Racist or not?

Quote: Mission146

People do what people do. A Religion is just a concept and a concept can’t act on its own accord, so, “Islam,” can’t do anything.

So by this line of logic communism and fascism can't "do anything" so no need to be concerned about them and was no reason for concern about them in the 1930s?

Quote: AZDuffman

So by this line of logic communism and fascism can't "do anything" so no need to be concerned about them and was no reason for concern about them in the 1930s?

What you are presenting as a ridiculous argument showing why we should worry about Islam (we should worry about communists and facists even though communism and facism do nothing) is the same argument that anti gun control people present - guns themselves don't do anything.

So, to simplify,
Islam doesn't do anything
Communism doesn't do anything
Facism doesn't do anything
Guns don't do anything

And then my point, really, is either the analogy is weak, tying those things together, or the analogy is strong and if different conclusions are drawn about what to do about those various issues, then the outlying arguments are weak.

Quote: Dalex64

What you are presenting as a ridiculous argument showing why we should worry about Islam (we should worry about communists and facists even though communism and facism do nothing) is the same argument that anti gun control people present - guns themselves don't do anything.

So, to simplify,
Islam doesn't do anything
Communism doesn't do anything
Facism doesn't do anything

Sorry, but communism did overrun at least 1/3 of the world population, forcing them to live in poverty, built walls to keep their populations from leaving, starved tens of millions.

Fascism started a war that also killed tens of millions of people.

Islam turns a free society into a sewer. It orders women be killed for the crime of BEING RAPED. It takes away rights. It causes violence. And it is ruining cities and countries in Europe today. Women in Europe are starting to feel the brunt of it. It will get worse and worse. Yet for some reason all the SJW defenders of "women's rights" in the USA defend islam to the end. That I do not get.

Movements can be and are dangerous. Denying this in the name of PC will not save you.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, but communism did overrun at least 1/3 of the world population, forcing them to live in poverty, built walls to keep their populations from leaving, starved tens of millions.

Fascism started a war that also killed tens of millions of people.

Islam turns a free society into a sewer. It orders women be killed for the crime of BEING RAPED. It takes away rights. It causes violence. And it is ruining cities and countries in Europe today. Women in Europe are starting to feel the brunt of it. It will get worse and worse. Yet for some reason all the SJW defenders of "women's rights" in the USA defend islam to the end. That I do not get.

Movements can be and are dangerous. Denying this in the name of PC will not save you.

Gee, you cut off my quote right before "guns don't do anything". Why is that?

If you are saying "Islam doesn't do anything" is an invalid argument, I am saying "guns don't do anything" is equally invalid.

If you want to ban or severely restrict or modify the practice of Islam because it is dangerous, then the same arguments for gun control are equally valid.

If you want to follow the logic from Islam to communism to facism, as you do in the post I originally replied to, one can continue to follow the logic to guns.

Quote: Dalex64

Gee, you cut off my quote right before "guns don't do anything". Why is that?

Because guns don't do anything. Unlike communism, fascism, and islam, guns are inanimate. Three of these things are just like the others, three of these things are kind of the same. One of these things is not like the others.........

Quote:

If you want to ban or severely restrict or modify the practice of Islam because it is dangerous, then the same arguments for gun control are equally valid.

If you want to follow the logic from Islam to communism to facism, as you do in the post I originally replied to, one can continue to follow the logic to guns.

No, they cannot follow the same logic. As stated above. Guns are a weapon. The other three are ideology. Now, when you can show me where a gun called to kill non-believers, let me know. When you can show me where a gun (not the person with it, just a gun) took a person's farm for the "greater good" then let me know. When you can show me where a bunch of guns walked out of the armory on their own and forced people into "re-education" camps, let me know.

As I often say, nice try.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because guns don't do anything. Unlike communism, fascism, and islam, guns are inanimate. Three of these things are just like the others, three of these things are kind of the same. One of these things is not like the others.........

No, they cannot follow the same logic. As stated above. Guns are a weapon. The other three are ideology. Now, when you can show me where a gun called to kill non-believers, let me know. When you can show me where a gun (not the person with it, just a gun) took a person's farm for the "greater good" then let me know. When you can show me where a bunch of guns walked out of the armory on their own and forced people into "re-education" camps, let me know.

As I often say, nice try.

Guns are a weapon, those other things are ideologies. You can't kill someone with an "Islam" either because it isn't a tangible object. It is all about how people use their idealogies and guns.

"Guns can't kill anyone on their own" is a specious argument.

So nice try with the nice try.

Before you go into constitutionality again, here is a snip: "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The "intelligence and forethought" of the founders applies to that as well as it applies to the 2nd ammendment.

Quote: Dalex64

Guns are a weapon, those other things are ideologies. You can't kill someone with an "Islam" either because it isn't a tangible object. It is all about how people use their idealogies and guns.

So, you are starting to see my point? Look at how islam is "used" across the globe. It is not a good thing.

Quote:

"Guns can't kill anyone on their own" is a specious argument.

It is a correct argument.

Quote:

Before you go into constitutionality again, here is a snip: "Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The "intelligence and forethought" of the founders applies to that as well as it applies to the 2nd ammendment.

And you still miss the point of the danger that islam is causing in the USA and worldwide. Folks like yourself will be the first to be subdued and surrender. Instead of seeing the danger right in front of you, you want to argue about guns.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because guns don't do anything. Unlike communism, fascism, and islam, guns are inanimate. Three of these things are just like the others, three of these things are kind of the same. One of these things is not like the others.........



No, they cannot follow the same logic. As stated above. Guns are a weapon. The other three are ideology. Now, when you can show me where a gun called to kill non-believers, let me know. When you can show me where a gun (not the person with it, just a gun) took a person's farm for the "greater good" then let me know. When you can show me where a bunch of guns walked out of the armory on their own and forced people into "re-education" camps, let me know.

As I often say, nice try.

There is no excuse for truncating a quote, especially when it skews the point of the post. If you excerpt, you need to make that clear when you quote less than a full post. And your follow-up I quoted makes it clear your misquote to change the intent was deliberate.

You are in and out of here irregularly, so you may not be aware of Rule 17 , so I'll keep it to a warning this time.

Quote:

Misquoting: If you quote another member, do not remove, add, or change any wording within the portion quoted. If you wish to emphasize a particular part of the quote, any formatting by the one quoting should be disclosed immediately after the quote. (Added 6/8/2018)

To be clear, your doing that for the reasons you did is exactly why this rule was implemented.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because guns don't do anything. Unlike communism, fascism, and islam, guns are inanimate. Three of these things are just like the others, three of these things are kind of the same. One of these things is not like the others.........

Political concepts are now animate? Wow.

You're right about one thing not being like the others. Guns. Guns physically exist, political concepts do not physically exist.

Quote:

No, they cannot follow the same logic. As stated above. Guns are a weapon. The other three are ideology. Now, when you can show me where a gun called to kill non-believers, let me know. When you can show me where a gun (not the person with it, just a gun) took a person's farm for the "greater good" then let me know. When you can show me where a bunch of guns walked out of the armory on their own and forced people into "re-education" camps, let me know.

As I often say, nice try.

Political concepts didn't do any of those things, either, people did.

This is going to be a very difficult conversation if we cannot agree on what does or does not physically exist.

Quote: Mission146

Political concepts are now animate? Wow.

You're right about one thing not being like the others. Guns. Guns physically exist, political concepts do not physically exist.

Political concepts are made out of animate parts, guns are not. Look at it the same way that corporations are people. A corporation cannot vote, it cannot drive, it cannot even use the lavatory. But it is amalgamation of the people making it up, which is why it has the same right to free speech as those people.

Fascism, to randomly pick one of the several mentioned, is an amalgamation of the people following it. It is not really disputable that people behave differently in crowds than individually. IIRC this was part of the defense of the Black guys who beat up Reginald Denny back in 1992. So while individually the people supporting fascism may not individually help or even like the government exercising control of at the time say Fiat, as a group they do. Or to use your term above, yes, Fascism is animate.

Quote:

Political concepts didn't do any of those things, either, people did.

This is going to be a very difficult conversation if we cannot agree on what does or does not physically exist. [/q

It is only difficult if you insist that "physically exist" means as individual matter. The way you are putting it, I can say "the fan base of WVU does not exist!" But a drive to Morgantown on a Saturday afternoon the next few months will show tens of thousands of fans, all in one location, plus others at other locations around town. The fan base exists. As do the ideologies.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

Quote: boymimbo

Frankly I found your sweeping genralizations of Christians as "stupid" and "the one who doesn't get caught" quite offensive. I also find some people's sweeping generalizations of Muslims offensive as well.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

Now, check out the Baptists, Churches of Christ, Churches of God and Assemblies of God in particular. Here's a pro tip: you have to go to the bottom of the list to find them.

In other words, mostly White Evangelicals, but some of those same Evangelicals are of other races, naturally.

Quote:

As a Christian I struggle with the faith and concepts of the religion all of the time. However I can assure you that the folks I hang around with at my church are not "stupid". Now if you ask some people to create a formative argument on why they believe what they believe, I would say that's it's far easier to take an atheist POV than a Christian (or any religious) one. There is no scientific basis to the existence of God. To believe in a deity frankly involves delusion, in believing (in my case) that prayers are sometimes heard and answered, that the Holy Spirit is looking after us, and that someone 2000 years died on a cross for our sins, was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

I'm really not demanding a formative argument as long as they're not bothering me with their crap, which is why I spoke about, "Neutral territory." Even then, the absolute most I would ever demand is that they have the intellectual honesty to bring themselves to admit that they don't absolutely know...but as I am sure you would have to admit...a good number of them cannot make that admission. Many of them think it would be a sin to do so. That's what we call groupthink and brainwashing.

The thing that you will notice about those religions with the least educational attainment is that, if you've ever spent any time in any of those churches, they also tend to be the churches that permit the least flexibility when it comes to the thoughts of their adherents.

Anyway, you have clearly done an intellectual examination of your beliefs, realize their potential shortfalls, but feel like what evidence does exist, or, "Faith," is sufficient for you to believe the way that you do. I have no problem with that whatsoever, you have examined it in an intelligent way. You're not a good little Christian wind-up toy whose spinner has been spun to the max running around, bobbing back and forth on plastic wheels and repeating what you have been told to repeat.

In short, when I bring up anything negative about Christians, you're not included.

The Bible is a deeply Philosophical work that is not easily grasped. Many of the people I'm referring to either have not read The Bible, or lack the capacity to understand it even if they had read it.

Quote:

It is far more easier to take a position that there is no God and cite the observable universe around us as proof.

That's where I disagree, because we don't have the reward/punishment dynamic that makes Christianity the rousing popular success that it is. What is your reward for being an Atheist and ending up being right about it? Nothing. You die. That's all, folks.

I think, "Nothing after this," is a harder sell than, "Eternal paradise," but that's just me.

Quote:

Delusional, yes. Stupid, no. I understand that, and that's why I don't evangelize or press anyone on their religious or spiritual beliefs. But try not to categorize a group of people as stupid. Feel free to call us out on some of our hypocrisy - we need that introspection.

You're not amongst the ones who I am talking about, which you have demonstrated.

My big thing is Evangelism, which is to say taking it outside of the church. You don't see atheists or agnostics at the County Fair passing out pamphlets called, "The Fifteen Reasons Why There Is Nothing After," or anything like that.

Anyway, I'm not going to spread the cheery word of Atheism because I don't really care what people think in the physical world as long as they are leaving me alone. More than that, you have two different types of Christians:

1.) Those who have examined their faith and have already considered my arguments against (or something close to them) and have not found those arguments sufficiently compelling to overcome their faith. (You fall in this category)

2.) Those who are too stupid to understand what my arguments are. (A good many of them, but no one on this Board included)

Unfortunately, Evangelism takes place not only in the physical realm, but also at the ballot box, and that's where I start to get a little bit irked. You have social issues that, for some Christians, really end up being a question of the morality subscribed by their faith than anything else. What ends up happening is you have pro-life advocates, people who are anti-gay marriage and people who are against other rights that serve to enhance the social equality or expand social freedoms.

My question is this: Why?

Just because something can be legally done doesn't require that a Christian do it, no Christian has to get an abortion just because it is legal to do so.

Going with the abortion example, that's what they're afraid of. The parents may be afraid that their daughter might end up with an unwanted pregnancy that she desires to terminate, so they want there to not be a mechanism for her to do that. Apparently, faith in God isn't enough, they need the law, as well. If that's not the problem, I don't know what is. Just because something is legal doesn't mean they have to do it and I have difficulty understanding why they should care what someone else does or does not to if it is within the boundaries of the law.

Ultimately, I see Christianity as about oppression, uniformity and control more than anything else. Not that there has ever really been a point that it wasn't about that. That some of them should also be hypocrites just makes it so much better.

Quote: AZDuffman

Political concepts are made out of animate parts, guns are not. Look at it the same way that corporations are people. A corporation cannot vote, it cannot drive, it cannot even use the lavatory. But it is amalgamation of the people making it up, which is why it has the same right to free speech as those people.

The problem with the comparison is that you're talking to someone who doesn't think corporations should be, "People." The people making up the corporation are already people, so why does the corporation also need to be a person?

Anyway, political concepts aren't made out of animate anything. They don't physically manifest and are incapable of physical manifestation. People may do things and then point to the concept as being their thought process behind doing it, but that doesn't make the concept itself animate.

Like I said, I'm not going to be able to work with this one if words like, "Animate," aren't going to mean what they mean. If you would like to provide your personal definition of, "Animate," then I might continue in that context, or might not.

Quote:

Fascism, to randomly pick one of the several mentioned, is an amalgamation of the people following it. It is not really disputable that people behave differently in crowds than individually. IIRC this was part of the defense of the Black guys who beat up Reginald Denny back in 1992. So while individually the people supporting fascism may not individually help or even like the government exercising control of at the time say Fiat, as a group they do. Or to use your term above, yes, Fascism is animate.

Funny thing, Republicans can form crowds. White supremacists can form crowds. Christians can form crowds. Groupthink is capable of existing anytime there is, you know, a group. That doesn't animate the concepts themselves. Groups can even sometimes act without an underlying codified concept.

Quote:

It is only difficult if you insist that "physically exist" means as individual matter. The way you are putting it, I can say "the fan base of WVU does not exist!" But a drive to Morgantown on a Saturday afternoon the next few months will show tens of thousands of fans, all in one location, plus others at other locations around town. The fan base exists. As do the ideologies.

The fan base of WVU certainly does exist. Communists exist, there are people who are Communists. Communists are capable of acting, Communism is not capable of acting.

See, "WVU fandom," is a concept. It is the notion of being a fan of WVU. The concept does not physically exist. WVU fans do. They buy the tickets or watch the games on TV, the notion of, "WVU Fandom," cannot buy a ticket because it does not physically exist, and therefore, has no money.

Which brings us to the underlying point: People do things, concepts don't. People might cite the concept as their reason for doing something, but that doesn't mean that the concept itself has acted: it can't act because it's not animate.

Quote: Mission146

The Bible is a deeply Philosophical work that is not easily grasped.

It's not easily grasped because it's
confusing, contradictory, and full
of superstition and nonsense. The
one thing it's not is 'deeply philosophical'.

The message of the entire OT and NT
can be summed up in one easy to
understand sentence.

"Obey the rules of society and god, try
and get along with your neighbor, and
you'll be fine".

But I'm an atheist, what do I know.

Quote: Mission146

The problem with the comparison is that you're talking to someone who doesn't think corporations should be, "People." The people making up the corporation are already people, so why does the corporation also need to be a person?

OK, lets run a logic/purity test here. Are you saying that every news organization in the USA, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FNC, NYT, WSJ, etc; are you saying that any of or all of them should be subject to censorship by the Feds? Because they are all corporations, so the way I read what you wrote it says they should be censorable.

Quote:

Anyway, political concepts aren't made out of animate anything. They don't physically manifest and are incapable of physical manifestation. People may do things and then point to the concept as being their thought process behind doing it, but that doesn't make the concept itself animate.

Like I said, I'm not going to be able to work with this one if words like, "Animate," aren't going to mean what they mean. If you would like to provide your personal definition of, "Animate," then I might continue in that context, or might not.

Funny thing, Republicans can form crowds. White supremacists can form crowds. Christians can form crowds. Groupthink is capable of existing anytime there is, you know, a group. That doesn't animate the concepts themselves. Groups can even sometimes act without an underlying codified concept.

No reply to the above, but I was warned not to delete any part of a post.

Quote:

The fan base of WVU certainly does exist. Communists exist, there are people who are Communists. Communists are capable of acting, Communism is not capable of acting.

See, "WVU fandom," is a concept. It is the notion of being a fan of WVU. The concept does not physically exist. WVU fans do. They buy the tickets or watch the games on TV, the notion of, "WVU Fandom," cannot buy a ticket because it does not physically exist, and therefore, has no money.

OK, so does the USA not exist? You seem to be saying only physical people exist, so does the USA exist? Land does, people do, but does the unified country?

Quote:

Which brings us to the underlying point: People do things, concepts don't. People might cite the concept as their reason for doing something, but that doesn't mean that the concept itself has acted: it can't act because it's not animate.

People move with the concept. Concepts drive things. People ARE the concept.

Quote: AZDuffman

OK, lets run a logic/purity test here. Are you saying that every news organization in the USA, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, FNC, NYT, WSJ, etc; are you saying that any of or all of them should be subject to censorship by the Feds? Because they are all corporations, so the way I read what you wrote it says they should be censorable.

In that case, I would recommend a remedial reading comprehension class. I don't think incorporated status has anything to do with rights as relates to freedom of the press or of speech.

Quote:

No reply to the above, but I was warned not to delete any part of a post.

My understanding is just that you're supposed to say when something is a partial quote.

Quote:

OK, so does the USA not exist? You seem to be saying only physical people exist, so does the USA exist? Land does, people do, but does the unified country?

The United States of America is defined as certain geographical areas of both land and sea that fall under its governance, so yes, it exists. The USA is a collection of places, Communism is not a place.

Quote:

People move with the concept. Concepts drive things. People ARE the concept.

No, people are people. You can conceive of a person who does not exist, but there are certainly people who do exist and who act. Your conceptions of people who do not exist are incapable of action, because they do not exist.

Concepts are things in the sense that ideas are things. Communism is certainly a noun, but it does not describe a noun that can physically act. Communists can physically act, but Communism cannot.

Like I tried to say earlier, I don't have time to elucidate and educate on the rudimentary functions of words. The only way that I am going to be able to have a conversation is if someone shares my opinions/definitions on at least a basic level.

You seem to think that a political mode of thought is capable of acting of its own accord because, in your opinion, it is animate. You're free to think that. I'm free to say that there is too great a divide for a conversation to continue.

Quote: Mission146

In that case, I would recommend a remedial reading comprehension class. I don't think incorporated status has anything to do with rights as relates to freedom of the press or of speech.

But you kind of said it did:

Quote: Mission146

The problem with the comparison is that you're talking to someone who doesn't think corporations should be, "People." The people making up the corporation are already people, so why does the corporation also need to be a person?

FWIW, I do not think incorporated status has anything to do with rights as it relates to freedom of press, speech, or any other right people have. Freedom does not end at the state charter. Corporations have the same freedoms as people. But.......your earlier quote does not imply this.

Quote:

My understanding is just that you're supposed to say when something is a partial quote.

The United States of America is defined as certain geographical areas of both land and sea that fall under its governance, so yes, it exists. The USA is a collection of places, Communism is not a place.

But communism is defined in "The Communist Manifesto." I am not a place, yet I exist. Person, place, or thing!

Quote:

No, people are people. You can conceive of a person who does not exist, but there are certainly people who do exist and who act. Your conceptions of people who do not exist are incapable of action, because they do not exist.

Concepts are things in the sense that ideas are things. Communism is certainly a noun, but it does not describe a noun that can physically act. Communists can physically act, but Communism cannot.

Like I tried to say earlier, I don't have time to elucidate and educate on the rudimentary functions of words. The only way that I am going to be able to have a conversation is if someone shares my opinions/definitions on at least a basic level.

You seem to think that a political mode of thought is capable of acting of its own accord because, in your opinion, it is animate. You're free to think that. I'm free to say that there is too great a divide for a conversation to continue.

If the divide is too great it is too great. I prefer a discussion that does not get hung up on the meaning of "is."

Quote: Mission146

I'm free to say that there is too great a divide for a conversation to continue.

That's what people say when they're backed
into a corner. I can see you waving the white
flag all the way from MI..

Quote: EvenBob

That's what people say when they're backed
into a corner. I can see you waving the white
flag all the way from MI..

Bob, he is only 2 states over!

lol

Quote: EvenBob

That's what people say when they're backed
into a corner. I can see you waving the white
flag all the way from MI..

Because I can't debate someone who thinks the concept of Communism is animate? No, if he thinks that political concepts are alive and capable of independent physical action, there is no way for me to debate against that. I'm not inclined to argue against complete nonsense.

Quote: AZDuffman

FWIW, I do not think incorporated status has anything to do with rights as it relates to freedom of press, speech, or any other right people have. Freedom does not end at the state charter. Corporations have the same freedoms as people. But.......your earlier quote does not imply this.

Okay, so we agree on that. Incorporated status has nothing to do with whether or not the press is free or speech is free. In my view, that should not make a corporation the legal equivalent of a person, but in your view, it does and should.

Quote:

But communism is defined in "The Communist Manifesto." I am not a place, yet I exist. Person, place, or thing!

Person, place, thing, quality, idea, action or concept. Some nouns can physically act of their own accord whereas others can't. Both Communism and guns are example of nouns that cannot act of their own accord. People can use those nouns to commit (or justify) actions, but the nouns themselves cannot commit a physical action.

Quote:

If the divide is too great it is too great. I prefer a discussion that does not get hung up on the meaning of "is."

I prefer for words to have meanings. We're not talking about, "Is," we're talking about whether or not a concept, of its own accord, can self-manifest by way of physical action...which it absolutely can't, because the concept does not physically exist.

Only those things that exist physically can engage in physical actions. If you don't believe that, I can't help you.

Quote: AZDuffman

Bob, he is only 2 states over!

lol

And he's like 7' tall, that's why
I can see him..

Quote: Mission146

I'm not inclined to argue against complete nonsense.

That's the second thing people say
when they run out of ammo. Doesn't
sound like nonsense at all to me..

Quote: Mission146

Okay, so we agree on that. Incorporated status has nothing to do with whether or not the press is free or speech is free. In my view, that should not make a corporation the legal equivalent of a person, but in your view, it does and should.

My view is that people do not lose rights just because they organize as a legal entity for legal protections. I don't get your hang-up about it.

Quote:

Person, place, thing, quality, idea, action or concept. Some nouns can physically act of their own accord whereas others can't. Both Communism and guns are example of nouns that cannot act of their own accord. People can use those nouns to commit (or justify) actions, but the nouns themselves cannot commit a physical action.

Not allowed to delete, but no reply to this part directly.

Quote:

I prefer for words to have meanings. We're not talking about, "Is," we're talking about whether or not a concept, of its own accord, can self-manifest by way of physical action...which it absolutely can't, because the concept does not physically exist.

Only those things that exist physically can engage in physical actions. If you don't believe that, I can't help you.

I am talking about how people behave differently in a crowd and under an ideology than one-on-one. I am talking how an idnology can be dangerous and cause dangerous behaviors. You are discussing parts of speech. I am saying communism, fascism, and islam are dangerous. I have given practical examples. You are saying they "can't be dangerous because they do not exist." I can't talk Newspeak.

Quote: EvenBob

That's the second thing people say
when they run out of ammo. Doesn't
sound like nonsense at all to me..

That the concept of Communism can commit physical actions?

Quote: AZDuffman

My view is that people do not lose rights just because they organize as a legal entity for legal protections. I don't get your hang-up about it.

People wouldn't lose any rights even if the corporation were not recognized as a person.

Quote:

I am talking about how people behave differently in a crowd and under an ideology than one-on-one. I am talking how an idnology can be dangerous and cause dangerous behaviors. You are discussing parts of speech. I am saying communism, fascism, and islam are dangerous. I have given practical examples. You are saying they "can't be dangerous because they do not exist." I can't talk Newspeak.

No disagreement here, but again, groupthink can exist within any group, not just the ones you happen to dislike.

With that, the ideologies themselves don't cause anything. The people who subscribe to the ideologies cause things.

I'm also not saying that they do not exist, I'm saying that they do not physically exist. They exist as concepts. Unicorns exist as concepts, angels exist as concepts...etc. Lots of things exist as concepts without existing physically.

Quote: AZDuffman

......... I am talking how an idnology can be dangerous and cause dangerous behaviors.

If that's not a word, it should be.

Quote: Mission146

People wouldn't lose any rights even if the corporation were not recognized as a person.

Sure they would! That is what the whole Citizens Untied case was about. If I cannot get together with like minded people and speak as a group, I have lost my right. I honestly do not see the hang-up about this. Maybe you can expain.

Quote:

No disagreement here, but again, groupthink can exist within any group, not just the ones you happen to dislike.

With that, the ideologies themselves don't cause anything. The people who subscribe to the ideologies cause things.

You are splitting hairs here, and it appears splitting to avoid productive discussion.

Quote:

I'm also not saying that they do not exist, I'm saying that they do not physically exist. They exist as concepts. Unicorns exist as concepts, angels exist as concepts...etc. Lots of things exist as concepts without existing physically.

Then debate how the concept acts. What matters is what happens, not parts of speech.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sure they would! That is what the whole Citizens Untied case was about. If I cannot get together with like minded people and speak as a group, I have lost my right. I honestly do not see the hang-up about this. Maybe you can expain.

Read the dissenting opinion of Citizens United. There. Explained.

Honestly, what I would do with campaign reform is just have three simple rules:

1.) All donations related to a candidate running for office must be made directly to the campaign of that candidate.

2.) Donations may be unlimited.

3.) The sources of all donations that are accepted must be disclosed within a period of no greater than 24 hours from the time the donations are accepted. Attempted donations that are rejected by the candidate's campaign need not be disclosed.

So, I say let corporations donate whatever they want (which is technically less restrictive than the current laws), but let's keep it as above-board and transparent as possible.

They'd barely even need to have debates. If I saw donation money pouring in for one candidate (and accepted) from a crap ton of banks I'm going to think, "Homeboy has said he's going to deregulate the hell out of the banks," no thanks. The probability of my voting for the other candidate has already shot way up. The health insurance industry is backing Candidate Y heavily, okay, no thank you on Candidate Y. Don't like where Candidate Y's money is coming from.

Quote:

You are splitting hairs here, and it appears splitting to avoid productive discussion.

I'm splitting hairs by insisting that words must mean something? Let's just have a discussion where words don't mean what they mean, then, my opening argument is thus:

Doggie shuffle Chocolate M&M's circumnavigating verandas as Mt. Rushmore descends into eternal darkness.

Now, if you can guess what the hell that means (which I don't even know) we can continue. If not, now you understand why words must have meanings.

Quote:

Then debate how the concept acts. What matters is what happens, not parts of speech.

Exactly, and people determine what happens, concepts don't. Concepts don't determine anything. Concepts do not think.

Quote: Mission146

Read the dissenting opinion of Citizens United. There. Explained.

So you have no opinion of your own?

Quote:

Honestly, what I would do with campaign reform is just have three simple rules:

1.) All donations related to a candidate running for office must be made directly to the campaign of that candidate.

2.) Donations may be unlimited.

3.) The sources of all donations that are accepted must be disclosed within a period of no greater than 24 hours from the time the donations are accepted. Attempted donations that are rejected by the candidate's campaign need not be disclosed.

#1 is a huge problem. It totally takes away the ability to speak on an issue. And why should someone else not be able to speak? For example, the late John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns for POTUS in modern history. If I really did not want Obama to win, why would I give him money? To waste? Or go back to 2004, Bush43 largely did not question Kerry's military claims. Luckily we had some vets who organized and did so.

2/3 I got no problem with. Maybe make it 72 hours, though.

Quote:

So, I say let corporations donate whatever they want (which is technically less restrictive than the current laws), but let's keep it as above-board and transparent as possible.

They'd barely even need to have debates. If I saw donation money pouring in for one candidate (and accepted) from a crap ton of banks I'm going to think, "Homeboy has said he's going to deregulate the hell out of the banks," no thanks. The probability of my voting for the other candidate has already shot way up. The health insurance industry is backing Candidate Y heavily, okay, no thank you on Candidate Y. Don't like where Candidate Y's money is coming from.

Sadly, you will not vote for anyone at that rate.

Quote:

I'm splitting hairs by insisting that words must mean something? Let's just have a discussion where words don't mean what they mean, then, my opening argument is thus:

Doggie shuffle Chocolate M&M's circumnavigating verandas as Mt. Rushmore descends into eternal darkness.

Now, if you can guess what the hell that means (which I don't even know) we can continue. If not, now you understand why words must have meanings.

It means chocolate M&Ms should be kept as a prep in case of disaster.



Exactly, and people determine what happens, concepts don't. Concepts don't determine anything. Concepts do not think.

So Missons punishment for bashing Chritianity is an afternoon having a philosophical discussion with az and eb.
Seems appropriate.

Quote: AZDuffman

My view is that people do not lose rights just because they organize as a legal entity for legal protections. I don't get your hang-up about it.

The rights of foreign shareholders are certainly being represented.

Quote: billryan

So Missons punishment for bashing Chritianity is an afternoon having a philosophical discussion with az and eb.
Seems appropriate.

Calling this a, "Philosophical discussion," is an insult to Philosophy. Words have to have meanings in order for a philosophical discussion to be taking place.

Quote: AZDuffman

So you have no opinion of your own?

Not one that wouldn't be wasted arguing definitions to common words.

Quote:

#1 is a huge problem. It totally takes away the ability to speak on an issue. And why should someone else not be able to speak? For example, the late John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns for POTUS in modern history. If I really did not want Obama to win, why would I give him money? To waste? Or go back to 2004, Bush43 largely did not question Kerry's military claims. Luckily we had some vets who organized and did so.

2/3 I got no problem with. Maybe make it 72 hours, though.

You have a fair point on #1, I suppose that would be fine as long as the PAC's and Super PAC's have to announce specifically that they are the ones running the ads (as they do now), are made to specifically disclose (door-to-door and at events) that they do not necessarily represent the views of the campaign and are also subject to the same reporting requirements for donations as the candidates would be. (i.e. Have to report all of them that they accept)

That way someone could watch an attack ad against a candidate and say, "Let's see the Coalition for a Greater America," sponsored this attack ad...let's see where those guys get their money. Oh, Big Pharma. Okay, well, I can pretty much disregard that ad.

Quote:

Sadly, you will not vote for anyone at that rate.

So be it. I already have to take my medicine to vote for anyone as it is.

Quote:

It means chocolate M&Ms should be kept as a prep in case of disaster.

Not a bad idea. They'd make a fair last meal if you only had a few seconds to eat something.

Quote: rxwine

The rights of foreign shareholders are certainly being represented.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with foreign interests investing in U.S. political campaigns provided it is all done above-board. I think it's fair to say that other countries of the world may have a passing interest in the policies of the people who run this country.

Noticed the vote is 15 to 16, willing to sell my vote for $3. :/}

Quote: billryan

So Missons punishment for bashing Chritianity is an afternoon having a philosophical discussion with az and eb.
Seems appropriate.

That made me laugh. God does work in mysterious ways.

Quote: Mission146

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

I think six or seven Christian denominations outperformed athiest/agnostic. I probably identify with Episcopalian though my church is closer to Baptist.

What do these faiths know that others don't. If athiest was truly the smart choice why isn't it at the top of the list?

Quote: Mission

Even then, the absolute most I would ever demand is that they have the intellectual honesty to bring themselves to admit that they don't absolutely know...but as I am sure you would have to admit...a good number of them cannot make that admission.

To many it is difficult to separate faith from knowing. In some respects everything that we know is faith. Intellectual honesty involves introspection and I will maintain that quite a large section of the population is incapable of that.

Quote:

My big thing is Evangelism, which is to say taking it outside of the church. You don't see atheists or agnostics at the County Fair passing out pamphlets called, "The Fifteen Reasons Why There Is Nothing After," or anything like that.

To be fair it is very much in the Christian mission to evangelize. I don't approve of some methods either.

Quote: Mission

Unfortunately, Evangelism takes place not only in the physical realm, but also at the ballot box, and that's where I start to get a little bit irked. You have social issues that, for some Christians, really end up being a question of the morality subscribed by their faith than anything else. What ends up happening is you have pro-life advocates, people who are anti-gay marriage and people who are against other rights that serve to enhance the social equality or expand social freedoms.

Abortion is murder. But then again so are acts of war. The Bible is clear on homosexuality, yet Jesus said that the first Commandment was love. I see plenty of problems where I think Christianity is going in the wrong direction.

Quote: Mission

Ultimately, I see Christianity as about oppression, uniformity and control more than anything else. Not that there has ever really been a point that it wasn't about that. That some of them should also be hypocrites just makes it so much better.

I see Christianity as having a very positive potential to help the poor through mission work, as spiritual guidance to help you through tough times, as a moral compass on teaching one qualities that Jesus had in forgiveness, love and peace. I see attempts to push their agenda on others as an attempt to better the world around them.

Quote: boymimbo

I think six or seven Christian denominations outperformed athiest/agnostic. I probably identify with Episcopalian though my church is closer to Baptist.

Okay, so Atheist/Agnostic did not defeat every Christian denomination. So what? We've got better numbers than most of them and we pull, "All U.S. Adults'," numbers up, whereas many Christian denominations pull those numbers down significantly.

And, again, you'll note the laughable academic achievements of those who would be described as, "Evangelicals," who are my real problem anyway.

Quote:

What do these faiths know that others don't. If athiest was truly the smart choice why isn't it at the top of the list?

I don't know, what do the Hindus know that we don't? Not only are they at the very top, they're at the very top by a considerable margin. What do Jewish people know that we don't?

Quote:

To many it is difficult to separate faith from knowing. In some respects everything that we know is faith. Intellectual honesty involves introspection and I will maintain that quite a large section of the population is incapable of that.

I will agree with what you maintain and further stipulate it is that lack of capacity for introspection that makes them idiots. Further, the inability to separate faith from knowing makes them idiots. I assume that everyone on this board is capable of separating faith from knowing as well as having the capacity for introspection, so I'm not insulting anyone here.

Quote:

To be fair it is very much in the Christian mission to evangelize. I don't approve of some methods either.

Well, they should Evangelize to those who actually want to hear it. Fact is, as I've partially demonstrated, I have a better understanding of the Bible than a good many of them do.

Quote:

Abortion is murder. But then again so are acts of war. The Bible is clear on homosexuality, yet Jesus said that the first Commandment was love. I see plenty of problems where I think Christianity is going in the wrong direction.

I have absolutely no problems with any of those positions. I disagree that abortion is murder, but I imagine that is just a difference opinion as pertains to the time that, "Life," begins. You can't murder something that is not alive.

Quote:

I see Christianity as having a very positive potential to help the poor through mission work, as spiritual guidance to help you through tough times, as a moral compass on teaching one qualities that Jesus had in forgiveness, love and peace. I see attempts to push their agenda on others as an attempt to better the world around them.

Everything except the last part is fine with me and the first part is just terrific.

On pushing their agendas:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20 (Too long to quote, you can look it up) basically says that it has to be a choice. You can either live according to the word of God, or not, but it's not anything that someone can force you to do.

Psalms 37 (Basically the whole thing) is also quite informative on the matter. It basically says not to be upset because of evil men or envious of wrongdoers because, in the end, they're screwed anyway.

In other words, Christians need only worry about their own actions on this Earth and not those of other people, so there is no reason to restrict or attempt to restrict the actions of other people. Legislatively, or otherwise.

Twenty Minutes

1.) Baptist Pastor turns blind eye to sexual assaults involving youth pastor and 15-16 year old girl:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/video/3839481-police-baptist-pastor-turned-blind-eye-to-child-sexual-assaults/

From the video:

Quote:

Women just have to be submissive to the men and Mike. There's no women leadership positions, or anything. It's all ran by men and whatever they say goes, women don't have a voice."

The assistant youth pastor was married, because, of course he was.

2.) Anglican Minister sues former youth pastor for sexual abuse:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article217290385.html

Quote:

The lawsuit says the abuse began around 1986 when, distraught over her father’s death in a car crash, Roach welcomed the attention from Tebbutt, then 27. The abuse occurred in Tebbutt’s office, in his car and out of town when he traveled with her, according to the lawsuit.

When Roach reported the abuse in late 1988, the lawsuit alleges, church officials at first didn’t believe her and asked if she was making the claims “for attention,” then later advised her to “forgive and forget” and never speak about it again “because such verbalizations would cause damage to the reputation of the church and would sully the reputation of Jesus himself.”

Be quiet about this because it will make Jesus look bad!

He apparently confessed to the abuse, by the way.

Keep it classy, Baptists!

3.) Catholic sex abuse cover-ups may go all the way up to the Pope:

https://www.manchestertimes.com/news/world/letter-vatican-knew-about-disgraced-archbishop-s-behavior/article_e409cf35-f4f8-534d-9233-85347be01aca.html

Quote:

Coupled with the devastating allegations of sex abuse and cover-up in a recent Pennsylvania grand jury report — which found that 300 priests had abused more than 1,000 children over 70 years in six dioceses — the scandal has led to calls for heads to roll and for a full Vatican investigation into who knew what and when about McCarrick.

300 priests and over 1,000 children!? Damn! I guess they want to make sure they keep up with the Baptists.

4.) Not Religious that I know of, but here's a white dude shooting the place up because he lost a video game in Jacksonville:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/26/us/jacksonville-madden-shooting/index.html

I don't believe that was in the offensive playbook.

5.) Damn! You've got to watch these Youth Directors, Methodist, this time:

http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Van-Alstyne-church-youth-director-arrested-on-sex-crimes-491695551.html

Forever and ever, amen.

6.) You want convictions? I've got them. This youth pastor gets hit with fifteen years for a long string of underage voyeurism:

https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-youth-pastor-sentenced-to-15-years-for-secretly-filming-partially-clothed-girls

My advice to parents is not to allow their kids to go to dangerous places unsupervised...such as church youth retreats.

7.) Let's throw in a Boy Scout Troop Leader for good measure:

https://lancasteronline.com/news/national/former-boy-scout-leader-admits-sexually-assaulting-scouts/article_8f37a0ae-2b7c-5f13-9c5d-3effa8613883.html

Naturally, he's white.

----

That's all for now. It only took me twenty minutes to research and write that and these are only events within (snicker) the last five days.

Maybe we should make a flier to send out to churches and have the, "Five Day Challenge," how it will work is that the churches all need to work together to go five days without anyone from the churches making it into the news for gross sexual imposition of a minor or any other sex crimes related to minors.

Just for the record, I also blame the parents for leaving their kids unattended with people such as youth pastors. I think it's rampant enough that it should be something that you don't want to do. Better to avoid the church entirely, of course, but if not...don't take your eyes off of your kids while you're there!

If anyone on this board is a youth pastor, I am absolutely not referring to you.

By the way, why do you suppose these things so rarely make national news? Do you think it might be because the news stations don't want to p*** off their viewership? Just a theory.

Quote: AZDuffman

Your defining of mass shootings is selective as well.

You are aware that whites are most of the population so “most” is to be expected, no?

Still waiting on proof of “99%” tho.

Well, while you waited another shooting with numerous dead and a good group more injured occured at a madden tournament in Jacksonville that even had a live streamer who was streaming the event (and caught the shooting).

...spoiler: It was a young white american guy.
https://www.sbnation.com/2018/8/26/17783948/shooting-jacksonville-madden-tournament-police-report

We absolutely have a religion and christian problem in the US. Let's look at the data of how many of these terrible events are done by christians, vs islam... yet you're in this thread posting we have an ISLAM problem. That's got to be the definition of Islamophobia, ignorance, and intolerance.

Quote: Romes

Well, while you waited another shooting with numerous dead and a good group more injured occured at a madden tournament in Jacksonville that even had a live streamer who was streaming the event (and caught the shooting).

...spoiler: It was a young white american guy.
https://www.sbnation.com/2018/8/26/17783948/shooting-jacksonville-madden-tournament-police-report

We absolutely have a religion and christian problem in the US. Let's look at the data of how many of these terrible events are done by christians, vs islam... yet you're in this thread posting we have an ISLAM problem. That's got to be the definition of Islamophobia, ignorance, and intolerance.

When Christians scream "GOD IS GOOD" as they blow themselves up, then we can talk about having a "Christian Problem." Yes, I know we have had some abortion clinic violence. Still far less than being killed in the name of islam.

So, after this one you need to find just what, 97 more before the next non-white guy shooting?

What you call "islamophobia" I call having my eyes wide open. BTW: Islam is the most intolerant religion around. I find is so amusing that the liberals who hide from Christianity like a vampire from a cross keep defending islam. One of those things I wish someone would explain.

Quote: AZDuffman

[

When Christians scream "GOD IS GOOD" as they blow themselves up, then we can talk about having a "Christian Problem." Yes, I know we have had some abortion clinic violence. Still far less than being killed in the name of islam.

How about all of those news stories that I just linked to, again, all within the last five days?

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord,
He is trampling through the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored."

But, why isn't the Lord busy protecting those children from sexual predators inside of his own house, instead?

Quote:

What you call "islamophobia" I call having my eyes wide open. BTW: Islam is the most intolerant religion around. I find is so amusing that the liberals who hide from Christianity like a vampire from a cross keep defending islam. One of those things I wish someone would explain.

What you call, "Vitriol," I call having my eyes wide open. BTW: Baptism is the most intolerant religious denomination around. I find it so amusing that the Christian Conservatives who hide from these facts and stories continue to denigrate other cultures and religions. One of those things I wish someone would explain.

I don't think anyone from this Forum is guilty of any of these things, by the way.

Quote: AZDuffman

When Christians scream "GOD IS GOOD" as they blow themselves up, then we can talk about having a "Christian Problem." ...

So THAT is your qualification for a religion problem? Not the fact that by numbers christians kill/murder/steal/etc/etc/etc like 1000000x more than any other religion in the US? So if I started a new religion that yelled "MY god is good" as I blew myself up, then my made up religion that contains (well, "contained") just me in it is more of a problem than the christian religion? That's pure ignorance to data.

Quote: AZDuffman

What you call "islamophobia" I call having my eyes wide open. BTW: Islam is the most intolerant religion around. I find is so amusing that the liberals who hide from Christianity like a vampire from a cross keep defending islam. One of those things I wish someone would explain.

Here you say "the most intolerant" (emphasis added) but what I'd argue is all religions are intolerant, and overall bad for the world. I'm agnostic, but was born and raised catholic with sunday school followed by mass every sunday. I learned for myself by asking questions no one would (or could) answer that religion is something that sounds good on paper, but fails horrifically due to the imperfections in human nature. Religion as a whole is a sham, in my opinion... so comparing one to another is just silly for starters, but after that if you are going to compare them, then look at the data and facts. Christians are BEYOND COMPARISON the largest problem (when viewing by religion) america has. It's not even a contest. CLEARLY americans should ban christianity.

Quote: Romes

So THAT is your qualification for a religion problem? Not the fact that by numbers christians kill/murder/steal/etc/etc/etc like 1000000x more than any other religion in the US? So if I started a new religion that yelled "MY god is good" as I blew myself up, then my made up religion that contains (well, "contained") just me in it is more of a problem than the christian religion? That's pure ignorance to data.

I will wait for that stat on Christian crimes vs everyone else. Still waiting on the white guys killing 99% as well.

Quote:

Here you say "the most intolerant" (emphasis added) but what I'd argue is all religions are intolerant, and overall bad for the world. I'm agnostic, but was born and raised catholic with sunday school followed by mass every sunday. I learned for myself by asking questions no one would (or could) answer that religion is something that sounds good on paper, but fails horrifically due to the imperfections in human nature. Religion as a whole is a sham, in my opinion... so comparing one to another is just silly for starters, but after that if you are going to compare them, then look at the data and facts. Christians are BEYOND COMPARISON the largest problem (when viewing by religion) america has. It's not even a contest. CLEARLY americans should ban christianity.

Please make some cites for Christians being a "problem." Yeah, they are not into abortion or gay sex. Those not into that need not apply. Please show me Christians crashing planes into buildings, making "no-go" zones, planning bombings of tunnels and bridges, and shooting up nightclubs and government buildings in the name of their religion.

It takes a higher intellectual capacity to be able to determine one religion is bad while others have been good. To separate "islam" from "good muslims someone knows." To call out the problem as it is happening as it is with islam.

For fun, compare and contrast how free islamic countries and societies are vs. Christian countries and societies. Show me where Christians are killing women for the crime of BEING raped. Show me a Christian society where the government whips people for having a koran.

Oh, and please link to your stats!

Quote: AZDuffman

Please make some cites for Christians being a "problem." Yeah, they are not into abortion or gay sex. Those not into that need not apply. Please show me Christians crashing planes into buildings, making "no-go" zones, planning bombings of tunnels and bridges, and shooting up nightclubs and government buildings in the name of their religion.

Those youth pastors' stories that are all from within the last five days sure seem to be into some underage sex, though. Why you ducking me, bro? I thought you liked to debate me. I cited all of them.

Anyway, those parents who don't like having their kids diddled need not apply, either. Dead serious, if I had my kids in a church, I wouldn't let them out of my sight.

Quote:

It takes a higher intellectual capacity to be able to determine one religion is bad while others have been good. To separate "islam" from "good muslims someone knows." To call out the problem as it is happening as it is with islam.

It takes a high intellectual capacity to categorically discriminate? That's a new thought.

Honestly, the vast majority of religions are fundamentally good. The majority of religious adherents are fundamentally good, (despite the fact that many of them---but none who post on this forum---are a little bit stupid) but there are some individuals and sects who are not good. There are some otherwise good individuals who succumb to temptation and do bad things, with exception to Chomos, who are NEVER good people.

Much like political philosophies, a religion cannot, "Act," only people can act.

Quote:

For fun, compare and contrast how free islamic countries and societies are vs. Christian countries and societies. Show me where Christians are killing women for the crime of BEING raped. Show me a Christian society where the government whips people for having a koran.

Oh, and please link to your stats!

Yeah, except this isn't a Christian country. This is a country that allows for the practice of any and all religions provided no other laws are violated in the process. So, your point really boils down to, "Free countries tend to be free countries," well, no s**t.

Quote: Mission146

Those youth pastors' stories that are all from within the last five days sure seem to be into some underage sex, though. Why you ducking me, bro? I thought you liked to debate me. I cited all of them.

Anyway, those parents who don't like having their kids diddled need not apply, either. Dead serious, if I had my kids in a church, I wouldn't let them out of my sight.

I don't have time to answer them all, TLDR.

Quote:

It takes a high intellectual capacity to categorically discriminate? That's a new thought.

Honestly, the vast majority of religions are fundamentally good. The majority of religious adherents are fundamentally good, (despite the fact that many of them---but none who post on this forum---are a little bit stupid) but there are some individuals and sects who are not good. There are some otherwise good individuals who succumb to temptation and do bad things, with exception to Chomos, who are NEVER good people.

Much like political philosophies, a religion cannot, "Act," only people can act.

I am not discriminating at all. I am sounding an alarm. Islam is not compatible with western societies. Look at what is currently happening in Europe. Look at the disaster that was made of Lebanon. When the muslim population hits a 10% or so minority in a country, violence is just around the corner. Don't say you were not warned.

Quote:

Yeah, except this isn't a Christian country. This is a country that allows for the practice of any and all religions provided no other laws are violated in the process. So, your point really boils down to, "Free countries tend to be free countries," well, no s**t.

Sorry, but historically it is. Societal values and laws are based on Christian (actually Judeo-Christian) values and teachings. Go to a military cemetery and notice the number of crosses. Notice that POTUS swears in on a bible. Unlike an islamic country, outside religions are not banned. But your society has Christian roots from the first landings.

Quote: AZDuffman

But your society has Christian roots from the first landings.

Quote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Mission146

Those youth pastors' stories that are all from within the last five days sure seem to be into some underage sex, though. Why you ducking me, bro? I thought you liked to debate me. I cited all of them.

Anyway, those parents who don't like having their kids diddled need not apply, either. Dead serious, if I had my kids in a church, I wouldn't let them out of my sight.

I don't have time to answer them all, TLDR.



I am not discriminating at all. I am sounding an alarm. Islam is not compatible with western societies. Look at what is currently happening in Europe. Look at the disaster that was made of Lebanon. When the muslim population hits a 10% or so minority in a country, violence is just around the corner. Don't say you were not warned.



Sorry, but historically it is. Societal values and laws are based on Christian (actually Judeo-Christian) values and teachings. Go to a military cemetery and notice the number of crosses. Notice that POTUS swears in on a bible. Unlike an islamic country, outside religions are not banned. But your society has Christian roots from the first landings.

Rumors are that Trump wanted to be sworn in on his phony autobiography, The Art of the Deal, and to publish a special Inurgeration Edition.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: Mission146

Those youth pastors' stories that are all from within the last five days sure seem to be into some underage sex, though. Why you ducking me, bro? I thought you liked to debate me. I cited all of them.

Anyway, those parents who don't like having their kids diddled need not apply, either. Dead serious, if I had my kids in a church, I wouldn't let them out of my sight.

I don't have time to answer them all, TLDR.



I am not discriminating at all. I am sounding an alarm. Islam is not compatible with western societies. Look at what is currently happening in Europe. Look at the disaster that was made of Lebanon. When the muslim population hits a 10% or so minority in a country, violence is just around the corner. Don't say you were not warned.



Sorry, but historically it is. Societal values and laws are based on Christian (actually Judeo-Christian) values and teachings. Go to a military cemetery and notice the number of crosses. Notice that POTUS swears in on a bible. Unlike an islamic country, outside religions are not banned. But your society has Christian roots from the first landings.

Rumors are that Trump wanted to be sworn in on his phony autobiography, The Art of the Deal, and to publish a special Inurgeration Edition.

That's a good one. Hadn't heard it before. I bet it at least got discussed.

Swearing in on a Bible is custom, not required, anywhere.

Quote: rxwine

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,.

I am not talking about a state religion. That clause was to prevent a USA version of The Church of England. That does not mean that >90% of the country was Christian, and even to modern times probably 3/4.