Having fun with your friends, playing tunes, meeting interesting people, and so forth.SAM said:Or not. But if you are a teetotaler what are you doing in a bar?
Gregory Bateson's term (if you recall, one of those secular humanists who is safely dismissed unread as unhappy with his life and trying to push it on others)
Doesn't work if you think alcohol is bad for you does it?
No I see that simply banning a minaret will only exacerbate the issue.
A population transfer is less embarassing in the long run.
I thought you disapproved of that at all costs. :shrug:
? You shifted from Europe to the US, where none of the banning of stuff has been an issue, and then invoked the US launching of the Iraq war as a "proxy" for anti-Muslim sentiment in Europeans?SAM said:and rising fear of Muslims expressed as troop concentrations in Muslim countries with hundreds of thousands killed and tortured as proxy to anti-Muslim sentiment at home.
Then you aren't talking about hundreds of thousands of killed, massive bombings, Iraq, etc.SAM said:No I did not shift, I am referring to European troops in these places.
There is an EU report on anti-Muslim discrimination, I won't bother to link it.
If you put all the bombings together it would not equal one day of the Iraq war.
Indeed. I was just telling Lucy that Europeans should give up on dreams of multiculturalism. How many pogroms do they need to figure out they can't handle it?
Now London wants to ban minarets
http://www.thelondondailynews.com/londoners-support-calls-minarets-capital-p-3609.html
Currently the practice is to give permission to pray [with great difficulty] in garages and other such. The constitutional amendment simply bans minarets so they can decide case by case what that entails.
Preferable for whom? The instigators of the well-chosen minaret construction movement?SAM said:And as I said, just transport the Muslims, it is preferable to killing them, even by proxy.