Trump: “GOOD THINGS GOOD, BAD THINGS BAD. ME SUPPORT GOOD THINGS AND STOP BAD THINGS. TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!”
Audience: [Thunderous Applause]
That’s mighty white of him; I must say.
If Trump makes an exception for a Muslin who is a mayor in England, soon all the Muslin mayors in England will try to come here and destroy America with Itheir ISISes!
Stand strong, Trump! America needs your uncompromising idiocy!*
- Trump 2016!
Well it’s nice to see Trump is softening his stance a bit, but I guess when you hit bottom the only place to go is up.
IT’S A TRAP!
What are you, a mind reader!!!
No, your paraphrase was better written, and much more coherent.
Has Mayor-elect Khan given any indication that he WANTS to visit America, let alone chat with Mr Trump? If I were he, I’d be all “fuuuuuck, no!” Or is he going to “invited” for a trip to Gitmo, 'cause Muslim?
Seeing even Turkey (specifically designed to be and remain a secular state) gradually descend into theocracy doesn’t leave me exactly sanguine about the long-term compatibility of Islam and western liberal democracy.
About as compatible as Christianity and western so-called liberal democracy?
These things he says…I just…how the fuck can anyone listen to this nonsense? So, Mr. trump, you previously said that you want to disallow Muslim people to visit America for [fucking stupid] reasons, but you also seem to think that it is “very, very good” to have a Muslim person mayor running the largest city in Europe, and an exception would be made for Mr. Khan (a fucking grossly insulting exception, but hey, an exception) to visit America.
So, basically, trump wants to extend privilege only to the rich/powerful, and everyone else can go and fuck right off. Fascism, what? Naaaa, now we have Goodism. HFS x a billion.
Please continue to tell us how trump will “unify” the GOP, Priebus, oh, and also tell us about how trump really is a great guy and will be fannnnnnntastic for 'Merica.
Trump says he might let London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, visit America
Donald Trump just wants Mayor Khan to help him figure out what the hell is going on.
I am opposed to all active involvement of religion in politics, Christianity not exempt.
That said, there is a meaningful difference. Christianity started as an unrepresented religion of the underclass, so it has a greater capacity for letting the state do its thing without getting involved. Devout Christians can always retreat into leaving the Caesar’s unto Caesar without feeling they are reneging on their religious duty. That doesn’t mean some do not actively try to legislate their moral views, usually with catastrophic results (e.g. south-European fascism in the 20s and 30s). But empirically speaking, countries with majority Christian populations have historically managed to remain secular and democratic.
Islam, on the other hand, is a religion of rulers, conflating the role of secular and religious leadership and ordering the society according to the purported heavenly mandate. Of particular consequence is the concept of Koran as an unalterable, uncreated and eternal manual to life. For starters, what role is there for an elected legislature to play in a system where all the rules are already given? At best, you need a council of religious scholars to properly include airplanes and computers into the preexisting framework. But there is nothing meaningful to be changed about the laws governing family life, personal status, privacy, expression, property, contracts or political structure - unless you wish to deviate from the God-given Law. So what would you want democracy for? Every legislative activity is fundamentally an affront to How Things Should Be.
Consequently no state with a majority Muslim population had managed to maintain the wall of separation in the long term. Not even Turkey with its elaborate deep-state structure aimed at preventing religious influence in political life, resting on Mustafa Kemal’s enormous national prestige. I’m not saying it can’t be done. But the odds certainly don’t seem very good at the moment.
I hardly think President Trump would have a Muslin advisor. At most, Trump would draw him here so that Trump could torture him and bomb his family while he’s away.*
- Trump 2016!
That is a gross oversimplification of the theology and the history, and even elides over a lot significant Christian history where it was the religion of rulers for a long time who spent a lot of time trying to supress and subvert local pagan customs and cultures. That is an impressively shallow reading of the history.
You seem to be ignoring an awful lot o f history there. Lest we forget the 100 years war and the cycles of violence that came along with the rise of protestantism… or that Muslims have peaceably lived in places where they weren’t the rulers, nor the majority. The point is less about whether one is authentically anti-authoritarian, and more about how both have been employed and lived historically. There are plenty of bottom-up revolts in the history of Islam, just like there is plenty of top-down oppression in Christianity. ANY system of beliefs can be used for oppression or rebellion.
Every paragraph-long statement concerning a millennia-long cultural phenomenon will be an oversimplification. Unsurprisingly, I am aware of the existence of Christian rulers. Even those who had violently exported the faith to other countries and continents. That is why I phrased my point in terms of capacity for various models and expressions, not absolute pronouncements of which faith always behaves how.
But still: Jesus was a son of a carpenter, tortured to death by the state. Mohamed was a merchant risen to the status of the head of the state. This, inter alia, strongly influenced the fundaments of both religions.