Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: basic humanity and decency
I don't think you are correct about French nationality law. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law It seems pretty clear to me that there has never been a significant impediment to a person born in France to residents of France acquiring French Nationality. There seems to have been aminor impediment for a short while a few years ago but not enough to justify your conclusions.
Anyone born in Britian to a resident (as opposed to a tourist or other short term visitor) is British by default and there are still problems with non-assimilation here.
This is the same bullshit that comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME there's a new influx of immigrants from a particular country. Remember the Know Nothing party? They said the same thing about those darn Catholics who would bring their awful religion to the US.
Except that history shows that Islam is different from all those other groups.
Look at the middle east today.
All those so called islamic countries were originally conquered by the sword. Before that most of the region was Christian except Persia which was Zoroastrian. Interestingly Zorastrianism is making a comeback in (what should be) Kurdistan. Further east Afghanistan was largely Buddhist and India had a mixture of were Hindus, Buddhists and a few Christians.
All of the middle east and a large part of India was initially taken by violence and then, over centuries, reinforced by a system of apartheid which rewarded conversion to Islam and penalised anyone who tried to leave it.
Even in countries that were not initially taken by violence the story is not good.
Here is an Indonesian former muslim speaking:
"For thousands of years my country (Indonesia) was a Hindu Buddhist kingdom. The last Hindu king was kind enough to give a tax exempt property for the first Muslim missionary to live and to preach his religion. Slowly the followers of the new religion were growing, and after they became so strong the kingdom was attacked, those who refused to become Muslims had to flee for their life to the neighboring island of Bali or to a high mountain of Tengger, where they have been able to keep their religion until now. Slowly from the Hindu Buddhist Kingdom, Indonesia became the largest Islamic country in the world. If there is any lesson to be learnt by Americans at all, the history of my country is worth pondering upon. We are not hate mongering, bigoted people; rather, we are freedom loving, democracy loving and human loving people. We just don’t want this freedom and democracy to be taken away from us by our ignorance and misguided ‘political correctness’, and the pretension of tolerance.”
When you are so US centric youdo of course miss the problem that exists on a global scale.
The US is only 1% Muslim - so on its face you would expect that only 1 in 100 terror attacks that take place would be by Muslims - but yet if you look at actual attacks where multiple "stranger" lives were lost (where there is a single victim known to the attacker then it may well be just one of those I really like you murders) you will find that it is far more than 1 in 100 over recent years.
Of course the US has stupidly lax laws about guns and explosives and a law enforcement arm that is more interested in creating plots than solving them (not to mention a recent president who had an agenda of defending islam and smearing Christianity een though he officially professed it).
BUT the real issue here isn't about what happens in the West. It is about what happens in places where Islam rules.
At the end of the cold war the security services couldn't bring themselves to give up Russia as an enemy. Consequently they continued to back political movements that were at root nationalist, anti-Russian.
Russia initially (during the Yeltsin years and the early Putin years) tried to get on side with the west - but it became clear to them after a while that they were getting nowhere. That is why we have seen a more aggressive stance in recent years.
Now Trump to his credit seems to want to reverse that but he has been far from smart in his approach.
The security service really do need to be cleaned from anti-Russian prejudice but this is not the way to go about it.
"Even worse is the opinion that God allows people to lead a sinful life on earth in order to punish them eternally after death. This is a blasphemous and perverted understanding of God, a calumny of God: ‘If someone says that He has put up with them here on earth in order that His patience may be known with the idea that He would punish them mercilessly, such a person thinks in an unspeakably blasphemous way about God, due to his infantile way of thinking: he is removing from God His kindness,
goodness and compassion, all the things because of which He truly bears with sinners and wicked men. Such a person is attributing to God enslavement to passion, supposing that He has not consented to their being chastised here, seeing that He has prepared them for a much greater misfortune, in exchange for a short
lived patience. Not only does such a person fail to attribute something praiseworthy to God, but he also calumniates Him’"
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword.
He was predicting the reaction of opponents not advocating actions for hs followers - cf what happened when Jesus was arrested.
Any city...to be burned. (John 15:6)
See my response above these are all issues along the same lines. They are not commandments for Christians to act in violent ways.
As for the "book burning" well - not all books are necessarily good - like any technology they can be used for good and evil.
As for your last quotes - well they are a general condemnation of immorality - not specifically directed at any particular group.
It is true that the bible specifies a rather restricted form of sexual morality (which just about everyone fails on) - but then again remember the story of Jesus with the woman caught in adultery - vs the incident with the money changers - rather shows where His priorities lay.
The same is true of Christians. Keep studying that history.
Not the same at all. IN islam the interpretation of the texts changes. This does not happen in Christianity. It is true that the behaviour of Christians deteriorated when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity - but the bad behaviour came from the secular authorities and was frequently opposed by the church.
Also it took 300 years for this problem to arise in Christianity. It happened within 15 years in Islam.
Just like George W -who attacked Iraq on "terrorism" grounds when (bad though he was) Saddam had never been responsible for terrorism directly against the US - if anything he had restrained the jihadis in Iraq.
Now consider this: Only a few territories have ever been de-islamized and many territories once under muslim control have had the minority (orignally majority) populations cleansed out slowly - often over centuries.