• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"South Dakota Will Now Force All Public Schools to Put Up 'May Allah Guide You' Signs"

sealchan

Well-Known Member
So how exactly is anyone going to determine Who's, who.

Further more it's not un- American.
It's called being smart, in knowing Who they are, what they stand for and what they go by, that's staying ahead of the game.

It's demonstrably not smart to alienate the vast majority of peaceful and freedom loving people from foreign cultures who come to our country, contribute to its economic prosperity with their knowledge and skills, who don't commit crimes and don't incite violence.

What does work are background checks and the other standard means for determining a person's activity and risk. To profile based on religion or country of origin provides assistance to terrorists in those regions for recruiting purposes. If only a very tiny percentage of people in a profiling category commit crimes, then that category is not useful.

Using a person's religion to profile them in this context is arguably against the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Understanding that many people may come from a country that has a hostile attitude toward the U.S., its allies and some of its principles of freedom, each and every individual who is allowed to come here then becomes a "secret ambassador" against the bull**** those same foreign countries espouse. And those individuals may not be totally free to speak out for fear of retaliation against them or their families that are still back in their country.

Think about it...we have nothing to fear except that we waste time and effort alienating those who wish to share in our values and opportunities and thereby promoting the xenophobic attitudes of others.

Statistically home grown xenophobes in the U.S. commit more terrorist acts than any other group.
Decades after 9/11, the American right is behind a terrorism surge
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We could ban Catholicism too because they must obey the Pope.
Boy howdy! This could be useful.
I would be so disappointed, perhaps to the point of violently upset, if we gain access to the Vatican Vaults and discover it's hardly anything more than hand-me-down recipes for egg nog. No history shattering revelations, but the recipe for pasta sauce is to die for.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
It's demonstrably not smart to alienate the vast majority of peaceful and freedom loving people from foreign cultures who come to our country, contribute to its economic prosperity with their knowledge and skills, who don't commit crimes and don't incite violence.

What does work are background checks and the other standard means for determining a person's activity and risk. To profile based on religion or country of origin provides assistance to terrorists in those regions for recruiting purposes. If only a very tiny percentage of people in a profiling category commit crimes, then that category is not useful.

Using a person's religion to profile them in this context is arguably against the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Understanding that many people may come from a country that has a hostile attitude toward the U.S., its allies and some of its principles of freedom, each and every individual who is allowed to come here then becomes a "secret ambassador" against the bull**** those same foreign countries espouse. And those individuals may not be totally free to speak out for fear of retaliation against them or their families that are still back in their country.

Think about it...we have nothing to fear except that we waste time and effort alienating those who wish to share in our values and opportunities and thereby promoting the xenophobic attitudes of others.

Statistically home grown xenophobes in the U.S. commit more terrorist acts than any other group.
Decades after 9/11, the American right is behind a terrorism surge

So you say, which shows yourself as not knowing much or anything

Let's see, so your saying the American right is behind a terrorism surge.

Let's see back in 2016, Who were those people who went out destroying other people's property when Hillary Clinton lost the election for President.

Ho that's right it was liberal Democrats that went out destroying other people's property.
Setting people's places of business's on fire.
And setting College campus's on fire.
Breaking doors in college campuses
destroying everything in sight.
Which is quite funny to say, destroying their college campuses, people would think if your going to destroy something, at lease make sure it's not your own things, that your destroying.
But then that's liberal Democrats for you. Why destroy other peoples things, when you can destroy your own

And not to forget it was liberal Democrats who went out attacking other people who were going to voting booth.

It was liberal Democrats who shot up people during a concert in Las Vegas.
2 years ago.
And so the list goes on and on liberal Democrats.
So what was it that you were saying
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Ho that's right it was liberal Democrats that went out destroying other people's property.
Setting people's places of business's on fire.
And setting College campus's on fire.
Breaking doors in college campuses
destroying everything in sight.
Evidence?
It was liberal Democrats who shot up people during a concert in Las Vegas.
2 years ago.
And so the list goes on and on liberal Democrats.
So what was it that you were saying
Evidence?
But then that's liberal Democrats for you. Why destroy other peoples things, when you can destroy your own
That would be rather considerate of them, unlike Conservatives who give not one damn about the lives the make difficult, ruin, and end when they spread their religious poison.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
So you say, which shows yourself as not knowing much or anything

Let's see, so your saying the American right is behind a terrorism surge.

Let's see back in 2016, Who were those people who went out destroying other people's property when Hillary Clinton lost the election for President.

Ho that's right it was liberal Democrats that went out destroying other people's property.
Setting people's places of business's on fire.
And setting College campus's on fire.
Breaking doors in college campuses
destroying everything in sight.
Which is quite funny to say, destroying their college campuses, people would think if your going to destroy something, at lease make sure it's not your own things, that your destroying.
But then that's liberal Democrats for you. Why destroy other peoples things, when you can destroy your own

And not to forget it was liberal Democrats who went out attacking other people who were going to voting booth.

It was liberal Democrats who shot up people during a concert in Las Vegas.
2 years ago.
And so the list goes on and on liberal Democrats.
So what was it that you were saying

I'd welcome any articles or statistics to back up any of this.

I remember the Las Vegas shooting...didn't recall any political motivation in that case...here is an article to back that up:
FBI investigation into Las Vegas shooting finds no motive
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Evidence?

Evidence?

That would be rather considerate of them, unlike Conservatives who give not one damn about the lives the make difficult, ruin, and end when they spread their religious poison.

Well it's easy to find the evidence that you want
Just put in your search engine
Liberal Democrats destroying College campus's and business 2016
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
That's not how burden of proof works, and when I searched for that it turned up nothing.

Look if I was to post other things or sites on RF which would be in violation of RF rules.

Go ask any RF staff member, about posting other sites.
If they were to tell you it's Ok, Then my question would be, Why was I warned about posting other sites on RF

Now seeing that I am not going there.
So go put in your search engine
Liberal Democrats destroy Berkeley California college campus setting it on fire.

And there you'll have your proof of evidence.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Look if I was to post other things or sites on RF which would be in violation of RF rules.
It's only a violation if you plagiarize the material and offer no citations, or if you copy-paste a wall of text. To avoid a rules violation, all one needs to do is offer a citation, a summary of the material quoted, and posting highlights of the article/page in quotations (or without if it's only a couple lines).
Try again.
So go put in your search engine
Liberal Democrats destroy Berkeley California college campus setting it on fire.

And there you'll have your proof of evidence.

Nothing but the same opinion pieces as before that have nothing to do with riots, protests, fires, or destruction.
Try again.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
It's only a violation if you plagiarize the material and offer no citations, or if you copy-paste a wall of text. To avoid a rules violation, all one needs to do is offer a citation, a summary of the material quoted, and posting highlights of the article/page in quotations (or without if it's only a couple lines).
Try again.

Nothing but the same opinion pieces as before that have nothing to do with riots, protests, fires, or destruction.
Try again.

It seems that your to lazy to use your fingers to search out the evidence for yourself.
It's quite obvious and evidence that you want someone else to do what you can for yourself
You can jump up and down yell all you want.
But it's no going to work
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It seems that your to lazy to use your fingers to search out the evidence for yourself.
It seems you want to make baseless assumptions.
It's quite obvious and evidence that you want someone else to do what you can for yourself
It's quite obvious you don't know how burden of proof works and are too lazy to verify that what you are claiming is actually working. It's a pain, I know (I have spent a great deal of time trying to find online sources to match print sources I have to provide here), but if you make a claim it's up to you to provide the evidence. And in this case, where you are saying the evidence is you have two people saying it's not there.
 
Top