Why is that I wonder? I mean isn't it the Christians that are being persecuted and aren't they the ones we should be giving refuge to? Why are the numbers so very low compared to Muslim refugees? You would think the numbers would be even at worst but no.
"(CNSNews.com) – The number of Syrian refugees admitted into the United States jumped to 1,037 during May – an increase of 130 percent over the previous month – but the proportion of Christians among them remains miniscule: two Christians (0.19 percent) compared to 1,035 Muslims.
May’s figure of 1,037 Syrian refugees brings the total number since the beginning of 2016 to 2,099 – compared to 2,192 for the whole of 2015, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Earlier years since the Syrian civil war began saw much smaller numbers arriving – 20 in 2011 (dated from mid-March); 41 in 2012; 45 in 2013; and 249 in 2014.
Of the 2,099 Syrian refugees admitted so far this year, six (0.28 percent) are Christians, 2,043 (97.3 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 50 are 17 (0.8 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.4 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.47 percent) Yazidis.
Similar proportions are seen in the number of Syrian refugees having arrived in the U.S. since the start of fiscal year 2016: 2,773 in total, comprising 12 (0.4 percent) Christians, 2,703 (97.4 percent) Sunnis, 17 (0.6 percent) Shi’a, 30 (1.1 percent) other Muslims and 10 (0.3 percent) Yazidis.
And since the conflict erupted, of a total of 4,646 Syrian refugees admitted, 60 (1.3 percent) are Christians; 4,422 (95.1 percent) are Sunni Muslims. The remaining 163 include Shi’a, other Muslims, Zoroastrians, Baha’i, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Yazidi, and refugees identified as “other religion” or as having “no religion.”
Syrians of all faith and ethnic backgrounds have been fleeing their homeland, with almost five million now registered by the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR as “persons of concern.”
They have done so to escape the violence and deprivation generally, or to get away specifically from ISIS, other jihadists rebel groups, or the Assad regime – which is itself a minority regime that has committed atrocities, including alleged war crimes, against majority Sunnis and others.
Although Syrians of all stripes have been affected, the number of Christians among those admitted into the U.S. – 1.3 percent – remains significantly smaller than the proportion of Christians in the total population when the war began – an estimated 10 percent, according to the CIA World Factbook.
Last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said the very small proportion of Christians among Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. “has got to change.” "
Do you agree with this? They are begging for our help, why are the numbers so low?
Perhaps because there aren't whole countries of predominately Christians being persecuted. They aren't trying to escape as a country full of people. There aren't a hundred thousand Christians marching out of their country.
Perhaps we'll have more (or more likely more atheists) when the radical Muslims begin to take over the countries of Europe.
Seems a shame since we can see above their plea for help and we can't help. I mean it is the Christians being persecuted, the Muslims for the most part have the same religion as ISIS don't they? They all go by the Quran don't they and are Islam? I think I read they cannot put Christians with these groups because they are anti-Christian so what are we really doing to help anything?
"the Muslims for the most part have the same religion as ISIS don't they"
To about the same degree Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Pope all have the same religion. They all go by the bible and are all Christian, after all!
In the world right now, it isn't primarily Christians being persecuted. It is Muslims, and can't really see it matters who is doing the persecuting.
Muslims are not Christian (not as a rule although some have become Christian and speak against Islam and Muslim beliefs) and you are so ignorant on this I see no use to discuss it with you.
"Muslims for the most part have the same religion as ISIS don't they?"
Well, one of us is ignorant, anyway. But where did the "Muslims are not Christian" come from? Certainly I did not suggest they are!
You might consider taking your own advice.
Is there a point or were you simply so blown away with the sage quality of my responses that you thought they merited being posted again?
Just showing how necessary is that you follow your own advice.
Are you implying that those of other religions will not suffer more than someone of the Muslim faith? I realize a Sunni will behead a Shiite with little provocation but ISIS will apparently do it with no provocation from what they classify as an infidel.
In the Syrian civil war, everybody is suffering.
Yes. I looked at my original statement also. Since I didn't know Kerry had included Shia, the others were non Muslim, so the statement applied to those. Now that I see that it would have to be adjusted to include Shia. However, as repeatedly stated I was pointing out potential victims of genocide should take priority.
The comments about children, crucifixes, etc were still ignorant and ill thought.
It is disastrous, calamitous, and shocking.
Thousands of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities have been persecuted, killed and terrorized by the Islamic State (ISIS). Hundreds of young girls continue to be kidnapped, raped and sold as sex slaves. Thousands of other individuals have watched silently as their loved ones have been systemically slaughtered because of their faith. At the same time, Americans vainly hope for resolute leadership from the Obama Administration.
Rather than offer a forceful response to a spate of terror in Syria, Iraq, Orlando, Nice, and Paris, Attorney General Lynch suggested that the “most effective” response is expressions of peace and love. It appears that members of the Obama Administration live in the world of make believe, wherein they are prepared to offer jobs, economic opportunity, and love as the solution to ISIS jihadists who have sworn an oath of hatred and world domination.
Inaction and indecisiveness are reinforced by deflection. This pattern continues to afflict members of the Obama Administration. This week, Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in Dhaka, Bangladesh, feebly proposed: “Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover [terror attacks] quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”
That is the most ghastly pronouncement of willful blindness that I’ve ever heard.
Reality is quite different. Rather than doing “us all a service” by not covering terror and genocide, the media, in reality, would be performing a service for the Obama Administration by deflecting attention from its own inaction in fighting the scourge of terror.
It has been more than 5 months since Secretary Kerry declared that atrocities being carried out by ISIS against Christian, Yazidis and other minorities constitutes “genocide.” Responding to pressure from the legislative branch and from the ACLJ and others, Secretary Kerry has stated that the perpetrators must be held accountable. He has also stated that naming these crimes is important but what is essential is to stop them.
So the question becomes, what action, if any, has the Obama Administration taken to stop genocide? Has the Obama Administration sought support for immediate and decisive action from the United Nations or, alternatively has the Administration unleashed the United States’ military to launch an unremitting campaign to destroy the world’s leading terror group?
Instead of naming the genocidal enemy as radical Islamic terror and instead of eradicating the Islamic State, it appears that the Obama Administration is currently more focused on (1) hiding the details of apparent ransom payments to the number one state sponsor of terror, Iran, (2) scrubbing the evidence of its deletion of a State Department video indicating that secret bilateral negotiations with Iran had commenced much earlier than the Administration claimed, and (3) pushing back at suggestions that it agreed to a secret deal with Iran that enabled the Islamic Republic of Iran to dodge restrictions included as part of last year’s nuclear deal.
Taken together, a clear pattern of hiding evidence emerges: Just like the Obama Administration sought to keep the American people in the dark about its bilateral negotiations with Iran, it appears that Secretary Kerry and the Obama Administration prefer to hide their failure to take decisive action to stop genocide.
While Secretary Kerry wants the news media to keep silent about the genocidal slaughter caused by ISIS terrorists because that would make the Administration’s job easier and because silence would allow the Administration’s continuing failure to either name the enemy and or take action to end genocide to escape scrutiny, this week the ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit in order to establish what, if anything, the Obama Administration is doing in response to the genocide being waged by ISIS.
In July, the ACLJ sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to the State Department asking for records that would indicate what if any action the Obama Administration is taking to stop, to respond to, or to provide relief to the victims of the genocide in Syria and Iraq. Regrettably, the State Department has ignored our request.
As a consequence, the ACLJ has gone to court to seek information that would show what the Obama Administration has done to confront ISIS, bring the perpetrators to justice, and protect Christians and other victims of the Islamic State’s genocidal campaign.
If the Administration has already taken forceful action to stop genocide, why would it keep such information secret? On the other hand, if it has done nothing, this means thousands of other Christians and members of other religious minorities remain in the cross-hairs of ISIS terrorists.
Just as the ACLJ has filed a lawsuit against the State Department to uncover information relating to the State Department’s decision to delete questions by Fox News reporter James Rosen regarding the Administration’s commencement of secret negotiations with Iran, the ACLJ will forcefully pursue its new lawsuit and demand that the Obama Administration answer questions regarding its failure to stop genocide. The ACLJ Government Accountability Office will continue to lead this effort.
Secretary Kerry is dangerously wrong. We don’t need less attention on the terrorist threats we face; we need more attention and more action to stop this historic evil.
The time for timidity and indecisiveness is over. The time for action is now.
Please sign the petition:
http://aclj.org/persecuted-church/secre … p-genocide
There probably aren't that many Christians living in theocratic Muslim countries like Syria. It hasn't been safe for Christians to live in those countries since the Crusades. But I agree with you that if they need refuge, then we should give it to them. It's highly unlikely that they would be harboring terrorists.
There really are many more than most people realize. Do you recall the parents many months ago who threw their children from mountaintops rather than let ISIS torture them? That was so horrible.
How about 9 million in Egypt, 2 million in Syria, and 1.5 million in Lebanon. There is still about 1/2 million in Iraq and 3 or 4 hundred thousand living in Iran.
Are they leaving their country, asking for refugee status or do we need to go door to door offering it?
Wilderness; Don't need your argumentative comments. I was providing a point of information for MizBejabbers regarding the number of Christians living in the Middle East.
Thank you Setank, I certainly appreciate the information and I do know it is many and that if Americans had a say in anything anymore they would be the ones we would be rescuing and bringing in to help. But instead we are not even getting the women and children we were promised but just the young strong men who should be protecting the women and children in their countries. Even with hands tied though we are not stupid as to what exactly is going on.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ … n-refugees
OK, y'all, I stand corrected. I didn't realize there were that many. I agree that whether there are two or two billion, we should help them because their goal is not to destroy western civilization.
All we have to do is see what they are doing everywhere they go to know what is coming, don't you think? We are not a stupid people, are we?
I would think non muslims would be given the highest priority for refuge since they are the ones we all know will suffer the most at the hands of jihadists.
As to muslims. It's a religious thing. It is their religion. Maybe they should work on cleaning it up and not ask us to mop up their messes.
What an ignorant, idiotic and callous comment to make. Way to sink to a new low. Priority should be given to children whose parents and families have been killed. Should we ask those children whether they know what a crucifix is before we agree to help them? Disgusting comment.
Right back atcha there, don. You decided to attack without the benefit of thinking first. Orphans would fall into a different category. They can't simply choose to apply for refugee status to America or anywhere else, for that matter. Only ignorance would cause someone to think what you apparently did.
As to the idiotic statement about a crucifix. Are all non muslims Christian? Are Yazidis Christian? They are non muslim. They are being targeted also. What are you, completely lacking in the ability to think beyond jumping to conclusions?
The only disgusting thing about this whole exchange is your propensity to get on a high horse when you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.
Your comment referred only to those seeking "refuge". Orphaned children have sought (and been given) refuge in the US. So much so that Chris Christie explicitly refused to accept orphaned refugees. Charities have been set up to find homes for orphaned refugees, and articles have been written titled "What happens to orphan refugees in America?". Besides that, your effort to exempt children from the vile discrimination you propose, doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Yes of course the crucifix idea is ridiculous. That's the point. Prioritising one group of people in need over another, on the grounds of their religion, is ridiculous. So naturally any way you try to do that will be ridiculous also.
And no it's not a "Muslim thing". It's a human thing. There are people who believe all religions are ridiculous. That doesn't mean they would (or should) help non-religious people before anyone else.
As I said, it was an idiotic, ignorant and callous statement. Your floundering defense of it only convinces me of that more.
I'm not floundering. Simply flabbergasted at the ignorance of the complaint.
Edit. Orphaned children can not seek, on their own accord, refugee status; that I am aware of. I'd be surprised to see a toddler walk into an embassy and fill out the paperwork. Agencies would be in place to attempt to place them. I don't know anything about what you are speaking of in New Jersey so can't comment. But, it is not a flounder to assume that orphaned children would be treated differently than adults in a war situation.
You appear to be floundering around after the ignorant crucifix statement. I'm afraid you can prioritize. People who are in jeopardy of being victims of genocide should be taken out first. By your reasoning, there is no reason to wonder why the world did not do more to help the Jews during WWII.
You can call it discrimination all you want. That is your right. But, I disagree. It is simply attempting to help those who need help the most. If two people live in a village which can be attacked at any moment and we know if it is attacked one will surely die where the other might.....who do we help first?
So, I stand by my assessment that your complaint is idiotic and ignorant. And, callous toward people most in danger. Your floundering defense of it only convinces me of that more.
Your comment suggests we should discriminate based on religion when we help, because ISIS discriminates based on religion when it commits genocide. It doesn't. Shia Muslims have been killed, abducted, and forced to flee ISIS in their tens of thousands. So if your comment really meant priority should be given to "people who are in jeopardy of being victims of genocide" then you would have included certain groups of Muslims in there too. Instead you make the abhorrent statement that because it's "their" religion, any Muslims who suffer because of ISIS should be less of a priority and be left to "mop up their messes".
WWII? You're clutching at straws now, but if you want to go there, the nazis targeted Jews and non Jews, like the Romani people. Likewise ISIS targets Muslim and non Muslims alike. In that scenario priority can only be given to those who are most vulnerable, with children being at the top of that list for obvious reasons. If not, then you are effectively saying the lives of one group of people is more important than the lives of another, which is unethical. Saving the life of a Jewish holocaust victim was not more important than saving the life of a Romani holocaust victim. Likewise saving the life of a non Muslim ISIS victim is not more important than saving the life a Muslim ISIS victim. Your comment suggests otherwise, which is why I think it's idiotic, ignorant and callous (at best).
I am not aware of any Muslim group the State Department has determined to be in jeopardy of genocide in that area. If there is one, they should be added to the ranks of the Christians and Yazidis that were so named.
As to the religion aspect. Yes. It is their religion. I'm afraid when you acquiesce to the rule of law of a religion (such as has been done in most of the Middle East) you set the stage for these types of problems. A secular society might be something they should look into.
I would be flabbergasted by your comments about the Jews during WWII but, having read through your other comments I find myself realizing I was right about you. You are clutching at straws, yourself, by insisting that anyone would not give children first priority in having them removed from the area of a conflict.
I find your comments to be idiotic, ignorant callous and uncivil, at best. I'm not accustomed to conversing with people who have no idea how to communicate in a civil manner. So, excuse me if I simply copy and paste the drivel you keep typing.
You have the whole web at your fingertips, yet suddenly you're incapable of finding comments from the Secretary of State on genocide committed against Muslims by ISIS. I don't buy it.
Now you're blaming the victims of these atrocities for having the audacity to live in non-secular societies. As if people who live in non-secular societies deserve to be murdered by religious fanatics. Are you even reading these comments before you write them, or are you just throwing sentences together at random? I hope it's the latter.
It's very simple: when groups of civilians are being murdered by nut-jobs, that's not the time to further your anti-religion or pro-religion agenda. That's the time to help. And you don't choose who to help by doing a survey of people's personal religious beliefs. You just help. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist or something else, is irrelevant. ISIS doesn't discriminate by religion in their killing, but you want us to discriminate by religion in our helping? You're entitled to call my comments uncivil, but I'll take uncivil over uncivilized any day of the week.
I'm not quite certain why this appears to be rocket science to a few of you and I am sorry you can't grasp this. Those who are targeted, by virtue of the fact that they are not of some particular religion or not the correct sect.....those whom the international community has agreed are in jeopardy of being murdered just for that fact.....potential victims of genocide; should these people ask for refuge they should be given first priority.
And, to assuage Don's apparently delicate sensibilities with that statement I am not including children in this statement. Orphaned children are a totally different matter and the only conversation I would think the international community might have is where is best for these kids.
If adults are being targeted because of their religion I see no reason to get in a tiffy fit because some point out what those who are targeting these innocents have proclaimed.
If this bothers you I'd say get over it.
We can aid this people outside of our country for a fraction of the cost and risk.
The difference between prioritizing help for "non-Muslims" as per your original comment, and prioritizing help for "potential victims of genocide" (regardless of what religion they are) is massive.
By your own admission you didn't know ISIS is committing genocide against Muslims. Well you've learned something then.
I made simple comment that people in jeopardy of genocide should have first priority. You got some foolish bee in your bonnet by jumping to a quite ignorant conclusion. If it makes you feel good to think you have added something to that, good for you.
Edit. I just thought I'd point out that I have seen no evidence that any specific Muslim group has been added to any list of peoples in jeopardy of genocide in this conflict. .Neither have you or your alter ego listed any. So, I'm not sure that you have made any point other than that you are quite good at misreading statements and jumping to conclusions.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees lists Muslims among the victims of genocide in a report on atrocities committed by ISIS. In section II, subsection A (Violations perpetrated by ISIL) it says: "Ethnic and religious groups targeted by ISIL include Yezidis, Christians, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka’e, Kurds and Shia. (1) (my emphasis).
It then describes specific examples, such as: "The prisoners were separated into groups according to their ethnic or religious affiliation. Sunnis were freed, while others, mainly Shia, were loaded on trucks, driven to a nearby ravine and shot. Some survivors said they immediately rolled into the ravine and were saved by other bodies landing on top of them. ISIL fighters kept shooting into the ravine at any moving body, including men who were screaming in pain."
In addition, H. CON. RES. 75, a Bill passed by the House of Representative (393 to 0) declared atrocities committed by ISIS against "ethnic and religious minorities" to be genocide: ". . . resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) - That the atrocities committed against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities targeted specifically for religious reasons are, and are hereby declared to be, ‘‘crimes against humanity’’, and ‘‘genocide’’; "(2)
Who does it list among "ethnic and religious minorities"? "Christians, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka‘e, Kurds and Shi’a" (my emphasis).
So not only have the UN High Commission for Refugees listed Muslims as victims of genocide and crimes against humanity. Congress have also (unanimously!) listed Muslims among victims of genocide and crimes against humanity. Note, not "potential" victims, or "in jeopardy" of genocide, but actual victims of genocide.
All this information is publicly available, but you've still got the nerve to say "I have seen no evidence that any specific Muslim group has been added to any list of peoples in jeopardy of genocide . . .", as if your ignorance of facts is some kind of reasonable argument. For some reason you dug yourself a hole, and have proceeded to bury the remnant of your credibility in it. Yet you complain because I call your comments idiotic and ignorant. I'm sorry but that's the most accurate description.
(1) https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UND … 506610.pdf
(2) https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hcon … es75ih.pdf
Thanks for the link, alter ego. When I saw an article on Kerry's comments I didn't see mention of Shia Muslims.
However, that still doesn't explain why the uproar over my comment. Since I wasn't aware of the fact that Shia were targeted I didn't include them in the comment. I did say those who were in the most danger should take priority. The complaint about a crucifix was quite over the top since Yazidis are not Christian. If Shia are being targeted they should also be a priority.
However, I do still believe that it is a Muslim problem and the religion, itself, is a large part of the problem and those of different sects should work within their religion to help change that.
More of what is going on not concentrating on refugees we can trust. https://youtu.be/iqAJGXI5l88
..and to add to Live to Learn I will ask you who it is ISIS is targeting? That is who we should be protecting. I sure hope someone gets in power to put a stop to what is happening before it gets too far out of hand and unless you are one of them you would be a fool not to want the same.
How about some video or photos of those helpless children? How about some proof exactly who is coming in before you get high and mighty with no concern for your country...if it is. If it isn't then what's it to you? No one can make me feel bad because I know who we should be helping the ones not ISIS or Islam with the same beliefs as ISIS and the Muslim religion in general no? You want to give me a low down of that and just what they believe and will try to force on this country to change who we are instead of becoming one of us. Sharia law and no one should live who is not one of them? That is who we want? No, that is who the president wants, not the real American citizens.
Bursting your bubble of ignorance is not my job. It's yours. The evidence is at your fingertips. If you're capable of spewing ignorance over a forum, then you're capable of finding out facts about the world you live in. So go find your own evidence of Muslims targeted by ISIS. Go find the UN reports that outline the genocide committed against Muslims. Go find the photos and videos of "helpless children" if that's what you need to see. I'm not doing it for you. No one can rid you of your ignorance except you. But we both know you won't. You'll stay in your bubble of ignorance, because that's easier than dealing with inconvenient truths. Like the fact that Muslims serve, and have died defending the Constitution. The fact there are Muslim men and women in the intelligence services risking their lives right now for your freedom to make idiotic comments on a web forum. But they can't be "real American citizens" because they're Muslims, right? Someone can't be a Muslim and love their country, right? Like I say, only you can rid yourself of that type of ignorance and idiocy.
You do not know the Muslim religion is Islam? How is it different than ISIS? I care about America and Americans first, yes this is where I live and this is where our country will and already is becoming like others and are you so ignorant you do not know that? I think you do, I just think you are one of the ones who want Americans like me to keep quite while it surrounds us and will become so much harder to control. But like many Americans I look out for the country and I am not blind or politically correct and that is what displeases you and people like you. I do not lie and I do not care what you think of me. I am not a leftist, I cannot be persuaded to give up my ideas and thoughts and have eyes to see and ears to hear.
ISIS can't take over the country. Muslims can't take over the country. I'm sorry, but thinking that is idiotic. Your comments are based on fear and ignorance. But your fear is irrational, and your ignorance unnecessary.
The fear is an emotional response to what you see in the news media, and elsewhere. Case in point are the videos you have posted. Where is the video about the billions of Muslims who work, play with their kids, pray and just live their lives. Where are the stories that say "Today billions of Muslims did absolutely nothing out of the ordinary!" Those videos and stories wouldn't get readers, viewers or clicks. So the only "Muslims" you see and hear about are those who either hurt people, or talk about hurting people. That isn't reality.
Instead of acknowledging that, you allow yourself to be terrified. So terrified that you'd hesitate to help people fleeing genocide. ISIS is called a terror organization for a reason. Its goal is to terrorize people. In your case, mission accomplished.
As for your ignorance, do you know any Muslims personally? Have you spent time with a Muslim family? Are you part of a local church that does outreach with other faith communities, including Muslims? If you want to know what ordinary Muslims think, speak to ordinary Muslims (yes they exist!) instead of reading blogs, and watching videos by people who are either as scared as you are, or are hate-filled and have an agenda.
Unfortunately that takes some thought and some effort. It's much easier to spread BS on the web (helping ISIS in the process). And don't talk to me about putting "America first". There was an anti-semitic organization that campaigned not to fight Hitler during WWII. It's name was "America First" too (go look it up). How ironic that you would use the same phrase to refuse help for Muslims, some fleeing from genocide. Funny how people with hateful agendas use patriotism as their excuse.
Being American doesn't mean being Christian. If you think it does, visit Arlington, read the names of all the Muslims who died defending the Constitution. Then go tell their families they weren't American, because they were Muslims. But remember you only have the freedom to say that because they fought and died for it. You haven't posted any videos about those Muslims? Why not?
Maybe you should ask yourself what is Muslim religion for that is what Muslim is, not a people and then ask yourself what they believe, everyone of them. So apparently you did not watch the videos. There are no videos that says they are just good old boys that do not live by their religion. Maybe what you are speaking of is the Christian refugee camps...oh but is there any of those?
Stop avoiding the question. Have you spent any time with a Muslim person or a Muslim family? If you had you'd know Muslims are not all the same. No group of people is. Just like Christians and people from other religions, Muslims have diverse opinions on the correct interpretation of their beliefs.
No videos of ordinary Muslims? Here you are:
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/th … 59918.html
You guys represent the irrational ends of the spectrum. Her concerns are over the top but based in fair concerns over potential problems. Your complete denial of a problem and insistence on insulting anyone who recognizes one is counter productive.
Stop mincing words. Her views are not "over the top", they are irrational and you know it. It's irrational to believe ISIS could take over the US. It's irrational to believe billions of people, of all different ethnicities and nationalities across the globe, all interpret a book written thousands of years ago in exactly the same way. I'm sorry, but thinking that's even possible is irrational.
And no, it's not "denial" to suggest that most ordinary Muslims don't spend all their waking hours plotting the downfall of the "West". It's not denial to suggest most Muslims are more concerned about putting food on their table, raising their kids etc. That's just common sense.
Do I agree with the beliefs of every Muslim? No. Just like I don't agree with the beliefs of every Christian. But if something doesn't violate the law (including the Constitution), then people are free to believe and practice as they wish. So if you object to certain Islamic practices because they break the law, then you already have the means to address that via the legal system. If you object to certain Islamic practices just because they aren't Christian, then you need to remember "religious freedom" doesn't only apply to religions you agree with. It applies to all. That isn't being in denial. It's recognizing the strength of the Constitution. The fact is that the US can never be a theocracy, Christian or Muslim, while the Constitution exists and there are people to defend it.
So no, I have no issue with people voicing concerns. I have an issue with people spewing hateful **** about entire groups of people. I also have an issue with the fact that even though Muslims have fought and died for the United States in every major conflict it's been in, people still have the audacity to suggest Muslims aren't American. That's just wrong. Doesn't matter what you think of someone's religion, you respect their service and you respect their sacrifice. Anything else is just hateful.
Some people do make an effort to rid themselves of ignorance though. Here's a video from a series called "Trump Supporters Spend a Day with a Muslim". Hopefully there will be some more episodes, because it looks interesting. Regardless of the outcome though, this is how rational people work through their differences:
"Trump Supporters Spend a Day with a Muslim"
I didn't say the things she was saying were rational. I am saying that she has taken valid concerns and gone over the top with them. You, on the other hand, insist that since there are peaceful Muslims throughout the world her concerns are unwarranted. That's about like me telling you that not everyone is an ax murderer so stop being silly about the guy with an ax in your bedroom. We have a growing problem and we have to be willing to be open and honest about what we are looking at. Your arguments do not appear to accept that there is a growing problem so, to me your arguments are pointless and self serving and are not doing anything to help.
Isn't the Muslim religion Islam? Yes or no? Then, what is the Islam belief. They only have one and it is murder or death to all who are not them. No?
No more than Christianity is to kill all gays, abortion doctors and blacks (bear in mind that all three have been justified by scripture).
Real Christians do not hate or kill Gays or doctors or blacks. If a nut calls himself a Christian it does not mean he is one and true Christians know their scriptures which say none of that. Christianity sir is these Christians you see in these other lands being beheaded before they deny the one and only God, not a cheap imitation of the bible some man wondered off and wrote going against all scriptures and making their own rules. If you want some real understanding perhaps you should read the story of Isaac and Ismael and not according to the Karon.
Jackie, The problem is that what is the doctrine of a Christian nut" to some may well represent bonafide scripture for others. Who decides who is a 'nut' and who are really practicing Christianity as intended ?
The problem is a Christian nut is usually a lone nut or in very limited company. What we label a Christian nut would be labeled a moderate Muslim when talking about opinions on women and gays. There are a lot more moderate muslims than Christian nuts here.
What we need to see is the religion of Islam embrace the twenty first century.
In the following countries it is illegal to be gay, or engage in "homosexual activity". Penalties range from prison (including life sentences) to the death penalty:
Papua New Guinea
All of these countries are Christian majority countries (the list is much longer, but I stopped at 15 for brevity). The percentages of Christians in each country are:
Tonga 97%, Barbados 95%, Papua New Guinea 94%, Grenada 97%, Zambia 96%, Seychelles 94%, Namibia 90%, Domnica 88%, Uganda 88%, Liberia 85%, Kenya 85%, Swaziland 82%, Burundi 75%, Angola 75%, Botswana 71% (1)
This represents about 116 million Christians.
I consider imprisoning or killing someone because of their sexual orientation to be extreme. So when you say "a Christian nut is usually a lone nut or in very limited company", did you actually mean in the company of 115,999,999 other people?
And when Jackie says "Real Christians do not hate or kill Gays . . .", does that mean none of these 116 million Christians are real Christians"? So we're expected to accept that about people with extreme beliefs who call themselves Christians, but not accept it when a Muslim says the same about extremists who call themselves Muslims. That's a double standard.
Islam does not have a monopoly on people with extreme views claiming to be followers. The only difference is the degree of visibility and activity of the people with the extreme views (whatever you call them). Religion facilitates the abandonment of reason, which makes most religions extremist magnets. No particular brand of religious belief is the problem. Religious belief is the problem, or more precisely, a combination of religious belief and political power.
At some point, we need to acknowledge that religious belief is either the cause of much conflict, or is used for political purposes to facilitate conflict. Either way Christians who argue against Islam because of extremism, are only reinforcing the view that religious belief (including Christianity) does more harm than good. A Christian highlighting issues with Islam, is like a Heroin dealer criticizing a Cocaine dealer, oblivious to the absurd irony that presents.
Any country with such views needs to drag themselves into the twenty first century. But, as long as they aren't exporting terror they will probably fly under the radar. Just as will any country which citizens agree to abide by what we consider to be backward beliefs and keep it within their own borders.
No one argues that there aren't peaceful Muslim societies. But, when you can't play nicely within your own borders and playing less then nicely spills into other's back yards it makes your ways open for criticism. I feel for decent law abiding Muslims but, honestly, I would think decent law abiding Muslim citizens could understand the dilemma we are being pushed into and wouldn't want to live with the horrors of terrorism any more than anyone else of any belief.
If people concluded, based on the information in my comment above, that jailing and killing gay people is a Christian belief. And even though millions of Christians said it's not, people insisted all Christians believe it because it's a part of Christianity. Then the media only showed Christians who hate gay people. And people implied Christian Americans are not really American because Christian beliefs (like killing and jailing gay people) are not compatible with the Constitution. And a presidential candidate suggested Christians should never be allowed to become President because of their extremist views. And Christians fleeing genocide in the Middle East were refused refuge in the US, on the grounds that they would circumvent the legal system, the Constitution, and the government, and force gay people to be killed and imprisoned.
How "understanding" would you and Jackie be with that level of idiocy? How understanding would Christians in general be with it?
Have I implied I believed any Muslim was going to kill a gay? I doubt any are currently circumventing laws and killing gays at this time so I'm not certain what you hope to accomplish by presenting such a scenario. Believing it is good and right does not constitute doing it. My only reason to point out the sunni meeting was to make it clear the term moderate means vastly different things to different people. Pushing the fact that there are millions of moderate muslims would be the same as pushing the fact that there are millions of extremely rigid and conservative Christians. Both pose problems.
You're missing the point. The point is that in at least 15 Christian countries (stopped counting after 15) it is legal for the state to imprison or kill people because they are gay. By any stretch of the imagination, that's extreme. These countries represent 115 million Christians. So if we applied the same logic to Christians that is being applied to Muslims, we would have to conclude that Christianity teaches that gay people should be killed and imprisoned, that Christians hold extremist views, and that Christians are a threat to the Constitution. Are those conclusions fair and accurate?
When they break out in civil war and start leaving in droves, bring their beliefs with them into the west where they want to relocate we'll address that topic.
That's a cop out. Either it's possible to judge all Christians on the basis of some, or it isn't. If you think it's possible, then all Christians already in the country should be considered un American because their Christian views conflict with the Constitution. If you think it's not possible, then clearly those who judge all Muslims on the basis of some, are wrong. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
Why would I call Christians un American because some Christians in other places might have views which conflict with the Constitution? Have I called Muslims un American because some might have views which conflict with the Constitution? If so, could you point it out to me since I don't remember making any such statement.
"Why would I call Christians un American because some Christians in other places might have views which conflict with the Constitution?" So you wouldn't judge all Christians by the actions of some because that would be ludicrous. Then why judge all Muslims by the actions of some? When you say "what we label a Christian nut would be labeled a moderate Muslim when talking about opinions on women and gays."(1) you are doing exactly that. You are saying the views of all Muslims (even those said to be moderate) are extreme in relation to women and gay people. Why do you think judging all Muslims is acceptable, but consider it ludicrous to judge all Christians?
How is that judging Muslims? I commented on the video of a Muslim man pointing out that they were not radical Muslims yet their beliefs were in line with what we called radical. Everyone in the room raised their hand signifying agreement to that belief. That isn't a judgment.
I am completely done here. You have jumped to conclusions, insulted me and are arguing childish and ridiculous points. The muslims I have met are not embarrassed about their beliefs. They do not consider them wrong. It is what they believe. The video I commented on shows others who share those beliefs. I respect people who hold firm to their beliefs whether I agree with them or not. I don't respect people who ignore the fact that we have different beliefs. And chooses to pretend that anyone who doesn't ignore it is the one with the problem.
I stand by my original statement and see no need to deal with this ignorance any longer.
"How is that judging Muslims?" Because when you say "what we label a Christian nut would be labeled a moderate Muslim . . ." you're basically saying that moderate Muslims are extremists. That's a ludicrous generalization. And no, a video of some Muslims expressing extremist views doesn't justify it. Neither does the fact you have met some Muslims who express those views. That video and the people you've met demonstrate that some Muslims have extremist views. That's all. You can't reasonably draw the conclusion that all moderate Muslims are extremists from that, which is what your comment implies.
I make no apology for pointing out the idiocy of your views. What you do with that is your affair, but if you can't understand why the statements you keep making are problematic, that's not my fault. I was hoping that by applying your logic to Christians, that would show you how ridiculous that logic is. I was hoping to show that even though 115 million Christians live in countries with extreme anti-gay laws, we still can't generalize and say that means all Christians are extremists. The point being that you are doing exactly that with Muslims. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand that, and clearly can't get through to you.
What? Pointing out what constitutes a moderate Muslim is calling them extremists? How do you come up with that one? I specifically said 'moderate' muslims. Do you have reading comprehension problems? That isn't basically saying anything other than what was stated and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.
The problem is that I said those most in danger should be given refuge first. I can't take responsibility for ignorant conclusions you jump to. We've run the gamut of you claiming I said muslims were un American to now you putting more words in my mouth.
Learn to comprehend what you read without letting emotion cloud your judgment.
When you say the views of a "Christian nut" are no different to the views of moderate Muslims, yes, you are calling moderate Muslims extremists. Look at your whole comment:
You are effectively saying that views considered extreme in relation to Christians, are moderate in relation to Muslims. Do I really need to explain why that is a sweeping generalization? If you don't understand the implications of something you say, perhaps you should think more carefully before you say it.
I'm afraid that isn't a sweeping generalization. It is simply a statement on Islamic doctrine. If you can supply evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to hear it. If not, if that bothers you then attacking me is probably not the best avenue to take to alleviate your concerns. At the moment, a moderate Islamic view on these things has no effect any of us. It is just their view. If American citizens don't act on it in a manner that injures another American citizen or causes them undue emotional distress then they are simply people voicing opinions. No law against that.
But, let's back up some. You took offense when I made a statement that those in the most danger should be given priority in the refugee situation. You used that to springboard into what appears to be a belief that I have a problem with Muslims. I don't think you had any reason to jump to that conclusion and you appear to be firmly entrenched in that belief. We were talking about refugees seeking entry into our country. Not American citizens. I see no problem with helping those we determine to be in the most need of help. And, those in jeopardy of genocide would appear, to me, to be those in most need of help. Your desire to insert a crucifix into the mix was strange, to say the least.
I think the question Credence2 was asking was, who gets to decide what the doctrine of a religion is?
Some Christians believe gay people should be jailed or killed because they are gay. In at least 15 Christian countries those beliefs are enacted as law. Does that make it Christian doctrine? Likewise some Muslims hold extremist beliefs, and in some places they are enacted as law. Does that make it part of Islamic doctrine? Why?
In my opinion, religious doctrine is a belief that is a definitive part of a religion. You would struggle to find a Christian who does not believe Jesus is the son of god. Just as you would struggle to find a Muslim who does not believe Mohammed was a prophet of Allah. These are examples of beliefs that are central to Christianity and Islam, and are part of what defines those religions. They are believed almost universally by people who identify as followers.
In contrast, millions of Christians and Muslims do not hold extreme beliefs about gay people. Such beliefs are not central to either Christianity or Islam. In many cases they are one of many competing interpretations. Often they are part of a religious/political ideology, and meet with disagreement and condemnation from followers within the same religion.
So it works both ways. If you choose to label extreme beliefs enacted by a group of Muslims as Islamic doctrine, then any extreme belief enacted by a group of Christians must be considered as Christian doctrine. Likewise, if you choose to believe that extreme views in Christianity do not represent Christian doctrine, then extreme views in Islam can't reasonably be considered Islamic doctrine either.
It was a video of a Muslin guy pointing out that what we consider to be extreme is moderate by Muslim philosophy. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the guy in the video. I was commenting on the video.
I have no idea why you came back to this 11 days after the last comment was made. Dog with a bone, I suppose.
That wasn't a response to a video. It was your response to someone asking who decides what Christian doctrine is. You said: "What we label a Christian nut would be labeled a moderate Muslim when talking about opinions on women and gays." Just pointing out that your rationale is nonsense. I'm guess I'm just helpful like that.
Pretty pathetic to scour the world for obscure islands etc where in cases only a 1/ 3 actually adhere to christianity, further, the sodomy laws are old laws, old common laws rarely if ever enforced, then claim " yea see these are an honest representation. Some islamic sharia country like iran with 75 million people is islam and some island group spread over the pacific or some tribe in africa represents christianity. Pretty pathetic comparisons. See what I mean? They aint never won a debate and never will. You are right on exporting terror. One side ya got Jesus. The other side you have a poorly devised copy of a book, a warlord and a common thief. And the fruit of what comes from those obvious differences.
Id be happy if islam and sharia dragged themselves into the 18th century. You gotta lower your expectations.
Christian militia groups destroyed almost all mosques in the Central African Republic unrest. In 2014, Amnesty International reported several massacres committed by the Anti-balaka against Muslim civilians, forcing thousands of Muslims to flee the country. Other sources report incidents of Muslims being cannibalized.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity. The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, "but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian", and "has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda". The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.
Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly. A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."
The Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.
After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ. A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven"
In 1996 three men—Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merelle—were charged with two bank robberies and bombings at the banks, a Spokane newspaper, and a Planned Parenthood office in Washington State. The men were anti-Semitic Christian Identity theorists who believed that God wanted them to carry out violent attacks and that such attacks would hasten the ascendancy of the Aryan race.
In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear killed three and injured nine at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Dear voiced on several occasions his support for radical Christian views and interpretations of the Bible, and praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing "God's work." He also described members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion Christian extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings, as heroes.
Agree. They are there, but it's always dismissed as "they're not real christians", "he's a mental case, not a terrorist", etc. But when the criminal/terrorist is a muslim, IS A MUSLIM- IT IS ISLAM, no question asked.
Well, gee. If some people of one religion are being violent of course it makes all other violence oootay. Send out the welcome to any loonies worldwide.
Obviously, not the point, but I'm not surprise.
Anyway, I'm glad to help further your education. :-)
You aren't furthering my education in any manner except to show that some people really aren't the sharpest bulbs in the bunch.
I could not dare question to compare the visibility and ferocity of Islam extremists with it's Christian counterparts. But the anti-choice campaign of Christian extremists and the savage nature of it at critical points do not go unnoticed.
They do spit hateful sounding words. But freedom of speech allows it and I support their right to exercise their right whether I agree with them or not.
Anti-abortion extremists are considered a current domestic terrorist threat by the US Department of Justice. Most documented incidents have occurred in the United States, though they have also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
Incidents include vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics, such as those committed by Eric Rudolph (1996–98), and murders or attempted murders of physicians and clinic staff, as committed by James Kopp (1998), Paul Jennings Hill (1994), Scott Roeder (2009), Michael F. Griffin (1993), and Peter James Knight (2001).
At least eleven murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977.
I used to wonder why antitheists were such ardent islamic apologists.
I watched the video. It's scary. It's pretty much in line with what the Muslims who hosted a meet and greet said to us about 10 years ago. They said it while they were smiling, and reminding us that Islam would be good for America. I didn't know what to say in response. I really wanted to be polite but they scared the beejeebies out of me because they honestly appeared to think these were things we would be happy with.
And here is more and this is the future of the US...sooner with Hillary.
The only way muslims will take over and sharia law put in place in America, under Hillary, is if it means more money and power for the Clinton family. And since the Middle Eastern brand of Islam is the driving force behind the violence that won't do for her.
I think the thing that bothers me is we have two positions with incredibly loud voices, each taking conclusions to the extreme without taking the other possibilities into account.
On the right, we have those who see the worst case scenarios and worry about these affecting peace and tranquillity in America. They have fair concerns. Look at young women being targeted in Germany by groups of refugees. Look at the unrest in France, although I believe many of these are homegrown. Legitimate fears pushed beyond reason with harsh conclusions. And insulting any they believe disagree.
Then on the left, ignorance driven by a need to espouse political correctness. Blind adherence to a naive belief that all people will frolic in freedom singing kumba ya. And, insulting any who they believe disagree.
It's a pickle.
Clearly there is a problem and anyone denying it is the problem. http://shoebat.com/2016/09/16/muslims-a … -the-city/
Don, don't get your knickers in a wad. I think that LTL was just echoing Jackie's concern that the world seemed greatly concerned over the plight of Muslim refugees, but very little attention was being given to the displaced Christians and Jews. LTL is correct in saying that Muslims have been fighting for generations with each other and that they should not expect the world to clean up their continuing mess.You sound like a closet Muslim, so I don't know why LTL is arguing with you unless she enjoys it.
That part if the discussion is kind of over. Might be worth reading a bit more before commenting. And if I were a Muslim I wouldn't be closeted about it. No, I just don't consider it sensible to judge all Muslims on the basis of what some Muslims do. In the same way that, just because hundreds of millions of Christians live in countries where it's legal to kill and imprison gay people, that doesn't mean every Christian on the planet hates gay people. If you think it does, then you sound like a closet bigot. I know which I'd rather be.
What Muslim refugee's really need is to be helped in their own regions , their own homes , without the shock therapy of forced migrations and marches . These forced world migrations are simply one or two failing religious centered political systems getting rid of their own problems of hunger , cultural diversity and economic liabilities .
What American in these forums can honestly say that uprooting a entire culture of people , as if this were YOU and YOUR family and city , to another entirely different world culture across the continent ? While in these same countries Christians are being persecuted beyond the realization or care of the mainstream media !
The P.C. foreign policies of intellectual midgets in the white house and beyond , has to stop now !
How do we "help" them? Boots on the ground?
Muslims AND the integrity of the Muslim family ,their religion , their cultural wonders , their children's futures ..................all around , it would be cheaper for all of us all , Europe and the rest of the world to pitch in and protect them in their own home environment . The refugee travels and crisis alone has injured and killed them more than had they just stayed home . If we are to spend the resources relocating to save them anyway , it would have been as wiser to save them in their own environs !
Cheaper in dollars, much more expensive in the lives of our men and women that will die protecting them.
But beyond that, a people will never be free until they do it themselves. The blood cost cannot be paid by a third party - that only gives a temporary respite at best.
And finally, I for one am tired of paying the cost, whether in dollars, lives or self respect, of playing policeman and forcing other cultures to conform to our norms.
I was with you all the way until "forcing other cultures to conform to our norms." Please explain.
If we take them in, we don't have to allow their cultures to break our laws (child brides, female mutilation, molesting women for wearing western dress and appearing in public without a chaperon (for example, Germany where women are taking self-defense classes for protection)) If they aren't willing to obey our laws, then they should not seek asylum in our country.
I was referring more to going into their countries and remaking it into something we would like to have.
For instance, the US has a long history of fighting one way or another over "human rights". Not all countries agree with what WE think of as natural rights, so we force them into our mold.
That's where it all gets irritating. We agree on such as that, but then we have to foot the bill to clean up the messes. We have to take in the refugees from these countries. And,,once we do, then we have to find ways to coexist peacefully when that would not have been an option had we moved to their countries.
Don't get me wrong. I think we should help in any way we can but it is all very, very lopsided.
Problem is that the refugees don't want to be American, living in and becoming a part of the American culture. They want their own culture, with Americans living that culture with them.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not interested either.
This will be everywhere soon. Americans better wake up. https://makeamericagreattoday.com/ameri … -hometown/
I read somewhere that our government give refugees like $1800 a month compared to $1200 for Veterans. Now maybe that is not exact but that is close I know and it does not surprise me at all and did you see the one with the food stamp fraud and his daughter gives Americans the middle finger while his wife say the words!
The present administration is HELL bent on increasing the voter base of liberal politics . The average American election is so closely divided, ideologically , that to greatly advance one party , even slightly , is to win the election thus the influx of liberal illegals AND the inclusion of the Muslim refugee's! Beg ,borrow or steal the election - IS the new way for a dyeing party to survive.
Hillary's total lack of integrity , honesty and good character knows no boundaries , No voter I.D.? , All the better for Clintons stolen elections!
Just like the right wing voter base is hell bent on increasing votes for right wing politicians. Let's just see who does it better?
Now illegals will be voting? We have lost this country, if this stands!!
U.S. Spends Another $10 Mil to Register New Immigrant Voters
* http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/ … nt-voters/
Since 2009 USCIS has doled out $63 million in these grants to prepare more than 156,000 resident immigrants in dozens of states for U.S. citizenship, according to the agency’s figures. Besides the free classes, Uncle Sam also offers immigrants free “naturalization legal services,” the latest USCIS grant announcement states. “Recipient organizations serve both traditional immigrant destinations and new immigrant getaway cities in 21 states,” the USCIS document reads. The latest $10 million investment will prepare approximately 25,000 residents from more than 50 countries, according to the agency. More than a dozen states—including California, New York, Florida, Washington and Ohio—with large resident immigrant populations are being targeted as well as cities with huge immigrant populations such as Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington D.C.
Not true. That's an old (2004) claim that began in Canada.
Refugee Cash Assistance
What it is:
The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Program helps refugees by providing cash and medical assistance (Refugee Medical Assistance program) during their first eight months in the U.S.
Income and Resource Requirements:
To be eligible for the RCA program you must have resources of less than $1,000. Certain resources, such as the first $5,000 of equity in a vehicle, are exempt.
If you are a family of two eligible for RCA, you will get $420 if you have no income. If one or both of you are working, we count half of your earnings against your grant. If you are a family of two, once you earn over $839 per month, you would no longer receive RCA. You will continue to receive RMA for the rest of your first eight months in the U.S.
If you are getting unearned income, such as gift cards, or gambling winnings, or ongoing payments from your VOLAG agency, we count this income dollar for dollar against your grant. If you are a family of two, once you started receiving $420 per month in unearned income you would no longer receive RCA. You will continue to receive RMA for the rest of your first eight months in the U.S.
Jackie, I don't know where the $1,200 for veterans is coming from. There are varying degrees of pay to veterans depending on whether it is retirement or disability and rank at retirement and percentage of disability. My husband gets about $550 a month for a 30% disability that prevented him from earning top dollar as an engineer in his chosen field. Some veterans who are classified as 100% disabled get about $3,800 a month just for a back injury like the one I have. I'm still working BTW. The veterans system is another story though for another forum.
Your comment directs us all to clarifications that need to be made regarding this issue so that we may properly compare apples with apples, thanks.
Wow well a lot is going somewhere isn't it? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … -refugees/
When looking at an almost 700billion defense budget the numbers quoted in the article sound quite paltry in comparison.
Thanks for providing the article, but in all fairness this excerpt has to be considered :
But going back to the conventional wisdom that refugees are financial burdens: Swanson cites research from Denmark to Uganda to Cleveland that found that they actually end up paying back their host countries by creating jobs (one study found that refugees are more likely to open small businesses) and encouraging their new neighbors to specialize in jobs they're better suited for, making economies run more efficiently. The studies found that refugees were either cost-neutral or cost-positive for their host countries. (Another little-known fact: Refugees must reimburse the United States for their flights.)
According to this MizB we might save money giving them $1800 if this is what it will cost but of course this will go into many pockets other than what it should like the millions that went for the first crashed ObamaCare site. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessi … le/2576450
Obama administration has exceeded its Syrian refugee admission target by 15 percent, with 11,491 resettled in the United States as of the beginning of this week...
15% Over Target: 11,491 Syrian Refugees Admitted Already; 0.46% Are Christians
* http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pat … christians
"My purpose here today is to assert in my judgment, (ISIS) is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims,"
- Secretary of State John Kerry
According to a 2009 report published by the Counter Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Al-Qaeda kills over seven times more Muslims than non-Muslims.
The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center – the United States government organization responsible for national and international counterterrorism efforts – reported in 2011: In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.
The UN reported last year that Muslims are the largest victims of ISIS in Iraq.
(2015) Between January and July, Assad’s military and pro-government militias killed 7,894 people, while the Islamic State killed 1,131, according to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a monitoring group based in Britain. Government forces are responsible for many more of the estimated 250,000 deaths in the four-year-old conflict. At least 4 million Syrians have fled Syria since 2011. It's ISIS, but it's also government, rebel groups, Russia, US...
So, no. It's not only christian dying. "Everybody" is dying, "everybody" is getting hurt, "everybody" is a refugee.
Why would christians have priority (or any religion for that matter)? There's separation of State and religion in the US.
Would christian americans have priority over muslim american citizens in a catastrophic event?
Then maybe since you are so intelligent you could tell us why they come here and want us to change to be like them and snub our flag and ways and act like it is their country and want Sharia Law?If they have the same religion that think no one should live but them how are they different from ISIS? Tell me. Do Christian pay us back that way and degrade us as a country?
Look at all the crimes the law is trying to sweep under the carpet too of theirs, but maybe that is best left for another forum.
They come here... Who? Syrian refugees? Muslims? From Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Angola, France, England, Spain... Any muslim? All muslims? Thousands, right? Where are they doing that? In the fake websites you read? Or maybe because youtube nutjob says so?
Yeah, muslims believe no one should live... That's why all 3 millions of american muslims have been killing so many non-muslim americans. :-O
You know, since Islam has been a part of the US since the beginning, I wonder how many non-muslim americans have been killed by muslim americans through the last centuries... Billions, i guess.
These girls will tell you all about it!!!
mohammad once gave a reward, a trophy to someone that brought him the severed head of one of his enemies. How could anyone characterize any person that would follow someone like that as being moderate.
Come on. Let's be reasonable. Think about the atrocities of the Old Testament. Many Christians attempt to reason that they were well and good because God commanded them.
I'm not Jewish. Christians follow Jesus' life and teachings. A dozen or so JW's havent hijacked commercial jets and flew them into skyscrapers killing everyone on board the planes and thousands of civilian casualties. Have you heard of any Quakers burying their daughters up to their head while the entire village throws stones at her head while she pleads for her life. Or some Mormons making beheading videos. Or maybe some Methodist gonna turn Canada into their own caliphate. These things are happening now and not just being done by random few extremists. Theyre making videos of it and putting it on youtube along with the amounts of people involved. And you are right about it being exported. The difference I believe is following Jesus or following a warlord. The results are exactly what one would expect
http://mashable.com/2014/08/11/babaric- … fV0UQEu5qp
I agree, for the most part. The beauty of Christianity is, as you said, they follow Christ. Christ didn't write book. Probably for this exact reason. So people would think, their thinking would evolve and grow more and more peaceful and more and more separated into individual interpretation. With Islam there is no possibility to evolve. 'Mohammed said, end of it'.
by Jack Lee 3 years ago
There has been a lot of discussion about US politics and the refugee problem. I am just curious, what Canada is doing on this matter? How are they treating refugees from Syria and other parts oft he middle east? Does anyone know the answer how many refugees are they receiving?It is easy to...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
Who is responsible for the Syrian Refugee crisis?The images of thousands of people migrating out of Syria is disturbing to say the least. Who do you think is primarily responsible for this?
by dashingscorpio 5 years ago
After recent attacks in Paris should the U.S. go forward with it's plan to accept 10,000 Syrians?Do you feel we have the ability to screen out potential ISIS terrorists pretending to be Syrian refugees? or Do you believe we're possibly setting ourselves up for a Trojan horse type of attack? Is it...
by Lela 5 years ago
Jeb Bush has stated that he would allow only "Christian" Syrian or other refugees. He could not answer the question, "How does one PROVE that they are a "Christian"? Can YOU answer this question? How would you go about proving that someone is a Christian or not?
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
by Celia Ribeiro 4 years ago
With all of the media coverage surrounding the Syrian Refugee crisis there is clearly a huge divide in the opinions of America citizens. I am completely torn. Although the fact is that there are innocent children involved, I can't help but feel like I am being asked to chose to...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|