If I were you all.

[Lineareagle]

Well as the link below points out, all is not rosy in Christendom

If I were you all, far from turning latinos away, I would be welcoming them.

Seems to me spanish speaking judeo christians may be better than the alternative.

 

Oh and as far as Canada is concerned our main influx is asian. Second most spoken language isn't french it's mandarin.

 

[Francois_Dumas]

... a call to action...... eerrmmmm... we should start breedin' !!?? I feel a bit quaint

[Lawman]

Man how depressing..I think I'll see if I find an oil thread...

[azkaisr]

I think we just need a good ole fashion crusade!

[UberXY]

I think we just need a good ole fashion crusade!

 

Hey that's exactly what Urban II said at the Counsel of Clermont - 914 years ago.

[Quinn]

This sounds a lot like a KKK rant. They will outbreed us! At the turn of the last century, the fear was Catholic immigrates outbreeding "us" and having the Pope rule America. Generally what has happened in the past was that the minority population slowed it's birthrate once it became invested in moving upscale.

 

I just don't like this fearmongering.

 

 

[Kathy R]

Man made religion always starts trouble, no matter the faith. I hope and pray that in the future people are better than the folks who created this fear piece.

 

It's not a matter of which man made religion rules, but more a matter of can we rise above man made religion and learn to love and be tolerant.

 

This link is evidence of man's inability to evolve intellectually.

[AdventurePoser]

I've had my two, and now two stepdaughters. That's enough for me...

 

Don't get me started on faith v religion.....

 

S

[Lineareagle]

This sounds a lot like a KKK rant. They will outbreed us! At the turn of the last century, the fear was Catholic immigrates outbreeding "us" and having the Pope rule America. Generally what has happened in the past was that the minority population slowed it's birthrate once it became invested in moving upscale.

 

I just don't like this fearmongering.

 

 

Wow I didn't get that from the link at all.

The fact is that it does require a 2.1 minimum birthrate to sustain a population.

Western societies have fallen well below that which does result in some serious issues for these selfsame societies.

Aging population with fewer workforce resulting in high tax burdens and lack of services.

A general decline in available workforce among other things.

 

How does this get changed?

Through immigration.

Will the new immigrants pick up and accept the burden put on them by the aging population that they have no real connection to?

 

The fact is we need immigrants to sustain the present society.

How do we accept the immigrants?

In a manner that is all too present now, resentment, suspicion, intolerance?

Or do we try to accommodate, learn, and support?

 

Which immigrants do we feel more comfortable with, judeo-christian or asiatic or middle eastern?

 

Do we stifle initiative or foster it?

 

Do we care if our society is changed?

 

The problem with all the above is that in the past we changed as a society fairly slowly, but now we are looking at massive and rapid change, 20 - 25 years some claim and we will no longer recognize ourselves in our society. It will be that fast because we need immigration to keep society running.

 

Something to think about. My point is that I feel, right now more comfortable with latin culture than with mid-eastern culture. Mainly I suppose because I lived in central and south america for 6 years.

My fear is that I do not understand Islamic culture and I have a perception that it is political in nature coupled with religion and that really scares me.

 

I know historically in Islam there were factions that excelled in the arts, medicine, science, engineering etc but that the fanatical religious side overpowered and stifled (snuffed it out).

 

If we are to succeed in accepting this new wave of immigrant I believe we should look to encourage the former and strongly discourage the latter from entering the country. But for that to happen we need a lot of education because right now we seem to not be too discerning. IMHO

 

[Bill_Walker]

Snopes is still researching. Watch this space.

 

It sounds like classic fearmongering to me. I'd like to see some better source citations than blurry, unreadable source names on the screen before I'd believe it. And even if I did believe it, it still smacks of intolerance.

[Francois_Dumas]

I know historically in Islam there were factions that excelled in the arts, medicine, science, engineering etc but that the fanatical religious side overpowered and stifled (snuffed it out).

 

If we are to succeed in accepting this new wave of immigrant I believe we should look to encourage the former and strongly discourage the latter from entering the country. But for that to happen we need a lot of education because right now we seem to not be too discerning. IMHO

 

I think that because of the no doubt spectacular actions of a small group of terrorist islamitic idiots (could've been any religion or faith really) the world is being pushed - mainly by the media - in believing this sort of doomsday scenarios.

 

Obviously there are some scary nations in the world still.... but they are not only islamic. Iran, yes, but how about Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia (ah yes), and some other 'lesser democratic' countries where inhabitants are invariably poor and uneducated hence easy victims for ill-willing 'leaders'?

 

I know quite a few islamic people and all that I know are just as kind and sensible as you and me (I am assuming some things here ) and have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to 'breed' us out of our culture !

 

That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.... but then we've got mainly ourselves to blame, if one can put it that way, by starting to attract cheap labor back in the 60's, by growing our airline companies beyond necessary size, by searching new markets abroad not being satisfied by just servicing our neighbors...... etc.

 

Also, looking back in history, these things have happened before..... islam got as far as Spain and the Balkan before it's influence waned again. It may happen again..... and it may go away again too

 

Not having ANY religion (for obvious reasons) I think I am not worried about one OR the other but rather about them all. Or better said, for a handful of people mis-using religion for their own crappy needs and often criminal intent... that too has happened since mankind started walking up straight.

 

Just my .02 cents.

 

[Lawman]

Snopes is still researching. Watch this space.

 

It sounds like classic fearmongering to me. I'd like to see some better source citations than blurry, unreadable source names on the screen before I'd believe it. And even if I did believe it, it still smacks of intolerance.

 

Does the desire to keep the U.S.A. a predominately christian nation make one intolerant?

[David]

Obviously there are some scary nations in the world still.... but they are not only islamic. Iran, yes, but how about Venezuela, North Korea, Somalia (ah yes), and some other 'lesser democratic' countries where inhabitants are invariably poor and uneducated hence easy victims for ill-willing 'leaders'?

 

I've spent a fair bit of time in Venezuela, and there's nothing about it that makes me nervous personally. They're merely Cuba, 30 years ago. The longer the current direction lasts, the less of a threat they'll be.

 

As far as North Korea, I don't think there's anything threatening at all about the North Korean government. I suspect their values have little overlap with the official stance of the North Korean people. They're merely like South Koreans without the will (yet) to overthrow their government. The threat there is the nationalistic leaders who prop us up as the enemy to justify their own internal hold on power.

 

Somalia as a country is the pimple on an elephant's ass. We tolerate it because we aren't up to the energy it takes to justify the implications of intervening. They're more a threat to themselves.

 

We have nothing to fear from Muslims, either. If they really believed the traditional interpretation of the Koran, they'd kill us all in the name of Allah. But they pick and choose what they believe just like Catholics and Christians do, whose history has been littered with the same evils. The Judeo-Christian heritage of Americans isn't what makes its citizens less of a threat to humanity than Muslims--it's more that the new religion doesn't depend entirely on converting others to their faith but viewing faith as an "add on" that allows other equally important beliefs, including the desperate desire to be comfortable, wealthy, and safe.

 

We have Muslim neighbors, and I wouldn't give a hoot if Muslims because a majority in the US over a century, as long as it happened slowly enough to let us assimilate the differences.

 

When geo-political boundaries mirror the boundaries of religion, all kinds of sh1t happens, and I don't like any of it. Whatever belief structure I might have has squat to do with what the people around me believe.

 

No, a Muslim population is not the problem. The problem is that small minority of Muslims who believe that non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who aren't strict enough, must conform or die. In a holy war I would have no qualms about shooting them point blank if they continued to threaten me or anyone else. This small minority is concentrated largely in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and even Muslims are threatened and terrified by them. They are evil, torturing, misogynistic, hating males, largely, that must be dealt with by force and not reason. But it's the whole world's problem and not just ours.

 

Bring the Muslims on. They're great people and I really like their food.

[David]

Does the desire to keep the U.S.A. a predominately christian nation make one intolerant?

 

Yes.

[Lawman]

Does the desire to keep the U.S.A. a predominately christian nation make one intolerant?

 

Yes.

 

Count me as intolerant. I prefer the christian faith. I prefer the republican political platform. I prefer capitalism. I prefer a work ethic. I prefer honesty. I prefer peace. I prefer the color blue.

[David]

I'm with you on the last five, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Muslims.

[Lawman]

I'm with you on the last five, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Muslims.

 

So if I prefer to drive a blue car instead of red I'm not intolerant but if I prefer to live in a christian nation instead of an islamic nation I am....

[David]

Billy, what makes you think this is a Christian nation?

[Lawman]

Billy, what makes you think this is a Christian nation?

 

David,

Actually I didn't say it was and I'm beginning to have my doubts that it still is but I'd like to think Christianity is still the predominate religion here..I'll have to pick this up later because I'm leaving now to go to church..

[smiller]

There's a difference between a nation with a lot of Christians and a Christian nation.

[VinnyR11]

I'm with you on the last five, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Muslims.

 

So if I prefer to drive a blue car instead of red I'm not intolerant but if I prefer to live in a christian nation instead of an islamic nation I am....

 

Weak analogies won't change what it is.

 

Of course you can drive your blue car without being intolerant; however, if you want everyone who enjoys red cars to get out of "your" country then you are surely intolerant.

 

I agree with the fear mongering and KKK referenced posts above.

[Couchrocket]

I think what is at stake here is whether or not the Judeo / Christian consensus about life, liberty, individual dignity and worth, and ultimately whether or not a supreme being makes these rights (as opposed to desires) is the "real" nature of things, or a mere construct that seemed to work a couple of hundred years ago -- but for no particular real reason.

 

Whether or not anyone is a "Christian" at the moment isn't the question, I don't think (though in maintaining a consensus it matters). It is whether or not that which rose from a Biblical world view makes any real difference in how, and in what laws are promulgated and enforced, and whether a shift in consensus based in a different world view will produce results less or more likely to sustain rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

That's the issue.

 

Judging Islam on any one individual, or family, is as dangerous as judging Christianity on any one individual, or family. One needs to look at what the "history" of a consensus world view has produced over time in any given society.

 

I would argue that over long periods of time, the Biblically Christian world view has moved mankind forward -- matured from being hijacked as a political system under which as many evils as benefits arose, to becoming more true to its foundational tenets. Improving. Breeding democracy. Eliminating slavery (triumphing over its own hypocrisy "because" of its core tenets), valuing the dignity of the individual, moving toward real equality of the sexes, etc. The trend based in the core tenets is what is important to watch (not to deny that there were, and are abuses -- but those are counter to the core tenets, not evidence of them). Even if all those in any society are not "of that faith" the consensus shapes the whole. It is important to note, I think, that under a generally Biblical consensus, the western world developed the notion of religious tolerance and embedded that notion in our foundational documents in the USA, along with the notion of not allowing any state sponsored religion -- based on the observed abuse of the core tenets.

 

The same evaluation should be applied to what Islam has produced, over time.

 

My question is this: Would a solid Islamic majority in the USA produce changes in our laws that would impact the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on the individual's view of what that means "to them as an individual"? Would it impact our judicial system? Would it impact gender equality? Would it impact our current view of the separation of church and state and religious tolerance?

 

 

 

 

 

[David]

My question is this: Would a solid Islamic majority in the USA produce changes in our laws that would impact the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on the individual's view of what that means "to them as an individual"? Would it impact our judicial system? Would it impact gender equality? Would it impact our current view of the separation of church and state and religious tolerance?

 

I think a Muslim majority would create fundamental (negative) changes in our society, but only if it happened so quickly that the majority squeezed out the minority with the brute force of numbers.

 

That's why I said above:

 

We have Muslim neighbors, and I wouldn't give a hoot if Muslims because a majority in the US over a century, as long as it happened slowly enough to let us assimilate the differences.

 

I agree with many of your points in the big scheme of things, but it's a little hard to diminish some things as "recession to the mean" abberations, like the very promotion of slavery around the world for two centuries, the exploitation of the natives in what is now known as South, Central, and North America, etc. There are dozens of things we could talk about.

 

At this moment in time, Islamic culture as a whole is nearly barbaric compared to that in the US, but there are many times in history when such a comparison was not the case.

[smiller]

My question is this: Would a solid Islamic majority in the USA produce changes in our laws that would impact the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on the individual's view of what that means "to them as an individual"? Would it impact our judicial system? Would it impact gender equality? Would it impact our current view of the separation of church and state and religious tolerance?

A solid fundamentalist Islamic majority might negatively impact religious freedom, but likely so would a solid fundamentalist Christian majority (or any fundamentalist religious sect.) Luckily socialization in the US seems to have a moderating influence, i.e. I think you'll find very few Muslims here who would wish to attack our concept of religious freedom, or at least no more than I see happening daily by those of more accepted religious persuasions. A greater mixture of religious beliefs may well lead towards greater tolerance and not necessarily less.

[Couchrocket]

My question is this: Would a solid Islamic majority in the USA produce changes in our laws that would impact the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness based on the individual's view of what that means "to them as an individual"? Would it impact our judicial system? Would it impact gender equality? Would it impact our current view of the separation of church and state and religious tolerance?

 

I think a Muslim majority would create fundamental (negative) changes in our society, but only if it happened so quickly that the majority squeezed out the minority with the brute force of numbers.

 

That's why I said above:

 

We have Muslim neighbors, and I wouldn't give a hoot if Muslims because a majority in the US over a century, as long as it happened slowly enough to let us assimilate the differences.

 

I agree with many of your points in the big scheme of things, but it's a little hard to diminish some things as "recession to the mean" abberations, like the very promotion of slavery around the world for two centuries, the exploitation of the natives in what is now known as South, Central, and North America, etc. There are dozens of things we could talk about.

 

At this moment in time, Islamic culture as a whole is nearly barbaric compared to that in the US, but there are many times in history when such a comparison was not the case.

 

David, we certainly should not diminish the evils brought about by the hijack of the Biblical world view by "any" group, "religious" or political to forward ends that are clearly contrary to the core tenets. All the things you mention are just that. They are serious, ugly, perhaps even more ugly due precisely to the magnitude of their abuse of the core tenets. I find that interesting, itself.

 

If the video is to be believed, then rapid change is exactly what Europe is facing, soon to be followed by the other "western" nations on the planet who have insufficient population growth. So, my question stands.

 

smiller, "Socialization?" Are you serious in saying that? And, if you read what I wrote carefully, I'm clearly not talking about "the extreme" adherents of any world view. I'm asking a question about what outcome a "consensus" Islamic world view might have on the USA over the next 100 years or so. If you think that it would be unnoticeable, just say so.

[David]

David, we certainly should not diminish the evils brought about by the hijack of the Biblical world view by "any" group, "religious" or political to forward ends that are clearly contrary to the core tenets. All the things you mention are just that. They are serious, ugly, perhaps even more ugly due precisely to the magnitude of their abuse of the core tenets. I find that interesting, itself.

 

But that's the problem: it was NOT viewed as a hijack...at the time. You could say that for many generations of OT history, too.

 

Just because you view the current stage of Christian influence as an "enlightened" one doesn't mean there should be any overlap between church and state, official or unofficial. The minute a more "enlightened" group of Christians become more powerful, the more power hungry and corrupt they'll become.

 

Private belief and public expression is what our nation valued, and I want nothing to do with exclusion based on belief or expression.

 

Why would I care if I was a minority among Muslims? Only if they pushed their beliefs on me. The cultural mandates we find abhorrent in Islam largely stem from an imposition of their religious beliefs on their legal system.

 

We're confusing Muslims and Islam, frankly.

[smiller]

I'm asking a question about what outcome a "consensus" Islamic world view might have on the USA over the next 100 years or so.

I have no idea what the 'consensus' Islamic world view is, or if there is one. Is there a consensus Christian world view? And to the extent these do exist do you think they will remain the same over the next 100 years or so?

[Quinn]

Recently, we've been seeing Christian influence in government here in the US. Using the Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President as a mandate for their views, the fundamental Christian right has tried to undo abortion rights and block research using embryos. Just like the NRA, some church leaders have encouraged single issue voting to influence candidates. Don't know why the Muslims would be any different.

[Bill_Walker]

Does the desire to keep the U.S.A. a predominately christian nation make one intolerant?

 

The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. So, yes, given that you live under that constitution, I would have to consider that view intolerant.

 

That being said, I do get the feeling that Islam is probably a few hundred years behind Christendom in learning the concept of tolerance itself. From what little I know about it, it strikes me as rather medieval. [Can I say that here?] I'm sorry if this offends any Muslims here.

 

 

[Bill_Walker]

Count me as intolerant. I prefer the christian faith. I prefer the republican political platform. I prefer capitalism. I prefer a work ethic. I prefer honesty. I prefer peace. I prefer the color blue.

 

I'm with you on six out of seven preferences. See, we do have common ground!

 

Although I like the color red a lot, too. But it's more likely to get you tickets.

[smiller]

That being said, I do get the feeling that Islam is probably a few hundred years behind Christendom in learning the concept of tolerance itself. From what little I know about it, it strikes me as rather medieval. [Can I say that here?] I'm sorry if this offends any Muslims here.

I think it might be a mistake to assume that some of the sociopaths who presume to speak for the Islamic religion really represent mainstream Muslim thought any more than abortion clinic bombings or suggestions that a hurricane was sent by God to punish sinners really represents mainstream Christian thought.

[Couchrocket]

David, we certainly should not diminish the evils brought about by the hijack of the Biblical world view by "any" group, "religious" or political to forward ends that are clearly contrary to the core tenets. All the things you mention are just that. They are serious, ugly, perhaps even more ugly due precisely to the magnitude of their abuse of the core tenets. I find that interesting, itself.

 

But that's the problem: it was NOT viewed as a hijack...at the time. You could say that for many generations of OT history, too.

 

Just because you view the current stage of Christian influence as an "enlightened" one doesn't mean there should be any overlap between church and state, official or unofficial. The minute a more "enlightened" group of Christians become more powerful, the more power hungry and corrupt they'll become.

 

Private belief and public expression is what our nation valued, and I want nothing to do with exclusion based on belief or expression.

 

Why would I care if I was a minority among Muslims? Only if they pushed their beliefs on me. The cultural mandates we find abhorrent in Islam largely stem from an imposition of their religious beliefs on their legal system.

 

We're confusing Muslims and Islam, frankly.

 

David,

 

We have no disagreement at all. It is the core tenants of the Biblical World view that I hold as true, and liberating -- not what people have done with them as they are what people are -- flawed and tending toward evil left unrestrained. And as you very rightly say, there is no guarantee that future generations will stay the course with the core tenets. But, I'd rather hope for that than the "norms" of other world views that I've studied, and I've studied them all. And, since I believe that there is a transcendence to the truth of those tenets, my hope is based in what I believe to be objective truth, rather than mankind's capriciousness. Unlike secular humanist philosophy which believes that each succeeding generation has become more enlightened and will eventually mature to the kind of egalitarian utopia expressed in Star Trek, I believe that every generation has to choose what to do with Biblical revelation... for good, or for ill. The core tenets are transcendently good... what "men" do with them depends.

 

Yes, Muslims and Islam. Probably not wise to use the terms as absolute synonyms. But, fair to use "Islam" as a term for the core tenets that Muslims will continue to touch base with, interpret, apply, etc. in the same sense as the Biblical world view -- and in that, one may ask where that might lead.

 

We may not see it in our life time, but I suspect our children will be able to answer the question whether it matters if we live as a minority in a country whose majority are Muslims, and whose world view is shaped by Islam.

[Couchrocket]

I'm asking a question about what outcome a "consensus" Islamic world view might have on the USA over the next 100 years or so.

I have no idea what the 'consensus' Islamic world view is, or if there is one. Is there a consensus Christian world view? And to the extent these do exist do you think they will remain the same over the next 100 years or so?

 

To the latter question above, I would say NO in a resounding way. We are today, in the USA and in Eurpoe, in a distinctly post-Christian world. To the former I would say, it might be worthwhile to study up on it -- especially given that we are living in a distinctly post-Christan world.

[Couchrocket]

Recently, we've been seeing Christian influence in government here in the US. Using the Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President as a mandate for their views, the fundamental Christian right has tried to undo abortion rights and block research using embryos. Just like the NRA, some church leaders have encouraged single issue voting to influence candidates. Don't know why the Muslims would be any different.

 

They wouldn't be any different. Let me say at the outset that I emphatically disagree with the notion that either of our corrupt political parties should align themselves with any specific religious perspective, or any distinct secular perspective for that matter. Unless the USA adopted the "coalition" government concept, the two party system needs to be broad in platform on both sides of the fence.

 

People of faith should vote their conscious, just as people of non-faith should vote their conscious. But, I suspect that when there is a clear majority population with a distinctly different world view, in any voting democracy, there will be at least "one more vote" to be cast.

[Bill_Walker]

That being said, I do get the feeling that Islam is probably a few hundred years behind Christendom in learning the concept of tolerance itself. From what little I know about it, it strikes me as rather medieval. [Can I say that here?] I'm sorry if this offends any Muslims here.

I think it might be a mistake to assume that some of the sociopaths who presume to speak for the Islamic religion really represent mainstream Muslim thought any more than abortion clinic bombings or suggestions that a hurricane was sent by God to punish sinners really represents mainstream Christian thought.

 

I'm not talking terrorism. I'm talking things like veiled women who can only leave the house if escorted by a male member of their family. Isn't this still the case in "modern" Saudi Arabia?

[Ken H.]

Snopes is still researching. Watch this space.

 

It sounds like classic fearmongering to me. I'd like to see some better source citations than blurry, unreadable source names on the screen before I'd believe it. And even if I did believe it, it still smacks of intolerance.

Exactly.

 

Things always change. Including demographics. Videos such as that one designed to incite fear, are only self-serving to their creators personal mission. At best.

 

While that particular argument doesn’t have a specific Nazi connection, it is a classic argument type that was used during the height of the Third Reich.

 

Besides, how do you “breed” a religion anyway?

[smiller]

I'm not talking terrorism. I'm talking things like veiled women who can only leave the house if escorted by a male member of their family. Isn't this still the case in "modern" Saudi Arabia?

It may be common behavior among Muslims in Saudi Arabia but it's not common behavior among Muslims in the United States.

 

There are many abhorrent customs based on fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, including very poor treatment of women by certain Christian sects. The enemy isn't one religion or another, it is fundamentalist interpretations designed for mind control. Unfortunately there is a lot of strife in the Islamic world right now and there are a host of bad players trying to take advantage of the situation, but that shouldn't result in a condemnation of an entire religion.

[Bill_Walker]

By the way, Snopes has now done their research and concluded the video is, like most propaganda purporting to present facts, a bunch of hand-picked data taken out of context, and that more recent birthrate data seems to contradict the data in the video. See here. May we now have a sigh of relief from the worried among you?

[Francois_Dumas]

By the way, Snopes has now done their research and concluded the video is, like most propaganda purporting to present facts, a bunch of hand-picked data taken out of context, and that more recent birthrate data seems to contradict the data in the video. See here. May we now have a sigh of relief from the worried among you?

 

ROFLMAO !!!

[Ken H.]

There are many abhorrent customs based on fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, including very poor treatment of women by certain Christian sects. The enemy isn't one religion or another, it is fundamentalist interpretations designed for mind control. Unfortunately there is a lot of strife in the Islamic world right now and there are a host of bad players trying to take advantage of the situation, but that shouldn't result in a condemnation of an entire religion.

Yeah, no doubt. If we want to talk about repression of women for a couple 1000 years, let’s talk about the Christians. To say nothing of having a violent history from time to time.

 

All religions have their positives and negatives depending upon one’s point of view. And all have a core set of beliefs that are rarely controversial and a fringe element that almost always is. Condemning the former for the latter is myopic, at best.

 

[KDeline]

You guys can debate this forever. Religion has been the basis for all the wars the world has ever seen. We kill in the name of God, it's even in songs, "Onward Christian solders, marching off to war, with the cross of Jesus" and so on. Then in church you are told to be good to your fellow man. Make up your mind. We would be better off without it.

[VinnyR11]

..............(snip)

 

All religions have their positives and negatives depending upon one’s point of view. And all have a core set of beliefs that are rarely controversial and a fringe element that almost always is. Condemning the former for the latter is myopic, at best.

 

Great point. I think THIS is the core of the issue.

 

I wonder how many people who are complaining have studied and truly understand the many aspects of the religions they are bashing. It's like bashing Christians while never having read nor studied the Bible. Maybe those who posted above can state how many have thoroughly read and studied the Qur'an? I'm guessing none, but I can be wrong.

 

My wife attends Bible study seminars, and we have met a large number of Christians spanning the gamut from one step to the right of agnostic, to the radical fringe. To Ken's point,some of the radical fringe Christians that I've met are every bit as scary as anyone from any other religion.

 

To sum it up...It ain't the religion you need to be afraid of. It's the person. The more we can judge people as individuals the better off we will be.

 

 

 

 

[Indy Dave]

By the way, Snopes has now done their research and concluded the video is, like most propaganda purporting to present facts, a bunch of hand-picked data taken out of context, and that more recent birthrate data seems to contradict the data in the video. See here. May we now have a sigh of relief from the worried among you?

 

While Snopes and others do a fine job of debunking these kinds of misinformation 'emails' and such, the gullibility of many never seems to be affected. Meaning - when one sees something like this, why isn't the first question one asks about the accuracy of the information? We believe what we see on TV or read most of the time without question.

 

But it seems so many more believe what they want to believe, facts be dammed, snopes or no snopes. I wonder how many folks who embraced that video have actually changed their position on their hatred of Muslims who have read the snopes piece.

[Indy Dave]

Does the desire to keep the U.S.A. a predominately christian nation make one intolerant?

 

Yes.

 

Count me as intolerant. I prefer the christian faith. I prefer the republican political platform. I prefer capitalism. I prefer a work ethic. I prefer honesty. I prefer peace. I prefer the color blue.

 

Billy, if in your mind everyone (or the majority) have to believe as you do, then yes sir you are. [you left out denominationalism] We all have a 'sinful' nature. Conservative or Liberal have an equal capacity to do good. And bad. And to compromise. Same with blue bikes and silver bikes. And Sir, please understand that many of us (if not all) have some level of intolerance, eh? "I can't tolerate anyone who is intolerant!" As I grow older, I seem to get less tolerant over little things - like paying $15 to check a bag on a plane - and more tolerant on larger issues as I realize that 'the more that things change, the more they stay the same.

 

It's not the color of the bike or the party. It's the guy behind the label (or handle bars).

 

Many conservatives panicked when Barry M Goldwater lost the 1964 Presidential race while running on a true conservative platform (compared to todays 'conservatives'). Yet we as a nation did fine. And Barry Goldwater went on to (among other things) help get the first planned parenthood of Arizona started.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

You guys can debate this forever. Religion has been the basis for all the wars the world has ever seen. We kill in the name of God, it's even in songs, "Onward Christian solders, marching off to war, with the cross of Jesus" and so on. Then in church you are told to be good to your fellow man. Make up your mind. We would be better off without it.

 

The line is "marching as to war", not "marching off to war."

 

Please show me the line in that song where we're supposed to kill someone.

 

 

[smiller]

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is the very common tenet among many religions that believers are not to question religious scriptures, hierarchy, etc. When an individual's thought processes are co-opted in a manner such that beliefs are based on faith without question then abuses are simply going to exist as a matter of course.

[Ken H.]

The more we can judge people as individuals the better off we will be.

Hummm... I like that... Well put.

 

Pretty well sums up the problem with stereotyping in general.

[Lawman]

You guys can debate this forever. Religion has been the basis for all the wars the world has ever seen. We kill in the name of God, it's even in songs, "Onward Christian solders, marching off to war, with the cross of Jesus" and so on. Then in church you are told to be good to your fellow man. Make up your mind. We would be better off without it.

 

 

You might be better off without it..I wouldn't

 

BTW

Here's the words to the song you mischaracterized..

 

http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht

 

 

[Lineareagle]

By the way, Snopes has now done their research and concluded the video is, like most propaganda purporting to present facts, a bunch of hand-picked data taken out of context, and that more recent birthrate data seems to contradict the data in the video. See here. May we now have a sigh of relief from the worried among you?

 

While Snopes and others do a fine job of debunking these kinds of misinformation 'emails' and such, the gullibility of many never seems to be affected. Meaning - when one sees something like this, why isn't the first question one asks about the accuracy of the information? We believe what we see on TV or read most of the time without question.

 

But it seems so many more believe what they want to believe, facts be dammed, snopes or no snopes. I wonder how many folks who embraced that video have actually changed their position on their hatred of Muslims who have read the snopes piece.

 

Although Snopes does a quick appraisal of the issue, in particular it focused on the 'breed them out of existence' part of the vid in fact Martins' analysis of the situation paints a somewhat grimmer future.

 

A similar upturn is under way in the United States, where the fertility rate has climbed to its highest level since 1971, reaching 2.1 in 2006, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. New projections by the Pew Research Center suggest that if current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise from today’s total of some 300 million to 438 million in 2050. ­Eighty-­two percent of that increase will be produced by new immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants.

 

By contrast, the downward population trends for southern and eastern Europe show little sign of reversal. Ukraine, for example, now has a population of 46 million; if maintained, its low fertility rate ­will whittle its population down by nearly 50 percent by mid-century. The Czech Republic, Italy, and Poland face declines almost as ­drastic.

 

My bold in the above.

I stand by my OP, and ask,

"Who do you want to be the 81% of the predicted growth?"

 

I agree with many of the posts talking about the negative aspects of radical religion. However we do need to realize that our system of gov't, laws, and social behaviour have all been designed to mimic the best of judeo-christian philosophy.

There are those who do not hold to those principles.

I think we need to test people more on their acceptance and knowledge of those principles in the application process for immigration.

 

Martin Essay

 

This article is actually a very thought provoking piece.

[Indy Dave]

There are those who do not hold to those principles.

I think we need to test people more on their acceptance and knowledge of those principles in the application process for immigration.

 

How about for our own citizens? We are so quick to look away and finger point.

 

I've been to Africa a few times and never had a problem not being in the massive majority. They weren't trying to make me like them. And although in Ghana, Christianity is the dominant religion, there is a very large Muslim population. And many Christian and Muslim villages are adjacent to each other (out int he 'bush'). There is a mutual respect and cooperation in general. In fact, the only people who seemed to have a problem with it was some of the very right leaning evangelicals I was with. Talk about hatred.

 

But to spend time with Ghanaian Christian Ministers going around to different villages, they have good relationships and dialog with Muslims. They are bridge builders.

 

As Neil Peart, a fellow BMW rider has said: "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..."

 

And as things stand now, we have a lot of talking heads who distort and promote fear...and they tend to be presently from one political point of view.

 

If we still taught civics like we used to, we would be a better nation, democracy and more informed. But our elected officials depend on us being uninformed, ignorant and indifferent. That's both sides of the isle. It seems to be a test of how much will we let them get away with? As one who has spent many years in ministry, I've observed that you can say the same for many Religious and Denominational Leaders (and followers), as someone pointed out.