Sharia

Leviticus 19:33-34
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Hebrews 12:14
Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
Proverbs 12:20
Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil, but those who promote peace have joy.
Psalm 29:11
The LORD gives strength to his people; the LORD blesses his people with peace.
Psalm 37:37
Consider the blameless, observe the upright; a future awaits those who seek peace.
Isaiah 26:12
LORD, you establish peace for us; all that we have accomplished you have done for us.
Proverbs 16:32
Better a patient person than a warrior, one with self-control than one who takes a city.
Psalm 34:14
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.

 

Don't think this has been mentioned before, but there's genuine concern that's it main aim is purely to silence any criticism of anything Islamic, since it fails to even define what constitutes "Islamophobia" .
http://debatepost.com/2017/02/24/pakistan-born-canadian-mp-pushes-her-new-pro-sharia-agenda/

 

Can you give an explanation of "clean" war and some indication to when you believe we last had one. Cheers.

 

The problem is again the one of religious people trying to gain an advantage for their religion. Religion is the problem not squabbling between the sects.
There are nut cases in The USA trying to erect monuments to the 10 Commandments in State Buildings and looney true-believers censoring school science text-books that contradict their fairy tales.
In the UK Bishops have an automatic seat in The House Of Lords and can make Law. Not long back their was a sustained campaign by Christians to make Blasphemy a Criminal Offence.
All Religions are at it. That one is more violent than the other may be true but in their degree of insidiousness they are about equal.

 

And why is this such a problem for the liberals? Aren't they the defenders of immigrants, champions of multiculturalism and inclusiveness?
Just do it. Condemn “Islamophobia”, it's a real thing after all.

This has nothing to do with religion. That man is a liberal, he uses liberal principles to achieve his goals. Is that a crime?

 

I could quote just as many lines that prove the exact opposte, and you probably know it, but my English copy of the Bible went AWOL. "The book" is so big you can find almost whatever you want in it, including that the earth stands still and the sun turns around it . BTW the first quote in your listing should be read again and again by people who claim to be "defending Christian values" and then demonize immigrants. Living "by the book" is hard, and will make you a "looser" a lot of times in today's highly competitive society, there are some pretty tough personal choices there.

 

Sojourn is to stay somewhere temporarily...tourists, travellers...not financial immigrants wanting to suck from a system they haven't contributed to...
If I was in a life boat, and it was full...and there were hundreds of people still in the water...and someone stood up in the boat and yelled swim here swim here! Hundreds of desperate people suddenly splash their way towards the life boat...what do you think will happen? The boat will capsize and EVERYONE drowns. Likewise if too many people come to a country and sit on the dole (welfare) - The infrastructure cant handle the pressure...the welfare system cant handle the pressure...and what do you think will happen?
Ravings of a bigot? or simple logic?

 

How would you feel if you knew that for no apparent reason your Government had sunk the 'refugees' lifeboat that, up to then, had managed to keep them all safe from the ocean?
And that other lifeboats in the distance (Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon) had rescued 3.5 million of the swimmers?

Or that the UK, one of the prime movers in the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is number 9 in Europe in the ranking of number of refugees it accepts?

Have you ever heard the term you broke it now you fix it?

In short do you accept any responsibility for the actions of your Government?

 

Me no. How can I accept responsibility for something I have no control over? All I can do is try to vote them out next election or take to the streets and protest...that about it.
And im not talking about legitimate asylum seekers...Im talking the people who use this "situation" as a way of moving to an affluent country knowing they wouldn't be accepted under any other pretense.
Many who come to Australia are Sri Lankan for example...what has my government done to them? And why by-pass up to 12 countries who would take them in and give them "refuge", instead risk their lives and those of their young family to make it to Australia?

Free Money and the western lifestyle - NO OTHER REASON.

 

Look at the numbers and see that 'Sri Lanken 'for example' are way down the totals. It is the exodus from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya that is the problem.
By the way the of-used excuse that the refugees 'by-pass' the other countries of Europe is false. In fact not just false but an outright lie. A small number (small compared to the actual number who reach Europe) go through the EU and end up in the UK. In fact in proportion to total population the UK is one of the worst for taking its 'fair share' of the problem which it created.
The 'free money/take our jobs/rape our daughters' mantra just does not stand scrutiny and has been debunked so many times and in such detail that anyone who continues with that argument is being wilfully ignorant.
No one is asking the UK more than to take its fair share of the problem it helped create.

 

Well then why should the Iraqi people be forced to pay (so far) 7 billion in War Repatriations? There are a further 300 billion in claims in the pipeline.
What did the people of Iraq do to deserve their oil revenues being confiscated by (for example) 'Toys R Us'?
Can we take it you will vote for any party that promises to give them back their money or better still use it to sort out the refugee problem?
If you bankrupt a country, shackle it with debt that will take a century to repay and steal its natural resource and the sole source of its wealth it might be considered a bit churlish to attack any 'economic immigrants' who are so only because we stole their means of earning a living. You could say they are just 'following the money'!

 

A simple and convenient arguement...

 

If the "Australian life boat" is "full", then why are you people still having babies?

Or do you kill your all your newborns?

Talk about simple and convenient arguments...

 

One can decide for oneself when we are full...we don't need others to tell us. And it's not convenient...we are the driest continent on Earth...we regularly experience water shortages, 24 million is pushing it...with being water smart and frugal, we might make 50 million, but that's optimistic...that's Australians not people kicking down our door. The simple maths is a pie with the slices getting smaller...we have a multitude of countries and cities that illustrate how people MUST live because they are over populated, a strain on everything, queuing, added violence and a general lowering of regard for human life etc etc I'm sure you know.
As for population control, very good question. When ARE we going to make that an issue front and centre? The impending AI and robot revolution will force us to rethink unchecked breeding. We have no problem understanding the concept when it comes to EVERY single other species, but wince and whine when the light is shone on us...pfft. Bring it on i say...

 

What destruction if I may ask?

Those countries are shitty today, were shitty 100 year ago, and 200 years ago.

Infrastructure in Libya was built by the Italians. In Syria by the French, in Afghanistan by the communists and the USSR. Themselves they created almost nothing.

Germany, Japan were much more destroyed - basically graveyards, but they got they shit together and quickly recovered. Same Poland, Russia, Korea, even China.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya are failed countries, and they always were - they just waited for an opportunity to fail.

This of course doesn't change the fact the people responsible for their destruction should be put up against the wall and shot.

 

Not quite, there is nothing in the book about tolerating freeloaders, among your neighbours and among the strangers...

I don't think the quoting many lines will be successful . The Bible is pretty consistent. There are "Hitlerian" things there, mostly in the places dealing with the conquest of Canaan, but they are narrated not endorsed. And really, Hitlerian things were the norm then, everybody was Hitler at that time. It's a small part of the book anyway, most of it is dedicated to other things.

 

Indeed you did state as written. My points were though:
1) As wriiten it's rather in conflict with the parts of the Koran that see it's establishment as the law over most if not all the planet.
2) What's written is rather irrelevant to the current case when that part is being conspicuously ignored.

Ascribing a law being passed in Africa to all of Christianity is clearly a very different case. For one thing I don't think you will find it very hard to find both Christians and indeed Christian clergy in large numbers who have decried said laws. Finding Moslem who suggest that Sharia is wrong is a bit more difficult isn't it? Not sure you can find a Christian biblical reference which suggest that homosexuality requires a death sentence either.

 

I'd agree with you at least to some extent but these same extremist seem to take actions that do more damage to themselves than we are able to do. Indeed the most effective way of fighting them seams to be to create situations where they can defeat themselves.

 

Thanks to collapsing birthrates, much of Europe is on a path of willed self-extinction. The untold story is that birthrates in Muslim nations are declining faster than anywhere else—at a rate never before documented. Europe, even in its decline, may have the resources to support an aging population, if at a terrible economic and cultural cost. But in the impoverished Islamic world, an aging population means a civilization on the brink of total collapse— something Islamic terrorists know and fear.
Muslim decline poses new threats to America, challenges we cannot even understand, much less face effectively, without a wholly new kind of political analysis that explains how desperate peoples and nations behave.
In How Civilizations Die, David P. Goldman—author of the celebrated “Spengler” column read by intelligence organizations worldwide—reveals how, almost unnoticed, massive shifts in global power are remaking our future.


So does this mean we need not worry about the clash of civilizations? No, says Goldman, quite the contrary, for there is nothing more dangerous than a dying civilization. The Islamic world will soon be as elderly as the industrialized world, but it will not be industrialized. “Imminent population collapse,” he proposes, “makes radical Islam more dangerous, not less so. For in their despair, radical Muslims who can already taste the ruin of their culture believe that they have nothing to lose.”

Goldman is probably right to predict that much of the Islamic world cannot enter modernity fast enough to forestall disaster, but nothing in my experience — and I do have some — suggests to me that anyone in this region is so persuaded of imminent extinction, literal or metaphysical, as to justify Goldman’s certainty that it will conform to what he terms his Universal Law #1: “A man or nation at the brink of death does not have a ‘rational self-interest.’” Indeed, the Islamists where I live think it is all going swimmingly and according to plan. The sentiment may be very different in ten years or twenty, but as of today, the danger emanating from the Islamic world is an excess, not a deficit, of confidence in its prospects. And thus Berlinski’s Universal Law #1, which is no more comforting than Goldman’s: “A man or nation on the brink of victory has a very rational self-interest. It just isn’t necessarily ours.”

 

Nice swerve.
Are you claiming the Old Testament is not 'Christian'?