Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a man in a Muslim middle eastern country (ex: Saudi), you enjoy authority over women, kids & are free to marry multiple women. Whereas women cannot drive, have strict dress codes & cant even go out unescorted by a male related to you. The society restricts the freedom of women, kids & gives full control to the man. When they move to the west for asylum, tables are turned. Women are able to report abuse, drive, wear what they want, work with opposite gender, choose to live alone & demand equal rights, respect in a marriage. The state & society are protecting her. Whereas men are no longer able to order their wives, kids & have to give away a lot of their power to their family & the govt. They are no longer in charge & its a big cultural shock for them to be 'oppressed' this way. Its a violation of their rights & male .
Do you understand why the west has the belief system it does possess and apply to all its citizens? It's based on a rule of law. You lament about women and kids being able to report abuse and their permission to go outside unescorted. Seriously? Honor killings ( and the ration behind them) goes against every western principle.
Here is the concept of immigrating to a new country
, regardless if it's on a plane or back of a truck. The values and principles of that country determine the laws. One can disagree but you can't expect a functioning country to have20 separate laws on the same issue based on how that individual feels. How can you have legalized murder for one man but not his neighbor?
No Muslim refugees period in an Infidel nation. The only Muslims that should get this privilege are Ex-Muslims who are fleeing Islam.
There are over 50+ Muslim countries, they can take Muslim refugees.
No...I don't think so. I think Islam does not seem to be one of the safer religions, and more importantly, Muslims seem to take their religion more seriously than most Christians and I see that as problematic. The closer a religion gets to secularism the better, in my eyes, and Christianity and Judaism often seem pretty close.
However, I think banning people based on a religion necessitates sacrificing our ideology of freedom of religion. I don't want that. I don't think anyone else should, unless the religion is something like "suicide bomb your neighbor...ism."
I have not read the Qur'an, but I know some people find ways to translate it into something peaceful. It seems like something that can be read in a way seems violent...or not.
If we want to ban immigration from certain nations with cultures we dislike, or with lots of violence...that's a possibility I'd be more open to...but to me, no one should ever mention banning people for being Muslim. That's too big of a sacrifice in my eyes. It's also cruel. So, we'd ban part of a family but not the other part because of their religion?
This. Not 1 and deport the ones here. We have enough proble.s to deal with.
Alright...so you don't want anymore Syrian refugees...but why would anyone say "send them back?" (particularly our potential president).
We already let them in. That's our problem now, if it is a problem. You can't just throw people out you already let in who haven't done anything wrong. That's called cruelty. Should we do that to any other groups? How about if we let in some Mexican guy to become an American Citizen, and then after he already earned his citizenship we said "Sorry, you have to go now."
The only solution to the muslim issue is to prevent them from having childtren.
Problem solved in a generation.
Why...just, why would you state this? This is like shouting "nuke the whales!" but more serious. Why do people make these kinds of comments? Everybody stop claiming we should "nuke the whales" or whatever.
Why are there only 2 choices for this poll? They don't make much sense either, especially when stated in isolation from other possibilities. That being the case, what is it you (the OP) is looking for here? I am confused. There is no real question .. there is only a statement (which may or may not be true) - and then 2 statements that don't necessarily apply to that statement and certainly are not the only possibilities. Sorry .. bad design .. rarely yields good or useful results.
Alright...so you don't want anymore Syrian refugees...but why would anyone say "send them back?" (particularly our potential president).
We already let them in. That's our problem now, if it is a problem. You can't just throw people out you already let in who haven't done anything wrong. That's called cruelty. Should we do that to any other groups? How about if we let in some Mexican guy to become an American Citizen, and then after he already earned his citizenship we said "Sorry, you have to go now."
And that would be wrong for the exact same reason sending citizens back would be wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
