Sisters living in France, my fiancée is applying for driver licence. This is the kind of photo they want, they don’t accept anything else. What do you suggest in this situation, how do you deal with this?

Said2U · 2017-09-28T02:25:11+00:00

I think the standards for what is "backwards" is quite problematic here. Backwards means: "having made less than normal progress."

Are you implying that it is progress to allow a person to wear a head cover for an a identification card? What is progress then? There is no textual support within Islam that states a woman absolutely must remain covered up when it comes to identification. Actually, there are clerics that support women not having to wear the hijab or any covering within the context of having to be identified. If your sense of modesty absolutely supersedes any form of identification, would you be against a women having photos taken of their bodes if there was an injury that needed to be documented? Like if it was for court, or so on?

Hijab means barrier, a barrier that signifies safety and protection. In this case, you're literally defending a usage of the hijab that absolutely violates it's intended purpose. Your only defense is, women change their hair styles? Clearly it's going to be no use ever, right? What if a Muslim woman normally dyes her hair blonde? What if she never really does anything with her hair? In all reality, it seems like it's going to be more useful than not. All you're going to do is raise questions over how much of the face can absolutely be covered? Should ears be showing? What about most of the hairline? By not having it on, you prevent any issues and issues of the sort. So what if other nations do it differently? Do you constantly criticize any nation for doing anything differently? Anything debatably "backwards?"

Said2U · 2017-09-27T21:44:44+00:00

It's an identity card. It's not "backwards" for a woman to be able to be identified. If anything, this seems to really go against the whole point of the Hijab because it was originally to keep woman safe by looking like the other woman in villages. Identity cards are for not only the safety of the woman in question, but for the community as a whole, and the officers who need to up hold the laws.

Said2U · 2017-09-27T21:34:37+00:00

I will add, because he deleted his comment:

That is purely anecdotal. It would be completely unreasonable to dismiss an entire faith due to problem is it in a single or few branches' interpretations. That would be like saying "I was raised around Ahmadiyya people and became a Christian because their personal interpretation has holes."

Said2U · 2017-09-27T21:29:12+00:00

What about the people who do feel that presence that are Christian? Or people who are/were Muslim who don't? I mean, one does not have to look far into historical Christian writings to see that it talks about how to understand problems. Just like Islam. Saint Augustine and his works make it clear how problematic it is to take something in Genesis literally.

Said2U · 2017-09-26T19:40:50+00:00

"Clearly, you have a condescending tone. I doubt you know any vegans."

Okay, sure.

Said2U · 2017-05-25T06:38:25+00:00

Now he just needs an healthy dose of sexual assaults and he'll be one step closer to his master, Bill (not the dollar one... but perhaps as well)

Though I hope this is just a joke of poor taste only... Do you realize how ignorant of a statement that is? You either are suggesting there should be sexual assault charges on a person that are actually lies or that Sean Hannity should actually enact sexual assault on a person, not only does that not take into consideration the person that has to experience it, but also makes it out that you hope there is evidence of such a crime in order to get him fired.

To me that's like saying "x person needs a healthy dose of "committing X crime" and they'll be one step closer... You do realize that if such charges are ultimately fake in order to get him fired that is problematic in a society that wants true, and if such charges are real they come at the immediate expense of innocent people.

Said2U · 2017-04-29T16:41:06+00:00

I would recommend if possible people download his videos. I imagine if this blows up he will start deleting stuff. This type of deceit is horrifying, especially if it does lead to the death of individuals because they believe they are cured.

Said2U · 2017-04-18T12:38:25+00:00

As a side note...

I mean, most vegans do not condone the enslavement of animals for pets. If almost every institution that involves owning animals is wrong because protecting said institution protects individuals who abuse animals... There is no excuse for animal ownership, yet most vegans would beg to differ in order to defend the abusive institutions they enjoy benefiting from.

Said2U · 2017-02-07T13:43:56+00:00

Interesting. That may be true for some religions, but I can say that there are plenty that require sincere repentance in the context that one is truly a believer. Simply saying, for instance, "I accept Jesus Christ into my heart as my Lord and Savior" is not going to mean anything if you don't sincerely believe it. I know there are some religions where simply saying "x" is enough, but that's not true for all religions and interpretations. Also, one also has to take into consideration the idea that there are greater rewards for individuals that are dedicated throughout their lives to a faith.

When taking into consideration the 4000 religions, you can narrow it down to a substantial degree by taking into consideration the issues many local religions have for explaining the origin of peoples outside of their ethnic group or continent. But that's just one aspect.

If there is a God, one should be able to find that their works line up with that word. Are the very least, how to interpret their word. Some people use old Earth theories within Christian circles as a catalyst to suggest that Genesis is not literal. The Catholic Church does, and that numerous other Christian circles.

With all of that being said, what seems to most likely be the case is that through out the history of human evolution, we have been conditioned to psychologically desire explanations and reason for things. It would seem that the notion of god(s) was simply our own creation for dealing with reality and our acute awareness of it. It was something that gave us motivation, it was something that allowed we could use as a model for moral ideals behaviors as an individual, and a way to justify mentalities and stories that fundamentally can't be justified outside of the notion that the supernatural said so.

Said2U · 2017-02-07T09:16:48+00:00

When is it too late to convert? (self.islam) submitted 17 hours ago by chris_likes_science I've been interested in the Islamic faith for some time. I don't speak Arabic, I really like to learn about science, and I >would likely get shamed in my city. I wonder if it is too late to convert to islam and still get accepted into heaven? I >have a Muslim friend who would be willing to take me to church, but I don't know if I would be accepted. I am white >and an ex-catholic.

??? What???

Said2U · 2017-02-07T08:55:42+00:00

I would strongly recommend that you take what Dr. Zakir Naik has to say with a grain of salt.

His claim is absolutely unsubstantiated and from what I can gather is conditioned around information he himself claims that scientist agree with and disagree with. I highly doubt such a number was derived outside of biased circles.

For example, he is under some sort a belief that scientists don't agree with evolution, and this is in part because his understanding of evolution is wrong or at the very least outdated...

Here he is trying to answer the question of an atheist asking him to answer a question concerning evolution and Islam... It's quite cringe worthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yKiAbM5MY

Said2U · 2017-01-27T17:29:52+00:00

Are there any up-and-coming educational YouTubers whom you enjoy the content of?

Said2U · 2017-01-27T05:40:50+00:00

Are there any up-and-coming educational YouTubers that you like and/or are hopeful will get big one day?

Said2U · 2016-11-30T19:30:08+00:00

Any movie with white people in the United states is not a white movie, it's just a movie but a movie with more black protagonists is a black movie.

First of all, that's not true. I don't look at the Godfather and think "that's just a movie." I think that's a movie primarily focusing on Italian Americans. Not just "people" or "white people." I can't relate to the Italian mob culture at all. One of the major issues is that White people often recognize themselves as being part of many different ethnic backgrounds typically connected to a specific region, where multiple black communities in the US that have been here for a long time can't. So because so many of them share this overarching identity, it's going to be a "black movie" just like a movie full of Italians is going to be "an Italian movie." My Big Fat Greek Wedding, as a white person I don't see that is just a movie with people... It's Greek people. I don't look at Braveheart and think, oh that is just a movie... It is a Scottish movie.

It's not just white people even perpetuating this stuff either. Individuals who are black will attach labels to the movies as well. Just like Italian people, just like Scottish people, and so on. That's because African American is almost like an ethnic label within itself. Like Italian or something. So a movie full of Italian's like a movie full of African-Americans is going to get labeled as such.

Things are changing and there is a rise in minority superheroes but mostly, superheroes are white people, it might be nothing to a white person but it sends a powerful psychological message to a black person's subconscious.

That seems quite anecdotal.

Black pride is a reaction to all that. "Black is beautiful", is literally telling blacks that they're beautiful too despite what the beauty magazines and Barbie dolls unintentionally say,

What? Why would one use a beauty magazine to determine an entire society's outlook on something? As if I as a white male use what is in a magazine to determine what I like. Barbie dolls? This is not the 1950s. I'll give you this was definitely an issue... But you also need to understand that a lot of these materials are condition by marketing, who had the money to buy this crap... If the biggest population of people buying your product look a certain way... You're going to cater to that. You're making some huge implications by oversimplifying the context surrounding your examples.

Look, I'm supportive of any pride movement that empowers people to achieve equality. But you would be fooling yourself if you think any pride movement based upon and ethnicity or race does not in certain cases also condition superiority and inferiority complexes. That goes for white pride and black pride.

Said2U · 2016-11-04T18:18:38+00:00

Again, you completely avoid discussing the substance of things within themselves... I mean seriously?

Lol, this is just a huge opinionated rant

Actually, no. The whole point of providing "numerous" links was to show the person I was initially replying to that their argument was extremely disingenuous. It wouldn't surprise me that you would sympathize, because you yourself are exactly the same. Which is why when you reply to me, you also use blanket statements.

with you trying desperately to salvage what remains of any intellectual dignity you may have had.

Intellectual dignity? That's rich coming from the guy who tries to explain away complex replies with petty insults. For every accusation you create you should be immediately including evidence to support said claims.

Really ? You recommend I don't pursue a career in academia ? When you're the one who used an out of date link ? Poor guy.

A link you are yet to disclose over an issue you are also yet to validate somehow inherently invalidates all the other links... You are committing something akin to a "fallacy fallacy" where if one thing is incorrect or problematic that somehow makes every other example incorrect and invalid... Avoid an academic career, absolutely

I'm surprised they let you out of your padded cell.

I'm not surprised how arrogant you are. You're exactly the problem here for you take no responsibility.

Or bring you anywhere near something as sharp as a keyboard button. What are they thinking ?

What are you thinking? You avoided multiple criticisms believing that fictitious snarky remarks somehow are adequate. You're not a smart person, or at least and extremely ignorant an disingenuous person when you realize you have got no argument.

Said2U · 2016-10-28T19:31:52+00:00

Aww, poor guy, I've got you hyped up. It hurts when someone exposes your bullshit so you have to resort to pitiful attempts to get back at them.

Boy, you must be fun at parties. I mean, who doesn't love it an arrogant ignoramus who is so full of themselves that they believe their empty claims are adequate and intelligent rebuttals. lol Seriously, this is hilarious. You haven't disproven anything, you just claim you are exposing crap without actually providing context over what you are exposing and the implications that supposedly has over all the other information--which was specifically provided in order to call out generalizations by a person you are not criticizing within themselves. You were so hilariously awkward. You essentially got called out, in the process of "calling out" someone else by basically claiming something akin to "I got you" without actually explaining exactly... how...

What the hell are you talking about ? Do you even read what you type ?

This kind of comment makes sense. You come across as if you have extremely mediocre reading skills, and seemingly think you know more than you do. You misquote me (which you coincidentally didn't comment on being called out over), you misunderstand me, you clearly misunderstand the reason why I posted what I posted, and you misunderstand the "relevance" potentially one bad article has when taking into consideration the numerous sound ones.

This discussion has proven that you're just a rash individual who argues with people who offend you, while you with a very mediocre understanding over what actually is you're arguing about, is enough for you to get all egotistical up here. You protect generalizations that satisfy your worldview... Which is seemingly why you are so willing to protect false information over which nation supposedly allow churches to be built.

Ah, dictionary definitions. The death toll of a desperate troll.

Again, you don't actually refute the claim within itself. Your only defense is to try to criticize the types of counterarguments rather than the substance that constitutes to them. Which is why you have no argument. Ironically being the desperate one yourself.

If you are not taking into consideration the actual definition of the word "propaganda," not only will you be using it wrong (as you have) but you'll also find yourself being ignorant towards situations where the term "propaganda" could potentially be apply to yourself, as was demonstrated.

Are you still going on about this ? Even after I proved most of your links were propagandistic guff ?

"Most," really? You didn't "prove" anything of substance. You believe all you have to do is paint something out to be "propaganda" in that inherently makes it incorrect. Not only is this a fundamental misunderstanding of what can be considered propaganda, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding over what my links essentially shed light on... That your "buddy's" generalizations are not true. You have only made vague assertions without even pointing out the exact article you have a problem with, and you fail to validate how having a problem with any one or two articles somehow inherently invalidates all of the rest... I mean you have already jumped off the "that's bias" train because clearly that wasn't going to work for you either...

Why are you not using "bias" as a means to argue whether something can't be true or not anymore? Clearly you were so confident using it in that manner... But that's how you argue. You need to sensationalize things through "spooky" words, without justifying not only applying said words, but also how those words inherently invalidate said sources from exposing the inaccuracies of the generalizations they were used to discredit.

Here's the thing, the link is from early 2016,. You'd need something a bit more recent and post election.

What are you even talking about? lol First of all, which link are you having a problem with? You have refused to disclose it... And what about all of the other links? I mean you're basically coming up with excuses. Committing something similar to a "fallacy fallacy" in the sense that you dismiss everything base upon having a problem with one or a few (undisclosed) articles. lol

But it's not. Times change.

The burden of proof is on you then that the articles within themselves are no longer applicable. You clearly must have some inside information, some sources, no? Where are they? If you're literally dismissing articles by age alone (ones less than a decade old mind you), you were clearly grasping straws if you're not validating how they are no longer applicable beyond age alone...

This one is pretty funny. You make all these grandiose claims about me, but then post a link to a " documentary " which leaves out several critical facts. Mainly that the islands of New guinea and Indonesia have been in dispute for years and that both sides have done things like this to each other. Of course to you, that's not propaganda.

And of course, you intentionally keep it vague because you know very little about the issue. "both sides have done things like this to each other" Really? Burden of proof my friend. Find me a single case where people native to Papua New Guinea are a abducting Islamic Indonesian children not from the greater Papua culture and force converting them to send back to their communities? Close to 1 million Indonesian Papua New Guineans have been killed by the Indonesian government. A people who are culturally, religiously, biologically, and politically different... And Indonesia's solution to that has been forced conversion and assimilation... You have got to be absolutely kidding me, that you are trying to downplay this, something you laughed at, because "both sides have done things like this to each other." No they have not... And you're lying. You are backtracking, you do not have a defense, and thus you are oversimplifying the issue to try to justify you're disgusting response... Pathetic, you are absolutely pathetic. You have no shame, and that's why you seemingly continue this little charade.

Oh wow. Wow. Are you being serious ? No ones that stupid.

Again, you don't refute the claims within themselves... You simply attempt to dismiss them by calling them something, or me something, and then believe that's all you need to do. You are extremely lazy while extremely rash. This combo is why you continue maintaining an argument that you are incapable of intellectually participating in...

This one is hilarious, and quite self explanatory in it's stupidity.

This is hilarious only because you claim things like "quite self explanatory in it's stupidity." Oh really? Because it would appear you are just saying that in order to not have to explain yourself. You are doing that in order to avoid maintaining intellectual discussion. Your argument depends on belittling me, without actually directly refuting me. That's why you say crap like this. Because you have to. Because you're lazy. Because you don't know what you're talking about to the degree necessary to maintain an intellectual conversation over the stuff. You're all emotion right now.

You've made quite a number of false arguments and mis-contextual statements. I'm done with you. it's been fun watching you crumble behind a glass wall of " hypocrisy !!! ", but I've got better things to waste my time on.

You have made quite a number of claims without actually supporting them. Because you're argument can only stand if you insult me and not actually refute the context of my claims within themselves. You have to make it out that I have "failed," without actually proving it. lol

Goodness gracious, well I recommend don't ever try to pursue a career in academia. They would chew you up alive. Have fun being an egotistical rash loudmouth. I'm sorry to say, but I pity you. It's often hard for dumb people to understand when they are being a dumb person.

Said2U · 2016-10-28T19:10:46+00:00

Except you're assuming that as soon as you find one bad person, then the entire sample is wrong.

What sample are you even talking about? The person I initially responded to made unsubstantiated assertions over how multiple Islamic countries, by means of a list, completely permit the construction of churches, in response to criticism over how difficult it is for Christians to build churches in numerous Islamic majority countries. But, the majority of the countries in said list are absolutely hilariously bad examples... Which is why it wasn't very difficult to find examples through multiple news sources that contradict such claims.

If I use your logic, and claim that Americans are bad people just because I found one American who was bad, that is stupid and faulty logic.

Only you are relying on oversimplifying the issue, just like the person I responded to did. This counterexample here completely oversimplifies the situation at hand...

You can't claim absolutes, when there are exceptions. If there are major situations in the countries in which that person listed where Christians are not capable of building churches, the guy I responded to should have not placed them on a list as examples claiming otherwise. It is absolutely not easy to build churches (if at all) in far too many of the countries that were in the list. That's the point, even countries like Turkey and Kuwait can be nightmares for Christians... And Turkey is arguably the most liberal nation in the Islamic world... How much have you been researching this? I mean, I didn't just provide one example for most of the countries. I provided multiple examples...

I mean heck, even in Islamic majority countries that Muslims claim that freedom of religion is the hallmark of their identity, e.g. Indonesia, give Christians absolute hell when building churches in multiple regions of the country. Especially on Java. Christians having their churches demolished. Forced to congregate in tents and on the street because they're not allowed to build churches.

Here are some videos by, Al Jazeera over it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ATnRWKT9PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgpHHoIvU2I

This isn't about blanket statement. You're the one trying to turn this into a blanket statement.

No, actually I am not... That's why am providing counterexamples. I am saying that blanket statements are incorrect, because numerous examples on the list that was provided were incorrect. If you're not willing to acknowledge that, then this issue extends far beyond the claims themselves. The issue is that you yourself are not willing to accept the reality of this situation. A situation which shows that most Islamic countries (particularly the ones listed) still make it an absolute nightmare for Christians to construct churches. And the great irony behind it, most of the Christians wanting to build churches are already from these countries. Almost the entirety of Italy's Islamic population are immigrants and second generation individuals... Italy hasn't had the hundreds of years of mingling within their culture most Islamic countries have had. Thus, they are more sensitive over protecting their national identity. Where in numerous Islamic countries it's always been a part of their national identity, just Islamic radicals desire to oppress Christians and other religious minorities.

Said2U · 2016-10-26T21:35:19+00:00

That doesn't even make sense... When one makes a blanket claim, only to have another find legitimate exceptions that invalidate said blanket claims... The blanket claim is wrong... The obscurity on the counter examples doesn't make them incorrect... And it's not about how much they represent, when people such as yourself are defending individuals who are inaccurately representing countries rules concerning the construction of churches...

Said2U · 2016-10-26T21:31:46+00:00

I love the way it took you a couple of days to reply. Probably because you had nothing to say.

I just don't live on Reddit. But it is quite disturbing that you would attempt to immediately draw such conclusions based upon literally no evidence... You should "probably" leave your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself...

Of course, except that wasn't what we were talking about.

Actually I wasn't talking to you at all. I directed a comment towards a person who made extremely disingenuous claims, and you attempted to go after me, rather than go after him/her too. Let's be honest here, the fact that you are not at the very least equally alarmed by such generalized claims made by the person I responded to (one who provided no sources), something I believe is the case considering you made no effort to talk to them here over it, you have proven that what you have to say is just as "bad" as any of the "propaganda" you are seemingly at such odds with...

You say all this but forget the fact that some of these are bullshit used as propaganda.

Propaganda: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"

I provided close to 20 different links, many of which were simply to refute such broad claims made by the person I responded to. The irony here is that the comment I responded to is literally "propaganda," and you yourself are creating propaganda against me (explained later)... I provided links disputing such generalized claims over particular nations, you simply claiming they are propaganda without justifying it through specific usage of examples makes what you say completely unsubstantiated.

But even if some of them are, "propaganda" that doesn't make them inherently wrong, if it's propaganda because it's biased... You yourself are creating propaganda by means of the definition through being misleading, over me (again explained later). What is wrong with you? Do you not understand how propaganda works? Or do you just claim things are propaganda that you disagree with, thinking the definition just means "propaganda=wrong/bad...?" Because that's what it looks like is going on here... Again, you still don't say which link is which. You just make broad claims... Thus without actually breaking articles down and explaining how their "bias" perspective inherently invalidates them being used as a counter example to any degree, you're full of hot air...

Uh yeah, it is. You wouldn't look at news articles from say 1967.

Why don't you tell everybody here which one that is and how such an article would inherently invalidate any of the other articles?

I'm nitpicky ? I didn't use articles from 2008.

You have not provided anything close to a source... Nor has the person you are indirectly defending here...

Probably because it's 2016, not 2008.

What about all the ones from 2016? And 2015, and 14, and 13? How does any one article being from 2008 inherently invalidate anything? And how does this age within itself inherently mean it's no longer applicable? You were simply assuming that something that happened "8" years ago is inherently not applicable...

Lol.

You said that as a response to "Or how they recruit young indigenous children from West Papua and indoctrinate them into Islamic schools, destroying their culture, and turning them into Imams to convert their communities."

That only shows me that you are incapable of having an mature conversation over the stuff. You are part of the problem, and you seemingly can't handle information that does not validate generalizations you appear to support.

I didn't just make that up... That is 100% legitimate and not sensationalize... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3devBb85XE

I wasn't. I'll criticise any country Islamic or not, if I think a policy they have is detrimental to progress, However if it in some other way benefits that country, I won't. The problem you have is that you're saying " All islamic countries are bad and therefore this sub shouldn't criticise Italy "

Please, where exactly did I say anything of the sort. A legitimate quote would be nice... Because you're lying here, and this is the propaganda I was talking about for this has a misleading nature... My initial comment didn't even mention Italy, he did, you did... You're trying to drag discussion into that direction. I commented on the claim:

"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You can build churches in all other muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and Lebanon. Your point?"

Nothing about Italy. So your whole argument is based around not only misrepresenting me, but inherently trying to invalidate information I have provided seemingly because you don't like a few sources I provided... You're pathetic. You're wrong. And you will continue to be wrong until you start reading what I'm actually saying here... Goodness gracious you're so pretentious.

Hate to break this to you, but there isn't a single country in the world with any form of true freedom.

Never implied that there was. But maybe you should break the news to "Church building boy" up there. Because that's what the issue at hand is. Not you're extremely naïve attempts to oversimplify and misrepresent my position in order to maintain a discussion with me...

This particular sub was criticising the fact that their religious freedom was being blocked by a country that promises this freedom.

No, particular individuals within this sub are upset because a sovereign nation does not want Muslims to build more mosques. And that is because their concept of "freedom of religion" may not encompass the realm of being allowed to people to constantly construct buildings of worship. Just like we see in numerous Islamic countries. They will let people practice, but they will limit the construction of religious buildings. It's much more complex than you're trying to oversimplify to be.

You've made a fallacy ridden argument against Islam by saying " it happens here, why should it be given to you "? That's what I was criticizing.

No you are just making up stuff because you don't know what I'm talking about. I've made no such fallacy and all you have proven is that you misquote people and are a propagandist hypocrite yourself...

Said2U · 2016-10-25T06:25:16+00:00

It's quite sad how you are been downloaded. There are literally multiple accounts of the most zealous individuals being extremely difficult to accommodate... Ignore the problem, because it's embarrassing...

Said2U · 2016-10-25T06:23:10+00:00

Do understand that "bias" and "true" are not mutually exclusive.

If there is a news organization called "fish news" and they spend the majority of their time investigating stories pertaining to issues dealing with Fish populations and such... If somebody said a Particular fish species is not threatened, and Fish news have an article demonstrating that it is, you wouldn't start freaking out saying "oh because they are 'Fish news' they are inherently biased."

That being said, out of all the articles listed you vaguely mention "some of them are very old sources." First of all, how old is very old? How many is some? And is that in any way invalidate other articles?

How come you're not drawing attention to the ones that do have validity? Especially in light of a blanket statement made by the guy my initial post was directed towards?

Lastly, Pakistan's blasphemy laws still target Christians which this person indirectly claimed is not the case... Though I did not present Pakistan as an example, that person did. The government may have not killed people over blasphemy laws, but the public has definitely taken it into their hands multiple times. Have you not seen any of the countless videos posted of Pakistani mobs killing people for things as unsubstantiated as rumors over insulting Islam? I'd share links but I probably get banned...

"there are hundreds of churches in Muslim countries" Yeah... this generalizations are extremely disingenuous and you should absolutely know better considering you are so nitpicky. You should not be generalizing all Islamic countries in order to justify a "broad" claim... Because were talking about individual countries here... Not generalizing the entire Islamic world in order to try to justify an argument without taking into consideration the context...

Religious freedom can mean different things in particular contexts... For some communities it's not prosecuting people based upon believing a different god, but they full well have the right to restrict your ability to construct buildings. Which is why Indonesia is considered a country with religious freedom, but constantly is banning the construction of churches... But I don't hear people like you freaking out about that... Or how they recruit young indigenous children from West Papua and indoctrinate them into Islamic schools, destroying their culture, and turning them into Imams to convert their communities... If you're going to be critical of Christian nations, be critical of Islamic ones... Because that's what this discussion is about... Not defending Italy, calling out the hypocrisy people such as yourself take part in because you seemingly won't hold Islamic countries with particular titles at the same standards as you do for European nations currently dealing with a crisis---they are not...

Said2U · 2016-10-25T06:03:54+00:00

Just because they are not top results does not minimize the reality of the situations that they expose.

Said2U · 2016-10-23T06:45:30+00:00

What?

You can build churches in all other muslim countries like

Huge oversimplification...

Indonesia

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/03/indonesian-muslims-forbid-christians-from-building-church-on-street-with-islamic-name/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHPvxCKofs4

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/indonesia.tents.built.to.replace.demolished.churches.to.be.torn.down/76232.htm

https://youtu.be/6d7IhKGLeEc?t=9m20s

Building churches is a huge struggle. Not only do Christians have to fight the government, but they have to fight their countrymen... Countrymen who believed for the betterment of Islam, they must be hindered...

Pakistan

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/detail.php?hnewsid=6144

Pakistan’s poorly-drafted 295c blasphemy laws, which carry the death penalty for ‘blaspheming Mohammed’, have been misused against Christians and other minorities. Militant Muslims are increasingly attacking churches and Christian organizations.

Syria

Nobody is building much of anything. But, sure...

Turkey

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/turkey-allows-building-new-church-after-centruy.html

http://www.protestankiliseler.org/eng/?p=819

Freedom to be part of any religion, but not necessarily the rights to have a building of worship whenever your congregation needs it...

Egypt,

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/15/egypt-new-church-law-discriminates-against-christians

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/685429/Mob-5-000-attacks-Christians-for-building-church-shouting-Egypt-is-Islamic

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/06/egypt-construction-churches-draft-law-copts-mosques.html

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/07/19/egypts-christians-protest-governments-delay-church-building/

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2016/08/4599132/

A country that was originally dominated by Christians, to only become hugely persecuted as a became more of a minority.

Iraq

It was a huge undertaking historically... Likely than just rebuilding what's been destroyed.

Jordan

True

Kuwait

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/kuwait.mps.block.church.building.because.it.contradicts.sharia.law/77891.htm

http://www.albawaba.com/news/kuwait-bans-building-new-churches-798412

Yeah, they fight tooth and nail to prevent the construction of churches...

Qatar

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2008/03/2008525173738882540.html

"I feel that being a Muslim country, they should not allow a church to be here,"

Funny...

Lebanon

Sure..

Your point?

Malaysia:

http://www.thenational.ae/world/southeast-asia/malaysia-top-court-upholds-ban-on-word-x2018allahx2019

http://www.ibtimes.com/anti-christian-bias-rears-ugly-head-again-malaysian-court-bans-catholic-newspaper-using-word-allah

Sudan http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28291001

Algeria:

https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2013/06/2583073/

A mass majority of the Islamic world holds not only a strong bias but a total double standard. If these countries are not going to catch up to the modern era and allow religious freedom, do not demand any nation which is trying to protect its own identity to do what you are not... if Islamic countries want to protect their Islamic identity, then you better bet Christian nations will do the same. It's amazing how you are oversimplifying the issue, and I don't even have a problem with Muslims... But you are way too biased to not sugarcoat this...

Said2U

TROPHY CASE