That's kinda what I've been saying for a long time-----the term "Muslim" is indicative of not just a "faith" or religion, but of a National origin or attachment also. No so-called separation of Church and State there. A Country is an Islamic/Muslim Country or it's not, basically, because the two are the same (Muslim and Islam). And here's the kicker when anyone tries to compare Christianity to Islam-----Christianity has the Savior, who spiritualized the Law, giving everyone the freedom to worship or not worship however they wanted; no more literally killing someone if they don't follow the Christian God, even if spiritually they're subject to God's punishment after they die; no prosecution for treason if they decide to become atheists, etc. This is why I don't understand how Americans can "join" the Islam faith (become a Muslim) just by deciding to, because joining Islam is the same as pledging allegiance to a foreign Muslim Country, the way evidence shows it and the way I see it.
Well I'm not making a claim about all Muslims, especially in the United States. Christianity also has a sordid history of violence, and the way abortion providers are threatened with murder is indefensible.
However, in terms of living in a tolerant society, countries that are predominantly Muslim are not tolerant of people who oppose the faith; they are very aggressive in imprisoning/killing anyone who doesn't fit Islam.
I'm against all religion, but if I had to choose between living in the United States, which is full of Christians, and Pakistan, which is full of Muslims, it's not a hard choice.
This is the same issue we always encounter in low education areas with high poverty, ignorance and religion meet for the perfect storm, one needs only look at Christianity in say Africa to see the issue is not just a Muslim one (hunting homosexuals and executing them, killing women who have pre-marital sex etc).
Does Africa do that? If so, it reinforces my belief that Obama should resign and take his political activism THERE and reform a Nation that actually needs changed, instead of experimenting with America. There, or to any Muslim Nation. If he truly cares about the human condition and civil rights, he should actually go where his help is needed, where people are actually killed for being gay or for having an opposing religion.
And saying a government is corrupt does not mean all parts of it are corrupt. That's the same fallacy as saying a whole car is heavy, therefore all its parts are.
There are good people in government. Some environmental and financial regulators, and there good cops and judges. But the overall direction of destroying civil liberties and imperialism abroad are corrupt.
Here is a better example: The law states that stealing will result in jail or prison time. If a guy has no money, no job but has a family, do you think the police officer and judge wants to hear the sob story?
The man stole food. Stealing is wrong. The man broke the law.
It is carrying the argument for political correctness a bit too far to have this Islamic monument at ground zero. What is the point? What do you want to prove? Is it really needed at the exact spot? Logic and common...
If you'd been a prosyletizing Catholic, Mormon, Jew or any other"orthodox" religion, the military would have evicted you from their ranks, but be a radical muslim, such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan and instead...
PC. Is it good, bad or somewhere in between? How far can PC go before it becomes ridiculous? When does it become offensive and unworkable? Examples are encouraged.Have we lost touch with (what once was called) common...