clarksvol00
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2018
- Messages
- 8,004
- Likes
- 5,183
From what I know, the post-Mecca writings are not ignored but are taken in context.So, a 'Mecca Muslim' as the first author notes, who ignores the post-Mecca Medina Mohammed: "These so-called moderate representatives of Islam insist that violence has nothing to do with Islam and as a result the intolerant and violent aspects of the Quran and the Hadith are never acknowledged or rejected. There is never any discussion about change within Islam to bring the morally outdated parts of the religion in line with modernity or genuine tolerance for those who believe differently."
"But the apologists’ position has been a complete policy failure because it denies the religious justifications the Quran and the Hadith provide for violence, gender inequality, and discrimination against other religions."
I think the first author is on point. Mohammed left a Median script as successor to Mecca. The second author can use mostly peaceful adherents to say 'religion of peace' but can't blot out that the religion itself is not a peaceful one. That's the distinction and the one reformers rightly point to.
I was specifically referring to the poster I was quoting, who I feel has been particularly racist in this thread.Really? The left routinely points to the whitest, most homogeneous countries in the world as examples of how America should be constructed. So determined to make the contrast, they even call them 'socialist' but none of them are. They never seem to point to the brown or yellow countries who elect Marxist presidents.
Yelling 'racist!' is easy, though; you get to ignore reality.
No, the difference between men and women and the inability to freely switch between them is so fundamental to my reality that we need to get a national divorce.So to take your previous example, opposing the legalization of marijuana is so fundamental to your reality that we need to exclude people from voting or get a "national divorce?"
So to take your previous example, opposing the legalization of marijuana is so fundamental to your reality that we need to exclude people from voting or get a "national divorce?"
This country most certainly did leave Reconstruction.
He’s condescending, but he’s right. Reconstruction in its original form would have the south looking like California if it had continued on to today.Not really
What is your definition of “trafficked” here?I would use an example such as the CO Governor signing Legislation that allows minors to be trafficked into CO for sex change reassignment surgery, hormone therapy, etc.
There is no finding common ground with people like that. There is no shared ideals and values with people like that.