M-103 has passed. And what today has changed for the better?

[Everwake]

Why is Islam singled out in this motion, when it fits under the umbrella of religious discrimination with the other faiths? Or did they just add the other faiths into the motion to try and disguise the motion as a catch-all prevention and not just a "be nice to Islam" action?

[Kalis]

I suspect he's looking for something along the lines of a poll that shows you how many Christians in the US, for example, support a Bible-based set of laws. I can find polls on whether or not being gay should be accepted by society (60% against). I can find polls on whether or not Christianity should be the official religion of the land (57% among republicans). But none of those are actually the same question. I think it would be interesting to ask questions like "should we criminalize being gay" and "should we make biblical laws the laws of the land." Christianity is very diverse, however, so having it broken down by sub-group would also be interesting. In any event, I think PosPosPos is asking (in an indirect and somewhat abrasive way) "is this any different than Christians in the US already feel?" And if the answer is no, then does it matter that Muslims feel the same way?

I would find it highly surprising if you could get US Christians wanting to scrap secular laws like the 2nd Amendment, in anything like numbers approaching 25%.

You would probably find it easier to get them to agree to inserting the 2nd Amendment into the Bible.

Commandment 11: "Thou shalt own a gun"

- - - Updated - - -

The democrats are right wing, you don't see me calling them fascists. Oops, another frivolous Trumpet argument thrown out of the window.


I am well used to Trumpets who identify as something they are not to.

As I do not support Trump, that would disqualify me from being a Trump supporter, would it not? Or does logic not have a place in your worldview?

[Everwake]

Evangelical Christians in America exert a major influence on healthcare and education policy in the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Muslim clerics make random troll rulings from their shit hovels in dirt poor third world countries. Who is doing more harm here?

Well, healthcare doesn't follow biblical standards and the bible isn't taught in public schools, so how much influence do you think evangelical christians actually have? Moderation keeps the world afloat.

[DSRilk]

I would find it highly surprising if you could get US Christians want to scrap secular laws like the 2nd Amendment, in anything like numbers approaching 25%.

You would probably find it easier to get them to agree to inserting the 2nd Amendment into the Bible.

Cammandment 11: "Thou shalt own a gun"

My point is, many Christians feel the same way about their religion, gays, and several other topics as Muslims. There is a percentage of them that believe our laws should reflect those religious beliefs. Should we keep them from coming in as well? Should we remove the ones that are already here? Basically, if we're going to base entry to our country on the basis of one's philosophy, what should actually be on that test? Religion varies far too greatly by individual, even amongst Muslims, to draw a line based on religious affiliation alone. Note that I am very concerned about bringing people into this country that don't support Western values - especially considering how many are already here (most of whom are Christian) - I'm just not sure there's a good answer to the problem.

[Mafic]

Evangelical Christians haven't influenced US politics since the mid 90's and their last triumph was during the Reagan era. At this point people are grasping as straws to create a false equivalency.

[DSRilk]

The democrats are right wing, you don't see me calling them fascists.

Sadly, many of them are these days...

[Mafic]

My point is, many Christians feel the same way about their religion, gays, and several other topics as Muslims. There is a percentage of them that believe our laws should reflect those religious beliefs. Should we keep them from coming in as well? Should we remove the ones that are already here? Basically, if we're going to base entry to our country on the basis of one's philosophy, what should actually be on that test? Religion varies far too greatly by individual, even amongst Muslims, to draw a line based on religious affiliation alone. Note that I am very concerned about bringing people into this country that don't support Western values - especially considering how many are already here (most of whom are Christian) - I'm just not sure there's a good answer to the problem.

The basis of test is simple.

Do you accept the constitution or do you accept Sharia law?

America was founded by various persecuted Christians fleeing to the North American continent. That is why US has a strong inclination to protect minority traditions and free speech. Islam is a dominant religion of the world with rigid laws more so than Judaism or Christianity.

[DSRilk]

Evangelical Christians haven't influenced US politics since the mid 90's and their last triumph was during the Reagan era. At this point people are grasping as straws to create a false equivalency.

<cough>George Bush</cough>

[Kalis]

My point is, many Christians feel the same way about their religion, gays, and several other topics as Muslims. There is a percentage of them that believe our laws should reflect those religious beliefs. Should we keep them from coming in as well? Should we remove the ones that are already here? Basically, if we're going to base entry to our country on the basis of one's philosophy, what should actually be on that test? Religion varies far too greatly by individual, even amongst Muslims, to draw a line based on religious affiliation alone. Note that I am very concerned about bringing people into this country that don't support Western values - especially considering how many are already here (most of whom are Christian) - I'm just not sure there's a good answer to the problem.

Can you provide any data on it? "There is a percentage of them..." is not exactly enough to base any discussion on.

If you are talking about a few percent of a demographic, then pragmatism says no group is without its nutters, but when you start getting into quarters or thirds, then it is somewhat different, as that stops being a handful of whackjobs and is a mainstream stance.

[DSRilk]

The basis of test is simple.

Do you accept the constitution or do you accept Sharia law?

America was founded by various persecuted Christians fleeing to the North American continent. That is why US has a strong inclination to protect minority traditions and free speech. Islam is a dominant religion of the world with rigid laws more so than Judaism or Christianity.

It's not about "accept." Ask Christians if Biblical authority trumps the Constitution.

People's reading of the Constitution is very different. It's like State's rights. People tend to like whatever version happens to agree with their personal sentiments. Some people think the Constitution affords equal rights to gays. Some believe it doesn't. Everyone, Christians and Atheists alike, also all abide by the current implementation of the Constitution while attempting to change the laws to better reflect their own outlook. Muslims coming here do no different.

As a side note, Judaism has very strict laws as well, actually - it's just that most Jews don't adhere to most of them any more.

As a second side note, people came to America fleeing religious persecution. It was founded as a nation, however, by a bunch of deists (for the most part).

- - - Updated - - -

Can you provide any data on it? "There is a percentage of them..." is not exactly enough to base any discussion on.

If you are talking about a few percent of a demographic, then pragmatism says no group is without its nutters, but when you start getting into quarters or thirds, then it is somewhat different, as that stops being a handful of whackjobs and is a mainstream stance.

I'd like to see what the percentage is. I can't find polls on it. I can only find polls on softball style questions like "should society accept gays" (60% against) and "should Christianity be the State religion" (60% for). Both of those numbers are disturbing to me on their own. How many translate to "should we encode this into law?" I don't know. I wish someone would actually ask.

I agree with your "nutters" position. My concern, however, is that a pretty large percentage of that I know personally fall into the "let's make it the law" category. Anecdotal isn't factual, but it does make me wonder. And that's the thing. The 40% of Muslims numbers make me very uneasy. The last thing I think the US needs is MORE people who are like that. I'm just saying it may not be a fair comparison when our own religious citizenry may well fall into similar numbers. If you have stats that say they don't, I'd love to see them. I have no numbers either way, and can't find anyone asking the exact questions. I just find really grim numbers on related questions.

[Mafic]

It's not about "accept." Ask Christians if Biblical authority trumps the Constitution.

People's reading of the Constitution is very different. It's like State's rights. People tend to like whatever version happens to agree with their personal sentiments. Some people think the Constitution affords equal rights to gays. Some believe it doesn't. Everyone, Christians and Atheists alike, also all abide by the current implementation of the Constitution while attempting to change the laws to better reflect their own outlook. Muslims coming here do no different.

As a side note, Judaism has very strict laws as well, actually - it's just that most Jews don't adhere to most of them any more.

As a second side note, people came to America fleeing religious persecution. It was founded as a nation, however, by a bunch of deists (for the most part).

A big part of the US constitution has a basis on Judeo-Christian values mixed in with Babylonian laws, Greco-Roman laws, and ancient Persian laws.

When an American Christian says Biblical authority trumps US constitution they are talking about religious beliefs not law of the land. Sharia law is a law of the land in all Muslim majority countries and Christianity doesn't have an equivalent to it.

Not even in Christian dominant countries like Greece or Italy will you find an equivalent.

That is why your false equivalency fails.

Next, Judaism doesn't have rigid laws as Islam, because it is an older Abrahmaic religion based on tribal cohesion of the various Jewish tribes which requires some level of flexibility to keep together the tribes of Israel. So, it requires a level of compromise and flexibility.

- - - Updated - - -

<cough>George Bush</cough>

Bush wasn't elected twice by Evangelicals. Bush was elected twice by Reagan Democrats and centrist Democrats that abandoned the party.

[Kalis]

I agree with your "nutters" position. My concern, however, is that a pretty large percentage of that I know personally fall into the "let's make it the law" category. Anecdotal isn't factual, but it does make me wonder. And that's the thing. The 40% of Muslims numbers make me very uneasy. The last thing I think the US needs is MORE people who are like that. I'm just saying it may not be a fair comparison when our own religious citizenry may well fall into similar numbers. If you have stats that say they don't, I'd love to see them. I have no numbers either way, and can't find anyone asking the exact questions. I just find really grim numbers on related questions.

I do not typically read about stats on American views, as I am British.

One of the articles I read compared Muslim views to views held by the wider population and the differences were stark, e.g. 52% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal compared to 5% of British people in general - considering that Muslims make up about 5% of the British population, then I presume half of those in the first 5% statistic are Muslim, which makes it even lower for non-Muslims.

Although we in Britain effectively have a state religion (Anglican Christianity), we are not a particularly religious nation, partly because a large chunk of our more extreme Christians left...to go to the US. That said, they tend to be more religious in Scotland and even more so in Northern Ireland.

[Stacyrect]

The basis of test is simple.

Do you accept the constitution or do you accept Sharia law?

America was founded by various persecuted Christians fleeing to the North American continent. That is why US has a strong inclination to protect minority traditions and free speech. Islam is a dominant religion of the world with rigid laws more so than Judaism or Christianity.

Contrary to popular belief most of the founding fathers were not Christians or were in fact Athiests.

[DSRilk]

A big part of the US constitution has a basis on Judeo-Christian values mixed in with Babylonian laws, Greco-Roman laws, and ancient Persian laws.

When an American Christian says Biblical authority trumps US constitution they are talking about religious beliefs not law of the land. Sharia law is a law of the land in all Muslim majority countries and Christianity doesn't have an equivalent to it.

Not even in Christian dominant countries like Greece or Italy will you find an equivalent.

That is why your false equivalency fails.

Next, Judaism doesn't have rigid laws as Islam, because it is an older Abrahmaic religion based on tribal cohesion of the various Jewish tribes which requires some level of flexibility to keep together the tribes of Israel. So, it requires a level of compromise and flexibility.

- - - Updated - - -



Bush wasn't elected twice by Evangelicals. Bush was elected twice by Reagan Democrats and centrist Democrats that abandoned the party.

Jewish law was very explicitly laid out. Jews stopped following parts of it as is the natural progression of all religions over the course of thousands of years. Islam is very young, in those terms. Many Muslims no longer follow various parts of its laws. And just as many Christians no longer follow a literal interpretation of the Bible (though many still do in the US), more and more Muslims (especially as they grow up in non-Caliphate nations) do and will follow a less literal interpretation of their religious texts. It's just the way religions work.

It is not a false equivalency just because the Bible has no specific name for its rules. If you listed out the rules a conservative Christians follows as a directive from their holy text, and then ask them if those laws should be codified... that's equivalency. And if you do that, I think you'll find an unpleasant number of them would support a lot of the anti-gay and pro-prayer rules supported in similar fashion by their Muslim equivalents. Do you know how long and hard the fight was to get prayer removed from public schools? And it's still have the silly "moment of silence" nonsense as way to edge in what they can in places where they can get away with it. There is no secular reason for that at all. If they could mandate actual prayer, they absolutely would - it's what they tried to do.

As to Bush's election... I lived through it. Rove and his strategy were all over the news. It's not a secret. The entire strategy was "turn out the conservative base." The core of that base was Bush's fellow born-again Christians and other bible literalists. Rove's entire strategy was not to go to the middle, it was to get all the people that would only ever vote Republican to get out to the polls, and the churches were a notable part of that movement.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not typically read about stats on American views, as I am British.

One of the articles I read compared Muslim views to views held by the wider population and the differences were stark, e.g. 52% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal compared to 5% of British people in general - considering that Muslims make up about 5% of the British population, then I presume half of those in the first 5% statistic are Muslim, which makes it even lower for non-Muslims.

Although we in Britain effectively have a state religion (Anglican Christianity), we are not a particularly religious nation, partly because a large chunk of our more extreme Christians left...to go to the US. That said, they tend to be more religious in Scotland and even more so in Northern Ireland.

Yes, Christian Europe in general is different than Christianity in the US. They're much more old-school here. The number of anti-gay people here in the states is far, far greater than 5% - and they're pretty much all Christian (though I'm sure many Muslims agree).

[Deleted]

Islam needs more laws to protect it from Critics because it's very much a Religion that can be criticized alot.

[Cthulhu 2020]

My numbers are based on surveys conducted of Muslims.

Are they now.

[Kalis]

Are they now.

Yeah they are, or do you think that the overthrow of secular legal systems in favour of a theocracy is a Western value?

[Wikiy]

We cannot pretend that we understand people with religious conscience. We Christians and atheists have rational conscience, and that creates insurmountable chasm between us and adherents of magic cults and all other religions.

"We Christians and atheists"? Christians are sometimes more confusing than Muslims.

[Endus]

Yeah they are, or do you think that the overthrow of secular legal systems in favour of a theocracy is a Western value?

How many times have Christian groups opposed abortion rights on fundamentally religious grounds?
How many people have called the USA a "Christian nation"?
How many Americans have been concerned about the faith of the President? Not just Obama, mind you; JFK being Catholic was a problem, back in the day.

The Roman Catholic Church has hundreds of tribunals in the USA that hear cases under Canon Law.
There are Rabbinical courts throughout the USA as well, serving similar purposes.
Mormon disciplinary councils are religious courts by another name.

If we want to move outside the USA, for a moment, how about the fact that the Anglican Church is the State church of the UK, and the Queen is the titular head of that church?

The entire reason that concepts like "separation of church and state" have ever come to be was because of how strongly Westerners wanted to integrate the two concepts, and enshrine their religious views as the State's. If that wasn't a factor to Western society, we wouldn't need such a concept in the first place; it would be like passing a law to prevent people painting their house neon pink. Unless someone's actually doing that, or threatening to at least, there'd be no call for such a law.


And this is without mentioning that you're misrepresenting the concept of sharia law, to begin with. It isn't automatically an attempt to create a theocracy. First, many Muslims don't even want sharia law. Second, many of those who do only want it to apply to Muslims. And many of those only want it to be a voluntary system of arbitration, like those catholic and rabbinical courts mentioned above. I see absolutely no justification for denying Muslims the same legal favor that people of other faiths already enjoy, just because they're Muslims.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yeah they are, or do you think that the overthrow of secular legal systems in favour of a theocracy is a Western value?

Let's ask our residential conservatives.

For the record, I don't think so, but neither do the majority of Muslim Americans. I guess we just integrate better? Which makes me lul at all the Americans who say that immigrants don't integrate here... when they do spectacularly.

- - - Updated - - -

How many times have Christian groups opposed abortion rights on fundamentally religious grounds?
How many people have called the USA a "Christian nation"?
How many Americans have been concerned about the faith of the President? Not just Obama, mind you; JFK being Catholic was a problem, back in the day.

The Roman Catholic Church has hundreds of tribunals in the USA that hear cases under Canon Law.
There are Rabbinical courts throughout the USA as well, serving similar purposes.
Mormon disciplinary councils are religious courts by another name.

If we want to move outside the USA, for a moment, how about the fact that the Anglican Church is the State church of the UK, and the Queen is the titular head of that church?

The entire reason that concepts like "separation of church and state" have ever come to be was because of how strongly Westerners wanted to integrate the two concepts, and enshrine their religious views as the State's. If that wasn't a factor to Western society, we wouldn't need such a concept in the first place; it would be like passing a law to prevent people painting their house neon pink. Unless someone's actually doing that, or threatening to at least, there'd be no call for such a law.


And this is without mentioning that you're misrepresenting the concept of sharia law, to begin with. It isn't automatically an attempt to create a theocracy. First, many Muslims don't even want sharia law. Second, many of those who do only want it to apply to Muslims. And many of those only want it to be a voluntary system of arbitration, like those catholic and rabbinical courts mentioned above. I see absolutely no justification for denying Muslims the same legal favor that people of other faiths already enjoy, just because they're Muslims.

As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, political beliefs seem almost entirely based off of geo-political climate, rather than religion itself. Christians in primarily Muslim nations only have slightly less draconian laws and views of women and gays than their Muslim counterparts. Slightly.

I really fail... well scratch that, I know exactly why people fail to realize this. It's a lot easier to shove your biases onto a certain group, even one that spans the entire globe, if you seem to believe they're on giant homogeneous blob that all think the same. Someone who thinks in such absolute terms is only outting themselves as someone who isn't dishonest, as that would require an intent to deceive, but rather a closed mind who refuses to learn.