Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[One Bad Pig]

I do. You see, I HAVE taken the time to visit those mosques and talk to its adherents.

Did you miss that lying to the infidel in advancement of Islam is honorable?

They are as appauled by the extremists in their faith as I suspect Christians are appauled when a member of the KKK or Neo-Nazi movement calls themselves "a defender of Christianity" and uses scripture verses to defend their hateful ideology.

If you'd read the Koran in chronological order, the violent nature of Islam would be inescapable. "Kill the infidel wherever you find them" is part of their scripture - and a chronologically late part at that. I'm glad if they don't like it - but it's there.

Ummm... no. Given thay extremists in the middle east have seized control of entire countries (Taliban, ISIS, etc.), you are basically going to the extremists to ask them to tell you about Islam - hence your twisted view of Islam. What you are doing is equivalent to someone disparaging all of Christianity because they listened to the ravings of the KKK. Today, the KKK is a shadow of its former power, but there was a time when it was a major force in many states, and it claimed to represent Christianity in much the same way these Islamic extremists claim to represent Islam. And the insistence on using the phrase "radical Islamic terrorists" has fed that perception, and lent credibility to a group of thugs that are hijacking a major religion.

Fortunately, the resistence to them continues, and eventually they too will go the way of the KKK.

Er, no. What you are doing here is immolating a heaping strawman. There are vastly more Muslim countries controlled by moderates than extremists. There is a tiny sect of peaceful Muslims - who are considered heretics by the mainstream and aren't even allowed to go on hajj.

Islam has been violent since Muhammed gathered enough fighters under his banner to go on the offensive. Perhaps the only reason Islam has not overrun the world is because they've killed even more of each other than anyone else.

[One Bad Pig]

When finding out what the average Muslim believes, should you ask the average Muslim, or should you ask an Imam who claims to speak for the average Muslim?

I doubt you'd be happy if some-one declared that the average Xtian believes what e.g. Steven Anderson, Joseph Ratzinger, Fred Phelps or Billy Graham claims they do. Yet you're happy to do that for Muslims.

Billy Graham is pretty mainstream evangelical, and Joseph Ratzinger was pope - i.o.w, mainstream Roman Catholic; as Trinitarians, they more or less agree on essentials. Fred Phelps was an insignificant blowhard who ran his own little church which the media was happy to amplify - there is no comparison. I have no idea who Steven Anderson is.

[Darth Executor]

amazing how angry liberals get when people attack the most illiberal mainstream religion on the planet. at this point you'd have to be borderline retarded to see liberalism as anything other than a crazed suicide cult.

[Tassman]

Did you miss that lying to the infidel in advancement of Islam is honorable?

If you'd read the Koran in chronological order, the violent nature of Islam would be inescapable. "Kill the infidel wherever you find them" is part of their scripture - and a chronologically late part at that. I'm glad if they don't like it - but it's there.

Er, no. What you are doing here is immolating a heaping strawman. There are vastly more Muslim countries controlled by moderates than extremists. There is a tiny sect of peaceful Muslims - who are considered heretics by the mainstream and aren't even allowed to go on hajj.

Islam has been violent since Muhammed gathered enough fighters under his banner to go on the offensive. Perhaps the only reason Islam has not overrun the world is because they've killed even more of each other than anyone else.

The Christian bible is full of equally violent passages:

Kill Followers of Other Religions: 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

They are not interpreted calls to violent action by most Christians today just as the more violent passages in the Koran are not interpreted this way by moderate Muslims.

[Cow Poke]

The Christian bible is full of equally violent passages:

Kill Followers of Other Religions: 1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

They are not interpreted calls to violent action by most Christians today just as the more violent passages in the Koran are not interpreted this way by moderate Muslims.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept that "Christians" are followers of "Christ", and His teachings.... Jesus instituted "the New Testament" or "New Covenant" with us. Jesus said things like "You have heard it said.... but I say...."

Here's a good example

Perhaps there's an equivalent "New Testament" type of Quran?

[Darth Executor]

They are not interpreted calls to violent action

That's because they were given to ancient Israel, not Christians. There weren't even any Christians around at the time, idiot. Conversely, the call to violence by Mahomet was given to other muslims. So all you are doing is false equivocation and putting your gross ignorance on display.

[tabibito]

... it was hardly the genocide it's often been painted as. Several factors lend to why the Inquisition got the reputation it did for witch burning, the biggest of which is the fact that certain anti-Catholic Protestant writers and preachers ballooned the numbers in order to make Catholicism out as nefarious as possible.

while at the same time conducting more executions themselves than did the inquisitions.

The secular courts were responsible for the majority of witch trials and executions, not official branches of the church like the Inquisition.

However, a prominent ranking member of the church of Rome did once point out that blaming "secular authorities" is akin to blaming the gun.

The number of people executed for witchcraft by secular courts during the 400 year period was between 30,000 to 50,000 (both men and women) and mostly in and around Germany. It was the Church that actually stepped in to stop the secular witch executions, with the Inquisition finding that most accusations of witchcraft and sorcery were unfounded, they pushed to have trials dismissed, and were skeptical of all forms of rumors, superstitions, and popular books on witchcraft. Unfortunately, popular thinking has never really let go of the Inquisition myth. ... Technomage (Oustis), Tweb's resident Wicca practitioner, used to preach against the concept of the "burning times" all the time back before the forum crash.

A number of Wiccans were indeed amenable to the facts, once they had been presented courteously.

[Tassman]

That's because they were given to ancient Israel, not Christians. There weren't even any Christians around at the time, idiot. Conversely, the call to violence by Mahomet was given to other muslims. So all you are doing is false equivocation and putting your gross ignorance on display.

AFAIK the OT constitutes part of the Christian bible, "idiot". Old and New Testament scriptures have been misinterpreted by Christians (just as the Koran has been misinterpreted by Muslims), causing the Christian religion to become an imperialistic war-mongering religion, whose adherents have believed that they were instructed by God to invade the homelands of non-Christian peoples, take possession of their lands and resources, annihilate many of the indigenous inhabitants as well as subjugate and exploit the remaining innocent indigenous peoples. The indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand bear a tragic witness to what Christian nations have done, as have also the indigenous peoples of Africa and parts of Asia.



.

[Darth Executor]

AFAIK the OT constitutes part of the Christian bible, "idiot". Old and New Testament scriptures have been misinterpreted by Christians (just as the Koran has been misinterpreted by Muslims), causing the Christian religion to become an imperialistic war-mongering religion, whose adherents have believed that they were instructed by God to

Again, you make the exact same false equivocation. The muslims are not misinterpreting anything, Mahomet really did have them become an imperialistic war-mongering religion. It was baked into the cake from the start. Conversely, the only one misinterpreting the Old Testament here by trying to apply an order given to Israel (which was not even imperialistic itself and was limited to a relatively small piece of land) to people who weren't even around at the time. You then use the misinterpretations of people like you as "evidence" that Christians and Muslims are basically the same.

[lilpixieofterror]

I vote for who best reflects my views and priorities, accepting that every vote is a compromise. Sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes Republican, sometimes 3rd party or independent. It depends on the candidate and positions taken. Obama did indeed do several things I did not approve of. Every president has. He also did things I did approve of. Every president has - even Trump. Trump pulled us out of the Paris Agreement for reasons I cannot begin to explain because I cannot trust the word of a man who has publicly told me that he will lie to me if it gets him what he wants (The Art of the Deal) and has been doing so regularly since he began his campaign. If it was to protect U.S. Industry, then I disagree. Short term economic pain is not worth the ecology or the long term economic risk, IMO. Some Americans disagree with me (mostly to the right) and some agree with me (mostly to the left), so the right tends to reject that "deal" and the left tends to be willing to accept it as "where we are." I have already spoken of my opposition to gender/racial/ethnic qoutas.

Most of this is a form of "what-about-ism." In a court of law, if someone says, "you're honor, I know I killed my neighbor, but what about that guy down the road who killed his wife?" they would be politely told that the misdeeds of another does not justify their own. Whatever Obama may or may not have done is irrelevant to the discussion of what Trump IS doing. I evaluated Obama on his own merits, and I evaluate Trump on his. So this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I am referring to ending support/advertisement for the new round of registrations mostly, and the uncertainty introduced into the market by the back/forth on subsidies. Trump could have said, "they are done" in January when he took office. Instead he sowed confusion for many months, leaving the entire industry unsure how to structure itself.

Actually, the polls were, for the most part, fairly accurate. What was inaccurate was the hype that accompanied them by the left. Clintons margin was there, but not outside the margin of error. As for what will happen in 2018 and 2020 - I am pleased by the trends I am seeing in the special elections. The consistent 10+ shift to the left bodes well for balance being restored in 2018/20. That being said, none of us truly know. As I have said before...we shall see :smile

I would agree with the assessment. I will be very surprised if the house does not shift to Democratic hands in 2018. I will be very surprised if the Senate does. In the Senate, Democrats are defending 25 seats, some in deeply Republican territory. Republicans are defending only 8. Given that a three seat shift would be required, the odds are slim to none. Picking up a seat or two, however, would narrow even further the Republican lead and require them to either work with Democrats (which I hope to see happen again - bipartisanship) or develop approaches that will appeal to both wings of their party. So far, they have no been successful doing that for major initiatives.

[Tassman]

Again, you make the exact same false equivocation. The muslims are not misinterpreting anything, Mahomet really did have them become an imperialistic war-mongering religion. It was baked into the cake from the start. Conversely, the only one misinterpreting the Old Testament here by trying to apply an order given to Israel (which was not even imperialistic itself and was limited to a relatively small piece of land) to people who weren't even around at the time. You then use the misinterpretations of people like you as "evidence" that Christians and Muslims are basically the same.

The Bible and the Koran both have a history of being made to say whatever people want them to say. And just as the Koran is read by some as a command to subdue and convert non Muslim nations so has the Bible. E.g. Pope Nicolas V instructed European Christian nations to "invade, capture, vanquish" and "subdue" indigenous peoples and "subjugate" them. The Christian Church endorsed slavery, racism & subordination of women...and justified it all with biblical texts.

[Roy]

Would they, CP? In the early/mid 20th century, when the KKK was at it's peak, and black men and women were being hanged and dragged and beaten to death, and crosses were burning on the front lawns, history does not record "all of Christendom loudly and publicly and universally condemning the actions." These were likewise thugs and bullies claiming the badge of a major religion, but people were afraid. The KKK had power. They were killing people. They were targeting people who spoke out against them. The further you went from the sphere of KKK influence, however, the louder the voices got, so there WERE some speaking out. There were MANY speaking out.

If you go further back into history you find most of Christendom not only applauding the actions of those massacring Muslims and Jews during the first crusade and the siege of Jerusalem, but excommunicating those knights who did not take part.

[Mountain Man]

Ivanka Trump has supported the standard Republic line up until this. What is your objection to her now other than trashing her for her view on Rob Moore.

Actually, she's not a typical conservative Republican. She's a pro-amnesty globalist. And her views on Moore are especially ignorant.

[One Bad Pig]

If you go further back into history you find most of Christendom not only applauding the actions of those massacring Muslims and Jews during the first crusade and the siege of Jerusalem, but excommunicating those knights who did not take part.

Do you have any proof for this beyond *some* of Christendom applauding the retaking of Jerusalem in general (not the massacre in specific) and *some* excommunicating knights who did not take part?

Note that I am not defending these actions; Christians were also massacred when Jerusalem was taken.

[Roy]

Do you have any proof for this beyond *some* of Christendom applauding the retaking of Jerusalem in general (not the massacre in specific) and *some* excommunicating knights who did not take part?

You want me to demonstrate it was 'most' rather than 'some' of Christendom that applauded the retaking of Jerusalem?

Tricky.

There's an article here that discusses various reasons why the populace supported the crusades, including familial expectation, release from peasantry, duty to nobility (enforced or otherwise), material gain, religious fervour and church-sanctified channelling of violence. Will this do?