I am not advocating the scenario that I suggested. I am simply asserting it as a possibility. Personally, I would view it as a travesty to abandon our constitutional and cultural ideals, but I won’t be around to see it.
understood Tim, but of course, that would not be assimilating, it would be supremacy - correct ?
Islam is ultimately about submission to Allah. Bush (W) told us that Islam is peace. It is not. But it’s adherents could (theoretically) choose to advance the goal of a worldwide state of Islam through primarily peaceful means.
I am not advocating the scenario that I suggested. I am simply asserting it as a possibility. Personally, I would view it as a travesty to abandon our constitutional and cultural ideals, but I won’t be around to see it.
understood Tim, but of course, that would not be assimilating, it would be supremacy - correct ?
Islam is ultimately about submission to Allah. Bush (W) told us that Islam is peace. It is not. But it’s adherents could (theoretically) choose to advance the goal of a worldwide state of Islam through primarily peaceful means.
Point well taken, but then even here in the US we are not free from violence from a variety of reasons. Unfortunately violence is a common expression of frutration and a disconnect from society and happens everywhere in one form or another for any reason. This is not a peculiar phenomenon. Humans are naturally an aggressive species. if our common ancestor had been of the same family as the Bonobo, we might be more peaceful, but alas, we are closer to the Common Chimp and are capable of the same violent actions.
But then again, it might well account for our success as a species. This stuff goes way back and is deeply imbedded in our genes.
you make my case for me - if Muslims living in America collectively reform and assimilate into our governmental structures and religious freedoms, then the Allahu Ackbars and other terriorist centered activities will be reduced/dimished/eliminated in that segment of the population, which currently is the only segment that murders in the name of religion and supremacy - the lack of reform efforts is THE most important question I have for followers of Islam
This question has been presented over and over and over to “moderate” Muslims, especially since 9/11. And I believe that there have been serious attempts by “moderate” Muslims to promote a decline in the violently inclined segment of Islam. The lack of success has to do with the political/social/economical problems in parts of the world where Islam is most established. But it also has to do, I believe, with the very stucture of the religion that effectively supports the existence of a violent segment.
Reform of Islam is of lesser importance in Africa and the Middle East than it is here in the USA - AT THE PRESENT MOMENT - Dr Zuhdi Jasser, who is a dedicated Muslim and former officer in our US Navy, founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in 1992 and he has had next to nothing success in enlisting “moderate” Muslims to his reform cause - to the extent that he has been thrown out of his own mosque, which was built by his father and uncle when they relocated from the mid-west to the Phoenix area - so where are those “moderate Muslims” who only wish for peace and love ?
I am not advocating the scenario that I suggested. I am simply asserting it as a possibility. Personally, I would view it as a travesty to abandon our constitutional and cultural ideals, but I won’t be around to see it.
understood Tim, but of course, that would not be assimilating, it would be supremacy - correct ?
Islam is ultimately about submission to Allah. Bush (W) told us that Islam is peace. It is not. But it’s adherents could (theoretically) choose to advance the goal of a worldwide state of Islam through primarily peaceful means.
death by a thousand cuts my friend
If you mean the ultimate death of cultural values that we hold dear, perhaps, perhaps not. But you and I are old. So we will die some other way.
IMO, peace can be achieved by tyranny (coercion). Fear of repercussions is a powerful suppressant. But that does not make things just and fair. And therein lies the crux.
All humans want to live their lives in an social structure that promotes freedom of thought and action, as long as these freedoms and actions do not interfere with the rights of others.
Religion, especially fundamentalism (old scriptures) is coercive in nature and therefore contrary to the exercise of personal rights. Prayer, sacrifice, tithing, excommunication, branding, death by fire or stoning or drowning are all weapons of fear and terror.
Religion is founded on FEAR. It has nothing to do with LOVE.
quote]All humans want to live their lives in an social structure that promotes freedom of thought and action, as long as these freedoms and actions do not interfere with the rights of others
Some do; some don’t particularly elites who benefit from the submission; forced or not of others.
cute political advertisment w4u, hadn’t seen that before
The facts about the 1920s tax rate cuts are unmistakably clear for those who bother to check the facts.
In 1921, when the tax rate on people earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than $100,000.
According to data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Treasury, federal revenues hit an all-time high of approximately $2.57 trillion - back in fiscal 2007 under President George W. Bush. (when all the Bush43 tax cuts were in full bloom)
