May Not Be Safe for Republicans or Christians
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
What is making sense? That I grew up in the Church and saw the true face of collectivism, and then I broke away and denounced all collectivism, even the collectivism that you love?
That's pretty broad. Do you have any specifics? Or are you just going to continue trying to troll me?
It was meant as stated. Not saying its bad, its helps me to understand why you post the way you do. Again, not meant to be a derogatory response.
I have to say, Mr. The_Devil. The post you liked, where the guy didn't even know the difference between a caliphate and a crusade...classic. Nothing like showing your ignorance by liking a post, that you don't have the education to realize, is trying to compare two difference concepts. You must have a masters in history!
And again, I'm wondering why, especially since I haven't been religious in over twenty years now.
You may have left religion 20 years ago, but its never left you. Whether you accept it or not you were for lack of a better word, brainwashed by religion.
Why am I getting lumped in here? How many times have I told you I'm not a fan of Islam. But there was a 2015 California ballot initiative brought by Christians to exterminate gay people, so I'll be keeping a wary eye on all you religious freaks.You're an idiot. Here's a photo of Muslims throwing a suspected gay man off a roof to his death. When was the last time Christians did that in the US? Well……………?
And for good measure, they stoned them once they were dead. These are the people lined up to come into the U.S. Is this what you want here? Do you think their ideas, philosophy, and attitudes change once they walk across the magical line called the United States.
You progressive are so freaking blind to the real world it makes me sick. Their animals. Plain and simple, and you want them here. Way to go WWJD and natural. Enjoy the new violence coming to the U.S. because you refuse to see the truth.
Is it Ku Klux Khristian? Because it's damned sure ISLAMIC State.
And I don't know many people who say all Muslims are pro-ISIS.
The issue to me is this. The people who DEFEND Islam do so by stating that only 10% of Muslims are radical, he'll bent on killing infidels. Well, that's all well and good, except for the fact that that amounts to 100,000,000 of them. That's a hell of a lot.
I apologize. You're right. You have said that. But what is this California initiative thing? NEVER move or visit California. They're all crazy out there. Oh, and not a religious freak.
It was a thing. I think the courts blocked it. All the Abrahamic religions can reasonably be read to support the execution of gay people. Now I think it's laudable that most religious people of all three Abrahamic traditions have decided to reject God's laws and substitute what I feel are far superior humanist ethics for those found in the various holy books. But make no mistake, the religions have not changed. The religious people have just moved beyond them to a great and hopeful degree. And you're right, people who can reason there way beyond the ancient codes are not freaks at all, apologies returned.
Wow. You could be a politician with that answer.
Here's what I say. Do your own thing and let other people do their own thing without judgment from either side.
Sound good?
THAT'S your safety?
"We don't hate people because of their race. We are a Christian organization."
-Frank Ancona, Imperial Wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK
Thanks for conceding the fact that the Christian holy book is no better than the spooky Islamic holy book. Now if we could only convince you that not all Muslims are extremists (just like not all Christians are extremists) we'll be headed in the right direction.
Does the Koran really say “Kill the infidels wherever you find them”?
Excerpt from Chapter 17: Jihad
Right-wing Web sites devoted to showing the “truth about Islam” array searing verses that seem to show the Koran offering a nearly unlimited license to kill. (A few years after 9/11, a list of “the Koran’s 111 Jihad verses” was posted on the conservative Web site freerepublic.com.) But the closer you look at the context of these verses, the more limited the license seems.
The passage most often quoted is the fifth verse of the ninth sura, long known to Muslims as the “Sword verse.” It was cited by Osama bin Laden in a famous manifesto issued in 1996, and on first reading it does seem to say that bin Laden would be justified in hunting down any non-Muslim on the planet. The verse is often translated colloquially—particularly on these right-wing Web sites—as “kill the infidels wherever you find them.”
This common translation is wrong. The verse doesn’t actually mention “infidels” but rather refers to “those who join other gods with God”—which is to say, polytheists. So, bin Laden notwithstanding, the “Sword verse” isn’t the strongest imaginable basis for attacking Christians and Jews.
Still, even if the Sword verse wasn’t aimed at Christians and Jews, it is undeniably bloody: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.” It seems that a polytheist’s only escape from this fate is to convert to Islam, “observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms.”
But the next verse, rarely quoted by either jihadists or right-wing Web sites, suggests that conversion isn’t actually necessary: “If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety.” After all, polytheists are “people devoid of knowledge.”
And the following verse suggests that whole tribes of polytheists can be spared if they’re not a military threat. If those “who add gods to God” made “a league [with the Muslims] at the sacred temple,” then “so long as they are true to you, be ye true to them; for God loveth those who fear Him.” For that matter, the verse immediately before the Sword verse also takes some of the edge off it, exempting from attack “those polytheists with whom ye are in league, and who shall have afterwards in no way failed you, nor aided anyone against you.”
In short, “kill the polytheists wherever you find them” doesn’t mean “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” It means “kill the polytheists who aren’t on your side in this particular war.”…
Excerpt from Chapter 17: Jihad
Right-wing Web sites devoted to showing the “truth about Islam” array searing verses that seem to show the Koran offering a nearly unlimited license to kill. (A few years after 9/11, a list of “the Koran’s 111 Jihad verses” was posted on the conservative Web site freerepublic.com.) But the closer you look at the context of these verses, the more limited the license seems.
The passage most often quoted is the fifth verse of the ninth sura, long known to Muslims as the “Sword verse.” It was cited by Osama bin Laden in a famous manifesto issued in 1996, and on first reading it does seem to say that bin Laden would be justified in hunting down any non-Muslim on the planet. The verse is often translated colloquially—particularly on these right-wing Web sites—as “kill the infidels wherever you find them.”
This common translation is wrong. The verse doesn’t actually mention “infidels” but rather refers to “those who join other gods with God”—which is to say, polytheists. So, bin Laden notwithstanding, the “Sword verse” isn’t the strongest imaginable basis for attacking Christians and Jews.
Still, even if the Sword verse wasn’t aimed at Christians and Jews, it is undeniably bloody: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.” It seems that a polytheist’s only escape from this fate is to convert to Islam, “observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms.”
But the next verse, rarely quoted by either jihadists or right-wing Web sites, suggests that conversion isn’t actually necessary: “If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety.” After all, polytheists are “people devoid of knowledge.”
And the following verse suggests that whole tribes of polytheists can be spared if they’re not a military threat. If those “who add gods to God” made “a league [with the Muslims] at the sacred temple,” then “so long as they are true to you, be ye true to them; for God loveth those who fear Him.” For that matter, the verse immediately before the Sword verse also takes some of the edge off it, exempting from attack “those polytheists with whom ye are in league, and who shall have afterwards in no way failed you, nor aided anyone against you.”
In short, “kill the polytheists wherever you find them” doesn’t mean “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” It means “kill the polytheists who aren’t on your side in this particular war.”…
Like the Bible, you can find justification for many things in the Quran that contradict. Some passeges are considered so cryptic only God knew what he meant. Interesting to me is that at one point Islam emphasized knowledge as the uniquely human quality God gave us. Then that got problematic for those in charge. So those in charge teamed up with fundamentalists. A great deal of current Islamic teaching doesn't come from the Quran, but from the collection of sayings and deeds of Muhammad. WWMD is the spirit of the religion and he did a lot of shit.
Thanks. That was interesting. But I wonder if the excerpted quote applies to Christianity with its Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Christians have killed each other over what that means, and if Christians can get confused, how much easier for Muslims to think that Christians are polytheists?
Just like Christianity - except that Christianity never revered knowledge, did it? Regardless, it's certainly the case that Christian fundamentalists oppose it today.
Since this thread was directed at Christians and Republicans, it's worth pointing out that nearly all the anti-knowledge fundamentalists are found in the GOP camp. Except the black ones. Which is an interesting tension.
If America every does go post racial, will the black fundamentalists jump to the GOP?
Alternatively, if we ever get a Christian fundamentalist 3rd party of consequence, will white fundamentalists leave the GOP and black fundamentalists leave the Dems? Might that make them a major party? The major party?
Suppose, for example some of our activist right-wing billionaires put their money into creating the Christian American Party. And suppose they convinced Huckabee and Carson to be on the ticket.
You know my opinion on the viability of a 3rd party in our system, so I can't see a 2nd fundamentalist party emerging when we already have one occupying that ground. There must be some interesting discussions that occur in the campaign war rooms of Rs. I imagine some white prep school types pouring over the demographic data and trying to grapple with their opinion that the black evangelical voter agrees with them. Then going through the calculation on how much effort it would take to bring them over to their side vs. how much that effort would cost them in other opportunities. Eventually the Rs are going to be forced to move beyond their base. That should be an exciting time for that party.
To your question on Christianity's relationship with knowledge, I think there are some bright spots. The Catholic Church in particular has a history of supporting scholarship. Everyone thinks Galileo, but they have moved a long ways from that position, the Big Bang guy was a priest. There are thousands of religious schools and most aren't teaching that Jesus walked with dinosaurs.
IMO, one big problem with Islam is they aren't centralized. They don't have seminaries where one must study before becoming an Imam. There is no Pope figure or authoritarian council that can hand down decisions on theology. Every Islamic preacher is sort of like an American evangelist. They are on their own to build a following and are free to sell whatever interpretation of the Quran and Muhammed they can get away with. In Christianity evangelists often come up with some hairbrained interpretations, but those are mollified by the mainline churches. There is no mainline Islamic equivalent. Maybe we need some of those Islamic states to establish official state Islamic Churches to bring order to the religion. A little statist centralization might save the world. (How do you like that Soup?)
Tell that first line to the Dem's regarding abortions... they think we should save the refugees from death but not unborn children.
Can't say just Repuber's there buddy:
The Klan was politically powerful in Jackson County, and two of Truman's opponents in the Democratic primary had Klan support.
DemocratUnited States SenatorRobert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title ofKleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme CourtHugo Black, a Democrat. In 1921, Black successfully defended E. R. Stephenson in the sensational trial for the murder of a Catholic priest Fr. James E. Coyle. He joined the Ku Klux Klan shortly after, in order to gain votes
Theodore G. Bilbo, a Democrat and United States Senator from Mississippi revealed his membership in the Ku Klux Klan in an interview on the radio program Meet the Press. He said, "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."
Bibb Graves, a Democrat, was the 38th Governor of Alabama lost his first campaign for governor in 1922, but four years later, with the secret endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan, he was elected to his first term as governor.
Clifford Walker, a Democrat and the 64th Governor of Georgia, was revealed to be a Klan member by the press in 1924
George Gordon, a Democrat and Congressman for Tennessee's 10th congressional district became one of the Klan's first members. In 1867, Gordon became the Klan's first Grand Dragon for the Realm of Tennessee
David Duke, a politician who ran in both Democrat and Republican presidential primaries, was openly involved in the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan
Stapleton, a Democrat, was mayor of Denver in the 1920s-1940s. He was a Klan member in the early 1920s and appointed fellow Klansmen to most positions in municipal government
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
The Klan was politically powerful in Jackson County, and two of Truman's opponents in the Democratic primary had Klan support.
DemocratUnited States SenatorRobert C. Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title ofKleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme CourtHugo Black, a Democrat. In 1921, Black successfully defended E. R. Stephenson in the sensational trial for the murder of a Catholic priest Fr. James E. Coyle. He joined the Ku Klux Klan shortly after, in order to gain votes
Theodore G. Bilbo, a Democrat and United States Senator from Mississippi revealed his membership in the Ku Klux Klan in an interview on the radio program Meet the Press. He said, "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."
Bibb Graves, a Democrat, was the 38th Governor of Alabama lost his first campaign for governor in 1922, but four years later, with the secret endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan, he was elected to his first term as governor.
Clifford Walker, a Democrat and the 64th Governor of Georgia, was revealed to be a Klan member by the press in 1924
George Gordon, a Democrat and Congressman for Tennessee's 10th congressional district became one of the Klan's first members. In 1867, Gordon became the Klan's first Grand Dragon for the Realm of Tennessee
David Duke, a politician who ran in both Democrat and Republican presidential primaries, was openly involved in the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan
Stapleton, a Democrat, was mayor of Denver in the 1920s-1940s. He was a Klan member in the early 1920s and appointed fellow Klansmen to most positions in municipal government
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Thanks for the hyperbole, but you're wrong. I think most Dems understand that abortion is a right for people of this country. Most of us are willing to put some boundaries around abortion. For instance, no abortion after the first trimester would be something I would support. No "human" has successfully survived before 21 weeks of gestation without support from a host (mother) so at that point it's not sustainable life.
Let's hear some compromise on the refugee situation from your side.
Wait I thought one life wasn't better than the other - oh I get it, only if it fits. You say "hyperbole" I say "hypocrite".
Even though you specifically laid out the question - "An innocent person's death is different from another innocent person's death because of the way they died?"
I agree to disagree.
If you want to claim the legacy of Lincoln, you're going to need to become the party of Lincoln once again. You have a lot of work to do to get back to the free soil movement roots of the R party. Rs have a history worthy of pride. But it means very little when you wouldn't make those historic votes today. If you need proof, simply look at who supports the reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act.
I hope you didn't go to too much trouble cutting and pasting information that everybody knows and nobody is disputing.
You titled the post "Reps and..." then include a picture of the KKK. If you don't want things pointed out about who you are in bed with then don't leave the door open. You repeatedly lump the R's all together, yet don't like it when it is returned.
The compromise is already in the works - stricter vetting of the refugees vs flat out refusal of integration.
I would like to see the POTUS and all that are saying its wrong to have concern come out and state they take 100% accountability for those coming into this country and future activities that they are associated with (good and bad). I will be the first to say "congrats" if there are no incidents within 5 years of settlement.
Simply irrelevant and, as I said, undisputed. Your attempt to deflect and distract was lame. Please try harder.
Irrelevant as it doesn't fit your narrative. Way to cast stones from a glass house.
Truly great way to make a point in Paris.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/world/muslim-man-hugs-paris-feat/index.html
An unidentified man in Paris -- site of the attacks -- wore a blindfold and held a sign saying, "Do you trust me?" inviting those at Place de la Republique to hug him.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/world/muslim-man-hugs-paris-feat/index.html
An unidentified man in Paris -- site of the attacks -- wore a blindfold and held a sign saying, "Do you trust me?" inviting those at Place de la Republique to hug him.
How is the choice between 2 wrongs a compromise?
We were already heading toward a piss-poor compromise. 10K refugees who will languish for up to 2 years while being processed.
That's already unacceptable.
We should be taking 2 million refugees and processing them in a few weeks, if not a few days.
It's pretty obvious you didn't understand the graphic in the OP. There's nothing there that links a party to the KKK. Check it out and see if you can understand the point of that graphic. I'm guessing not but, hey, I'm all about giving people second chances.
