Social-Cons are scared to DEATH of Muslims. Why?

[Matt Collins]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?


The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Thoughts? Ideas?

[tremendoustie]

Their talking heads on the radio and TV fearmonger until it seeps into their skulls.

[awake]

Multiculturalism (forced immigration) and democracy is not a good combination... it never ends well. One group will use the government guns against the other and vise versa.

As for Sharia Law coming to America; people need to worry about Marshal Law first.

[LibertyVox]

Oh Brother Matt... why you do this?
Simple.


Man sieht nur das, was man weiß.
You only see what you know.´
~Goethe

[Humanae Libertas]

Social NeoCons are also afraid of Freedom. :eek:

[sratiug]

Anyone who claim to have the "word of God" written down is a God damned liar and very dangerous.

[RedStripe]

Social conservatives are afraid of anyone who might upstage them in the game of "who can be the most repressive, backwards people on the planet?"

[oyarde]

Social NeoCons are also afraid of Freedom. :eek:

Alright , out of curiousity , how would you define a social neo con ?

[heavenlyboy34]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?


The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Thoughts? Ideas?

Propaganda works on the simple-minded very well. ;) :(

[Zippyjuan]

Politics of fear need their boogie men, dear. That can be commies or Jews or Mexicans or Muslims or who knows who too. What really matters, in all of their pratters, is that the badmen are nothing like you. So stay in your houses, lock up the kids and spouses, and let nobody in. Unless he says he's Republican. Now go to your churches and learn all your verses- so you can be righteous too!

[oyarde]

Multiculturalism (forced immigration) and democracy is not a good combination... it never ends well. One group will use the government guns against the other and vise versa.

As for Sharia Law coming to America; people need to worry about Marshal Law first.

You are correct Marshal law or sharia law are going to be unpopular now matter how you slice it , but the former could more easily happen.

[AuH20]

A fair share of Muslims unfortunately live in the 6th century. I'm not a social con but I can clearly comprehend the distaste. Running around crying "jihad", covering up your women from head to toe and killing homosexuals in broad daylight, isn't exactly going to win one respect points in the realm of western civilization strata. Let's be serious here. Is the venom directed towards Islam over the top? Absolutely. Is this distaste unfounded? Of course not.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I thought I cleared this up last month.

Marshall Law
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41383000/jpg/_41383286_gunsmoke_ap.jpg

Martial Law
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeCPYLLgPkY/SRx7UAtkDbI/AAAAAAAAAVI/4YH3mZ-R6KM/s400/Martial+Law.jpg


killing homosexuals in clear daylight, isn't exactly going to win one respect points in the realm of western civilization strata.

How about under cover of darkness?

[oyarde]

A fair share of Muslims unfortunately live in the 6th century. I'm not a social con but I can clearly comprehend the distaste. Running around crying "jihad", covering up your women from head to toe and killing homosexuals in broad daylight, isn't exactly going to win one respect points in the realm of western civilization strata. Let's be serious here. Is the venom directed towards Islam over the top? Absolutely. Is this distaste unfounded? Of course not.

Sadly , this does seem to apply to the Saudi and Iranian leadership. Any citizen anywhere should be wary of them. That said , there are plenty of other places ( most ) that this is not true . Education is the only way out of anything . Maybe someone should expand on all the other countries that are not like that.

[oyarde]

Sadly , this does seem to apply to the Saudi and Iranian leadership. Any citizen anywhere should be wary of them. That said , there are plenty of other places ( most ) that this is not true . Education is the only way out of anything . Maybe someone should expand on all the other countries that are not like that.

Ibaghdadi can give some examples if he has time.

[AuH20]

Sadly , this does seem to apply to the Saudi and Iranian leadership. Any citizen anywhere should be wary of them. That said , there are plenty of other places ( most ) that this is not true . Education is the only way out of anything . Maybe someone should expand on all the other countries that are not like that.

Another problem is lack of concern from Muslims who aren't of that stripe. They are relatively silent about such matters.

[LibertyVox]

Another problem is lack of concern from Muslims who aren't of that stripe. They are relatively silent about such matters.

They are not. Or ever have been. This is a meaningless statement.
Anyways, the moslems who are in the US are hardly a sample from those cultures. They tend to be highly educated and have a very low crime rate or divorce rate etc..

So this is not about a fear of people who come with "those traditions". It is as Ron Paul put simply an irrational fear. A phobia. It's bigotry.

[thehunter]

Responding to the original question in this thread, it's good to note that often hysteria has a nugget of truth in it. After all, it's not just US socons who are worried about Muslim assimilation, the FRENCH are passing every law they can think of short of driving every Muslim out of the country. While we can debate methodology and attitudes, there's sufficient evidence to suggest that a Muslim voter base would try to institute their own way of doing things much like liberals, socons (and yes!) libertarians would if they had the votes to do so. In fact, historically that is exactly what happened (when votes were soldiers, of course!), what the Qur'an can reasonably be assumed to teach (Qur’an:8:39 is a juicy nugget) and what Muslim leaders are calling for today. In fact, trying to ignore such evidence can be considered just as crazy in my book!

[oyarde]

Seriously... Sharia law, come on, only two nations in the world have complete Sharia law.

That is correct.

[oyarde]

Seriously... Sharia law, come on, only two nations in the world have complete Sharia law.

Although , Somalia will be half way there any day .

[specsaregood]

Thoughts? Ideas?

It has now been established that the reason is: they are all closetted homosexuals and since they know muslim societies are not friendly to homosexuals it means they must eradicate the muslims.

[Sola_Fide]

I certainly am not on board with the neo-con social interventionists.


But I think any student of history needs to look at the foundations of law and culture in societies. It was Murray Rothbard who said it was Christianity (since the time of the Reformation) that put emphasis on the individual as opposed to the State. I think there is something about the foundations of Muslim theology and jurisprudence that is fundamentally against the concept of individual liberty and equal rights.

[Jace]

Marshall Law
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41383000/jpg/_41383286_gunsmoke_ap.jpg

Martial Law
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeCPYLLgPkY/SRx7UAtkDbI/AAAAAAAAAVI/4YH3mZ-R6KM/s400/Martial+Law.jpg


lol! Awesome.

Do you have one of those for "Loser" vs. "Looser"?

[LibertyVox]

I certainly am not on board with the neo-con social interventionists.


But I think any student of history needs to look at the foundations of law and culture in societies. It was Murray Rothbard who said it was Christianity (since the time of the Reformation) that put emphasis on the individual as opposed to the State. I think there is something about the foundations of Muslim theology and jurisprudence that is fundamentally against the concept of individual liberty and equal rights.

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

[Jace]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

And the Aztecs built wonderful pyramids.

[LibertyVox]

And the Aztecs built wonderful pyramids.

Don't quite follow you ...

[speciallyblend]

It has now been established that the reason is: they are all closetted homosexuals and since they know muslim societies are not friendly to homosexuals it means they must eradicate the muslims.

thread winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Sola_Fide]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity.

In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.


Yeah. I know man. I've heard all the propaganda too. I understand why they say what they say about the "glorious" past of Islam.



But let's look at reality. In Muslim courts, a woman's testimony carries 1/4 of a man's testimony. That is reality bro.



All I'm saying is that different social foundations provide different views of Liberty....some produce only tyranny.

[CSJscience]

Not really. Religion is up to the interpretation of the individual. Any reformer can take the same text and argue the exact same point in favor of liberty. This is exactly what the enlightenment period was--reformation of Christianity. In fact if anything, Islam was the most liberal ideology of its time. It was the reformation of the Arabian society in the 7th century, making it one of the world's most liberal, tolerant, productive and scientific of all ages.

The vast majority of today's Islamic leaders are not "liberal" in any sense of the word.

Islamic ideology as practiced is for the most part based on conservative religious beliefs that are diametrically opposed to liberalism/libertarianism. While I think opposing beliefs can be tolerated in civil society, statist and anti-libertarian actions or institutions should not be supported by libertarians.

While it's true there are some *rare* quasi-liberal strands of Islamic thought, these are very small minority views in today's Islam and far from mainstream Islam.

Therefore I don't see how a libertarian can support or condone those actions of conservative Islamic activists, any more than those of socialists or Marxists.

What bothers me about this whole debate is what's not being said...

Why is Obama and the government chiming in on this?

Is this government property? If so, why is any religious institution being built there.

If not government property -- why won't Obama shut up and let the property owners and/or local community decide? If the property owners want to have a mosque there, despite local protests, then that's their right. If they don't want to have it there, that's their right too.

In my community there are restrictions on mosques, in the sense that the Islamic call to prayer has limits and they must adhere to all other property restrictions (same as churches and businesses) etc.

What the heck does Ron Paul or Obama have to do with it?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

What's ironic about these religious kook Christians in the US is that they actually believe in a book which promotes something very similar to Sharia law. If these mindless cattle really want old testament rule of law, they should get their asses over to Saudi Arabia.

You know what? I say we bring on the old testament rule of law. I'll be the first in line to chop off the head of one of these backward redneck assholes the second they break sky man's ridiculous rules.

[ChaosControl]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?

I'm not, I don't know why some are. Probably too reliant on talk radio and all the anti-muslim pro-war nonsense it spews. I always find it funny when social conservatives call me a liberal when I criticize their pro-war / anti-non-christian-religious views, when I'm probably a lot more of a traditionalist than they are.

[ChaosControl]

Social conservatives are afraid of anyone who might upstage them in the game of "who can be the most repressive, backwards people on the planet?"

I think social liberal regressives have them beat on that.

[Jace]

The vast majority of today's Islamic leaders are not "liberal" in any sense of the word.

Islamic ideology as practiced is for the most part based on conservative religious beliefs that are diametrically opposed to liberalism/libertarianism. While I think opposing beliefs can be tolerated in civil society, statist and anti-libertarian actions or institutions should not be supported by libertarians.

While it's true there are some *rare* quasi-liberal strands of Islamic thought, these are very small minority views in today's Islam and far from mainstream Islam.

Therefore I don't see how a libertarian can support or condone those actions of conservative Islamic activists, any more than those of socialists or Marxists.

What bothers me about this whole debate is what's not being said...

Why is Obama and the government chiming in on this?

Is this government property? If so, why is any religious institution being built there.

If not government property -- why won't Obama shut up and let the property owners and/or local community decide? If the property owners want to have a mosque there, despite local protests, then that's their right. If they don't want to have it there, that's their right too.

In my community there are restrictions on mosques, in the sense that the Islamic call to prayer has limits and they must adhere to all other property restrictions (same as churches and businesses) etc.

What the heck does Ron Paul or Obama have to do with it?

I agree with you.

The Muslim religion is incompatible with any other religion, or atheism. Violence is part of the religion. Heretics and apostates are to be killed.

Not that Muslims shouldn't have equal rights here and be free. But we will reach a tipping point sooner or later. We could put a stop to it if we just ended immigration, like we did in the 1920s when ethnic politics were at a boiling point. Immigration stopped and we had 40 years of assimiliation. I think now we need about a 100 year moratorium if we are to retain our American way of life.

The Hindus and Muslims of India are countrymen, but they busily massacre each other decade after decade, century after century. Maybe that's where we are headed. Someone will get offended and then light a train on fire and burn up 200 people and that will just be the society we live in, like the Indians. Multicultural. I think some people promote Islamic mass immigration into the West because they want the violence here.

[CSJscience]

What's ironic about these religious kook Christians in the US is that they actually believe in a book which promotes something very similar to Sharia law.

Obviously you are clueless if you believe that.

[klamath]

As someone else pointed out the fear is far overblown and directed at all muslims but it also didn't just happen in a vacuumn as the Rushdie Fatwa is a good example.



The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world because of what was perceived as an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The title refers to a disputed Muslim tradition that is related in the book. According to this tradition, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses who used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the "Satanic" verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities. (11 total: India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, and Venezuela)

On 14 February 1989, a fatwā requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety). A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for years afterward. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

The publication of the book and the fatwā sparked violence around the world, with bookstores firebombed. Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.[note 1] Many more people died in riots in Third World countries. Despite the danger posed by the fatwā, Rushdie made a public appearance at London's Wembley Stadium on 11 August 1993 during a concert by U2. In 2010, U2 bassist Adam Clayton recalled that "[lead vocalist] Bono had been calling Salman Rushdie from the stage every night on the Zoo TV tour. When we played Wembley, Salman showed up in person and the stadium erupted. You [could] tell from [drummer Larry Mullen, Jr.'s face that we weren't expecting it. Salman was a regular visitor after that. He had a backstage pass and he used it as often as possible. For a man who was supposed to be in hiding, it was remarkably easy to see him around the place."[25]

On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, the Iranian government, then headed by Mohammad Khatami, gave a public commitment that it would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."[26][27]

Hardliners in Iran have continued to reaffirm the death sentence.[28] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwā was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[29] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[30] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwā on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it,[29] and the person who issued it – Ayatollah Khomeini – has been dead since 1989.

Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him. He said, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat."[31] Despite the threats on Rushdie, he has publicly said that his family has never been threatened and that his mother (who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life) even received outpourings of support.[32]

A former bodyguard to Rushdie, Ron Evans, planned to publish a book recounting the behaviour of the author during the time he was in hiding. Evans claimed that Rushdie tried to profit financially from the fatwa and was suicidal, but Rushdie dismissed the book as a "bunch of lies" and took legal action against Ron Evans, his co-author and their publisher.[33] On 26 August 2008 Rushdie received an apology at the High Court in London from all three parties.[34]

[edit] Failed assassination attempt and Hezbollah's comments
On 3 August 1989, while Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh was priming a book bomb loaded with RDX explosives in a hotel in Paddington, Central London, the bomb exploded prematurely, taking out two floors of the hotel and killing Mazeh. A previously unknown Lebanese group, the Organization of the Mujahidin of Islam, said he died preparing an attack "on the apostate Rushdie". There is a shrine in Tehran's Behesht-e Zahra cemetery for Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh that says he was "Martyred in London, 3 August 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie." Mazeh's mother was invited to relocate to Iran, and the Islamic World Movement of Martyrs' Commemoration built his shrine in the cemetery that holds thousands of Iranian soldiers slain in the Iran–Iraq War.[26] During the 2006 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwā against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that."[35] James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation testified before the United States Congress that a "March 1989" (sic) explosion in Britain was a Hezbollah attempt to assassinate Rushdie which failed when a bomb exploded prematurely, killing a Hezbollah activist in London.[36]

[LibertyVox]

Yeah. I know man. I've heard all the propaganda too. I understand why they say what they say about the "glorious" past of Islam.



But let's look at reality. In Muslim courts, a woman's testimony carries 1/4 of a man's testimony. That is reality bro.



All I'm saying is that different social foundations provide different views of Liberty....some produce only tyranny.

I think it is 1/2 or something and that too in some cases such as financial transactions and that at a time when a woman's testimony wasn't even permissible including much of the world. I don't think there are any courts in any country with a large Muslim population where this law is stipulated with perhaps the exception of KSA and Iran??? In any event, I am sure there is a great deal of debate and have been as to how this verse should be interpreted much like any society. Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow female judges but Palestinian Islamic courts do. Women had sufrage in 7th century Arabia, ours didn't until 1920 etc etc.

Any ways, if you're the kind of person who hates Muslims and is convinced willy nilly that Islam is evil and there is nothing out there more evil than this belief system and there absolutely nothing positive can be associated with this belief system or those myriad of races, cultures and societies who follow it, then there is no point in discussing, as it will devolve into a useless argument and quite frankly I am not the person you should argue with on this subject matter. I would've advised you to seek out Islamic scholars and historians if you had any questions but I don't think you have any questions that you want answered. I think you already have passed judgement and made up your mind. So, you know....good luck with whichever way you want to be. Just remember...life's short. :p

[Sola_Fide]

You want reality bro?

A dozen Muslim women have led their countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh to name some.

The witch trials of Salem murdered innocent Christian women.

The witch hunt in Europe murdered hundreds of thousands of women.

While Europe was in a dark age Islam was in their golden age, which has contributed to the advancement of society today. They had a capitalist free market economic system in place.

Fact is women didn't have the rights to vote until 90 years ago, and blacks could not use the same restroom 50 years ago, let's not pretend all civilizations are the best. All civilizations adapt to change in society.



......


It never fails that someone will bring up "the salem witch trials" when a beautiful young Muslim woman got her face cut off a few weeks ago.


I don't want a tyrannical society like that just like I don't want Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.



There is NOTHING wrong with defending Liberty in the face of tyranny, whether that tyranny is wrapped in atheism or theism.

[LibertyVox]

......


It never fails that someone will bring up "the salem witch trials" when a beautiful young Muslim woman got her face cut off a few weeks ago.


I don't want a tyrannical society like that just like I don't want Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.



There is NOTHING wrong with defending Liberty in the face of tyranny, whether that tyranny is wrapped in atheism or theism.

And if I post women being mutilated right here in this country, what would that mean?

[CSJscience]

These women didn't seem very happy about having Sharia law imposed on them.

Did they have a choice? No. Remember, Islam=Submission. (exact opposite of libertarianism)

Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law
YouTube - Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-Dy53nCNU)

[Fozz]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?

The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"

Thoughts? Ideas?

They are not scared, they are willfully ignorant and bigoted.

Even Pat Buchanan knows better.

[Sola_Fide]

And if I post women being mutilated right here in this country, what would that mean?


It would mean it is against the law in this country. Not SANCTIONED in law like in Muslim societies.


All I'm saying is stop with the stupid equivocation. Stop trying to equivocate at every turn. There is nothing wrong in defending Liberty in the face of tyrannical sysyems, whether they manifest themselves in theism or atheism.


Liberty-loving people don't have to automatically accept the system of Islam just because neo-cons are against it right now. That's all I am saying....

[specsaregood]

Did they have a choice? No. Remember, Islam=Submission. (exact opposite of libertarianism)


It doesn't mean submission to government though. It means submission to the will of god. I don't see why that would have to conflict with libertarianism.

[LibertyVox]

It would mean it is against the law in this country. Not SANCTIONED in law like in Muslim societies.


All I'm saying is stop with the stupid equivocation. Stop trying to equivocate at every turn. There is nothing wrong in defending Liberty in the face of tyrannical sysyems, whether they manifest themselves in theism or atheism.


Liberty-loving people don't have to automatically accept the system of Islam just because neo-cons are against it right now. That's all I am saying....

And which country has sanctioned cutting the nose as an official "punishment"?

There is nothing "liberty-loving" in your angry outbursts here btw.
You are in fact quite typical of the mentality out there. The mentality against which Ron Paul --the lone lion-- came out against so strongly. It's a sad day when someone like Dr. Paul feels the need to come out and use strong words to cut through the piling crap of what Matt here correctly refers to as so cons.

It is people like Ron Paul who stand in the way this country becoming a third world, demagoguery, mob rule.

[Sola_Fide]

And which country has sanctioned cutting the nose as an official "punishment"?

There is nothing "liberty-loving" in your angry outbursts here btw.
You are in fact quite typical of the mentality out there. The mentality against which Ron Paul --the lone lion-- came out against so strongly. It's a sad day when someone like Dr. Paul feels the need to come out and use strong words to cut through the piling crap of what Matt here correctly refers to as so cons.

It is people like Ron Paul who stand in the way this country becoming a third world, demagoguery, mob rule.



Angry outbursts? Nah. I'm not angry.


Listen, I don't believe that the State should be used as a tool to coerce society. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to the mosque/state system of Islam...just as I am opposed to neo-conservatism and Communism etc. etc. etc...


I see it more as a philosophical debate than anything. I don't want to coerce Muslim societies to be like America through force. But I also don't want to live under a tyranny like Sharia.

[LibertyVox]

Muslim societies? Have you been to a Muslim majority country? I have, and where I've been the Christians 15% live peacefully with the 85% Muslims. You seriously have a distorted view of Islam and are not a student of history at all. Stop believing crap on the internet, and get down to real life and meet some of them and visit some countries.

What's more hilarious and disturbing at the same is the fact that such ignorance exists in this country which I consider arguably the world's premier country where the tools of individual empowerment and knowledge including the internet, and education are so widely available. Even more hilarious is that most people in this country have middle eastern names, follow a middle eastern religion, worship a middle eastern guy whose alleged papa was a middle eastern god, and yet have very scant knowledge of that region.
Sad.
Or perhaps I am being too harsh given that I 've been there all over the place. In that case I recommend travel with extra money instead of wasting it on the new Jetta which you can't even afford.

[LibertyVox]

Angry outbursts? Nah. I'm not angry.


Listen, I don't believe that the State should be used as a tool to coerce society. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to the mosque/state system of Islam...just as I am opposed to neo-conservatism and Communism etc. etc. etc...


I see it more as a philosophical debate than anything. I don't want to coerce Muslim societies to be like America through force. But I also don't want to live under a tyranny like Sharia.

There is no country where a muslim power is coercing Shari'a. But there are plenty of muislim countires whose populace we've mercilessly butchered to enforce democracy imperialism.

[jmdrake]

Propaganda works on the simple-minded very well. ;) :(

And yet "some enlightened atheists" are just as "simple-minded".

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2859945&postcount=103

[jmdrake]

These women didn't seem very happy about having Sharia law imposed on them.

Did they have a choice? No. Remember, Islam=Submission. (exact opposite of libertarianism)

Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law
YouTube - Iranian Women Protest Against Islamic Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-Dy53nCNU)

I don't think they'd be too happy living under the Mosaic law either. Have you ever read it? (Hint, it's in the Bible).

Now ask yourself this question. Just how would "Sharia law" be implemented in the U.S.? By vote? Have you compared the U.S. Muslim population to the non Muslim population? Have you done any analysis on the number of Muslims immigrating to this country to the number of non Muslims? Most immigrants these days come from Latin America. The overwhelming majority of Latin Americans are Catholic. So which religious system is most likely to be enforced?

[Jace]

What's more hilarious and disturbing at the same is the fact that such ignorance exists in this country which I consider arguably the world's premier country where the tools of individual empowerment and knowledge including the internet, and education are so widely available. Even more hilarious is that most people in this country have middle eastern names, follow a middle eastern religion, worship a middle eastern guy whose alleged papa was a middle eastern god, and yet have very scant knowledge of that region.
Sad.
Or perhaps I am being too harsh given that I 've been there all over the place. In that case I recommend travel with extra money instead of wasting it on the new Jetta which you can't even afford.

We got it. You dislike Christians. Americans are hypocrites and ignorant, hilariously so.

We should welcome Muslims here in the millions. A mosque on every street corner and we should alter our behavior so we don't offend them, because we are ignorant and bigoted and they invented Algebra in the 7th century.

The fact that France, India, China, Thailand, etc. have experienced violent clashes with their large minority Muslim populations shouldn't concern anyone.

Islam is a libertarian creed and those of us who believe the religion has strongly intolerant views on freedom of speech, freedom of dress, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc. are morons.

[LibertyVox]

We got it. You dislike Christians. Americans are hypocrites and ignorant, hilariously so.

We should welcome Muslims here in the millions. A mosque on every street corner and we should alter our behavior so we don't offend them, because we are ignorant and bigoted and they invented Algebra in the 7th century.

The fact that France, India, China, Thailand, etc. have experienced violent clashes with their large minority Muslim populations shouldn't concern anyone.

Islam is a libertarian creed and those of us who believe the religion has strongly intolerant views on freedom of speech, freedom of dress, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc. are morons.

You're a liar. :rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

There is no country where a muslim power is coercing Shari'a. But there are plenty of muislim countires whose populace we've mercilessly butchered to enforce democracy imperialism.

Well, I agree. Didn't you just read in my post where I said American imperialism is wrong and evil?



I am completely opposed to foreign intervention. Why paint me with that brush?


My only argument was a philosophical one about the foundations of law and individual liberty. And if you can't see that the concepts of Liberty are different from Locke to Muhammed, then I can't help you.

[Jace]

You're a liar. :rolleyes:

It appears you are fighting a propaganda war for the continued transformation of this nation into a multicultural utopia.

The people you attack and criticize are Christians, while painting a rosy picture of Islam. Yet they want to move here and not the other way around.

Maybe this world would be more peaceful if they stayed over there and we stayed over here.

[CSJscience]

I don't think they'd be too happy living under the Mosaic law either. Have you ever read it? (Hint, it's in the Bible). Now ask yourself this question. Just how would "Sharia law" be implemented in the U.S.?

You bring up Mosaic Law. The difference is Mosaic Law is not being supported by large segments of Western Society and spread to Muslim countries through political activism and agitation.

It's not being advocated in Western countries like Sharia is in some Muslim majority countries. Even most hardcore church-going Christians (a small minority of the Western population) don't even know what Mosaic Law is.

Do I thin Sharia law will be imposed in the US? That's not the point. My point is that I'm opposed to Sharia law, and so should all libertarians.

I don't think Sharia law could be imposed any time soon in the US. But as in all politics, activists will work to have certain allowances and exemptions for Muslims.

However agitators are pressing in many countries throughout the world where it is likely to be imposed.

Top 10 Sharia recent headlines from *this week* only:

1. Pakistani government does deal with Taliban on sharia law
2. Rally for Sharia law in Somalia
3. Aceh's Sharia Law Still Controversial in Indonesia
4. Islamic bank injection to help Sharia-compliant products (FT Advisor)
5. Sharia rules makes Islam 'a laughing stock' Jakarta Post - ‎Aug 24, 2010‎
The sharia-based rules in Cianjur, supported by 35 Islamic organizations
6. Bid for Sharia Court in St. Petersburg Fails (The Moscow Times)
7. Young lovers killed by stoning in Afghanistan
Los Angeles Times - Laura King - ‎Aug 21, 2010‎
Even as hard-line village mullahs loosely aligned with the Taliban seek a return to the harshest forms of physical punishment permitted under Sharia, .
8. Al-Qaida in Yemen: Poverty, corruption and an army of jihadis willing to fight
The Guardian - ‎Aug 22, 2010‎
In 1994, he said, they had been given promises by President Ali Abdullah Saleh that he would implement sharia law and form an Islamic state, .
9. Kazakhstan bonds with Sharia-compliant finance
10. Malaysian civil servants evicted for 'immoral acts'
AsiaOne - ‎Aug 23, 2010‎

[LibertyVox]

Well, I agree. Didn't you just read in my post where I said American imperialism is wrong and evil?



I am completely opposed to foreign intervention. Why paint me with that brush?


My only argument was a philosophical one about the foundations of law and individual liberty. And if you can't see that the concepts of Liberty are different from Locke to Muhammed, then I can't help you.

Here's your comment:


But I also don't want to live under a tyranny like Sharia.

To which I wrote, there is no country where some "Islamic" power is coercing shairia. So what I meant by that was, you need not wory about that, nor any one else in this country. In fact, for citizens of a country who actually does what we make such a silly ruckus about, those are tall words.

And I don't need to compare Locke to Muhammad or Jesus. But rest assured, if Muslims would be libertarians they would use the same text and their prophet's own words to make that case. Just keep that in mind.

Oh and btw, when Locke was making a a case as to why the King should tolerate renegade christian secs he used the example of the "turbaned" nations saying that if they tolerate believers of different sects than why can't Britain.

Look, you can consider Islam in any which way you want, you can also choose not consider any alternative POV on the subject matter, but you have to agree that muslims are not some anathema to the country. Or some imminent existential threat. At least. That is if you're not startled by the every day language of retardese spoken so loudly on the air waves, tv, and by the politicos and the mob.

I mean I hope you agree with Ron Paul's somewhat strong language on the subject amid all this irrational hysteria.
And he didn't even need to do that. He is not Muslim, I doubt if Muslims are a big part of his constituency. In fact, almost any positive association with civil rights of citizens who are muslims can make one a pariah in the current atmosphere.

....actually I think he did need to say it. In many ways he is the last bullwark of civility in this country. The yard stick against which we compare others' conduct.
God aren't we lucky that such a man exists in the ruling elite? :)

[LibertyVox]

It appears you are fighting a propaganda war for the continued transformation of this nation into a multicultural utopia.

The people you attack and criticize are Christians, while painting a rosy picture of Islam. Yet they want to move here and not the other way around.

Maybe this world would be more peaceful if they stayed over there and we stayed over here.


You're a liar. And a very lousy one at that. Almost every one of your comments' subject matter directed at me is a lie. Every comment I've made here is preserved for others to read. I wonder why you're even on Ron Paul forums.
You'll fit in perfectly on basically any other forum. So much for your self styled politically incorrect cultural warriorhood.

[Matt Collins]

But I think any student of history needs to look at the foundations of law and culture in societies. It was Murray Rothbard who said it was Christianity (since the time of the Reformation) that put emphasis on the individual as opposed to the State. I think there is something about the foundations of Muslim theology and jurisprudence that is fundamentally against the concept of individual liberty and equal rights.



I agree with you.

The Muslim religion is incompatible with any other religion, or atheism. Violence is part of the religion. Heretics and apostates are to be killed.

Not that Muslims shouldn't have equal rights here and be free. But we will reach a tipping point sooner or later. We could put a stop to it if we just ended immigration, like we did in the 1920s when ethnic politics were at a boiling point. Immigration stopped and we had 40 years of assimiliation. I think now we need about a 100 year moratorium if we are to retain our American way of life.This makes a great deal of sense to me.

[coastie]

The fact that France, India, China, Thailand, etc. have experienced violent clashes with their large minority Muslim populations shouldn't concern anyone.



And why, exactly, are they having "trouble" with these people??? Methinks you need to do some research on the matter, instead of insinuating that those governments are right and the Muslims there are wrong.;)

[Matt Collins]

They are not scared, they are willfully ignorant and bigoted.I disagree. Very intelligent and well educated individuals I know personally are very scared of a Muslim / Sharia Law take over.... not in their lifetimes, but within the century.


It doesn't mean submission to government though. It means submission to the will of god. I don't see why that would have to conflict with libertarianism.But isn't church and state a singular entity under Islam? :confused:

[Sola_Fide]

You see, the problem with people toady is that they have ALL been brainwashed by Statism.


I say sonething like "I am opposed to Islam as a philosophical system" and EVEN THE LIBERTARIANS HERE automatically think that I want that personal view imposed on everyone else. Uh, I don't. I believe in Liberty.



What a RIDICULOUS idea it is to think that a person who is critical of a philosophical system can't simultaneously love Liberty.



This cultural alliance that atheists have made with Islam is frankly one of the strangest things I've seen. It stems from a hatred of Christianity....lets just be honest about it.

[CSJscience]

It doesn't mean submission to government though. It means submission to the will of god. I don't see why that would have to conflict with libertarianism.

What is meant by "Submission" in the phrase "Submission to God" (the meaning of the word "Islam")?

Is "submission", say, sitting around thinking about God?
No.

Is "submission", say, lighting some hashish and seeing some visions and dressing up like a Jawa?
Probably not.

Is "submission" generally understood to mean chanting a few verses of the Quran for an hour?
Nope.

Well then, just what is meant by "Submission"

Answer:

In order to be submitting to the will of God, and being a good practicing Muslim, there are requirements for legal/political organization and legal/political action serving that purpose. These requirements are set forth in what is called "Sharia" or Islamic law.

So tobe clear, "Submission to God", the fundamental tenet of Islam, includes living according to Sharia.

Sharia includes functions of law and government as prescribed in the Quran and by Islamic religious scholars and traditions

That is what creates the conflict--

Islamic political action undertaken to extend anti-libertarian values as held by Sharia (Islamic) law would be in conflict with libertarianism.

And that's what I am addressing, and why I don't understand why Ron Paul supporters would support that kind of religious statism.

[Jace]

This makes a great deal of sense to me.

Thank you.

I have lived and traveled much overseas, and I have learned that the US is probably the most tolerant country there is when it comes to accepting others.

Of course the anti-Muslim hysteria promoted now by our media is over the top. But we are reaching a tipping point in this country.

We can expect more hysteria as our traditions and culture disappear as millions and millions of newcomers arrive year after year. Anytime an established population feels overrun by outsiders, there is going to be a reaction. That's how humans behave. The culture of this country is being transformed through mass immigration, and that has been the goal of the left. Transformation.

I admit I got a little annoyed reading this thread, as if Christians are these big ignorant hypocrites and Islam is all love and light and Muslims are so oppressed here. This country bends over backwards to accomodate Muslims, even as our leaders send our soldiers overseas to kill them. Yet Muslims still want to move here, and I don't see Christian Americans emigrating there. Anyone who thinks Christians have an easy time in the Muslim world while Muslims have it so tough here doesn't get out much.

[LibertyVox]

This makes a great deal of sense to me.

Seriously? I thought you were being sarcastic. lol

[Sola_Fide]

I don't think they'd be too happy living under the Mosaic law either. Have you ever read it? (Hint, it's in the Bible)?



Who here is arguing for Mosaic law?


We are libertarians arguing for Liberty. At least I am.


I don't think Muslim people are the enemy. I think American foreign policy has caused the Muslim world to hate America...and rightfully so.


But to simply draw these stupid equivocations (like saying Libertarianism and Sharia are equally prefferable) is knee-jerk multiculturalism.

[LibertyVox]

Thank you.

I have lived and traveled much overseas, and I have learned that the US is probably the most tolerant country there is when it comes to accepting others.

Of course the anti-Muslim hysteria promoted now by our media is over the top. But we are reaching a tipping point in this country.

We can expect more hysteria as our traditions and culture disappear as millions and millions of newcomers arrive year after year. Anytime an established population feels overrun by outsiders, there is going to be a reaction. That's how humans behave. The culture of this country is being transformed through mass immigration, and that has been the goal of the left. Transformation.

I admit I got a little annoyed reading this thread, as if Christians are these big ignorant hypocrites and Islam is all love and light and Muslims are so oppressed here. This country bends over backwards to accomodate Muslims, even as our leaders send our soldiers overseas to kill them. Yet Muslims still want to move here, and I don't see Christian Americans emigrating there. Anyone who thinks Christians have an easy time in the Muslim world while Muslims have it so tough here doesn't get out much.

Which traditions are disappearing? And no this country does not bend over backwards to accommodate muslims or for any one else. This country just accomodates, that's one reason muslims immigrate to the US. And I just went over the comments in a very cursory manner, and the most angry and intolerant comments weren't directed at Christians. On the other hand, the most irrational, untenable accusations and arguments were being used against moslems, including this one by you:

I think some people promote Islamic mass immigration into the West because they want the violence here.

And that's sad.

[Jace]

And why, exactly, are they having "trouble" with these people??? Methinks you need to do some research on the matter, instead of insinuating that those governments are right and the Muslims there are wrong.;)

You tell me why there is so much violence in nations that have large Muslim minorities. Nigeria, Thailand, China, France, the Netherlands, Serbia, Russia, etc. The teachings of Islam have no influence?

Just to be clear, I think the US needs to get out of the Middle East and declare neutrality in all the conflicts there. I think we need to treat the religion with respect, but keep it at arm's length.

Islam is at war with Thai Buddhism, Indian Hinduism, Israeli Judaism, Nigerian Christianity, Chinese atheism, etc. We are now mired in conflict over there that will never end. We should just get out and let others fight their own battles.

[LibertyVox]

You tell me why there is so much violence in nations that have large Muslim minorities. Nigeria, Thailand, China, France, the Netherlands, Serbia, Russia, etc. The teachings of Islam have no influence?

Just to be clear, I think the US needs to get out of the Middle East and declare neutrality in all the conflicts there. I think we need to treat the religion with respect, but keep it at arm's length.

Islam is at war with Thai Buddhism, Indian Hinduism, Israeli Judaism, Nigerian Christianity, Chinese atheism, etc. We are now mired in conflict over there that will never end. We should just get out and let others fight their own battles.

No one can answer those questions simply because they are mostly untrue. Read up on the fallacy of complex questions.
Seriously, you would fit in perfectly at any other forum.

[Matt Collins]

Seriously? I thought you were being sarcastic. lol
I just said it made sense. I didn't say that it was correct or accurate or what I believed, just that it seems like a logical argument to me. If another better argument were presented I would say the same thing for it.


I live in Nashville the center of the Southern Christianity (industry) and I work in talk radio and have Jewish and Baptist friends. So I get more than my fair share of anti-Muslim propaganda and attempting to decide what is legitimate with merit and what is nothing more than fear-mongering is very difficult. And that is why I started this thread to begin with; to help me sort through some of this stuff. :)

[Jace]

No one can answer those questions simply because they are mostly untrue. Read up on the fallacy of complex questions.
Seriously, you would fit in perfectly at any other forum.

How is it untrue? Please explain without the ad hominems.

[Matt Collins]

No one can answer those questions simply because they are mostly untrue. Read up on the fallacy of complex questions.
Seriously, you would fit in perfectly at any other forum.
Fascinating. I did just that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question


It reminds me of logic class and the LSAT exam :)

[LibertyVox]

I just said it made sense. I didn't say that it was correct or accurate or what I believed, just that it seems like a logical argument to me. If another better argument were presented I would say the same thing for it.


I live in Nashville the center of the Southern Christianity (industry) and I work in talk radio and have Jewish and Baptist friends. So I get more than my fair share of anti-Muslim propaganda and attempting to decide what is legitimate with merit and what is nothing more than fear-mongering is very difficult. And that is why I started this thread to begin with; to help me sort through some of this stuff. :)

Well Matt, I don't think this is the best place to start your search for answers. You might want to join an islamic forum or make friends with a muslim scholar to have those questions answered.
What kind of questions did you have in mind?

[LibertyVox]

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Well let me see if I can address these questions of yours as briefly as I can Matt.

For the 1st part, do you really think things are that simple? People just moving in and instituting what they want? It's impossible. I mean how does one do that? Do you have a possible scenario on how that would happen? Can a law be instituted which is unconstitutional? How many muslims are there in the US? How many muslims would it take? Someone made a light hearted comment about Catholic citizens having the clout to institute papal decrees :rolleyes:
Turn us into a muslim nation? how? We've bombed the bejeezus out of the world's most pathetic country, instituted puppets of our choice, raitified their constitution, and they're still moslems. So how can we become moslems? Or is Islam such a potent idea and belief system that Americans will convert en masse? I mean what're we talking about? Where to begin?
Apart from that also consider that sharia or islamic jurisprudence does not have any one interpretation, there are dozens I am sure. No muslim country has it apart from Saudi and Iran as Abe said it and both are rejected by most muslims, and that's one reason why it isn't instituted in any other country. And forget Europe, apart from Britian and a few other countries, Europe is a very different place than the US. It's just a glamorized, industrialized 3rd world, in that the elites have a very 3rd world mentality.
Most muslim imigrants in countries like France were taken during their colonial rule from north Africa. The muslim demographic, and Europe's social program for minorities and the language used is very different than ours.
I mean even the most basic concept of freedom of speech in Europe is very different than ours. Irrational politics abound, one can't even openly speak about the Dutch atrocities in Indonesia without a some kind of reprisal. So Europe is a very different case.
I mean come on Matt....these facts are facile. the biggest concern should be this country starting to sound like Europe or the third world.

[Sola_Fide]

This makes a great deal of sense to me.


One of the best books I've read about how theology influences law and culture was The One And The Many by Rousas Rushdoony (Chuck Baldwin is a big fan of his).

Islam is a theology that emphasizes "oneness of being". In Islam, Allah is one, without division. This mirrors their conception of the State--the all-powerful One in which submission must be made. In the more religious Muslim countries, you ALWAYS have this progress toward centralization. Also, Allah is SO above and apart from his creation that a system of priests must be intermediaries between the people and Allah...which leads to greater centralization.



In Christianity, God is equally unity and diversity. He is One and yet Many. This foundational philosophical concept gave rise to the notion of decentralization...for the neccessity of checks and balances. In Christianity (Protestantism, sorry my Catholic friends) there is the idea that God has entered into creation and became close to His creation. A system of priests were not needed to interceed for man, because God has interceeded Himself. The focus became the indivudual. The State was no longer seen as a link between God and man.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Remember Christians, treat your slaves properly or spooky boogie man will get angry and smite you. Remember, Muslims are evil because they don't treat their slaves as good as we do. Also don't forget who the top Master is because all you are is a bitch slave to him.

Ephesians 6:9 (NIV)

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

[Sola_Fide]

Remember Christians, treat your slaves properly or spooky boogie man will get angry and smite you. Remember, Muslims are evil because they don't treat their slaves as good as we do.

Ephesians 6:9 (NIV)

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.


Chattel slavery, indentured servitude, and all other kinds of oppression was common in Rome at the time when Paul wrote that. Slaves and slavemasters were becoming Christians.


Christianity was not a militant political movement bent on overturning institutions by force. Rather, Christianity promoted gradual non-violent change from within the hearts of men.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Chattel slavery, indentured servitude, and all other kinds of oppression was common in Rome.


Christianity was not militant political movement bent on overturning institutions by force. Rather, Christianity promoted gradual non-violent change from within the hearts of men.

What does ancient Rome have to do with this? I pulled the text from the Disney fairytale book that's still in print today.

[Sola_Fide]

*sigh*

Okay son. That's fine. One thing I quit doing a while ago is arguing "religun" on message boards.





Go ahead...knock yourself out man....

[crazyfacedjenkins]

*sigh*

Okay son. That's fine. One thing I quit doing a while ago is arguing "religun" on message boards.





Go ahead...knock yourself out man....

As I wrote earlier I want MORE Christianity, not even being sarcastic. That way I can lob off some heads when these Bible thumpers get out of line. Hell, bring Muslims in here while you're at it. I'll lob some of their heads off when they screw up too. Doesn't bother me.

Besides, I could use some Christian slaves, these walls don't paint themselves!

[Sola_Fide]

Hmmmmm...






Are you high right now kid?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

....
Are you high right now kid?

No more than someone who still owns and believes a book that promotes slavery. I always wondered why these JC freaks don't just remove that old testament if they don't want it coming back to bite them in the ass later. Oh yeah, because they need all that anti *** stuff, don't want to be turning the other cheek for any *****s.

[jmdrake]

You bring up Mosaic Law. The difference is Mosaic Law is not being supported by large segments of Western Society and spread to Muslim countries through political activism and agitation.


Some aspects of Mosaic law are enforced in Israel.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125673859

Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority. So that's a bit of a straw man argument. The laws against sodomy (enforced in this country until being overturned relatively recently by Lawrence v. Texas) were a watered down throwback to Mosaic law.



It's not being advocated in Western countries like Sharia is in some Muslim majority countries.


There's only one Jewish majority country. Christians don't consider themselves under Mosaic law in general, but there have been influences (sodomy laws).



Even most hardcore church-going Christians (a small minority of the Western population) don't even know what Mosaic Law is.


That's because even Christians who do know what Mosaic law is don't feel they are under it because of the new covenant. Straw man.



Do I thin Sharia law will be imposed in the US? That's not the point. My point is that I'm opposed to Sharia law, and so should all libertarians.


So all libertarians should be concerned about the legal system in other countries? I thought libertarians were non interventionist? Are you going to now advocate for a repeal of the use of Mosaic law in Israel because of how it discriminates against women in divorce?



I don't think Sharia law could be imposed any time soon in the US. But as in all politics, activists will work to have certain allowances and exemptions for Muslims.


If you ever study U.S. family law you'll read a case where a Jewish woman was trying to get the court to force her husband to give her a Jewish divorce. Without a Jewish divorce she couldn't remarry in her Orthodox Jewish community. She lost her case. So it matters not if "attempts" will be made. More recently an attempt by a Muslim man to get out from under a restraining order because under Sharia he was allowed to rape his wife was overturned on appeal. So that attempt failed too. You see there's this little thing you are ignoring called the "establishment clause" of the constitution which prevents religious minorities from having free reign to rewrite the laws to their benefit. Are there some "allowances and exemptions"? Sure. Muslim prisoners for example can request special diets that don't have pork in them. But so can Jews or any other person who doesn't eat certain food because of conscience. Oh, and before you slam Islam for allowing spousal rape, realize that in this Christian country spousal rape was allowed in all states until 1973! Now why is that? Hint, it wasn't because of the "evil Muslims" or Sharia.



However agitators are pressing in many countries throughout the world where it is likely to be imposed.


That's nice. I don't live in the rest of the world. Unless you are trying to change Israeli law, you shouldn't give a rip about Sharia law in other countries. Red herring.

[jmdrake]

Who here is arguing for Mosaic law?


We are libertarians arguing for Liberty. At least I am.


I don't think Muslim people are the enemy. I think American foreign policy has caused the Muslim world to hate America...and rightfully so.


But to simply draw these stupid equivocations (like saying Libertarianism and Sharia are equally prefferable) is knee-jerk multiculturalism.

Who's arguing that libertarianism and sharia are equally preferable? :rolleyes: You don't like American foreign policy? Great! Neither do I. But Sharia law is only an issue IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES! And Mosaic law is an issue in Israel! So unless you want the U.S. government to interfere in all countries with Sharia law, and the one country with Mosaic law in order to enforce "libertarian law" (oxymoron) then you really have nothing to be concerned about. Muslims make up a tiny fraction of the population, and based on current immigration and birth rates they will continue to make up a tiny fraction of the U.S. population, unless you feel that they are somehow going to win the "war of ideas" and convert a crapper load of Americans to Islam. If you believe that then I have a ski resort in Yemen I'd like to sell you.

[bruce leeroy]

No more than someone who still owns and believes a book that promotes slavery. I always wondered why these JC freaks don't just remove that old testament if they don't want it coming back to bite them in the ass later. Oh yeah, because they need all that anti *** stuff, don't want to be turning the other cheek for any *****s.

*****s dont want people to TURN cheeks, they want people to SPREAD cheeks

[Fozz]

One of the best books I've read about how theology influences law and culture was The One And The Many by Rousas Rushdoony (Chuck Baldwin is a big fan of his).

Islam is a theology that emphasizes "oneness of being". In Islam, Allah is one, without division. This mirrors their conception of the State--the all-powerful One in which submission must be made. In the more religious Muslim countries, you ALWAYS have this progress toward centralization. Also, Allah is SO above and apart from his creation that a system of priests must be intermediaries between the people and Allah...which leads to greater centralization.


That is not true, at least not in Sunni Islam. Islam does not have a pope, nor any spiritual equivalent. People pray directly to God. If you read Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria, he argues that Islam is DECENTRALIZED.

[Sola_Fide]

Murray Rothbard on the Christian origins of Anarchism in the US:


Libertarians tend to fall into two opposing errors on the American past: the familiar "Golden Age" view of the right-wing that everything was blissful in America until some moment of precipitous decline (often dated 1933); and the deeply pessimistic minority view that rejects the American past root and branch, spurning all American institutions and virtually all of its thinkers except such late nineteenth-century individualist anarchists as Benjamin R. Tucker and Lysander Spooner.

The truth is somewhere in between: America was never the golden "land of the free" of the conservative-libertarian legend, and yet it managed for a very long time to be freer, in institutions and in intellectual climate, than any other land.

Colonial America did not set out deliberately to be the land of the free. On the contrary, it began in a tangle of tyranny, special privilege, and vast land monopoly. Territories were carved out either as colonies subject directly to the English Crown, or as enormous land grabs for privileged companies or feudal proprietors.

What defeated these despotic and feudal thrusts into the new territory was, at bottom, rather simple: the vastness of the fertile and uninhabited land that lay waiting to be settled. Not only relative freedom, but even outright anarchist institutions grew up early in the interstices between the organized, despotic English colonies....

Pennsylvania: The Holy Experiment
The third great example of anarchism in colonial America took place in Pennsylvania. This was William Penn's "Holy Experiment" for a Quaker colony that would provide "an example [that] may be set up to the nations." While religious liberty was guaranteed, and institutions were relatively libertarian, Penn never meant his new colony, founded in 1681, to be anarchistic or anything of the like.[3] Curiously, Pennsylvania fell into living and functioning anarchism by happy accident.

Lured by religious liberty and by cheap and abundant land, settlers, largely Quaker, poured into Pennsylvania in large numbers.[4] At the end of eight years 12,000 people had settled in the new colony. The first touch of anarchy came in the area of taxation. While low excise and export duties had been levied by the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1683, Governor Penn set aside all taxes for a year to encourage rapid settlement. The next year, when Penn wanted to levy taxes for his own personal income, a group of leaders of the colony persuaded Penn to drop the tax, in return for them personally raising a voluntary gift for his own use. William Penn returned to England in the fall of 1684, convinced that he had founded a stable and profitable colony.

One of his major expectations was the collection of "quitrents" from every settler. This was to be in continuing payment for Penn's claim as feudal landlord of the entire colony, as had been granted by the Crown. But Penn, like the proprietors and feudal overlords in the other colonies, found it almost impossible to collect these quitrents. He had granted the populace a moratorium on quitrents until 1685, but the people insisted on further postponements, and Penn's threatened legal proceedings were without success.

Furthermore, the people of Pennsylvania continued to refuse to vote to levy taxes. They even infringed upon the monopoly of lime production, which Penn had granted to himself, by stubbornly opening their own lime quarries. William Penn found that deprived of feudal or tax income, his deficits from ruling Pennsylvania were large and his fortune was dissipating steadily. Freedom and a taxless society had contaminated the colonists. As Penn complained, "the great fault is, that those who are there, lose their authority one way or other in the spirits of the people and then they can do little with their outward powers."

When Penn returned to England, the governing of the colony fell to the Council of Pennsylvania. Although Penn had appointed Thomas Lloyd, a Welsh Quaker, to be president of the Council, the president had virtually no power, and could not make any decisions of his own. The Council itself met very infrequently, and no officials had the interim power to act. During these great intervals, Pennsylvania had no government at all — as indicated by the fact that neither quitrents nor taxes were being levied in the colony.

Why did the Council rarely meet? For one thing because the Councilors, having little to do in that libertarian society and being unpaid, had their own private business to attend to. The Councilors, according to the laws of the colony, were supposed to receive a small stipend, but as was typical of this anarchistic colony, it proved almost impossible to extract these funds from the Pennsylvanian populace.

If the colonial government ceased to exist except for the infrequent days of Council meetings, what of local governments? Did they provide a permanent bureaucracy, a visible evidence of the continuing existence of the State apparatus? The answer is no; for the local courts met only a few days a year, and the county officials, too, were private citizens who devoted almost no time to upholding the law. To cap the situation the Assembly passed no laws after 1686, being in a continuing wrangle over the extent of its powers.

The colony of Pennsylvania continued in this de facto state of individualist anarchism from the fall of 1684 to the end of 1688: four glorious years in which no outcry arose from the happy citizens about "anarchy" or "chaos". No Pennsylvanian seemed to believe himself any the worse for wear.

A bit of government came to Pennsylvania in 1685, in the person of William Dyer who was the appointed Collector of the King's Customs. Despite frantic appeals from William Penn to cooperate with Dyer, the Pennsylvanians persisted in their anarchism by blithely and consistently evading the Royal Navigation Laws.

It is no wonder that William Penn had the distinct impression that his "Holy Experiment" had slipped away from him, had taken a new and bewildering turn. Penn had launched a colony that he thought would quietly follow his dictates and yield him a handsome feudal profit. By providing a prosperous haven of refuge for Quakers, Penn expected in return the twin reward of wealth and power. Instead, he found himself without either. Unable to collect revenue from the free and independent-minded Pennsylvanians, he saw the colony slipping quietly and gracefully into outright anarchism — into a peaceful, growing and flourishing land of no taxes and virtually no State. Thereupon, Penn frantically tried to force Pennsylvania back into the familiar mold of the Old Order.

In February 1687 William Penn appointed five Pennsylvanians as commissioners of state. Assigned to "act in the execution of the laws, as if I myself were there present." The purpose of this new appointment was "that there may be a more constant residence of the honorary and governing part of the government, for keeping all things in good order." Penn appointed the five commissioners from among the leading citizens of the colony, and ordered them to enforce the laws.

Evidently the colonists were quite happy about their anarchism, and shrewdly engaged in non-violent resistance toward the commission. In the first place, news about the commission was delayed for months. Then protests poured into Penn about the new commission. Penn soon realized that he had received no communication from the supposedly governing body.

Unable to delay matters any longer, the reluctant commissioners of state took office in February 1688. Three and one-half years of substantive anarchism were over. The State was back in its Heaven; once more all was right in William Penn's world. Typically, the gloating Penn urged the commissioners to conceal any differences among themselves, so as to deceive and overawe the public "Show your virtues but conceal your infirmities; this will make you awful and revered with ye people." He further urged them to enforce the King's duties and to levy taxes to support the government.

The commissioners confined themselves to calling the Assembly into session in the spring of 1688, and this time the Assembly did pass some laws, for the first time in three years. The most important bills presented to the Assembly by the Council and the Commissioners, however, was for the reimposition of taxes; and here the Assembly, at the last minute, heroically defied Penn and the government, and rejected the tax bills.

After a brief flurry of State activity in early 1688, therefore, the State was found wanting, taxes were rejected and the colony lapsed quickly back into a state of anarchism. Somehow, the commissioners, evidently exhausted by their task, failed to meet any further, and the Council fell back into its schedule of rare meetings.

In desperation, Penn acted to appoint a Deputy-Governor to rule Pennsylvania in his absence. Thomas Lloyd, President of the Council, refused the appointment, and as we saw from the reluctance of the commissioners, no one in happily anarchic Pennsylvania wanted to rule over others. At this point, Penn reached outside the colony to appoint a tough old non-Pennsylvanian and non-Quaker, the veteran Puritan soldier John Blackwell, to be Deputy-Governor of the colony. In appointing him, Penn made clear to Blackwell that his primary task was to collect Penn's quitrents and his secondary task to reestablish a government.

If John Blackwell had any idea that the Quakers were a meek people, he was in for a rude surprise. Blackwell was to find out quickly that a devotion to peace, liberty, and individualism in no sense implied an attitude of passive resignation to tyranny — quite the contrary.

Blackwell's initial reception as Deputy-Governor was an augur of things to come. Sending word ahead for someone to meet him upon his arrival in New York, Blackwell landed there only to find no one to receive him. After waiting in vain for three days, Blackwell went alone to the colony. When he arrived in Philadelphia on December 17, 1688, he found no escort, no parade, no reception committee. After having ordered the Council to meet him upon his arrival, Blackwell could find no trace of the Councilor of any other governmental officials. Instead he "found the Council room deserted and covered with dust and scattered papers. The wheels of government had nearly stopped turning."[5]

Only one surly escort appeared, and he refused to speak to his new Governor. And when Blackwell arrived at the empty Council room, his only reception was a group of boys of the neighborhood who gathered around to hoot and jeer.

The resourceful Pennsylvanians now embarked on a shrewd and determined campaign of non-violent resistance to the attempt to reimpose a State on a happy and stateless people. Thomas Lloyd, as Keeper of the Great Seal, insisted that none of Blackwell's orders or commissions were legally valid unless stamped with the Great Seal. And Lloyd, as Keeper, somehow stubbornly refused to do any stamping. Furthermore, David Lloyd, the clerk of the court and a distant relative of Thomas's, absolutely refused to turn over the documents of any cases to Blackwell, even if the judges so ordered. For this act of defiance Blackwell declared David Lloyd unfit to serve as court clerk and dismissed him. Thomas promptly reappointed David by virtue of his power as Keeper of the Great Seal. Moreover, out of a dozen justices of the peace named by Blackwell, four bluntly refused to serve.

As the revolutionary situation intensified in Pennsylvania, the timid and shortsighted began to betray the revolutionary libertarian cause. All of the Council except two now sided with Blackwell. Leader of the pro-Blackwell clique was Griffith Jones, who had allowed Blackwell to live at his home in Philadelphia. Jones warned that "it is the king's authority that is opposed and [it] looks to me as if it were raising a force to rebel." On the Council, only Arthur Cook and Samuel Richardson continued to defy the Governor.

Blackwell was of course appalled at this situation. He wrote to Penn that the colonists were suffering from excessive liberty. They had eaten more of the "honey of your concessions than their stomachs can bear." Blackwell managed to force the Council to meet every week in early 1689, but he failed to force them to agree to a permanent and continuing Councilor from every county in Philadelphia. Arthur Cook led the successful resistance, pointing out that the "people were not able to bear the charge of constant attendance."

The climax in the struggle between Blackwell and the people of Pennsylvania came in April 1689, when the Governor introduced proceedings for the impeachment of Thomas Lloyd, charging him with high crimes and misdemeanors. In his address, Blackwell trumpeted to his stunned listeners that William Penn's powers over the colony were absolute. The Council, on his theory, existed not to represent the people but to be an instrument of Penn's will. Blackwell concluded his harangue by threatening to unsheathe and wield his sword against his insolent and unruly opponents.

Given the choice between the old anarchism or absolute rule by John Blackwell, even the trimmers and waverers rallied behind Thomas Lloyd. After Blackwell had summarily dismissed Lloyd, Richardson and others from the Council, the Council rebelled and demanded the right to approve of their own members. With the entire Council now arrayed against him, the disheartened Blackwell dissolved that body and sent his resignation to Penn.

The Councilors, in turn, bitterly protested to Penn against his deputy's attempt to deprive them of their liberties. As for Blackwell, he considered the Quakers agents of the Devil, as foretold in the New Testament, men "who shall despise dominion and speak evil of dignities." These Quakers, Blackwell charged in horror, "have not the principles of government amongst them, nor will they be informed…"

Faced with virtually unanimous and determined opposition from the colonists Penn decided against Blackwell. For the rest of the year, Blackwell continued formally in office, but he now lost all interest in exerting his rule. He simply waited out his fading term of office. Penn in effect restored the old system by designating the Council as a whole as his "deputy governor." Replacing vinegar with honey Penn apologized for his mistake in appointing Blackwell, and asserted, "I have thought fit … to throw all into your hands, that you may all see the confidence I have in you."

Pennsylvania soon slipped back into anarchism. The Council, again headed by Thomas Lloyd, met but seldom. When a rare meeting was called it did virtually nothing and told William Penn even less. The Assembly also met but rarely. And when Secretary of the colony William Markham (a cousin of Penn, who had been one of the hated Blackwell clique) submitted a petition for the levying of taxes to provide some financial help for poor William Penn the Council totally ignored his request.

Furthermore, when Markham asked for a governmental organization of militia to provide for military defense against a (non-existent) French and Indian threat, the Council preserved the anarchistic status of the colony by blandly replying that any people who are interested could provide for their defense at their own expense. Anarchism had returned in triumph to Pennsylvania. The determined non-violent resistance of the colony had won a glorious victory.

Penn, however, refused to allow the colony to continue in this anarchistic state. In 1691 he insisted that a continuing deputy-governor be appointed, although he would allow the colony to select a governor. The colony of course chose their resistance hero Thomas Lloyd, who assumed his new post in April. After seven years of de facto anarchism (with the exception of a few months of Council meetings and several months of Blackwellite attempt to rule), Pennsylvania now had a continuous, permanent head of government. "Archy" was back, but its burden was still negligible for the Assembly and the Council still met but rarely and, above all, there was no taxation in the colony.

But the virus of power, the canker of archy, once let loose even a trifle, feeds upon itself. Suddenly, as a bolt from the blue, the Council in April 1692 passed a new bill for the reestablishment of taxation and the revered Governor Lloyd concurred in this betrayal. The question now reverted to the popularly elected Assembly, always the political stronghold of liberty in the province. Would they too succumb? The freemen of Philadelphia and of Chester sent the Assembly petitions strongly protesting the proposed imposition of taxation. They urged the Assembly to keep "their country free from bondage and slavery, and avoiding such ill methods, as may render themselves and posterity liable thereto." Heeding these protests, the Assembly refused to pass a tax law. De facto anarchy was still, though barely, alive.

Anarchy, however, was by now doomed, and governmental oppression, even without taxes, quickly returned to Pennsylvania. This new outcropping of statism was stimulated by opposition from a split-off from Quakerism headed by the scholarly Scottish Quaker George Keith, the outstanding Quaker minister of the middle colonies and the schoolmaster at Philadelphia. He was religiously more conservative than the bulk of the Quakers, leaning as he did toward Presbyterianism, but politically he was more individualistic. Stimulated by the anarchism he found in Pennsylvania, Keith quickly concluded logically from the Quaker creed that all participation in government ran counter to Quaker principles.

The return of Pennsylvania to government in the spring of 1691 especially provoked George Keith. How, he asked, could a Quaker minister like Thomas Lloyd, professing belief in non-violence, serve as a governmental magistrate at all, since the essence of government was the use of violence? A telling point: in short, Keith saw that Quaker non-violence logically implied, not only refusal to bear arms, but complete individualistic anarchism.

Finally, in the fall of 1692, the Keithian "Christian Quaker" faction was expelled from the body of Quakers. And to their shame, the main body of Quakers, after having been persecuted widely for their religious principles, reacted to a split in their own ranks in the very same way. Keithian pamphlets were confiscated and the printers arrested; Keith himself was ordered to stop making speeches and publishing pamphlets "that have a tendency to sedition, and disturbance of the peace, as also to the subversion of the present government." Three Keithian leaders including Keith himself, were indicted for writing a book denouncing the magistrates, and the jury was packed with the friends of the Quaker rulers. Despite Keith's pleas that Quakers are duty-bound to settle all their disputes peacefully and voluntarily, and to never go to court, the men were convicted and fined (though the fines were never paid), and denied the right to appeal to the Council or to the provisional court. Government was back in Pennsylvania — with a vengeance.

Taxation would very soon be back too. William Penn, a close friend of the recently deposed King James II of England, was in deep political trouble at court. Angry with Penn, peeved at the anarchism and the pacifism of the colony, and anxious to weld the northern colonies into a fighting force for attacking the French in Canada, King William, in late 1692, named Benjamin Fletcher governor of both New York and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, no longer under the proprietary of William Penn, was now a royal colony.

Governor Fletcher assumed the reins of government in April 1693. As in other royal colonies, the Council was now appointed by the Governor. Fletcher convened the Assembly in May, and was able to drive through a tax bill because of his and the Council's power to judge all the existing laws of Pennsylvania, and of a threat to annex the colony to New York. Taxes had arrived at last; archy was back in full force, and the glorious years of anarchism were gone.[6]

But a flurry of anarchism remained. In its 1694 session, the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to allocate almost half its tax revenue to the personal use of Thomas Lloyd and of William Markham, whom Fletcher had appointed as his Deputy-Governor. Infuriated, Fletcher dissolved the Assembly. After a year of imposition, taxes had again disappeared from Pennsylvania.

Disgusted, Fletcher lost interest in Pennsylvania, which after all these years was decidedly a poor place for raising tax revenue. The colony returned to its old quasi-anarchistic state, with no taxes and with a Council that did little and met infrequently. But, meanwhile, William Penn was campaigning energetically for returning to his feudal fiefdom. He abjectly promised the King that Pennsylvania would be good: that it would levy taxes, raise a militia, and obey royal orders. He promised to keep Fletcher's laws and to keep Markham as governor. As a result the King restored Pennsylvania to the ownership of Penn in the summer of 1694, and by the spring of the following year, Markham was installed as Deputy-Governor under the restored Penn proprietary. But in the spring 1695 session, the now elected Council again refused to consider any tax bill.

The Assembly continued to refuse to pass a tax bill for another year and a half. With the exception of one year, Pennsylvania thus remained in a quasi-anarchist state of taxlessness from its founding in 1681 until the fall of 1696: fourteen glorious years. Governor Markham was only able to push through a tax bill at the end of 1696 by a naked usurpation of the powers of government: decreeing a new constitution of his own, including an appointed Council. Markham was able to purchase the Assembly's support by granting it the power to initiate legislation and also to raise the property requirement for voting in the towns, thus permitting the Quakers to exclude the largely non-Quaker urban poor from having the vote.

A libertarian opposition now gathered, led by Arthur Cook (Thomas Lloyd now deceased. It included a coalition of former Keithians like Robert Turner and old Blackwell henchmen like Griffith Jones. The opposition gathered a mass petition in March 1697, signed by over a hundred, attacking the imposed constitution, the increase in suffrage requirements in the towns, and particularly the establishment of taxation. When the opposition Councilors and Assemblymen, elected as a protest under a separate set of votes under the old constitution, were summarily rejected, Robert Turner denounced this threat to "our ancient rights, liberties and freedom." Turner particularly denounced the tax bill of 1696, and urged that the tax money seized from its rightful owners "by that unwarranted, illegal and arbitrary act, be forthwith restored." But all this was to no avail. Pennsylvania soon slipped into the same archic mould as all the other colonies. The "Holy Experiment" was over.

http://mises.org/daily/2014

[Brian4Liberty]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?

The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"

Thoughts? Ideas?

That would not just be the logic of a social conservative.

Let's say that the goal is to establish as much liberty as possible. Should you advance certain "liberties" that may actually reverse some of your gains and take away other liberties? This is the situation with massive immigration. On the one hand, you would like the absolute freedom of movement to be a liberty for everyone. At the same time, full implementation of that one liberty may remove many other liberties. What do you do?

For instance, you allow immigration to the point where the majority is, say, Chinese. Their opinions become law. They tend towards authoritarianism and collectivism. By fully implementing liberty of movement, you lose a vast number of other liberties. You want to criticize the government or leaders? No more. You want to protest? Send in the stormtroopers. You disagree with the collective? You will be destroyed! (I like the term "destroyed". A Chinese woman told me that the military should "destroy" the Mormons if they engage in polygamy).

Changes in society due to immigration are usually slow, although they can be relatively fast if you change the majority overnight. Needless to say, concerns about this issue are usually overblown by some people, and severely underestimated by others.

[Stary Hickory]

Some RP folks are scared to death of "zionists" why?

[Sola_Fide]

Some RP folks are scared to death of "zionists" why?


I am a Christian (Reformed, not evangelical) and I am disgusted by the Evangelical movement's obsession with Zionism.

It all stems from a misinterpretation of eschatology.




Zionism is horrible. Christian Zionism and neo-conservatism is horrible. It is one of the primary reasons for debt and war.

[heavenlyboy34]

And yet "some enlightened atheists" are just as "simple-minded".

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2859945&postcount=103

Yes, collectivists and ignoramuses come in all sorts of flavors.

[lucius]

Because we have been inculcated to "demonize the enemy" like every other bullshit conflict that the bankers have dragged the US into since the spanish/american war--when will we wake up to this facade? Never...can't even talk about it now! We deserve all this misfortune...


Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?


The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Thoughts? Ideas?

[legion]

Some RP folks are scared to death of "zionists" why?

1000's of years of human history filled with mistakes and anti-market behavior, driven by religious leaders convincing the masses of something completely irrational?

[Pericles]

Maybe if they read more stuff like this:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=3.1.876023110

they would realize how much they have in common. To wit:

Jakarta, 26 August(AKI) - Prosecutors were searching on Thursday for the former editor-in-chief of Playboy Indonesia after the Supreme Court sentenced him to two years in prison for publishing pictures of scantily clothed women.

The South Jakarta prosecutor’s office said it would carry out a ruling by Indonesia's Supreme Court’s that found the chief editor of Indonesia's Playboy adult magazine, Erwin Arnada, guilty of indecency and sentenced him to two years in prison.

The court issued a guilty verdict in 2009 but only informed the prosecutors on Wednesday. It was not clear why.

Chief of the prosecutor’s office Muhammad Yusuf said state prosecutors would send Arnarda to jail as soon as they receive a copy of the Supreme Court’s verdict.

“I have ordered the investigators to execute the ruling immediately after they obtain the copy,” Yusuf said.

Following violent protests from hard-line Islamic groups, the magazine’s office was relocated from Jakarta to Denpasar.

[Legend1104]

No more than someone who still owns and believes a book that promotes slavery. I always wondered why these JC freaks don't just remove that old testament if they don't want it coming back to bite them in the ass later. Oh yeah, because they need all that anti *** stuff, don't want to be turning the other cheek for any *****s.

You obviously don't know much about history. Slavery in the ancient world is not the same institution that existed in the American South. Slavery in the American South was based on racism and cheap labor. The large majority of slaves in the Ancient world were debt slaves. These were slaves that became slaves because they had no way to pay their debts and could not feed their families so they sold themselves or their children in order to survive. In most cases it was the only way they could survive. So rather than condeming slavery, in many cases it was a welcomed release as opposed to death.

[Legend1104]

P.S. We get it. You hate Christianity. What I don't get is why you have to spew your hatred towards a group of people on this message board that are Christians that never did anything to you. i have said nothing before now in any way even speaking to you, yet you feel the need to denounce my personal beliefs and try to make us Christians on this board feel like crap. Just keep that stuff to yourself please. We have a lot more problems to address on RPFs than to have to deal with this junk.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

*****s dont want people to TURN cheeks, they want people to SPREAD cheeks

heh, yeah it was sort of a pun.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

You obviously don't know much about history. Slavery in the ancient world is not the same institution that existed in the American South. Slavery in the American South was based on racism and cheap labor. The large majority of slaves in the Ancient world were debt slaves. These were slaves that became slaves because they had no way to pay their debts and could not feed their families so they sold themselves or their children in order to survive. In most cases it was the only way they could survive. So rather than condeming slavery, in many cases it was a welcomed release as opposed to death.

Are you reading what you are actually typing?? You are arguing the case for slavery. According to your gospel, the enslavement and sexual abuse of Jaycee Lee Dugard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard) was perfectly legal except the part where Phillip Garrido let her out of the house!!!


And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (Exodus 21:7 KJV)

Wouldn't want those sex slaves getting any fresh air.

[noxagol]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?


The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Thoughts? Ideas?

I would tell them "And you have no one but yourselves to blame because you allowed the government to assume the power to do such things." And I would be completely correct. Those who push for government power enable whoever gains the government to use it, so be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Legend1104]

Are you reading what you are actually typing?? You are arguing the case for slavery. According to your gospel, the enslavement and sexual abuse of Jaycee Lee Dugard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard) was perfectly legal except the part where Phillip Garrido let her out of the house!!!



Wouldn't want those sex slaves getting any fresh air.

I am not arguing the cause for the type of slavery that existed in the American South no, but the type of slavery that existed in the ancient world, one due to mass poverty on a world wide scale, yes. The alternative of that type of slavery was not freedom, but rather death. This was voluntary slavery, not involuntary. So don't come in here using the kiddnapping of a little girl (Jaycee Lee Dugard) to demonize something you obviously don't understand. You can't compare our culture to the culture of an ancient world that existed over 2-4,000 years ago.

[YumYum]

To hell with the social cons.

We need the Muslim vote for Ron Paul 2012. AIPAC would never support Dr. Paul. After he posted his brave letter defending property rights 1.5 billion Muslims will stand behind him in his bid for the presidency. The letter was a brilliant move. I wouldn't be surprised if OPEC contributes $100 million to his campaign. Now, we need to get the poor folks and the illegals on his side.

[Matt Collins]

That would not just be the logic of a social conservative.

Let's say that the goal is to establish as much liberty as possible. Should you advance certain "liberties" that may actually reverse some of your gains and take away other liberties? This is the situation with massive immigration. On the one hand, you would like the absolute freedom of movement to be a liberty for everyone. At the same time, full implementation of that one liberty may remove many other liberties. What do you do?

For instance, you allow immigration to the point where the majority is, say, Chinese. Their opinions become law. They tend towards authoritarianism and collectivism. By fully implementing liberty of movement, you lose a vast number of other liberties. You want to criticize the government or leaders? No more. You want to protest? Send in the stormtroopers. You disagree with the collective? You will be destroyed! (I like the term "destroyed". A Chinese woman told me that the military should "destroy" the Mormons if they engage in polygamy).

Changes in society due to immigration are usually slow, although they can be relatively fast if you change the majority overnight. Needless to say, concerns about this issue are usually overblown by some people, and severely underestimated by others.Immigration is an area I'm personally conflicted over because I think the libertarian aspect of it can be cut two ways. 1 - I see it as private property and illegal immigrants are trespassing. 2- But I also know that government is incompetent and should not be what decides labor supply and demand curves.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I am not arguing the cause for the type of slavery that existed in the American South no, but the type of slavery that existed in the ancient world, one due to mass poverty on a world wide scale, yes. The alternative of that type of slavery was not freedom, but rather death. This was voluntary slavery, not involuntary. So don't come in here using the kiddnapping of a little girl (Jaycee Lee Dugard) to demonize something you obviously don't understand. You can't compare our culture to the culture of an ancient world that existed over 2-4,000 years ago.

Then tear the old testament out and denounce it along with all that miracle shit. Really, Jesus cured leprosy?? We already know that it's caused by a bacteria and we can cure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy#Treatment) it. Does that make the doctors and scientists administering the medicine the "Son of Christ?" HAHAHAHA!!

When you rip out all the nonsense that we can debunk, all you're left with is a fucking fairy tail.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Alright , out of curiousity , how would you define a social neo con ?

lol. There is no such thing as a "social neocon."

I swear some people here have just fallen in-love with the word 'neocon' and use it for absolutely anything and everything. The word has been abused to the point it has subsequently lost most if not all of its oomph. It's like a leftist calling somebody opposed to illegal immigration a "racist": meaningless.

Neocon used to mean a left-leaning-on-domestic-issues politician who supports preemptive wars for democracy. Now it simply means: 'any politician I don't like.'

[Mini-Me]

Multiculturalism (forced immigration) and democracy is not a good combination... it never ends well. One group will use the government guns against the other and vise versa.

As for Sharia Law coming to America; people need to worry about Marshal Law first.

Please, please, start spelling "martial law" correctly, guys...it's "martial," as in war-like, not "Marshal," as in Eminem.

[noxagol]

Immigration is an area I'm personally conflicted over because I think the libertarian aspect of it can be cut two ways. 1 - I see it as private property and illegal immigrants are trespassing. 2- But I also know that government is incompetent and should not be what decides labor supply and demand curves.

Those are actually not conflicting terms. Rothbard said that that in an anarchocapitalistic society, the borders would be closed by default since there would be no public land and therefore all land would be private which would result in all the borders being closed since people do not allow just anyone onto their land. The problem is the government is assuming it owns the country and is trying to control who goes onto your or my land in our stead.

The true position of freedom ignores such things as national borders and only looks at things in a private property perspective. Each person's property is a separate nation and each person can decide for themselves if their borders are open or closed.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

*takes cat out of the bag* That's assuming Moslems were responsible for 9/11 :-P *puts the cat back in the bag*

[Legend1104]

Then tear the old testament out and denounce it along with all that miracle shit. Really, Jesus cured leprosy?? We already know that it's caused by a bacteria and we can cure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy#Treatment) it. Does that make the doctors and scientists administering the medicine the "Son of Christ?" HAHAHAHA!!

When you rip out all the nonsense that we can debunk, all you're left with is a fucking fairy tail.

You kidding right? The term used in the Bible for leprosy is not the same that we use today. They used the word leprosy to mean a number of different diseases ranging from bacterial infections, fungus, to other as of yet unknown diseases. It most cases that the Bible talks about leprosy, it is not actually the leprosy that we think about.

by the way you completely missed my argument because I was not denouncing what is in the Bible because actually slave practices were quite neccessary in an ancient world of mass poverty and daily starvation. The point the Bible was trying to make was to make sure that Hebrews were as humane as possible when practicing it. Once again, most people that became slaves in the old world did it as an alternative to starvation. If their was no slavery in those days then those people would have starved to death.

[Mini-Me]

You kidding right? The term used in the Bible for leprosy is not the same that we use today. They used the word leprosy to mean a number of different diseases ranging from bacterial infections, fungus, to other as of yet unknown diseases. It most cases that the Bible talks about leprosy, it is not actually the leprosy that we think about.

by the way you completely missed my argument because I was not denouncing what is in the Bible because actually slave practices were quite neccessary in an ancient world of mass poverty and daily starvation. The point the Bible was trying to make was to make sure that Hebrews were as humane as possible when practicing it. Once again, most people that became slaves in the old world did it as an alternative to starvation. If their was no slavery in those days then those people would have starved to death.

...because regular employment with an escape clause is simply insufficient to live off of, right? I mean, there's no way anyone would ever consider just hiring someone to help them; only slavery was a viable answer, and it was necessary! :rolleyes:

That's a nonsensical argument from an economic point of view. If there were enough resources to go around for families to take care of slaves, there would have been enough resources to go around for families to take care of servants who were allowed to quit, instead. Perhaps you're right that the institution was less obscene than what was practiced in more modern times, but that's certainly no reason to go defending it, let alone claiming it was "necessary."

[Legend1104]

...because regular employment with an escape clause is simply insufficient to live off of, right? I mean, there's no way anyone would ever consider just hiring someone to help them; only slavery was a viable answer, and it was necessary! :rolleyes:

That's a nonsensical argument from an economic point of view. If there were enough resources to go around for families to take care of slaves, there would have been enough resources to go around for families to take care of servants who were allowed to quit, instead. Perhaps you're right that the institution was less obscene than what was practiced in more modern times, but that's certainly no reason to go defending it, let alone claiming it was "necessary."

Actually you make a valid point, and that is pretty close to how the system was set up under the Mosaic law. People who sold themselves did not, in most cases, do it for life. They usually sold themselves for a set number of years depending upon the amount of debt that was being covered. Then they were allowed to go free, similar to indentured servitude. The biblical practice was considered much more fair and just than any other system that existed.

Also, on another point, there was not enough resources to go around. That was the point I was making. Sure there were wealthy families that existed, but ancient times were a lot different from today. even if you spread out the wealth of all of the wealthy people of that day, there still would not have been enough for everyone. A large number of deaths due to starvation existed in those days. Most of the people that sold themselves into slavery were doing due to debt that they could not pay back. Slavery offered them a way to pay it back.

[Theocrat]

Why are the social cons scared to death of Muslims?


The argument typically goes like this...

"Well the Muslims are going to come in here and take over once they get enough people to vote themselves into office and then they'll institute Sharia Law and turn us into a Muslim nation... just look at the problems France and other European countries are having"


Thoughts? Ideas?

Well, I believe that is a good reason to be concerned. It speaks to the heart of conflicting worldviews in society. Inevitably, one worldview becomes the dominant view imposed upon the rest of society and taken for granted as a true and proper foundation to establish other realms such as law, education, and morality.

Currently, our nation has been influenced by social relativism though the religion of secular humanism. So, if we allow Islamic thought to be taken seriously in our country (which is already on the brink of tyranny), then we will have a critical issue on our hands in dealing with social, economic, religious, and political virtues of our day. Like secularists, Muslims are not neutral in their beliefs about what is good, beautiful, and true for society.

[Matt Collins]

Those are actually not conflicting terms. Rothbard said that that in an anarchocapitalistic society, the borders would be closed by default since there would be no public land and therefore all land would be private which would result in all the borders being closed since people do not allow just anyone onto their land. The problem is the government is assuming it owns the country and is trying to control who goes onto your or my land in our stead.

The true position of freedom ignores such things as national borders and only looks at things in a private property perspective. Each person's property is a separate nation and each person can decide for themselves if their borders are open or closed.
Except that there must be enough of a minimal government to ensure that individual rights are enforced, justice is provided, and contracts are enforced.

[Matt Collins]

For the 1st part, do you really think things are that simple? People just moving in and instituting what they want? It's impossible. I mean how does one do that? Do you have a possible scenario on how that would happen? Get enough individuals to propose and ratify a Constitutional amendment.



Can a law be instituted which is unconstitutional? Happens on a daily basis.



How many muslims would it take? Someone made a light hearted comment about Catholic citizens having the clout to institute papal decrees :rolleyes: As the argument goes, "but Catholics are not about world domination like Islam is"




Apart from that also consider that sharia or islamic jurisprudence does not have any one interpretation, there are dozens I am sure.In Iran and Saudi it has the interpretations of the people at the top I am sure.


the biggest concern should be this country starting to sound like Europe or the third world.I agree that there are much more immediate and important / tangible concerns. And for that matter I don't even think this is a concern. But the social cons are wigging out about it.

[heavenlyboy34]

One of the best books I've read about how theology influences law and culture was The One And The Many by Rousas Rushdoony (Chuck Baldwin is a big fan of his).

Islam is a theology that emphasizes "oneness of being". In Islam, Allah is one, without division. This mirrors their conception of the State--the all-powerful One in which submission must be made. In the more religious Muslim countries, you ALWAYS have this progress toward centralization. Also, Allah is SO above and apart from his creation that a system of priests must be intermediaries between the people and Allah...which leads to greater centralization.



In Christianity, God is equally unity and diversity. He is One and yet Many. This foundational philosophical concept gave rise to the notion of decentralization...for the neccessity of checks and balances. In Christianity (Protestantism, sorry my Catholic friends) there is the idea that God has entered into creation and became close to His creation. A system of priests were not needed to interceed for man, because God has interceeded Himself. The focus became the indivudual. The State was no longer seen as a link between God and man.

This line of thought did not really come about until the Enlightenment though, so you don't have a very good argument. Prior to that there was tremendous debate between various religious factions about Jesus' exact nature-was he a "mini-me" of God, divinely inspired prophet, and so on? This conflict about the exact nature of the Trinity keeps the various types of Christians in conflict to this day.