.
I'm not going to waste my time finding sources you find suitable.
Keep searching, you'll find it.
Heres one for Australia
LINK
|
|
Or was he able to rise out of poverty partly because of government support enabled by higher taxes on the rich? It looks like he made it through college while in the Navy, so I'd assume they funded his studies?
If he made it through college by being in the Navy, then he EARNED it by his service to the country. And I would bet he has paid it back to the government multiple times over since by his successes in life. I have no problem with a program that will help pay for college in exchange for your service to the nation in the armed forces. This is a win for everyone. It gives an opportunity to the poorer elements in the society to receive an education, that would then let them be productive tax payers through the rest of their working life. My issue is with the takers that are not contributing to the system throughout their lives. President Kennedy once asked, "It is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Working hard and earning a living, and through it paying taxes is doing for your country. My issue will always be the taking from these hard workers and giving to those that hardly work.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Heres one for Australia
LINK
Yup one group represents all muslims, if you'll excuse me, my westboro baptist church membership has to be renewed because I'm christian. And actually, the guy from Westboro if his son is to be believed routinely beats and subjugates the women and children of his family well. And even if you discount them you have the church in FL that had the koran burning, and do i really need to find links of pastors calling for America as a christian nation to uphold christian law, like say on abortion, nope no christians trying to change the law to make it more like their bible.
I'm not saying it's legal anywhere. Not yet. Thank God it's not.
But there is an effort here to work it in, under the guise of the 1st amendment, and also in Australia, and Europe.
Even if you think the "conservatives screaming" is just crying wolf, if you'll recall there was actually a wolf in that story...
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm hoping that you'll challenge yourself to read things you'd normally dismiss. Read it, and if after you still think there's no cause for concern, then fine.
|
|
Nothing about western nations using Sharia to condone honor killings or stonings.
You're right. Nothing about killings or stonings. Just rape.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarme d-judges-ruling/
FULL DISCLOSURE: common sense prevailed and the case was overturned.
And yes yes, I know the link is to Fox News, but you can find this New Jersey case on other sites.
There's also a Florida case where Sharia Law was upheld in a US Court to distribute an estate. I can't remember the details (and I'm too lazy to look it up. Sorry, lunchtime. I'm hungry.) :)
Yup one group represents all muslims, if you'll excuse me, my westboro baptist church membership has to be renewed because I'm christian. And actually, the guy from Westboro if his son is to be believed routinely beats and subjugates the women and children of his family well. And even if you discount them you have the church in FL that had the koran burning, and do i really need to find links of pastors calling for America as a christian nation to uphold christian law, like say on abortion, nope no christians trying to change the law to make it more like their bible.Heres one for Australia
LINK
Hyperbole fixes everything!
One day you'll realize not everything is black and white. While not all peoples in a certain group are representd by a small minority of that group, maybe, just effing maybe, that small majority of a group is the one who has a legal team, and has the money to finance it's legal battles, to make their rediculous ideas as legal as they can while following the very same laws that are supposed to protect us from that crap.Look at all the horrible crap Scientologists have done to persecute people in Florida, because they could hide behind religious freedom.
Any religion with a militant agenda can do this.
But ya know, we shouldn't look into this or question it because someone might get offended or be branded a (enter faith here)-o-phobe.
|
|
Yup one group represents all muslims, if you'll excuse me, my westboro baptist church membership has to be renewed because I'm christian. And actually, the guy from Westboro if his son is to be believed routinely beats and subjugates the women and children of his family well. And even if you discount them you have the church in FL that had the koran burning, and do i really need to find links of pastors calling for America as a christian nation to uphold christian law, like say on abortion, nope no christians trying to change the law to make it more like their bible.
And notice the LOUD voice from Christians saying "Westboro is not us. Those guys are crazy idiots."
And there ARE plenty of Muslims that condem the actions of terrorists and strict followers of Sharia Law (I work with several of them). Problem is they SEEM (and perception is big) to be a minority.
Heck, even in the Florida Koran burning case, several of the local Imams came out and said "It's cool. That's our holy book and you're trying to prove a point about how violent our religion is, but this is America. You have a right to burn a book if you want. We disagree, but it's your right to make a statement." (NOTE: obviously not the true quote, but you get the idea).
Note also that those rules about stoning your wife in the Bible? Those were from the Old Testament. The coming of Jesus in the New Testament threw all those out the window. Just saying.
|
|
For the record, I still support Herman Cain, and his fiscal policy. I'm just staunchly against the idea that Muslims are trying to subvert our culture and institute their own religious law, just like the gays, the catholics, and the blacks, and the jews, and every other religion and culture that isn't the mainstream at some point in the past.