-1=e^ipi

Completely untrue. There are numerous examples in many religions that condone or encourage hate or social turmoil. Some examples include the killing of apostates, homosexuals and people that commit adultery under Islam. Do you just accept this social relativist position as truth but never actually challenge it with evidence? One big problem with western policy with respect to Islam is that the vast majority of politicians hold positions that are not justified and they never bother to actually learn about Islam or other religions to test their hypotheses.

1. Holy Books are different. Different holy books encourage different things. This relativist nonsense of all religions being the same is untrue and leads to incorrect conclusions. 2. It doesn't matter so much whether to Holy Books are true or not, as it does whether people believe in them and act on those beliefs. If someone thinks that god told them that homosexuals should be killed (for example), then the person might act on that belief. 3. You seriously still don't want to discuss religious texts when discussing immigration or foreign policy issues? Seriously? The discussion won't go anywhere with that close minded attitude... Here is a 10 minute video that is fairly informative and non-biased video on the basics of Islam (though the part on zakat is a bit inaccurate). Please at least get yourself to this level of knowledge.

Why the emphasis on cumulative emissions rather than current emissions if we cannot change the past? What should matter is how to move forward. Bit of a rhetorical question since I know that it is due to some ridiculous anti-western guilt complex. But if people claim that developed countries should be punished for past CO2 emissions relative to developing countries, then shouldn't developing countries pay developed countries for the positive externatilities that result from the technologies that the developing countries could develop in the past (in part due to higher CO2 emissions)? Of course both are ridiculous.

Thanks. I'll also add that reading various articles to understand why there are different interpretations of islam (shia vs sunni, moderate vs extreme, understanding what various labels mean such as islamist, wahabism, alawite, ete.) is useful. The biggest problem in western nations regarding discussions of foreign policy in Muslim majority countries or when discussing Muslim immigration is ignorance.

Muslims are not an ethnic group...

Michael, please go read the Qu'ran. And please try to understand the different types of Islam and why different groups believe what they want to believe. Because this conversation isn't going to go anywhere if you don't want to discuss Islam to understand where Argus and others are coming from. The same applies to Jacee, monty and other posters in this thread. Please go read the Qu'ran. Edit: Also reading the hadith is useful.

@ Micheal Hardner In your response to Argus, you continually make requests for evidence and try to imply that you are reasonable, yet in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23095-does-progressive-racism-exist/page-8 Despite all the evidence provided, you refused to concede even basic points such as 'Canada should take into account the source countries of immigrants when determining who gets to come to Canada'. Furthermore, you completely rejected Islamic texts as evidence, and rejected people explaining that their actions were justified by Islam (example: murder of Lee Rigby) because it violated your dogmatic view on the value of religion. Tell me, do the recent gains by ISIS have anything to do with Islam? Why have they been so successful on social media (perhaps it has something to do with Islam...)? Are they just misunderstood? Because some cultures are inherently intolerant. Why would one expect this in the US? The US has not experienced significant Muslim immigration compared to Western Europe (or even Canada). Question: If multiculturalism is inherently good, then does that make multicultural Canadian Society superior to monocultural South Korean Society? Why or why not?

Yes. I don't mind looking for common traits that the vast majority of Canadians share, but I doubt that the the vast majority of Canadians would agree with any of your claims. Could you provide survey evidence to back up your claims?

You advocate 'all means', which obviously would include suicide bombing... I don't know wtf you are talking about with respect to the rest of your post.

Robots.

Yes, Bush was an idiot, Blair was an idiot, Obama is an idiot and Cameron is an idiot. The West is in its current situation because of its stupidity and ignorance which lead to poor decisions. This isn't due to some hidden intent to get middle eastern oil (otherwise America would build keystone XL to buy Canadian oil, and China would be the main benefactor of Iraqi or Afgan oil. There was never sufficient evidence to justify invading Iraq, and when it was done there was no end goal or consideration of religious divides. So you advocate suicide bombings against the Israelis? That is messed up.

... Is this a joke thread? calculus...

I know that, but I was responding to a post that referenced a video by Chris Hadfield that implied that being Canadian is doing things like playing hockey, drinking beer, going canoeing, watching the cbc, eating timbits, being polite, etc. Lol, wtf is this? No killing in the name of the lord? So other kinds of killing are okay? Why does it matter if it is in name of the 'lord' or not? And which 'lord' is this? Being polite? I know lots of people that are impolite. Working hard? I know many Canadians that are lazy and abuse the system. Respect? Some people just do not deserve respect. Example: the criminals that mugged and assaulted me last week. This definition can also apply to people that do not live in Canada...

Neither. I just felt like the video doesn't represent Canada as it is today and I dislike the idea of people trying to define what it is to be 'Canadian'. The population of Canada is too diverse to define.

Oh look, some middle-aged privileged white people talking about the past. Very little of their video resembles my life.

Is that necessarily bad? I'd rather have less people that believe in crazy fairy tales. Especially if their beliefs go so far that they do not respect Canadian law or want to cause violence.

It had very little to do with oil. More to do with Bush being an idiot.

Sexism is wrong, including state institutionalized sexism. The most qualified candidates should be chosen and sex, race or sexual orientation should not matter.

How is this even controversial? If anything, the reinterpretation doesn't go far enough. The clause should be completely eliminated. Japan should be able to help allies and have offensive military capability. And I don't think it is fair to call the reinterpretation unpopular. Japanese society is certainly divided, but there is a large segment of the population that supports reinterpretation (otherwise Shinzo Abe wouldn't be able go to ahead with the reinterpretation).

Jupiter isn't hot... 112K - 165K.

I think it depends on the group. Actually, there is quite a bit of doubt. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this doubt given the other threads were people told you about this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race#The_first_Americans.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis (personally I think the Soultrean hypothesis is nonsense, but the Haploid group X2A and various skulls found in the americas suggest that there were pre-Clovis human populations in the Americas)

Cause it's not like the 'secularism' charter in Quebec had any popularity or anything. Xenophobia isn't popular in Quebec at all... *sarcasm* No, I was born here. I'm not an immigrant (not that it should matter). Or are you saying that everyone except 'aboriginals' are either immigrants or descend from immigrants? Because if so, that would also be false. There was the Clovis immigration over the Bering land bridge 12,000 years ago.

If the US wants oil so badly, why don't they allow the Keystone XL pipeline instead of delaying it for 5 years? Why was China the country that benefited the most from Afgan oil fields? Stupidity and ignorance are what have determined US & Western foreign policy the past decade, not some desire for oil. And the ISIS is a threat to western countries because we are Kaffir. The ultimate goal of the ISIS is world domination and uniting the world under a global caliphate.

It's a lose-lose scenario thanks to the stupidity of Bush and Obama, but the best option is probably to stay out and let Iran & Russia deal with it.

I'll be honest... the call to prayer is pretty catchy... I've listened to it like 5 times since posting it.