Zobel said:

---

Does it? I mean you've spoken negatively of missions, military, political activism. Those are basically the three levers of mass influence. The only thing left is individual immigration, en masse, with outcome of changing culture but it kinda seems like you're against that too?

You said other cultures have a "right to self preservation". Where does that right come from? Also consensus?

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You cannot think of any examples of forced conversation by Christians?

---

Conversion or conversation? Not in recent years.

Maybe I missed it. Happy to read examples.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You cannot think of any examples of forced conversation by Christians?

---

Conversion or conversation? Not in recent years.

Maybe I missed it. Happy to read examples.

---

Conversion . . . . hahahha typo.

Yes, there are fewer examples today. And many examples in the past which Christians like to wave away.

---

Zobel said:

---

lol no, you said the two cultures aren't equal. you said yours is better. so by definition, conversion has a qualitative aspect to it - one direction is preferred by you. the opposite is worse, according to you.

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You cannot think of any examples of forced conversation by Christians?

---

Conversion or conversation? Not in recent years.

Maybe I missed it. Happy to read examples.

---

Conversion . . . . hahahha typo.

Yes, there are fewer examples today. And many examples in the past which Christians like to wave away.

---

I am not waving them away. I have no control over that. I am talking about the here and now. And would condemn Christians who were doing that. But they aren't anymore. And Muslims are. And I hear crickets from their religious leaders.
Do you think present Christian leaders would not say anything if Christian radicals went and killed a bunch of Muslims?

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

You cannot think of any examples of forced conversation by Christians?

---

Conversion or conversation? Not in recent years.

Maybe I missed it. Happy to read examples.

---

Conversion . . . . hahahha typo.

Yes, there are fewer examples today. And many examples in the past which Christians like to wave away.

---

I am not waving them away. I have no control over that. I am talking about the here and now. And would condemn Christians who were doing that. But they aren't anymore. And Muslims are. And I hear crickets from their religious leaders.
Do you think present Christian leaders would not say anything if Christian radicals went and killed a bunch of Muslims?

---

Is it possible that you aren't in touch with many Muslim leaders? Because they regularly denounce violence only to either get accused of being liars (for the fact that they are Muslim) or ignored. Also, for all the talk about Christians killed in Africa, it's far more Muslims killed by those groups. But there's only concern in this country for the Christian victims. Why?

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am not waving them away. I have no control over that. I am talking about the here and now. And would condemn Christians who were doing that. But they aren't anymore. And Muslims are. And I hear crickets from their religious leaders.
Do you think present Christian leaders would not say anything if Christian radicals went and killed a bunch of Muslims?

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am not waving them away. I have no control over that. I am talking about the here and now. And would condemn Christians who were doing that. But they aren't anymore. And Muslims are. And I hear crickets from their religious leaders.
Do you think present Christian leaders would not say anything if Christian radicals went and killed a bunch of Muslims?

---

Which of their religious leaders do you follow? Without looking it up, name some of the prominent Islamic teachers and leaders. I'm not saying this to defend Islam, rather I'm making the point that you hear crickets from their religious leaders because I'm guessing you aren't listening to them.

Just as you might say it is unfair to judge you or the merits of Christianity by looking at the actions of Christian terrorists, I say it is unfair to judge all Muslims by the merits of their violent actors. Is this not fair? Is this not consistency?

---

Zobel said:

---

lol no, you said the two cultures aren't equal. you said yours is better. so by definition, conversion has a qualitative aspect to it - one direction is preferred by you. the opposite is worse, according to you.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Where are the Christian terrorists in recent years? Did I miss something?

And wouldn't I hear something of the Muslim leaders were saying something? Wouldn't the media cover them?

At some point, moral relativism does not coincide with facts.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Where are the Christian terrorists in recent years? Did I miss something?

And wouldn't I hear something of the Muslim leaders were saying something? Wouldn't the media cover them?

At some point, moral relativism does not coincide with facts.

---

I didn't say the exist today. I'm sayin that they have existed and that it is problematic to judge an entire 'label' of people based on the worst actors who use that label. I hardly think that should be controversial.

And no, I don't think you would hear something if Muslim leaders were saying something. Because they very clearly are saying something. Anyone with base knowledge of internet search engines and AI tools can find all sorts of Islamic leaders condemning violence and promoting moderation. The answer for why the media doesn't cover this is because the media sucks.

And moral relativism has nothing to do with this. Its become your cover-all criticism of my position, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Where are the Christian terrorists in recent years? Did I miss something?

And wouldn't I hear something of the Muslim leaders were saying something? Wouldn't the media cover them?

At some point, moral relativism does not coincide with facts.

---

I didn't say the exist today. I'm sayin that they have existed and that it is problematic to judge an entire 'label' of people based on the worst actors who use that label. I hardly think that should be controversial.

And no, I don't think you would hear something if Muslim leaders were saying something. Because they very clearly are saying something. Anyone with base knowledge of internet search engines and AI tools can find all sorts of Islamic leaders condemning violence and promoting moderation. The answer for why the media doesn't cover this is because the media sucks.

And moral relativism has nothing to do with this. It's become your cover-all criticism of my position, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

I was in Turkey last year. Walking around with my wife in Istanbul, dipping into clubs - Istanbul is probably the open LGBTQ capital of the Islamic world. Maybe it's different in provincial cities - I'm sure Gaziantep is less liberal than Istanbul, but then again I'm sure SF is more open to gays than Laramie Wyoming.

It's kind of odd, really, this perception that secular Islamic states are somehow more tolerant than non-secular ones. LGBTQ was far better tolerated in the Islamic world up until roughly the 1800s and there were no "secular" Muslim governments there. Pakistan, which I'm sure no one will call a liberal country, allows for transgender individuals to have a unique identity marker on passports, something the United States does not anymore. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an is half-hearted at best and the Hadith corpus is entirely untrustworthy on the matter. Take a look at Islamic poetry from the golden age. Homoeroticism, gender switching, etc. are common themes. One of the most common Ismaili hymns paints the worshipper as a bride awaiting her new husband (God) on her wedding night with her hands stained with henna. Men sing this hymn.

Is there a massive Salafi influence on modern Muslim states? Sure. I don't think anyone would deny that. Salafism, however, is not a reactionary movement. It's a radical one. It's trying to go back to a version of the Muslim world that never existed except in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's mind.

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

I was in Turkey last year. Walking around with my wife in Istanbul, dipping into clubs - Istanbul is probably the open LGBTQ capital of the Islamic world. Maybe it's different in provincial cities - I'm sure Gaziantep is less liberal than Istanbul, but then again I'm sure SF is more open to gays than Laramie Wyoming.

It's kind of odd, really, this perception that secular Islamic states are somehow more tolerant than non-secular ones. LGBTQ was far better tolerated in the Islamic world up until roughly the 1800s and there were no "secular" Muslim governments there. Pakistan, which I'm sure no one will call a liberal country, allows for transgender individuals to have a unique identity marker on passports, something the United States does not anymore. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an is half-hearted at best and the Hadith corpus is entirely untrustworthy on the matter. Take a look at Islamic poetry from the golden age. Homoeroticism, gender switching, etc. are common themes. One of the most common Ismaili hymns paints the worshipper as a bride awaiting her new husband (God) on her wedding night with her hands stained with henna. Men sing this hymn.

Is there a massive Salafi influence on modern Muslim states? Sure. I don't think anyone would deny that. Salafism, however, is not a reactionary movement. It's a radical one. It's trying to go back to a version of the Muslim world that never existed except in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's mind.

---

I had a friend from turkey whose parents own a hotel on the coast and who worked(s?) as a reporter and anchor for a major network in Istanbul after graduation. She is liberal for her country, and that's who we went to visit. I'm not speaking purely as a tourist. While we've lost touch, I also know missionaries in that general region.

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

I was in Turkey last year. Walking around with my wife in Istanbul, dipping into clubs - Istanbul is probably the open LGBTQ capital of the Islamic world. Maybe it's different in provincial cities - I'm sure Gaziantep is less liberal than Istanbul, but then again I'm sure SF is more open to gays than Laramie Wyoming.

It's kind of odd, really, this perception that secular Islamic states are somehow more tolerant than non-secular ones. LGBTQ was far better tolerated in the Islamic world up until roughly the 1800s and there were no "secular" Muslim governments there. Pakistan, which I'm sure no one will call a liberal country, allows for transgender individuals to have a unique identity marker on passports, something the United States does not anymore. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an is half-hearted at best and the Hadith corpus is entirely untrustworthy on the matter. Take a look at Islamic poetry from the golden age. Homoeroticism, gender switching, etc. are common themes. One of the most common Ismaili hymns paints the worshipper as a bride awaiting her new husband (God) on her wedding night with her hands stained with henna. Men sing this hymn.

Is there a massive Salafi influence on modern Muslim states? Sure. I don't think anyone would deny that. Salafism, however, is not a reactionary movement. It's a radical one. It's trying to go back to a version of the Muslim world that never existed except in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's mind.

---

I had a friend from turkey whose parents own a hotel on the coast and who worked(s?) as a reporter and anchor for a major network in Istanbul after graduation. She is liberal for her country, and that's who we went to visit. I'm not speaking purely as a tourist. While we've lost touch, I also know missionaries in that general region.

---

I'm sure you've heard what you've heard but given that I saw like 30+ LGBTQ couples in the same 2-3 square miles around Taksim Square and none of them were getting lynched, it's not the backsliding Sharia law state that you seem to think it is

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

I was in Turkey last year. Walking around with my wife in Istanbul, dipping into clubs - Istanbul is probably the open LGBTQ capital of the Islamic world. Maybe it's different in provincial cities - I'm sure Gaziantep is less liberal than Istanbul, but then again I'm sure SF is more open to gays than Laramie Wyoming.

It's kind of odd, really, this perception that secular Islamic states are somehow more tolerant than non-secular ones. LGBTQ was far better tolerated in the Islamic world up until roughly the 1800s and there were no "secular" Muslim governments there. Pakistan, which I'm sure no one will call a liberal country, allows for transgender individuals to have a unique identity marker on passports, something the United States does not anymore. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an is half-hearted at best and the Hadith corpus is entirely untrustworthy on the matter. Take a look at Islamic poetry from the golden age. Homoeroticism, gender switching, etc. are common themes. One of the most common Ismaili hymns paints the worshipper as a bride awaiting her new husband (God) on her wedding night with her hands stained with henna. Men sing this hymn.

Is there a massive Salafi influence on modern Muslim states? Sure. I don't think anyone would deny that. Salafism, however, is not a reactionary movement. It's a radical one. It's trying to go back to a version of the Muslim world that never existed except in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's mind.

---

I had a friend from turkey whose parents own a hotel on the coast and who worked(s?) as a reporter and anchor for a major network in Istanbul after graduation. She is liberal for her country, and that's who we went to visit. I'm not speaking purely as a tourist. While we've lost touch, I also know missionaries in that general region.

---

I'm sure you've heard what you've heard but given that I saw like 30+ LGBTQ couples in the same 2-3 square miles around Taksim Square and none of them were getting lynched, it's not the backsliding Sharia law state that you seem to think it is

---

I've been there myself, thanks. Who said sharia? I'll hang up and wait.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

canadiaggie said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Okay great, either you understand that Islam is antithetical to all of those things or you don't. They will not take an honest oath to the constitution, Islam has its own baked in view of government and it isn't the constitution. They had no willingness to conform to these standards or values, or enshrine these rights or responsibilities. Or view themselves as having a duty or responsibility to non-muslim groups within america. All your going to get is muslim tribalism until they reach critical mass and can go, 'Yup we were lying about accepting your values - its Sharia law time.' And that is all condoned by their religion. Your oath to a piece of paper is meaningless.

Again, this whole conversation is about presuppositions. You don't have a religion, so the highest allegiance you can make is to the state.

Ironically, you're just one step behind me here. I agree with all your claims, coming to america should require:

Oaths to the Constitution, required civics classes, interviews to determine willingness to conform to standards / values, orientation programs about rights and responsibilities.

And I state that disqualifies the whole muslim world and most of modern europe actually. You'd call your own worldview prejudiced once its applied.

The whole idea that you can just jump through hoops and get access to america is ridiculous anyway. People will absolutely lie and cheat their way for a chance at becoming american. They'll sign and say whatever to get out of their 3rd world country.

---

Do you speak for all Muslims or all Muslims in America?

I would rather listen to Muslims tell me what their values are than have you tell me what their values are.

What I think is funny is that these argument sound very much like the arguments against Catholic immigration circa 1850-1900 or so. It was said that Catholics could not be loyal to the US over the Pope, that they would bring Protestant-Catholic violence to the US, that they would bring poverty and violence, and that their values were not compatible with democratic values.

I just did a search for 'quotes on anti-Catholic sentiment in the US focusing on compatibility with American values' . . . and what a gold mine. . . here are a couple favorites:

"The Roman Catholic religion is not compatible with republican institutions. Popery… is opposed to civil and religious liberty." "If the Catholics gain an ascendancy, farewell to the religious and civil liberties of our country." - Sam Morse

"The State shall not support sectarian schools… especially those whose allegiance is to a power outside our borders." - Senator Blaine regarding allowing Catholic schools

"Popery is a system of darkness… whose spirit is incompatible with freedom." - Lyman Beecher

Anyway, I encourage spending some time reading through anti-Catholic sentiment from this time. The parallels between the rhetoric then (Catholics) and today (Islam) are just fantastic.

---

Does Dearborn count? Or are we just evaluating the one or two on texags that says they agree with all the things we do? How can you sort through the truth of any of it, if you don't understand the culture or religion they come from anyways? You don't speak the language and can't read the Quran; why do you think you can discern such a thing?

I had a friend in turkey who was fairly liberal. Erdogan has them backsliding and I wouldn't spend time in the country anymore, like going to tarsus as I did a decade ago. It takes a strong secular government to check Islamic excesses.

---

I was in Turkey last year. Walking around with my wife in Istanbul, dipping into clubs - Istanbul is probably the open LGBTQ capital of the Islamic world. Maybe it's different in provincial cities - I'm sure Gaziantep is less liberal than Istanbul, but then again I'm sure SF is more open to gays than Laramie Wyoming.

It's kind of odd, really, this perception that secular Islamic states are somehow more tolerant than non-secular ones. LGBTQ was far better tolerated in the Islamic world up until roughly the 1800s and there were no "secular" Muslim governments there. Pakistan, which I'm sure no one will call a liberal country, allows for transgender individuals to have a unique identity marker on passports, something the United States does not anymore. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Qur'an is half-hearted at best and the Hadith corpus is entirely untrustworthy on the matter. Take a look at Islamic poetry from the golden age. Homoeroticism, gender switching, etc. are common themes. One of the most common Ismaili hymns paints the worshipper as a bride awaiting her new husband (God) on her wedding night with her hands stained with henna. Men sing this hymn.

Is there a massive Salafi influence on modern Muslim states? Sure. I don't think anyone would deny that. Salafism, however, is not a reactionary movement. It's a radical one. It's trying to go back to a version of the Muslim world that never existed except in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab's mind.

---

You realize this is demonic right? In Christianity, homosexual acts are always aligned with rebellion against God's order, sin, and giving into fleshly desire. It is considered an abomination. Transgenderism is also a common theme within satan's forms. It is also an inversion/corruption/confusion of the created order by God.

And to point to hadith corpus and say they are untrustworthy on the whole is just to say you are a muslim. The whole power base of islam is which hadiths have power and which ones don't. From the day of Mohammed's death, islam mirrors protestantism in that regard.

Also, generally the highlights you like to point out about how tame, great, and civilized islam is are always how islam is mixing with secularism. Not a great look, mostly because those things you brag about from secularism are the baked into, unmoored christian ethics it inherited from Christendom. So there is an implicit understanding that you are bragging about the shadow of Christian ethics here. Also, secularism produces rotten fruit. Is celebrating homoerocitism, gender switching, etc even good? Great that imbedded within secularism is the ability to have trust and invest money in infrastructure, build tall buildings, and generally enforce fair markets. Thats not the core components of a religion. Patting yourself on the back about enjoying the worldly, cosmopolitan things like LGBTQ acceptance isn't the look you want here.

---

TresPuertas said:

---

While interesting, I don't think you can extrapolate your experience in Istambul to the Islamic perception of homosexuality. What you experienced was certainly the outlier and not the norm. Which, if I'm reading correctly is the point you were trying to make

That said, I'd agree that the way homosexuality and even pedophilia have been handled within the Islamic religion is inconsistent. Regardless of what the Quran says, or don't address as you pointed out, there is rampant homosexuality in the tribals and rural areas. Similarly, pedophilia called bacha bazi is practiced all throughout the Muslim world.

As with any religion, Hypocrisy is fully present by its followers, but very few practice it like the Muslims do.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

---