Republican Debate

[strummingram]

Actually, you are wrong there. It is people like yourself that need to be convinced and here is why. Society became less racist when society began to shame racism. You didn't have to go out and kill the Klan folks, and there were plenty of otherwise decent people believe it or not, that were members of the Klan, just as there is with Muslims. What needed to happen and what did happen is society overall began to take a dim view of their racism and of course, laws began to be enforced against terrorist actions they would take.

The second thing is it behooves us to understand the enemy (radical Islam) if we are going to prevail over it. You know why barbarism escalated from Al Qaeda to ISIS with ISIS coming up with new levels of atrocities increasingly and putting it on youtube? This is why. This is their mentality. Every time they did something terrible, whether Bush or Obama and the West in general, we'd go out and say what a wonderful religion Islam is. In their mindset then, they are winning. Their goal is to promote Islam and so they come up with something even worse and they keep getting their desired results; people like an American president defending Islam.

Bet they can't believe it. Never in their wildest dreams did they believe they could get the West to actually promote Islam and now they have found a winning formula; just commit the worst atrocities their religion allows and advertise that to the world, and they can then get the leaders of western, non-Muslim nations to promote Islam and teach everyone how wonderful it is.

READ THIS IF YOU DON'T READ ANYTHING........Jihad is only acceptable if it promotes Islam. IF THE JIHADISTS BELIEVED THEIR ACTIONS WOULD CAUSE HARM TO ISLAM, THAT THE WORLD WOULD REJECT ISLAM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO QUIT BASED ON THEIR RELIGION. Every time you, Obama, Bush, Merkel, etc,....defend Islam, that vindicates their actions in their eyes.

Look... I'm already "convinced" that the religious tenets are not something I condone. Okay? Are you understanding this?

You're wasting your time trying to get me to hate them and want them all dead. Maybe try converting some of THEM to YOUR religion? See, that would be more proactive. I'm already opposed to being Muslim. You don't need to convince me. I'm never going to convert to Islam. I'm safe. But, I'm also not going to help you in your crusade to get everyone else to hate them. To me, that's no different from the sh*t their radicals are doing. N'est-ce pas?

 

[strummingram]

1. No one is saying all Muslims are rapists.

I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that that is exactly the message you're conveying! You need to change your method. You make absolutely no distinctions between Muslim A or Muslim B in these rants about how Islam is inherently evil.

 

[uncboy10]

1. No one is saying all Muslims are rapists.

2. Christianity did reform itself by listening to the Christians that always clung to Jesus' teachings.

3. We were not founded or reformed based on what you call secular values. That's a myth. We reformed on Christian values. The idea of separation of Church and State (an idea which the modern concept of separation is the opposite of in many ways) did not stem from secularists. It stemmed from the Anabaptists and other evangelicals before them. That's a historical fact.

That's who pushed for keeping government out of religious affairs. Secularists actually for centuries held an opposite view, namely we had to use government to enforce religious ideology for the sake of unity and power, and they do the same today except it's not a religious ideology but a liberal one.

And no one said that Islam is a "great religion" but that doesn't stop you from accusing people of saying it.

And uh... Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, upon which the separation of church and state was founded. Jefferson was as much a Christian as I am.

Secularists actually for centuries tried to enforce religious ideology... Okay now I see what I'm dealing with here. Moving on.

 

[strummingram]

We are much less racist than we used to be. You can quibble it's still around and probably always will be, but shaming overt racism worked. Shaming Islam would as well.

It only "works" when rational people realize that every other person is his or her equal. It really has nothing to do with race, at it's core.

There is just as much racism and tribalism as there ever was. It has shifted it's form, but tribalism is very much alive. You and your Islamic enemies are proof of that.

 

[randman1]

Look... I'm already "convinced" that the religious tenets are not something I condone. Okay? Are you understanding this?

You're wasting your time trying to get me to hate them and want them all dead. Maybe try converting some of THEM to YOUR religion? See, that would be more proactive. I'm already opposed to being Muslim. You don't need to convince me. I'm never going to convert to Islam. I'm safe. But, I'm also not going to help you in your crusade to get everyone else to hate them. To me, that's no different from the sh*t their radicals are doing. N'est-ce pas?

Where do you get the idea I hate them? I don't hate them. Nor neo-Nazis, communists or whomever. But you are basically defending evil by suggesting condemning religious sanctioned murder and rape are tantamount to personal hatred of individuals. That's what you are doing and it's wrong.

 

[randman1]

It only "works" when rational people realize that every other person is his or her equal. It really has nothing to do with race, at it's core.

There is just as much racism and tribalism as there ever was. It has shifted it's form, but tribalism is very much alive. You and your Islamic enemies are proof of that.

Well, tribalism isn't always a bad thing first of all. Sure, racism and tribalism that rejects the humanity of others is wrong. But preferring one's children over others is arguably tribalism. Yet it is the duty of parents to take care of their kids, and it's the duty of the government to protect and favor Americans. The issue is how it's done and whether wickedness and injustice is sanctioned.

Moreover, I don't think you see everyone as equal because if you did, you'd condemn the ideologies and practices harming so many and yet you defend genocide basically by suggesting condemnation of genocide makes one a hater.

 

[randman1]

And no one said that Islam is a "great religion" but that doesn't stop you from accusing people of saying it.

And uh... Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, upon which the separation of church and state was founded. Jefferson was as much a Christian as I am.

Secularists actually for centuries tried to enforce religious ideology... Okay now I see what I'm dealing with here. Moving on.

No one said that? Guess you didn't hear Obama say that at the UN or Bush before him, though not at the UN.

 

[randman1]

And no one said that Islam is a "great religion" but that doesn't stop you from accusing people of saying it.

And uh... Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, upon which the separation of church and state was founded. Jefferson was as much a Christian as I am.

Secularists actually for centuries tried to enforce religious ideology... Okay now I see what I'm dealing with here. Moving on.

Jefferson was lobbied by the Baptists and was convinced by them. Plus, we had a few centuries of evangelicals arguing for this, and of course, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island putting it into practice showing it worked long before Jefferson came on the scene.

Unfortunately, you may not realize these things because you were taught an incorrect view of history, as if Jefferson or secularists came up with these ideas or were the principal force advocating them. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Separation of church and state" was an Anabaptist slogan before the American colonies were even established, and a Donatist one back in the 4th century. That's where the term comes from, and many of those advocating it paid dearly for it, with their lives.

The average ministry life-span of a Swiss brethren evangelist (anabaptist evangelicals) was about 18 months before being killed.

 

[strummingram]

Moreover, I don't think you see everyone as equal because if you did, you'd condemn the ideologies and practices harming so many and yet you defend genocide basically by suggesting condemnation of genocide makes one a hater.

We have a very different understanding of how a person achieves "seeing everyone as equal." Rule #1 You do not condemn others. Rule #2- See rule #1

It's a bit esoteric, and very unpopular, but when we all apply it, then we all achieve it. My fingers are crossed.

 

[strummingram]

No one said that? Guess you didn't hear Obama say that at the UN or Bush before him, though not at the UN.

Then why aren't you in DC or Crawford, Texas bitching at the culprits instead of arguing with us here?

 

[randman1]

We have a very different understanding of how a person achieves "seeing everyone as equal." Rule #1 You do not condemn others. Rule #2- See rule #1

It's a bit esoteric, and very unpopular, but when we all apply it, then we all achieve it. My fingers are crossed.

So your comments calling me and others haters is not a condemnation of others?

Really?

You are condemning others. I am condemning ideas.

 

[strummingram]

Well, tribalism isn't always a bad thing first of all. Sure, racism and tribalism that rejects the humanity of others is wrong. But preferring one's children over others is arguably tribalism. Yet it is the duty of parents to take care of their kids, and it's the duty of the government to protect and favor Americans. The issue is how it's done and whether wickedness and injustice is sanctioned.

Moreover, I don't think you see everyone as equal because if you did, you'd condemn the ideologies and practices harming so many and yet you defend genocide basically by suggesting condemnation of genocide makes one a hater.

I'm not here to condemn others. Okay? I am trying my very best to never condemn others. Everything in this world and this life is relative. I'm going to reiterate that, because it deserves reiterating: Everything in this world and this life is relative.

Now, what I am seeing from you, is someone who identifies as a Christian and a conservative. Those are two of the most indistinct illusion labels we have in our lexicon. Same with Liberal and secularist. I'm never all one thing or another, all the time. It stands to reason that no one else is either. You dislike what you are convinced Islam promotes. I agree with you there. It does, obviously, produce some very unsavory people who are dangerous. I solve the problem for myself, by choosing not to subscribe to the religion. That is an objective that I know I can accomplish, and have accomplished. I am not interested in participating in anything that is fear-based. Trying to get others to deride, hate, condemn a group of people you don't know, based on your interpretation of their religion, is an activity based in fear. I'm just not interested in going along with you, or anyone, who does that. In fact, I'll be more likely to fervently resist it, vocally (as you've seen here).

Here's to hoping you get it figured out. It seems to be eating you up inside.

 

[strummingram]

So your comments calling me and others haters is not a condemnation of others?

Really?

You are condemning others. I am condemning ideas.

I didn't call you a hater. you called yourself one. You display it. I simply commented on what you're openly exhibiting about yourself.

By the way, if it's the "ideas" you're condemning, then stop condemning the people. No one here supports or condones the ideas. Mission accomplished.

 

[randman1]

I didn't call you a hater. you called yourself one. You display it. I simply commented on what you're openly exhibiting about yourself.

By the way, if it's the "ideas" you're condemning, then stop condemning the people. No one here supports or condones the ideas. Mission accomplished.

Pathetic. You do and are condemning others. I am condemning ideas and you equate that with condemning people. You are defending the rapists, murderers and the like by attacking those calling those things out as evil, and you are, once again, condemning others.

 

[strummingram]

Pathetic. You do and are condemning others. I am condemning ideas and you equate that with condemning people. You are defending the rapists, murderers and the like by attacking those calling those things out as evil, and you are, once again, condemning others.

I'm not "attacking" you. I just don't feel the need to condemn and hate these people like you do. Oh, I'm sorry, these "ideas", the way you do.

 

[randman1]

I'm not "attacking" you. I just don't feel the need to condemn and hate these people like you do. Oh, I'm sorry, these "ideas", the way you do.

You just feel the need to hate and condemn those that rightly care about people being forced into sex slavery, gang-raped and murdered.

 

[strummingram]

You just feel the need to hate and condemn those that rightly care about people being forced into sex slavery, gang-raped and murdered.

Where am I "hating and condemning" you??? By not agreeing with your tactics and attitude? I even tried offering you advice on how best to stem the ever-growing risk as you see it.

If you care so much, stop preaching to people who already don't condone it and don't indulge in it. I'm not doing any of these things! I'm just not compelled to condemn the source as you see it. Sorry. Believe me, I do NOT hate you! For the record, publicly... not a smidgen of hate here, okay? Here, I'll use this again in the same thread:

 

[randman1]

So you equate condemning Islam which promotes sex slavery, gang-rapes, murder and genocide as hating people but won't apply the same standard to yourself and admit by that standard you do hate people. You condemn those who speak out against Islam as haters of people.

 

[uncboy10]

Jefferson was lobbied by the Baptists and was convinced by them. Plus, we had a few centuries of evangelicals arguing for this, and of course, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island putting it into practice showing it worked long before Jefferson came on the scene.

Unfortunately, you may not realize these things because you were taught an incorrect view of history, as if Jefferson or secularists came up with these ideas or were the principal force advocating them. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Separation of church and state" was an Anabaptist slogan before the American colonies were even established, and a Donatist one back in the 4th century. That's where the term comes from, and many of those advocating it paid dearly for it, with their lives.

The average ministry life-span of a Swiss brethren evangelist (anabaptist evangelicals) was about 18 months before being killed.

De-establishment of already existing state religions is completely different than establishing a secular state like the United States. Religious people are always for separation of church and state, unless its their religion that is sanctioned by the state.

Enlightenment era secularists may have not been the first to come up with the idea, but they were the first to effectively put them into practice by establishing a new secular nation from the American colonies.

 

[strummingram]

So you equate condemning Islam which promotes sex slavery, gang-rapes, murder and genocide as hating people but won't apply the same standard to yourself and admit by that standard you do hate people. You condemn those who speak out against Islam as haters of people.

Whatever you say, man. It's really been a waste of time. Thank you.

 

[randman1]

De-establishment of already existing state religions is completely different than establishing a secular state like the United States. Religious people are always for separation of church and state, unless its their religion that is sanctioned by the state.

Enlightenment era secularists may have not been the first to come up with the idea, but they were the first to effectively put them into practice by establishing a new secular nation from the American colonies.

Not really true. The principle was established first in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in the American colonies and subsequent states, and the Enlightenment folks were not a factor and later just Johnny come latelys and even then only due to heavy lobbying by Baptists and others. Also, the nation was formed prior to the US Constitution (remember we were first a confederacy), and the 1st amendment per the establishment clause did not actually apply to the States. They could have and sometimes did have official religions with specific applications to hold office and that persisted until the 14th amendment.

So the reason for the establishment clause was about getting states to join and buy in without either risking their no-state religion or endangering an existing state religion. Keep in mind the famous quote of Jefferson on "separation of Church and State" which is not a phase in the Constitution was written to the Danbury Baptists. He was speaking their language in using that term, not an enlightenment secular term.

 

[randman1]

De-establishment of already existing state religions is completely different than establishing a secular state like the United States. Religious people are always for separation of church and state, unless its their religion that is sanctioned by the state.

Enlightenment era secularists may have not been the first to come up with the idea, but they were the first to effectively put them into practice by establishing a new secular nation from the American colonies.

Also, they did not establish a secular nation. That's simply incorrect since they did not challenge the States having laws based on a specific religion. They just said Congress could not do it. Moreover, in the modern sense of "secular", they definitely didn't establish a secular state. They largely rejected the secular concepts of the French revolution. They established a Republic very friendly to and pro-religion, which is the opposite of the modern idea of "secular." They just said the government can't control and regulate it.

They never passed any law forbidding religion to have influence on government, just the other way around.

 

[strummingram]

Yay! We have a Theocracy pretending to be a Republic!

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Not really true. The principle was established first in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island in the American colonies and subsequent states, and the Enlightenment folks were not a factor and later just Johnny come latelys and even then only due to heavy lobbying by Baptists and others. Also, the nation was formed prior to the US Constitution (remember we were first a confederacy), and the 1st amendment per the establishment clause did not actually apply to the States. They could have and sometimes did have official religions with specific applications to hold office and that persisted until the 14th amendment.

So the reason for the establishment clause was about getting states to join and buy in without either risking their no-state religion or endangering an existing state religion. Keep in mind the famous quote of Jefferson on "separation of Church and State" which is not a phase in the Constitution was written to the Danbury Baptists. He was speaking their language in using that term, not an enlightenment secular term.

Randman1... Just a suggestion. Discussing ANYTHING remotely related to religion with STRUM or 'boy is like ramming your head straight into a brick wall. There is no intelligence there...

 

[uncboy10]

Says the fundamentalist who thinks his highly subjective, arbitrary, and impossible to prove opinion is actually a statement of fact.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Says the fundamentalist who thinks his highly subjective, arbitrary, and impossible to prove opinion is actually a statement of fact.

Says the radical atheist, highly subjective, arbitrary, and impossible to prove rants of a 'boy lost in atheist boy land, the 'boy masquerading in pseudo-intellectuallism...

 

[uncboy10]

Says the radical atheist, highly subjective, arbitrary, and impossible to prove rants of a 'boy lost in atheist boy land, the 'boy masquerading in pseudo-intellectuallism...

Radical atheist... Lol you're always good for a laugh Nukey

 

[tazki]

"Praise for Allah" ....evil bastard

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/0...se-for-allah-plan-for-beheading/?intcmp=hpbt1

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Radical atheist... Lol you're always good for a laugh Nukey

The 'radical atheist' shoe fits you perfectly, hom-'boy.

 

[uncboy10]

The 'radical atheist' shoe fits you perfectly, hom-'boy.

Radical in the sense that I genuinely believe thinking bronze age myths are true is radically stupid.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Radical in the sense that I genuinely believe thinking bronze age myths are true is radically stupid.

Just made the point - you're radically atheist. No hope. No future. Lost. Lost in 'boy land. Gonna get real hot for you, 'boy!

 

[uncboy10]

Just made the point - you're radically atheist. No hope. No future. Lost. Lost in 'boy land. Gonna get real hot for you, 'boy!

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

You should get some fire insurance, homo-'boy.

 

[uncboy10]

You should get some fire insurance, homo-'boy.

Now you're resorting to calling me gay? lol you're too funny man...

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Now you're resorting to calling me gay? lol you're too funny man...

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it homer!

 

[strummingram]

There's a true Christian invention- Hell. A fiery hot pit, cavern, who knows... where bodies turn forever on Satan's rotisserie. Satan is even another creation of religion- Islam and Christianity are to thank for El Diablo. Jews somehow side-stepped that one.

 

[strummingram]

Now you're resorting to calling me gay? lol you're too funny man...

He's afraid of homosexuality... so, that's to be expected. If he calls you gay, then, in his mind, he's managed to insult you.

 

[uncboy10]

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it homer!

I know you intended that as an insult, but the only gay guy I know personally is one of the smartest and coolest guys I know. I'd rather be compared to him than you every day of the week.

Funny how many people who like to use the word "homo" and the like as an insult, tend to have some kind of suppressed homo-erotic tendencies themselves. But hey, you wouldn't be the first fundamentalist christian with those suppressed tendencies... You'd fit right in at the Vatican

 

[strummingram]

There's another issue that is going to sink Republicans if they refuse to drop it- homosexuality. It is becoming (or has become) an accepted aspect of human behavior. Republicans, because of their decision to let evangelicals into their political tent, are now unable to show any advocacy or tolerance, openly, for homosexuality. It's really a shame because what was once a true Republic-an party, is now becoming a party of religious zealouts, homophobes, xenophobes, and people who are always ready to go to war with a Middle Eastern country. They have no problem spending and growing government, especially if it is to instill some fundamentalist agenda.

The GOP that existed in 1964 is gone. Fiscally responsible, small government, non-interventionist has given way to the disgrace that the GOP has become. After the last GOP convention, where they literally voted away everything that resembles a Republic, and voting through delegates, I changed my status from registered Republican to Independent.

 

[randman1]

There's another issue that is going to sink Republicans if they refuse to drop it- homosexuality. It is becoming (or has become) an accepted aspect of human behavior. Republicans, because of their decision to let evangelicals into their political tent, are now unable to show any advocacy or tolerance, openly, for homosexuality. It's really a shame because what was once a true Republic-an party, is now becoming a party of religious zealouts, homophobes, xenophobes, and people who are always ready to go to war with a Middle Eastern country. They have no problem spending and growing government, especially if it is to instill some fundamentalist agenda.

The GOP that existed in 1964 is gone. Fiscally responsible, small government, non-interventionist has given way to the disgrace that the GOP has become. After the last GOP convention, where they literally voted away everything that resembles a Republic, and voting through delegates, I changed my status from registered Republican to Independent.

So you think homosexuality is the really and I mean really big issue voters are concerned with, and by golly, how in the world did they even let evangelicals into the party and vote for them.

Seriously?

How old are you? You sound like someone still naive, in college and lacking a depth of understanding of the world and people, basically sophomoric. Don't tell me, you just started your 3rd yr in college this year?