teknoman2

i find your examples a bit ham fisted. why would a cuban have a problem living here? despite the difference in economical ideology, the social ideology is similar enough to allow a coexistence that does not require either side to give up it's way of life for the sake of the other. there is only one question that needs to be asked really: when in Rome, act like a Roman... are you willing to follow this rule? if not, its best for everyone that you stay home. those whom you used as examples can and do follow this rule because it conflicts little if at all with their original way of life. some others however, with muslims being most prominent, come from places where the way of life is diametrically opposite to the way of life in EU, USA, Canada etc. and when they move there, are unwilling or unable to adjust their mentality to the different environment and instead ask for the environment to change in accordance to their original way of life. so no, i'm not against anyone immigrating anywhere, as long as he is willing to accept that he is a guest in someone else's house and should not ask (or expect) from the host to remodel the house for his sake.

of course they aren't. as i said before, according to their religion allah takes all responsibility. they do not kill of their own free will and take no responsibility for any action, everything they did happened because allah decided that at that time and place it was supposed to happen.

http://imgur.com/R56GX7d

try coming up with a less nitpicky example that was not during a dictatorship in the most hardcore catholic nation of the world. and as you said, Franco had special prisons for them and they were taken to court before being locked up but enlighten me on this: were they sentenced to death and thrown in front of a crowd to be lynched? was it legal for a mob to lynch them in the street without a trial? when was the last time that lynching a gay on the street was totally legal in a free country like UK,US, France etc? it still is today in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Philippines, Pakistan and so on and it recently became legal again in Libya after they toppled Qaddafi. but the point of this discussion are not gay people, its the incompatibility of islam with the west. islam is a religion that considers certain things (like lynchings) as religiously, morally, socially and legally acceptable and these things have been legally, morally and socially (and more often than not even religiously) banned in the west. do they lynch gays in their homeland? do they lynch women for any reason they can come up with? do they marry and have sex with children? do they own slaves? do Shia and Suni kill each other? they do and i don't care one bit that they do, as long as they do it there where its the accepted way of life! however here all these things are not acceptable and the question is: as a show of respect to their religious freedom, do we make them acceptable or do we deny them their religious freedom for the sake of our way of life? and what do we do if they use either of these decisions (or anything between) as a reason/opportunity to push for the islamization of the west? and no, the excuse "the catholic church and its followers did all that too long ago" is not a valid argument for two reasons 1. it was long ago and it is something that the "no longer theocratic" west left behind even if some individuals still try to cling to it despite no longer having the formal approval of the church. 2. the catholics, just like the pre-mass immigration muslims, did things like the inquisition in their own countries. do you know what happened to catholics who tried acting like muslims act today in lands where their religion was not dominant (i.e Japan)? lets just say the locals didn't change their way of life as a sign of good will

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay? somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now. all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one has its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents. Lol. Are you for real? Wait, wait. That doesn't count because... they aren't shouting "God is great" while they do the deed, right? let me rephrase it because you missed the point. when was the last time a christian mob killed gay people in public just because they are gay and the action was publicly endorsed and applauded by both the church and society with no legal action taken against the killers because killing gays was seen as a civic duty?

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay? somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now. all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one encourages its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents.

That's more like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church split. no, its much more minor, but still enough to make them mortal enemies. i'm not sure which is which but the gist of it is that one group believes that the ruler of the state must not be a religious leader and should act independently of religion for the sake of the country and its people. the other, more orthodox group, believes that like the prophet himself, only the highest ranking priest is suited to be the ruler of the country... and if possible (but not mandatory) that priest should prove some genealogical connection to the prophet it all comes down to separation of state and religion and they are currently in a civil war over it

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong. If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork. of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people. redneckdevil as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire. islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20 13 “You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. .." Deuteronomy 17 1-20 "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." Luke 19 27 “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." Exodus 22:19 "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25 44-46 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21 7-11 (and yes, this is saying its okay to sell your DAUGHTER as SEX SLAVE) "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21 20-21 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6 5 "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." 1 Timothy 2 11-15 "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14 34-35 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Ephesias 5 22-24 Christianity! Not evil you say. **** you. i don't say its all flowers and rainbows, but what you quote are not supposed to be a part of the christian religion but of judaism. the catholic church that considers christianity an evolution of Judaism (and did so just to differentiate itself from the orthodox church) adopted in their scriptures the entirety of jewish traditions without however applying these traditions to anyone or anything except whenever it fit the agenda of the clergy (the majority of the most devout believers don't even know about many of these quotes). people at the time didn't like gays so the pope publicly announced that "god hates gays". however part of the judaic heritage was the prohibition of pork and seafood for public health reasons due to the native environment of the jews and it was going against the millennia old way of life of europeans, so they kept that hidden from the illiterate population that had no other way of knowing anything besides being told by the priests. the orthodox church (that was the original form of the christian religion) on the other hand considers itself a completely separate thing from judaism and has not adopted a single line of the old testament as part of their creed. they kept it as a backstory of where the world and faith originated and how Jesus came to be, but they did away with all the above quotes and more. it is not a coincidence that the Byzantine empire never had a dark age and that after its fall renaissance happened to the west. of course they weren't saints by any stretch of the word. the priests had a huge influence on the population and capitalized on it at every opportunity, even starting a revolt when the idea of separating church and state was proposed. however, unlike their catholic colleagues who usually had only the education they received within the church and it was almost entirely composed of the bible, high ranking orthodox priests in byzantium were usually from rich families and were well educated before joining the clergy, so they had a broader perspective and did not stifle social and scientific progress... at least not as totally as the catholics did during that same time. islam, borrowed heavily from judaism because Muhammad wanted primarily to convert and control the rich jewish merchants of the region and their wealth that was necessary for his plan to build an empire. however his plan failed as they were very devout to their faith and would not abandon it for some self proclaimed prophet. so he added parts of christianity in his mix to broaden the potential converts and created the "convert, enslave or kill infidels" rule because he knew that the lower classes would jump at the chance to mess with the rich merchants as in the social structure he created a muslim beggar was above the richest infidel merchant in status and could demand of the merchant whatever he wanted with the freedom to kill said merchant on the spot if he so desired. through manipulating the "word of god" to fit his interests, Muhammad created the first islamic caliphate with him as the ruler and when he died he left a final divine edict: make islam the only religion in the world! people of all religions have done stuff that were as shameful and evil as anything, but the clergy that was usually instigating it have settled down and took a back seat in the last 200-300 years, allowing societies to grow and evolve. the faithful still used their faith as an excuse to do some pretty nasty stuff, but in almost all cases it wasn't the faith itself or its leaders to demand of them to do what they did. for example settlers in the west USA just hated indians, but to kill just because of hate was a sin so they came up with the excuse that "its ok to kill them all, they are not christians". had the indians been christians, they would have come up with another excuse. today you will almost never hear of people of any religion going wild with divine fervor and taking violent action against anyone they deem their god hates (hardcore catholics hate gays, but they do not stone them to death in public) and you will never see any priest instigating that sort of behavior in the faithful, instead they do their best to prevent it. that is all except the priests and faithful of islam who still stone gays to death in public, stone unfaithful women to death in public, behead criminals in public, instigate terrorist attacks and so on, all in the name of a god who takes full responsibility for your actions and allows you to do whatever you want (or are told) with no remorse or guilt

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong. If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork. of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people. redneckdevil as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire. islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills.

my facial hair grows very slowly and it was a blessing when i was in the army where a permanent clean shave was mandatory. i shaved once a week and nobody could tell

christian priesthood was as eager as anyone to convert everyone to their religion and reap the monetary benefits of an ever larger flock of followers, however the teachings of the religion do not include a divine mandate to "convert or kill". no matter how many religious texts you may read you will not find anything that says it. in islam on the other hand, the order "convert or kill" is in every holy book and is repeated several times in some.

???

the fact that in this particular case the order "convert, enslave or kill all infidels" is a cornerstone of the teachings doesn't help either.

the cat is like "did you guys see that?" http://imgur.com/f9XHNnZ

and the biggest victims of these attacks are not those who died but those who have to live in fear. and besides fear of another attack, people will soon live in fear that the police will mistake them for a terrorist with the smallest suspicious move and will shoot them it may not be morally correct to dump all muslims in the same basket and just kick them out of the western world, but to stop the ever growing fear mongering, someone has to press the reset button. moral superiority at the cost of life, limb and freedom is just self destruction or as the afterlife joke goes "ISIS may have beheaded us all, but at least we weren't racists" pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them islam says that you go to hell if: you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness. you are beheaded you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest you leave islam any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

A lot of your examples seem to imply that there is one set law for both the Islamic world and the Western world. They vary tremendously all over the place. edit: To elaborate, I'd say society constantly has to push for progress, no matter what the dominant religion is. The idea that western society has protected the rights of gay people is a fairly new one. Heck, you don't have to go back very far to find a time in Western society where women and children had few rights. 50 years ago gays were illegal in most western countries that much is true, however now they have the same rights as everyone else. would it be ok to revoke all their rights as a show of tolerance to the creed of a religion? the problem stems from the western world's arrogance in thinking that they can reform people who grew up in a society where a religion that advocates a social structure and behavior that the western world has left behind since a long time ago, is everything. people from a homeland that does not have the word "reform" in its vocabulary - especially when it comes to faith. the trademark of mankind and modern western society most of all is "ignorance and arrogance"

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death. capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell. take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture. so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law? our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice? our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom? our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above. so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays? social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years. " feed them pork every day " .... What a truly terrible punishment..can you imagine you had to accept one of these tortues, which one praytell would you choose? Parts of your body covered with boiling oil To be stretched on a Rack To have hot coals poured on your back To eat a bacon and egg sandwich Such choices.....such choices well, if you are a mass murderer who kills in the name of your god and the bacon and eggs is your ticket to hell, i'd say it's worse than the rest. at least the rest make you a martyr and reinforce your belief that heaven awaits

modern journalism... fact check? who needs that, click bait all the way and we can just say sorry later. as my grandma always says "since sorry was invented, honor was buried alive"

well, my mother in her driving lessons finally managed to do some damage. she just can't get over her panic when she tries anything ending up making the engine stall most of the time, but today she panicked and smashed the gas pedal with the clutch pressed, red-lined the RPM and blew the radiator

the only way to fight religious extremism is with religion. there are strict rules about going to heaven in islam so if we want to stop these attacks by people who do them because they were promised a spot to heaven for them, is to deny them that spot and the rest will think twice before trying to do the same And how do you do that? The muslim form of excommunication? Which, incidentially means to stone them to death. capture them alive and deny them their religious rights. put them in a prison and feed them pork every day with no permission to go get their sin of eating it absolved by a priest. if they were to die without confessing that sin and getting pardoned for it, it would mean they would go to hell in places where the death penalty exists, execute them by beheading which means instant condemnation to hell. take them to a church and forcefully baptize them christians. leaving islam is the ultimate sin anyway the incompatibility is not about the distinction between state and religion. it's about the laws of western society that promote cultural and religious freedom but at the same time protect the rights of children, women, gays and so on - all groups that have no rights at all in islamic culture. so the question is: where do we draw the line between what law is acceptable to bend in the name of religious freedom and what religious freedom we cull in the name of the law? our law says "one man can marry one woman only" and their culture says "one man can marry as many women as he wants". do we bend the law or do we forbid the cultural practice? our law says "no sex with children" and their culture says "if she is 9 years old you can have sex with her". again what is more important, the law of their cultural freedom? our law says "whoever commits rape goes to jail" and their culture says "if a woman is raped, its her fault for walking around without a man to protect her and should be stoned to death - no punishment for the rapist". same question as above. so, where do we draw the line? are they willing to abide by that line? will they keep asking for the line to be moved more to the side of their culture? how will the lawmakers respond to such requests? are local people ok with them being allowed to do things that are illegal because of cultural freedom? what if local pedos start asking "in the name of culture" to completely remove the laws about sex with children? what if groups or anti gay fanatics of other religions use that bend on some laws as an excuse to push for outlawing gays? social progress is like climbing a very slippery slope and the moment we choose to make even the tiniest step back for anyone's sake, we risk sliding down several hundred years.

http://imgur.com/pOV3QbI

kill them no, but if they want to live their lives with a medieval mentality, they should do it in their homelands instead of coming here and expecting us to bend the rules for the sake of their culture

and to think that up to 100 years ago (end of WW1) there was open war for religion between europeans and muslims, with the later attempting time and again to conquer and convert europe. they just took a break after WW1 and now are back for more