EUROPE HAS BECOME INTOLERANT. It has finally begun, lads. Trump's policy has finally piqued European interests!
i don't have the image anymore but there was a graph that showed that most muslims were actually quite extremist in their beliefs.
you are most likely a foreigner posting under an UAE flag trying to bait stormfronters but whatever
fuck you either way
we're not 'murica, sweden, not even czechia. 95% of people are catholic = no mosques. our language is pretty hard to learn furthermore not many people speak arabian here.
but we already accepted christian families from syria.
I'm not surprised. Many years ago I spent almost a month living in Slovakia with both very wealthy and very rural Slovak families. While the culture was one of the sweetest and most welcoming I have experienced, it was also one of the most institutionally racist, nursing a particular hatred for Muslims. My experience:
Slovak culture actively supports mainstream racism. It blew my mind when cosmopolitan Slovaks who self-identify as very liberal starting talking about the Roma. Phrases like "sub-human" were involved. Not only is it widely considered acceptable in Slovakia to think of the Roma that way, but if you don't think of them that way, it's because you're an outsider and you just don't understand.
Slovak culture supports hatred of Muslims specifically. Due to the centuries of fighting against the Ottomans, fighting "evil" Muslims is literally built into the history of the land, as well as Slovak cultural myths and fairytales. I was told by Slovaks themselves that they do not like Turks or Muslims.
Some commenters talk about this decision like Slovakia sat down and thought about it independently and rationally. Perhaps they did, and perhaps this is even the right decision to make, but before you interpret their choice you should also know that this is a culture that supports mainstream racism and had a historically-based hatred of Muslims long before the refugee crisis.
this is true, I remember having a conversation with one guy where he kept saying that all jews and shias must be killed and couldnt provide a single real argument why
and thats one of the "reasonable" ones
What would happen if we nuked the cube?
I think, the internal muslim compass would start spinning rapidly, sending everyone of them in a lethal spinning motion until their motions would get cranky and their joints rocky until the lights in their eyes would slowly die.
glad for that
as far as i know, they're staying in humenne for now.
desu we have no problem with foreigners unless there are plenty of them. let's say if 5 foreigners (muslims or not) come to study, there's no problem with integration. but if they want to send here 500 muslims we don't know anything about them, they don't speak even english and they don't want to be here... well...
there is a belief that the stones destruction is one of the "end of the world" stages, I am assuming you'd see panic and fear among the masses and sabre rattling among the elite
Slovakia NO. What an intolarant country, I swear. One the other hand they take eu money... Enjoy your white hetero nation, you deseerve your faith.
God Bless Martin
oh ok, he was not my friend though, we went to the same school some 5-6 years ago, barely spoke to one another outside of that one conversation, but he sure as fuck is not an exception
Its stupid to blame all sexual assault on Muslims. There's zero proof those men were Muslim other than their skin color. Islam also forbids rape.
Its just an excuse for Islamaphobia. ISIS are winning with this one.
I know this is bait but just shut your fucking mouth. I can't take all your shit anymore.
Of course it's funny if you don't have to deal with all this shit, but hell give me a break.
This sweden yes shit wasn't funny and that pay debts crap also got annoying. By now we all know this country has a fucking problem.
t. Mehmet Meyer xDddd
Why don't the 'peaceful' Muslims just stop being Muslims if they don't want to be associated with them? You can't complain people are calling you a Nazi when you keep going to fascist rallies.
We are not letting anyone in our country.
I always fucking said this. Always. Situation at EU came to an end. There's going to be next Hitler, and he's going to be from Slovakia.
And he's going to purge the world.
Ausiess, Burgerclaps, watch out. Since after Yurope, you are next. Prepare to be fucking liberated by new worlds order. No more of your leftist faggotry.
ONI ZABILI NÁŠHO PÁNA FARÁRA TISO
ISIS WANTS the West to further alienate and isolate Muslims and ban them from becoming refugees. This is part of their plan to get more recruits.
So yes, by banning Muslim immigrants you are aiding ISIS. Congratulations.
not likely lad
you'll be muslim by 2030 and like it
t. australian illuminati
Because freedom of religion has been a major value of the Western world for literally centuries. That's why. People feel entitled to freedom of religion for the same reason they want freedom of speech or movement etc.
Let me guess you are one of the same guys who says Islam is incompatible with Western values?
Then the muslims are dumb.
I here that shit all the time. Why shouldn't the "peacefull" muslims just turn their back on those who got them into this trouble? Wouldn't that make more sense than blaming the west for their own failures?
ALLAHU... heh ..
But we don't allow dangerous cults that incite violence. Some countries don't acknowledge islam as a religion because of that. There's nothing wrong with telling people from a religion that goes strongly against your societies core values to go fuck itself.
not all muslims
just most and all it takes is most
i love this
slavic countries are the new europe, while the western lands are getting btfo'd by muzzies and will soon to be rip
our era has begun, brothers
What are the core values of Canadian society? Last time I checked Westerners hold different values, from people who are super militant (lets bomb mecca!) to people who are super pacifist. Canada isn't super pacifist, let alone all of her citizens. The West as a whole can't be said to be super pacifist considering it largely sparked WWII. Bahrain and Kuwait have some of the absolutely lowest homicide rates in the world, and they are also both heavily Muslim.
the problem isn't that it's not sane, the problem is, that no matter what the extremists did, most people wouldn't have the strength to leave their religion. Nobody would want to be the first to do it either.
and of course, they love to believe that there are muslims and "muslims", which should magically separate them in the eyes of everyone else. It doesn't.
Unless one group starts calling themselves something else, the dumb majority won't see the difference. Not that it doesn't want to, it can't, because they all rally under the same flag.
My english sucks to much to make my point clear.
So think about the following situation.
You want to visit a football match, you're looking foreward to it. You behave and follow the instructions given by the authorities there.
Suddenly the rest of the crowd is misbehaving and attack the fans of the home team. The police shows up and says that you and the other supporters can't enter the stadium, because they acted like shit.
At whom are you mad? At the police doing their job? At the home teams fans who want to enjoy a peacefull match? Or at the people of your team who caused the trouble that led to this situation?
Basically all freedoms we have. The right to dress how I want, the right to remain unhurt, to stay safe. Freedom of speech. All this.
you are the the carriers of muslim meme and the breeding ground for muslim extremists,
death and destruction follow wherever you go, like people carrying the plague, you don't get sick but you spread it around and these infections are deadly to everyone around you
>No. It was something introduced by the United States, and still with limits. If an ideology is deemed harmful its within the Constitution to restrict it.
What ideologies are deemed harmful within the Constitution? The only ideology I see being deemed harmful within the Constitution is the ideology that religion can be banned at a whim. Freedom of religion isn't there to protect the religions that everyone likes and gets along with. Its there to protect underdog religions--at one time Catholicism, at one time atheism, and now Islam.
And no, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the West starting with the fallout after the Protestant reformations.
Its one of our core Western values the same values you say Islam threatens.
It's like I'm reading the CBC comment section and the writer is a muslim girl from Toronto who wants to take womens studies in College and thinks body bag costumes free her. Pull your head out of the clouds.
Just because something was right or proper once doesn't make it eternally so. Europe has been staving off Muslims for over a thousand years.
If it was a nation of fascists you probably wouldn't be so attuned to insist on their freedom to enter.
Maybe we can't restrict their right to practice inasmuch as they're already here, but we can bar any further immigration.
>Basically all freedoms we have. The right to dress how I want, the right to remain unhurt, to stay safe. Freedom of speech. All this.
All the freedoms we have like...freedom of religion?
First of all, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are tied together, I don't think you can say you have freedom of speech without freedom of religion. That aside, absolute freedom of speech has never been a thing in the West. Germany for example has TONS of caps on what is okay to say and what is not okay to say:
> right to remain unhurt
No such right exists and it would be impossible to guarantee. Of course if a Muslim hurts you violently, they should be put in prison and I don't argue that. Banning Islam is not the answer since very violent people come from every religion.
>The right to dress how I want
No such right exists. You can't wear a pro-Nazi shirt in Germany for example, and I doubt you can go naked to school.
This country hasn't had a problem telling poisonous religions to fuck off in the past
the Mormons during their violent years were sequestered to the shitty of Utah and Scientology is currently getting taken to court and investigation
Freedom of religion has limits, if your religion impinges on the lifestyle of others
>dressing how you want is less important then religious freedom
so you're a muslim who wants women to dress like nigger ghosts, because they don't need that choice, so you won't be distracted by their bodies and can instead focus on your desire to rape little boys
>Freedom of religion has limits, if your religion impinges on the lifestyle of others
Yes, freedom of religion does have its limits, just like any other freedom of we enjoy (which doesn't ever include """'freedom to dress how I want""").
No one is saying that freedom of religion gives Muslims the right to harass women. HOWEVER, some Muslims harassing women does not give you the right to ban Islam, just like Stalin and other examples of state atheism don't give us the right to ban atheism.
I'm not surprised. Many years ago I spent almost a month living in Norway with both very wealthy and very rural Norwegian families. While the culture was one of the sweetest and most welcoming I have experienced, it was also one of the most institutionally racist, nursing a particular hatred for Swedes. My experience:
Norwegian culture actively supports mainstream racism. It blew my mind when cosmopolitan Norwegians who self-identify as very liberal starting talking about the Swedes. Phrases like "sub-human" were involved. Not only is it widely considered acceptable in Norway to think of the Swedes that way, but if you don't think of them that way, it's because you're an outsider and you just don't understand.
Norwegian culture supports hatred of Swedes specifically. Due to the centuries of fighting against the Swedes, fighting "evil" Swedes is literally built into the history of the land, as well as Norwegian cultural myths and fairytales. I was told by Norwegians themselves that they do not like Swedes or Danes.
Some commenters talk about this decision like Norway sat down and thought about it independently and rationally. Perhaps they did, and perhaps this is even the right decision to make, but before you interpret their choice you should also know that this is a culture that supports mainstream racism and had a historically-based hatred of Swedes long before the refugee crisis.
>Wtf who cares if the church of Scientology is doing a bunch of criminal shit they're not all criminals
>Wtf who cares if some mormons are incredibly violent you can't push them into Utah!
Have you read the fucking Koran? Isis are pious men practicing their faith as instructed by their scripture.
Fuck off, ahmed.
if Islam can be shown to be particularly conducive to toxic behavior and mindsets, as well as anti-state modes of government like Shariah, then a case could absolutely be made for its expulsion, or at least surveillance
I agree that, in the United States case, we can't go so far as to restrict their freedom of religion for those who are already here, but if the people of this country decide we want to ban further groups of Muslims from entering that is entirely constitutional and would possibly be in our best interests as a liberal, Western country
Freedom of religion is also part of freedom of expression.
That said, we have very very little freedom to dress how we want.
>Isis are pious men practicing their faith as instructed by their scripture.
99% of Muslims would disagree. Why should they be punished for ISIS.
>if Islam can be shown to be particularly conducive to toxic behavior and mindsets,
Atheism has been shown to be correlated with lower mental and physical heath, as well as more antisocial mindsets. Should we ban all atheists?
>I agree that, in the United States case, we can't go so far as to restrict their freedom of religion for those who are already here, but if the people of this country decide we want to ban further groups of Muslims from entering that is entirely constitutional
Maybe it is, though it still seems to go against those "liberal Western values" you go on about.
Atheism isn't a religion. That's a false equivalency, among other things. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
They have religious laws that you could clearly interpret as superseding those of the standing government. Also moral values similarly to that effect. Now what matters is the degree to which people abide by them (Christians have long abandoned the majority of core OT tenets).
>Maybe it is, though it still seems to go against those "liberal Western values" you go on about.
If an ideology is inherently inharmonious with liberal values, pragmatism must overrule idealism. While we may be principled, we aren't willing fools.
Islam demands Islamic law to be the state law. That is directly unconstitutional, ahmed.
>99% of Muslims would disagree
>Atheism isn't a religion. That's a false equivalency, among other things. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
its an ideology (at least if you are referring to strong atheism as opposed to the "weak atheism" practiced by babies and human vegetables)
>They have religious laws that you could clearly interpret as superseding those of the standing government.
So does nearly every other religion and ideology in the world. Saying the state has absolute authority over right and wrong sounds like fascism to me, which you also said was anti-West.
>(Christians have long abandoned the majority of core OT tenets).
What "core OT tenets" did Christians "abandon"? The only OT tenets "abandoned" by Christians was the parts exclusive to the Jewish peoples to begin with (like circumcision, kosher laws, laws governing the Israelites, etc). Those aren't the "core OT tenets" though.
>If an ideology is inherently inharmonious with liberal values, pragmatism must overrule idealism.
Except your ideology is itself inharmonious with liberal values. You realize that, right? Its you. You are the inharmonious one. Liberal values involve welcoming Muslim immigrants not blaming them for ISIS. And yet I am not going to deport you either. Because the fact is that the West has always been an umbrella of people with all sorts of values.
There are super capitalist Westerners, super socialist Westerners, super progressive, super conservative. Those who embrace immigrants, those who want to shut them out. Those who want gay marriage, those who refuse it even on pain of government threats. Those who want the death penalty banned, those who support it. Pro-life and pro-choice. Vegans and butchers. Fedoramen and the WBC. Those who are anarchists, literal monarchists, black separatists, white supremacists, and absolutely everyone in between.
So tell me again about these "Western values" Muslims supposedly go against.
no, yesterday i found /b/
you're a muslim from muslim state that haven't accepted any refugees yet (and probably won't), complaining about policy of christian state "why muslim refugees which don't want to come to slovakia are not accepted by slovaks at all".
atheism is a belief, ideology, maybe, but it doesn't have written or said tenets about how to live your life, like religions do. All it says is "there is no god" and things immediately connected with that.
>not believing in god is an ideology
You're either a retard or a 10/10 memer, consider me baited and trolled.
>the state's authority on freedom of religion matters!
>but not when that religion demands it replace the state, why are you supporting the state, you a fascist?
>it does, it's called law
The law has been wrong before. Hell, us Americans lobby to change the laws all the time. Drug laws, gun laws...hell this very thread is encouraging Westerners to change the immigration laws.
Most Westerners don't really believe in the absolute authority of the law or the state. Westerners will sometimes obey the law for pragmatic purposes (not wanting to get into trouble) but ultimately when the threat of punishment is stripped away, they obey their moral compasses, informed by their culture, religion, ideologies, etc.
You should actually read the Quran bro. I'm 8 or 9 surahs in and I'm astounded people are actually retarded enough to believe in this shit, and even worse that there are people who sympathize with these savages. Truly an indictment upon humanity.
Every other line is about the non-believers (us) and how we're doomed to hellfire. Every other fucking line.
I thought you may have been a troll, but you're just one of the intellectual cowards making all of us leftists and liberals look bad, which is why you ignored the millions upon millions of muslims who agree with and support ISIS pointed out here >>53287277
What kind of person do you have to be, where you'll run away from arguments for the sake of preserving your viewpoint? People like you are why the west is crumbling.
It's clear you're in this to be combative. I don't know what your stake is, hyper progressive or Muslim or whatever. I'm not inharmonious at all, and you're going to find that the majority of the United States agrees with me, in growing number as they see the results of mass Muslim importation in Europe. Simply put, no one wants that here, and we have an effective way to make sure it doesn't happen. We control the gates of this country.
>So tell me again about these "Western values" Muslims supposedly go against.
Women's rights, separation of church and state, due process and our justice system, freedom of religion (it is a capital offense to be atheist in a lot of Muslim countries), homosexual rights, the list goes on
Be willingly ignorant and indignant though, that's your right.
>it doesn't have written or said tenets about how to live your life, like religions do.
Not all religions are literary religions, most religions involve oral traditions as well. Also this isn't really a point in atheisms favor. Either way all I am saying is that atheism is correlated with lower mental/physical wellbeing, lower conscientiousness, lower agreeableness, etc. Should we ban atheists for this reason, or should we judge them on a case by case basis the same as anyone else?
I am not saying the states authority on freedom of religion matters. I am saying you are a massive hypocrite, saying Muslims don't respect our state-granted freedoms while also ignoring one of our first and most fundamental freedoms (of religion).
but that's the point, law is meant to be flexible, it needs to adapt to the ever changing society, technology and environment.
unlike religion, which is supposed to be a solid thing your weak mind can count on to motivate. A changing religion doesn't give security to the insecure, which is one of its basic mechanisms
I get you, I'm not really saying the opposite either, merely correcting statements I find incorrect here and there. Autism, you know..
I've been waiting for this to start happening. The wave of support for importing random people in bulk from the worst region on the planet could only last but so long before it started to backfire. Eventually most if not all of the countries involved will adopt this view, calling it now.
You can't mix oil and water.
The thing that really chaps my ass is that western country's were the ones that originally destabilized the whole of the middle east, it doesn't matter if they side with ISIS or with the government since both groups are puppets for western countries.
I'm saying ISLAM doesn't respect our state-granted freedoms. Islam demands that you execute the apostate, that you execute the homosexual. Islam allows for honor killings. Islam puts women as second to men.
Christianity has crazy rules too. Most christians are shitty believers who cherry-pick whatever the fuck they want from their bible and as a result, they get along just fine with modern civilization. Muslims, as a whole, are a few centuries behind. There are plenty of modern muslims in the west who don't pray five times a day, listen to music, and drink. They are "integrated" (but then, so were the San Bernadino shooters). As a percentage, they are really fucking small, though. And the migrants that you want shipped in by the thousand are from places where Islam is law and the shit pulled in Cologne is viewed as acceptable. Their faith in ingrained in their culture and it does NOT mesh with the west, Ahmed.
I didn't see that post, the thread moves fast. That said, aren't you ignoring the hundreds of millions of Muslims who DON'T support ISIS? You realize that 63 million is LESS THAN 1% of Muslims, right?
ISIS supporters were a tiny minority in ALL the nations polled. So what are you saying here?
MRAs and red pillers are still allowed in the USA. The West has been plenty sexist, the Constitution itself was made with white males and white males only in mind.
>separation of church and state
Last I checked the only pure theocracy on Earth was in the West. Vatican City. (Also doesn't have voting rights for women). Not to mentions place like the UK which have freedom of religion but a concrete state church. Seperation of Church and State is not a "Western value" its an "American value". And beyond that, part of that separation means not banning all Muslims from entering. Banning all Muslims from entering is as much a breach as banning all nonChristians from holding office.
> freedom of religion
This includes freedom to be Muslim.
You mean what was affirmed in the USA just this last year? Its now a fundamental "Western value"? Really?
>Christianity has crazy rules too.
Such as? Real question here.
Ever thought that the reason why what you call "modern civilization" is so compatible with Christianity is because Christians (mainline protestant anglo-saxons anyway) were largely the ones defining what it meant to be a "modern civilization"?
> Islam demands that you execute the apostate, that you execute the homosexual. Islam allows for honor killings
Most Muslims disagree.
>Islam puts women as second to men.
So do most Westerners even if they deny it.
>There are plenty of modern muslims in the west who don't pray five times a day, listen to music, and drink. They are "integrated" (but then, so were the San Bernadino shooters). As a percentage, they are really fucking small, though.
So are you saying that not drinking, not praying, and listening to music are superior and a requirement to fit in with the West? Drinking in particular seems like an o dd choice because drinking is correlated with more violence, not less. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, and the 9/11 bombers drank too. You should be embracing teetotaling Muslims.
>shit pulled in Cologne is viewed as acceptable
Rape is banned in Islam.
>63 million is less than 1% of 1.6 billion
Shariah education everybody.
That, by the way, is only the percentage that outright support ISIS, no mention of those who are ambivalent/neutral/don't find it to be wrong.
Even if they don't support ISIS, do you know how many hundreds of millions support death for apostasy? Death for homosexuality? Fuck off, Ahmed.
>MRAs and red pillers want to force women into hijabs and burqas and be able to execute them if they're raped
>only pure theocracy is in the west
>implying there aren't 11 countries operating under Sharia law
>freedom of religion
>implying leaving the faith isn't punishable by death under Islamic law, flying in the face of freedom of religion
>implying executing homosexuals isn't a pious act in Islam
And yes, the right to be a homosexual and exist is a value in western civilization, if not only by comparison to everywhere else in the world.
Fuck off Ahmed.
Really sorry and embarrassed about this Muslim diaspora with a US flag here arguing with all you guys
>MRAs and red pillers are still allowed in the USA. The West has been plenty sexist, the Constitution itself was made with white males and white males only in mind.
Not even the same. For one, they don't inherently stand for the reduction of women's rights, it's that they're commonly associated with disaffected men. Also, they're non-effectual, online sperg groups. That's a hilariously bad comparison. Women just got the right to vote in Saudi Arabia. Rape is still seen as the fault of women in most of the Muslim world.
>This includes freedom to be a Muslim
bit paradoxical when most Muslim countries that were formerly non-Muslim show a history of gradual and iterative persecution, harassment, and coercion of the non-Muslim minority until it almost ceases to exist. The Middle East was once thriving with religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. What happened there? Aspostasy is much of the middle east is a punishable crime. It's a foregone conclusion that the rest of religion would take a hit with Muslim control.
>You mean what was affirmed in the USA just this last year? Its now a fundamental "Western value"? Really?
Unbelievably retarded. We just granted them the right to marry. They've always had the right to be homosexuals and get civil unions. If you're gay in the Muslim world, you get stoned to death. I think it's safe to say there's a heady discrepancy there, no?
Of course you already know all this yourself and are playing a semantics game to try to revive a clearly losing argument and sentiment
>rape is banned in Islam
Your wife and sex slave can't say no. They literally cannot not give consent.
>the rest of your bullshit
Keep up with the taqqiya, ahmed. Try not to pull another San Bernadino.
any set of rules will eventually collide with advancement. You can't halt advancement to fit the old rules and you can't enforce old rules on advanced cases. Law should strive to find a golden route where it's written so it doesn't have to change in order to survive the contact with advancement, however, it does necessarily need to be adapted to the present state of affairs. The establishment that makes and enforces the law depends on it. If it fails, it grows weak and collapses, either from within or under outside influence.
religion, on the other hand, survives, because it's rigid. The reassurance that weak people want from religion doesn't need to change. Christianity has been working on the same principles for centuries.
it wasn't the west alone though. Ayy rabs simply sat with their sorry asses on too many shekels for all the big players to ignore.
we've had it before as well though, we pretty much had one of the most strict rule sets for asylum and immigration. The fuss that's about it now is just because of the crisis. The chance that we would have accepted muslims before the crisis was just as low and just as now, mostly because the strict rules scared them off.
> and drink.
Just got back from doing the dishes btw. This quote was rolling around in my head the whole time. Fact is, that I have seen Westerners praise "drinking" in Muslims on more than one occasion.
"Some Muslims aren't THAT bad---they DRINK ALCOHOL!"
But alcohol is correlated with a high increase in violent crime, a high increase in rape and sexual harassment and rape. The 9/11 bombers drank alcohol. In fact if you count the damage done towards OTHER people (not just the user) when assessing the harmfulness of a drug, alcohol is worse than meth or crack.
So why do Islamaphobes praise alcohol use among Muslims? Because its what Westerners do, therefore it must be good when a non-Western culture adopts our worst vices. It just proves the point that Islamaphobia has nothing to do with the supposed "violence of Islam" and everything to do with Western supremacy.
>It just proves the point that Islamaphobia has nothing to do with the supposed "violence of Islam" and everything to do with Western supremacy.
but it doesn't, there's no direct link in what you just said
well, in this case there must be a compromise between old and new.
desu i'm quite conservative (not the catholic one). i don't want law to be flexible or very benevolent but taking in mind an advencment, law cannot cut dead towards it.
i know. i live near one of these refugee centres and borders with ukraine aren't that far. it's really hard to cross the border here.
Explain how you can praise alcohol use in Muslims while also being against violence? When alcohol directly contributes and is linked with higher rates of violence?
Protip: It has everything to do with Western supremacy and nothing to do with violence at all.
yeah, I guess law should have some degree of rigidness to retain its legitimacy in the eyes of the public, I just don't know whether that's possible in our oh so quickly changing society.
not that it actually matters if we discuss Slovakia, it its current state, the law isn't written well enough to be able to afford being rigid
explain how can you mistake alcohol use and alcohol abuse and build your argument around it.
I agree with alcohol being as bad as you said, I agree that we shouldn't encourage different cultures to adopt our vices, but I don't think they lad you replied to would disagree either, you just pretty much picked a random word from his argument and added salt and pepper
>It has finally begun, lads.
wait. did we asked the americunts fuck off to?
only in that day you can say "finally" until then shut the fuck up and get lost.
So what you're saying is that Slovaks learned that gypsies and Muslims scum through experience and then rightfully took the position that neither should be welcomed or viewed positively by society?
Sounds like an example the rest of the western world should learn from. It certainly makes more sense than pretending Muslims are good boys who dindu nuffin while they commit murder and rape across Europe.
Islam condones rape of war captives.
ISIS can have as many recruits as they want, they're still a weak and impotent military force with no ability to mount an invasion of any place worth actually giving a shit about. Let more Muslims join their ranks, paint targets on their backs, and get bombed to oblivion by our planes and drones. If they're dying in the desert instead of infiltrating western society, they're making it a whole lot easier for us.
Yes and what ISIS wants will necessarily benefit them, because they are rational....
They also want every nation to bomb them because they believe Allah will give them victory regardless of who they piss off or how many nukes will fall on Raqqa.
The fact that you think the two can even be in conflict to begin with shows that you are either a filthy Muslim or an idiot with no idea of how to form a coherent thought. In either case, you have no business trying to conduct a conversation with people who are clearly smarter than you.
ISIS recruits from the west aren't a military problem, when a military solution is needed for them it's to deal with consequences. It's too late when they get bombed to oblivion.
The right of free religious exercise for your own citizens has nothing at all to do with how we decide who should and should not be allowed to immigrate into the country. The Muslim world and its people have demonstrated consistently and nearly without exception that they are hostile to the concepts of free speech, equality for women, and equality for religious minorities. It has been conclusively demonstrated in Europe that any area in which large numbers of Muslims concentrate becomes less safe for the native inhabitants, and that crime rates go up.
There is literally not a single good reason to endorse allowing Muslims to immigrate into a western country.
According to your map, only a minority of Muslims believe in death for apostasy.
What "equal rights"? Also the West caps freedom of speech all the time. Especially Germany. Muslims aren't threatening something which doesn't really exist. Also banning a religion is the same as banning a type of speech anyway.
I'm for abolishing the freedom of religion. You don't need additional rights to join a tennis club or to express your opinion. So why does religion need a special additional freedom? Also the most important thing about freedom of religion is the right to be free of a certain or of every possible religion.
>Let me guess you are one of the same guys who says Islam is incompatible with Western values?
It's certainly not good if it isn't separated from the state like in Iran. I also think that it's a "meme" that wants to take over the state completely, like in Iran.
>According to your map, only a minority of Muslims believe in death for apostasy.
>3rd of a group believes those who leave the group should be killed
>so it's ok
You're dumber than a bag of hammers or baiting.
>I'm for abolishing the freedom of religion. You don't need additional rights to join a tennis club or to express your opinion. So why does religion need a special additional freedom? Also the most important thing about freedom of religion is the right to be free of a certain or of every possible religion.
so very true
>So why does religion need a special additional freedom?
Because people are wont to persecute others on the basis of religious beliefs? As shown by this thread? If you don't like religious freedoms sounds like you have more in common with ISIS than you'd care to admit. I heard they hate religious minorities too.
> Also the most important thing about freedom of religion is the right to be free of a certain or of every possible religion.
BS, the most important thing is not to be murdered based on your religious affiliation or lack thereof. State atheism is still toxic and outside of freedom of religion.
>Because people are wont to persecute others on the basis of religious beliefs? As shown by this thread? If you don't like religious freedoms sounds like you have more in common with ISIS than you'd care to admit. I heard they hate religious minorities too.
if tennis players murder significantly more football players than football players murder tennis players, there is something wrong with tennis
Name any other group where 1 out of 3 members will want you dead if you leave it.
If you refuse to understand the significance of that statistic, you're probably a Mudslime yourself.
>Because people are wont to persecute others on the basis of religious beliefs? As shown by this thread? If you don't like religious freedoms sounds like you have more in common with ISIS than you'd care to admit. I heard they hate religious minorities too.
So how can you stop somebody from joining a tennis club? Or from founding one, collect the money for tennis courts and a club house from the new members and build it?
>BS, the most important thing is not to be murdered based on your religious affiliation or lack thereof. State atheism is still toxic and outside of freedom of religion.
There is nobody in the state who would prevent people from joining a religion or a tennis club. Unless the state forces people to be atheist or not to play tennis, but I never suggested a state like this.
>european women being raped in the streets
>european men continue pontificating about what is the exact issue and how to fix it by talking about their feelings
>everything continues to get worse
gg wp western europe it's been a good run
>if tennis players murder significantly more football players than football players murder tennis players, there is something wrong with tennis
But atheists murder significantly more Christians than Christians murder atheists (at least when it comes to state-sponsored violence). I guess there is something wrong with atheism (YOUR logic not mine).
>So how can you stop somebody from joining a tennis club?
Banning Tennis. What does that have to do with anything? People aren't wont to persecute others based on their favorite sports. No such history exists in the West. They ARE wont to persecute others based on religion.
>Unless the state forces people to be atheist or not to play tennis, but I never suggested a state like this.
You just want to make it easier to persecute others on the basis of religion by stripping away freedom of religion.
>But atheists murder significantly more Christians than Christians murder atheists
atheism isn't a religion.
>You just want to make it easier to persecute others on the basis of religion by stripping away freedom of religion.
yes, because if a religion makes its followers more prone to violence, something should be done with it. Maybe not a ban, but religion shouldn't be a special right outside your right of free though. Religion must not have a special privilege.
>atheism isn't a religion.
Neither is tennis, but you said if tennis players murder more football players than vice verse, there is something wrong with tennis.
So what does it mean when more athiests murder Christians than Christians murder atheism?
> if a religion makes its followers more prone to violence,
What does it mean when atheism makes its adherents more prone to violence? Its more violent than Christianity.
>Religion must not have a special privilege.
But atheism can? Interesting. Also all sorts of violent non-religious ideologies have been protected in the USA. Stuff like marxism, fascism, racial supremacy, etc. Should all those be banned too? Or just the evil Muslims?
>Tfw bait or not, there are way too many people ITT defending Muslims
>>So how can you stop somebody from joining a tennis club?
>Banning Tennis. What does that have to do with anything? People aren't wont to persecute others based on their favorite sports. No such history exists in the West. They ARE wont to persecute others based on religion.
You have the freedom to join tennis clubs, to meet people in the club house and have barbecues and talks with them. You can also play tennis and tell you like this sport very much. You could also join a religious club. You don't need the freedom of religion additional. But let's say the tennis club has the belief that a body part of male children of the members should be amputated. This wouldn't work. On the other hand the freedom of religion could allow this for a religion.
>>Unless the state forces people to be atheist or not to play tennis, but I never suggested a state like this.
>You just want to make it easier to persecute others on the basis of religion by stripping away freedom of religion.
No. Stop creating strawmans.
okay, I'll try to rephrase. A religion which supports violence, which has violence rooted in its traditions and basic rule sets it's built on, is wrong. Wrong in terms of modern society, but we're talking about integration of members of this religion in such society.
Atheism is not a religion, atheism lacks rule sets, atheism doesn't have followers, atheists don't necessarily share the same morals or opinions on how to lead a life.
simplified: Ten atheists, seven different answers on how to do something, any of them could be violent or peaceful, but neither is because of atheism. Ten muslims, four identical answers and all violent, based on islam.
>What does it mean when atheism makes its adherents more prone to violence? Its more violent than Christianity.
it's not atheism, it's the lack of morals, which is caused by wrong education. Religion is also a sort of education. Wrong religion, wrong education.
>But atheism can? Interesting.
nobody said or even implied that. Just because tennis doesn't have special privilege doesn't mean football does.
>Also all sorts of violent non-religious ideologies have been protected in the USA. Stuff like marxism, fascism, racial supremacy
If they're violent, something should be done about them. Whether that something is a ban depends on the state policy, I never said it should be banned. I just said it's wrong if it's protected by law for being the right kind of ideology (religion).
>european girls are being raped
>european men have philosophical debates alone in their bedrooms about the tenets of religious freedom via shitty analogies to assosiation sports
>On the other hand the freedom of religion could allow this for a religion.
No it couldn't. Oh wait are you talking about circumcision? Please don't bother. Your same logic could be used to strip away freedom of speech.
>atheists don't necessarily share the same morals or opinions on how to lead a life.
Neither do Tennis players, and yet you said there was something wrong with tennis if tennis players were more wont to violence. Hell, neither do Muslims. Muslims disagree on morals and opinions all the time.
>I just said it's wrong if it's protected by law for being the right kind of ideology (religion).
Its not. There's no opinions religion gets away with which would otherwise be prosecuted. That's not what the freedom of religion entails. It means you cannot persecute others based on religious affiliation. Something which East Europe has a long and bloody history of.
Are you triggered?
>>On the other hand the freedom of religion could allow this for a religion.
>No it couldn't. Oh wait are you talking about circumcision? Please don't bother. Your same logic could be used to strip away freedom of speech.
Yes, I'm talking about this and no, my idea can't be used to impair freedom of speech. You perform a non necessary operation on a person before the person is old enough to decide it for themselves. It's not necessary not to wait until the person is old enough to decide. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because freedom of speech doesn't amputate healthy body parts.
>Yes, I'm talking about this and no, my idea can't be used to impair freedom of speech.
Yes it could. What about the statistics from the WHO showing circumcision is beneficial and recommending it to help control the AIDS epidemic in Africa? According to your retard logic they should be thrown in jail.
> You perform a non necessary operation on a person
I guess if you think preventative care is unnecessary....I think most loving parents would disagree with you.
Just shut up. I am not discussing any serious matters with an intactivist, like ever. I cannot believe you are willing to totally uproot human rights like freedom of religion and start persecuting Jews again because MUH DICK. Not interested, sorry.
>But atheists murder significantly more Christians than Christians murder atheists (at least when it comes to state-sponsored violence)
Is this more muh communism or just the usual Christians pretending to be a minority thing?
>israeli girls are being raped
>israeli boys are laughing at european men
gib mixed jewish-slowvak qts
>Muslims disagree on morals and opinions all the time.
the number of muslims agreeing on violence is disturbing.
forget tennis and football
>There's no opinions religion gets away with which would otherwise be prosecuted.
There are, but those are minor things. The point is, that a separately defined right (again, the right to believe what you will is there without this separately defined right) gives groups yet another thing to exploit in the system to gain influence. Some of these groups are violent, or have violent fractions. These violent groups or violent fractions will use this redundant "rights" to gain excuses for their violence among the weaker-minded, who only want to be tolerant and can't think of the consequences. (we can see results of this thinking in Sweden, for example, and more recently in Köln, even though you might discount that as unconfirmed)
>we peaceful muslim
>in muslim we rape, be tolerant to muslim
now. Our laws prohibit rape. Rapists shouldn't be sorted by religion, of course, but why should a religion which allows its holy text to be easily interpreted as violent and contrary to our laws not be regulated (not banned, nor persecuted, but regulated), let alone have a special privilege?
Let me remind you again, that the right to believe is contained in the basic human right of free thought. You do not need freedom of religion to freely believe what you want.
Freedom of religion is a redundant string which begs to be abused
/Pol/and brings the banter.
How can Cuckmany recover?
???? It's the rise of state athiesm. Atheists themselves have never undergone a mass persecution in the West, the most you can find is some isolated historical examples (and even then you have to stretch).
By his "tennis vs football" logic, something is wrong with atheism.
Except the cases where "freedom of religion" is abused is tiny and seemingly made up (these Muslims aren't going to get away with rape just because they are Muslim).
The cases where a LACK of freedom of religion is abused are much much more plentiful and much much more deadly.
I praise drinking (responsibly) among other things because it is them freeing themselves of oppressive faith which I think is bad no matter what faith it is. I simply think Islam is the worst widely practiced faith.
>>Yes, I'm talking about this and no, my idea can't be used to impair freedom of speech.
>Yes it could. What about the statistics from the WHO showing circumcision is beneficial and recommending it to help control the AIDS epidemic in Africa? According to your retard logic they should be thrown in jail.
I won't discuss anymore with you. You are a troll who uses strawmans lime there is no tomorrow. I never talked about jail at all. And read my post again: there is no reason not to wait until the person can decide themselves if they want to have cut off a healthy body part. And again, cutting of healthy body parts isn't freedom of speech.
>> You perform a non necessary operation on a person
>I guess if you think preventative care is unnecessary....I think most loving parents would disagree with you.
>Just shut up. I am not discussing any serious matters with an intactivist, like ever. I cannot believe you are willing to totally uproot human rights like freedom of religion and start persecuting Jews again because MUH DICK. Not interested, sorry.
You have just no arguments and you are unable to win this debate without arguments. That's the reason why you want to stop to talk with me.
And yes, Western supremacy is a thing. That's why they want to come here. They want the benefits, both the government welfare variety and the better fucking society variety. The west in general is more civilized. You can bring on all the cultural relativity you want. I don't believe in objective right and wrong either. That doesn't change the fact that the standard of living in the countries associated with Western Civilization is higher, and that's why migrants want to go there.
Fuck off ahmed.
are you all retarded?
next elections are this year, slovaks are mostly anti shitskin so the prime minister is just racking up votes
in the eu parliament they happily vote for quoatas to accept more shitskins
>the most important thing is not to be murdered based on your religious affiliation or lack thereof
Like what happens in the countries controlled by Islam?
Like what is demanded of Muslims to perform to non-muslims by their fucking bible?
>The cases where a LACK of freedom of religion is abused are much much more plentiful and much much more deadly.
there is no lack of freedom of religion without a dedicated freedom of religion. If there is a law against religion, it's not because there isn't a freedom of religion, it's because there is a law against religion. Freedom of religion is implicit from the freedom of thought.
>these Muslims aren't going to get away with rape just because they are Muslim
I never implied that. What I meant was, that the rape was allowed to happen, because a large group of people of the same certain religion, a religion which justifies rape, was let into our society, in which rape is an unacceptable crime.
Unless they renounce such beliefs, their beliefs are in direct conflict with our society. They might not be a threat, they might never rape anyone, they can believe what they will until they show signs of violent behaviour. But there is no reason for them to have the right explicitly stated.
>you are free to believe in rape. Come to our society, think of raping the scarcely dressed women you see on the street, they're obviously asking for it. It is your solemn right to think rape is justified.
Don't take this example literally.
that's an entirely different matter mate, the discussion has long since strayed from the OP
"So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."
You will burn motherfucker and not just in the afterlife.
Yeah literally ingesting the most dangerous drug known to Western civilization, linked to 40% of violent crimes and 90% of acquaintance rape is ~freeing themselves from, like faith or whatever~.
First of all thats not even absolute: Brunei, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia all have higher HDI than Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia, for example.
Secondly, the West got its wealth by stealing and conquering others. (A little thing known as imperialism). If that is "civilized" than why are you complaining about these violent Muslims?
1) No that is not demanded of Muslims in "their Bible" nor does it happen in all Muslim nations.
2) But yes, it should be avoided everywhere because it is horrible.
>they listen to music
>they don't pray every day
>I think these are good because it shows they are not following an old story book to the letter.
>WOW WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH THEIR DRINKING AND ONLY THEIR DRINKING
You are totally incapable of actual, honest attempts at discussion, aren't you ahmed. You triggered because I made fun of your faith?
>ukraine, macedonia and serbia
>it should be avoided everywhere, because it is horrible
State that you are against the implementation of Shariah law, then, Ahmed.
Some or all trees (not sure if it's all of them) have more fruit if you cut them in a certain correct way. You can also cut them wrongly and they will have less fruit. Also a disease can be treated or maybe the tree is able to get over the disease by itself.
Does someone know more about tree health?
All muslim nations are shit, they are either ruled by the military via some "president" or they are ruled by sharia law and old men in dresses.
Real muslims are in a constant state of denial, their backwards religion prohibits them from contributing anything useful to humanity, but at the same time it tells them it's the only way to live, if they question it they need to die.
Fuck that and fuck you.
yeah, you can cut one tree and insert a branch of a different kind of tree. The branch will grow in with the original tree and create a new breed, better than both originals
but do it wrong and they'll both die.
Europe is doing it wrong.
That is from the Bible:
Matthew 7 15-20
It's basically were the bible tells us it's ok to burn people following false prophets along with their false prophets until their disease is gone.
>First of all thats not even absolute: Brunei, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia all have higher HDI than Ukraine, Macedonia and Serbia, for example.
Because refugees are going to ukraine macedonia and serbia by the truck load.
You fucking idiot.
Would you be happy if Christians started murdering people because it ~shows they don't follow an old story book to the letter~?
Would you be happy if Baha'i followers started marrying 12 year olds because it ~frees them from their faith~?
If Buddhists started stealing? If Jewish people started eating flesh from animals which were still alive?
Then why the hell would you be happy when Muslims drink alcohol, considering alcohol is responsible for far, FAR more violence in the West than Islam is? It sticks out like a sore thumb in this thread and you know it.
>Nooo I meant drink responsibly!
Alcohol is extremely addictive and it takes very very little to develop addiction and abuse. Why not just say "use meth responsibly"? Meth is linked to less violent crime than alcohol after all.
No it doesn't mean that. The fires he speaks of are the fires of being lost from God eternally. Not earthly fires, you dork. All the punishments spoken of in the NT are administered by God, not by man since you don't know the hearts of the people who hold them.
Probably not, because the uproar from the millions of millions of alcoholics in the USA ("we can quit anytime we want!") would be devastating. We actually tried it back in the 1920s.
But banning alcohol makes a lot more sense than banning meth or crack or any other drug. Its just too powerful of an industry and too deeply entrenched in Western culture/history to be banned. Maybe slowly strangling it like we are currently doing with the cigarette industry though even cigarettes had less of a foothold at their peak than alcohol does now.
I mean state atheism, and anti-clericalism when perpetuated by atheists/irreligious.
but you don't think banning a religion makes sense, a religion, which causes violence. Indirectly, just like alcohol. Why do you think freedom of religion is alright and freedom of drug use isn't? Not all drugs cause violence, not all alcoholics are violent. Majority of alcohol users are not violent. Just like with Muslims.
>Alcohol makes anyone more prone to violence by literally lowering their inhibitions.
but so does religion, just with a different mechanism.
>Also "freedom of drug use" isn't an actual right that exists in Western society.
that's irrelevant, I'm just pointing out your double standard. You don't trust people with drinking responsibly, but you do trust them with believing responsibly? I know the phrase "believing responsibly" might come as a paradox, especially to a believer (don't take it personally if you are), but just as a person who drinks and wants to be responsible should be aware of what effects drinking will have and act accordingly, a person who wants to believe in a religion's set of rules should be aware of the consequences it can have.
Violent alcoholics are not aware of what consequences their drinking has.
Violent believers are not aware of what consequences their faith has.
or even worse, they both believe what they're doing is absolutely right.
religion instills tenets, sets of principles to be followed by the religion's followers. It establishes beliefs, that if you do not follow these principles, you are not a part of the religion and all that comes with it. In a religious society, not being a part often means harm to the person (death, exile, ostracization, shaming) as means to keep the people faithful.
Belief in these basic principles can be easily exploited by their subtle changes, misinterpretations, or additions to them. A person who believes that an unfaithful wife is a sinner who'll end up in hell will be easier to convince that she should be executed than a person who has learned why is cheating an unwanted deed.
Again, not everyone is susceptible to be more prone to violence under the influence of a religion
and not everyone is susceptible to be more prone to violence under the influence of alcohol.
>In a religious society, not being a part often means harm to the person (death, exile, ostracization, shaming) as means to keep the people faithful.
You can say the same of an unreligious society. Antireligious societies also can kill, exile, ostracize and shame believers. Where is your proof that religion specifically causes that mentality?
>. A person who believes that an unfaithful wife is a sinner who'll end up in hell will be easier to convince that she should be executed than a person who has learned why is cheating an unwanted deed.
Also I 100% disagree, if anything its the opposite. If I thought my husband was going to hell, I would not want him to die. Nobody wants their loved ones to go to Hell. Its a place of constant torture etc.
let me guess, it's okay because she was an apostate, right muslim?
I'm not Muslim, and I don't agree with sharia. I'm a white woman who drifts between being kind of agnostic/atheist and kind of Christian. I just find this whole mess to be incredibly hypocritical.
There's no proof he did that because his inhibitions were lowered due to Islam. I can find plenty of men of all religions who murdered their own relatives.
In other words, see the image in >>53287075
Rape and murder have also been a part of nearly every society ever recorded. Doesn't make them good.
>make thread almost 6 hours ago
i admit to doing yer nan, lad
No he said religion lowers inhibition towards murder which is not proven by that article. Anymore than this guy:
means antireligion lowers your inhibition towards violence.
now slow down lass, irreligious and antireligious are two different things, one is passive, other is active. An irreligious society does not pursue believers, it merely doesn't give them an advantage over non-believers. It doesn't give an advantage to non-believers over believers either.
>If I thought my husband was going to hell, I would not want him to die. Nobody wants their loved ones to go to Hell. Its a place of constant torture etc.
That's a narrow view, narrowed down to loved ones and Christianity.
Now in some other religions, it's quite common to stone unfaithful wives, their religion condones it, if not encourages it.
I'm enjoying arguing, I don't care if it's bait or not, it's exercise for my brain.
>you will never be a based eastern european
>there will never be an anti-pc happening
>your country is beyond saving
>your country will be brown in a few generations while eastern europe will forever stay white
i have accepted my fate and i'm ready to end it
I think it does if you want to believe otherwise go ahead. I am not going to post a picture though. I'll post a pic of my bloody tampon with timestamp if you want.
You're the one who equated "has been around a long time" with "good".
>that guy just plain doesn't like MUSSSLIMS
Muslims are the #1 fucking victim of islamic violence. I dislike ISLAM. Muslims are prisoners of it, and many of them are both prisoners and prison guards. It's fucking terrible.
I didn't say it was "good" because it's been around for a long time, I was making a point that it's very much a part of our and most other cultures and always has been and that's why it's hard to get rid of.
You're just seeing the points you want me to make, not the ones I'm making.
religious people generally will never accept the idea of god not existing. there is nothing that can prove it to them, and the belief in god has been weaved into their entire psyche from birth that it's unfathomable for them
Oh please. Religious people question God all the time, many irreligious people had religious parents or vice verse.
>irreligious people generally will never accept the idea of god existing. there is nothing that can prove it to them, and the disbelief in god has been weaved into their entire psyche from reddit that it's unfathomable for them
That is how stupid you sound.
belief can wane, weaken to the point where a generation doesn't really follow the religion, it's merely officially religious, because their parents had them baptized or circumcised or branded or whatever religious people choose to do to themselves. And their parents only did it, because their parents did.
This situation is current and ongoing in Slovakia. You'll hear from all sides how polls show how very Christian we are, but that's merely on paper. Actual religious families are a minority.
A generation after such generations will be godless as... heh... as hell.
In Islam's case, it'll just take a little longer. Their religion hasn't adapted to societal change as Christianity did, maybe because their society changed very slowly (reasons for that are irrelevant).
>many irreligious people had religious parents or vice verse.
in modern western society, yes. In countries where state is closely tied to religion? Hardly. Christianity used to be the same, all those centuries ago.
i'm not looking for an argument but you have to be kidding yourself if you think that the middle east is not full of people like yourselves. not in the cultural sense but in the sense that they question their own faith from time to time. you know they have brains and critical thinking skills like functioning humans. they're more alike than they are different.
i am not even a muslim so no bias here.
one whose members behave according to their religion, at least to some extent.
In paper terms, I'd be considered a Christian, but I have my reservations against religion as a concept. Most people of my generation are baptized and legally registered as Christian, simply because our parents didn't want to disappoint their parents. Our families are not religious.
sure there are, but that doesn't make their religion unable to be interpreted extremely - which is happening now. Simply too many Muslims are incompatible with the western world not to take notice and be wary of it.
and I'm not saying for example Christianity can't share the same fate, sure it can, it's just that.. it's not happening right now.
8/10 commandments ŧbh
okay, I don't feel knowledgeable enough in the matter of Christianity to judge that, but what I do know is, that it really is a minority, which considers itself religious. And I mean
>I am religious
>we're a religious family
but you've brought up a good question, can someone who considers themselves religious be considered as a part of a certain religion, when he doesn't behave according to this religion's standards?
leave the faith on a personal level? more likely than you think. declare they're a non-believer in public? if that's what he mean, which i doubt, then you're right. people won't come out and say they're no longer a believer because of the consequences that may follow.
but religious people, even in islam, question their faith all the time.
I believe that, and it's why I'm hopeful. There's a growing reform movement and a growing ex-muslim movement. The first world won't support it because it'd fuck up alliences with shitty daesh fucking saudi arabia.