You believe Muslims are scary, dangerous people
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 17:06
VIEWED: 9833
PAGE 10 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.
So, religious folk have no business being a part of the govt ? Is THAT what you're saying ?
No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.
Quote:
And Anthony, to answer your question, the persecution of Santorum seems proof enough for me.
You call being the GOP front-runner "persecution"? Wow. You REALLY must not think very much of your candidates if you think that being their favorite equals "persecution".
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.
You mean like the religion of global warming ?
Because the scam of carbon credits and paying car companies with tax payer money to produce electric cars which no one wants...yeah, that pretty much is an attempt to dictate MY behavior.
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.
You mean like the religion of global warming ?
Can you show me one of their churches? Do they have tax-free status?
Do you believe evolution is a religion as well?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Evolution is a fact. I don't have to pay to acknowledge that. Do you ?
" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Evolution is a fact. I don't have to pay to acknowledge that. Do you ?
Do I have to pay to acknowledge climate change? You've acknowledged it before, saying it's always changing. How much did that cost you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because the scam of carbon credits and paying car companies with tax payer money to produce electric cars which no one wants...yeah, that pretty much is an attempt to dictate MY behavior.
So, to address you added comments...
Do you consider the military-industrial complex and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon to be in Iran, it seems!) to be "scams" and religions as well? I mean, you've often advocated taking taxpayers money to produce weapons of war and send men to fight in wars, which is a BLATANT attempt to dictate behavior.
Or are you just confused about what "religion" is? You seem to think climate change is a religion, but hinge that belief on the idea that it might cost you money or dictate your behavior.
So are you saying that Rick Santorum WILL cost you money, and he WILL dictate your behavior?
Or were you just making yet another clumsy comparison, and failing utterly to make the point you think you're trying to make?
ETA: Would you consider taxpayer subsidies for gas companies a similar attempt to dictate your behavior, in an effort to get you to keep driving a gas-guzzler? Is your car your religion, then?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?
I'll take that one.
George Quayle Cannon, 1882 - cause he was Mormon.
Brigham Henry Roberts, 1898 - cause he was Mormon.
Reed Owen Smoot, 1902 - cause he was Mormon.
Notice a pattern here ?
Mind you, I couldn't care less about Romney being a Mormon, despite the corruption within their religion which I despise, comparable to that of Catholocism or other factions, those who are not part of that corruption are in fact closer to "friendly" status with me than other branches of Christianity - not to mention I'm such a hardass about religious freedom I'll stand to for even those I despise, such as Phelps and Westboro, or the FLDS, much to the ire of others but if you want a right respected when you exercise it then you have a moral obligation to defend it when others do.
Even if you can't stand em.
My opposition to Romney has nothing to do with his beliefs, and everything to do with some pretty heinous conduct even his own beliefs consider beyond the pale.
But yes, the good ole US of A can, and indeed HAS, booted folk from office or refused to seat them for their religion, in all three cases above, AFTER they were duly elected.
Which, when you add the matter of Victor L Berger and others to the mix, means our elections themselves are just a dog and pony show when Congress isn't bound by their results.
Do y'all really think if we ever put one over on the system and actually managed to successfully elect a reformist candidate or one not on their leash they'd actually SEAT him ?
Get real - that's what the folk of Wisconsin thought when they elected Berger, TWICE.
Might be worth thinkin about what you'd do when that happens.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here is where you're wrong.
There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.
You don't read posts by anyone do you? Or at least not posts that are more than a few lines long. In some predominantly Muslim countries, sharia law forms the basis of the Law, a bit like Christian Judeo traditions form the basis of Western laws. In some Muslim countries, sharia only applies to civil matters. Some countries practice a very strict interpretation of sharia. Many of the laws would come from tribal practice rather than what Islam dictates.
Quote:
Sharia law is literally being practiced, all across the Muslim world, right now. A man is facing a death sentence for the CRIME of renouncing his belief in Islam. Your irrational fear mongering about Santorum, or any on the 'religious right' would have folks believe that we're mere months away from installing some sort of Christian version of Sharia law. The fact of the matter is, in 200+ years of this country's existence, that's NEVER been the case. How you think anyone would be capable of taking this entire nation back to the era of the Salem witch trials, from merely electing 1 man as President, is even more hype and hysteria than what you accuse others of having against Islam , as it's being practiced right now.
I don't see anyone here condoning those sort of laws, those sort of practices. Who supports stoning? Who supports amputation of limbs? Who supports female circumsision? Who supports theocracies?
No one here would condone any of those practises. But that isn't the issue, as I see it anyway.
The issue as I see it -
what is the role of one nation when another has laws and practices that go against the ethics/values/morals of the other?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?
I'll take that one.
George Quayle Cannon, 1882 - cause he was Mormon.
Brigham Henry Roberts, 1898 - cause he was Mormon.
Reed Owen Smoot, 1902 - cause he was Mormon.
Notice a pattern here ?
So true. As silly as imagining a Black man as president.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Feh, I could care less that Obama is black, he's still a gutless pansy, and one ain't got shit to do with the other.
I only care about the ability and efficiency of someone in a public office, not their morality or ethnicity - especially not their morality.. hell, hump anyone you want so long as it's consensual, just don't hump the public.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME