Sharia law and American values

[RobertUrbanek]

Is Sharia law compatible with American values? If not, would you turn away immigrants who have stated their goal is to impose Sharia law in the U.S.?

[100%atheist]

It isn't her own body, it often has a different gender and blood type. You sound like the pro-slavery crown who thought they could do what they want with their own 'property'.

I will ask again since you ignored it, if a person does not have the right to control their own body, who does? Please explain how advocating a persons right to control their body can be interpreted as being pro slavery?

And you ignored my point that an unborm baby is not part of a women's body, often having a different gender and blood type. If the child doesn't leave the mother's body, she will die.

Great! And why then would anyone object the right of a woman to get rid of something that is not a part of her body?

Because human life is involved.

Hold on. You basically claimed that a pregnant woman and a fetus are two different organisms. So, according to you, there are two human lives involved, not one. If every human life is so valuable according to you that you support enforcing others to save it against their will then why don't you start from supporting completely free medical services and education for everyone. After all, enforcing you to pay higher taxes is not such a big deal as enforcing someone to risk their lives.

[East of Eden]

"Holocaust historian Dr. Susan Zuccotti calls the work "consistently erroneous"[2] as well as "replete with egregious mistakes and distortions".[3] Lapide's work makes many claims to which he himself claims to have been the witness, but also makes other claims, generally without citing sources.[2] One of Lapide's main goals as Consul to Milan was Vatican recognition of the State of Israel, and Zuccotti assesses that "memories of past commissions and omissions were readily sacrificed to the goal of constructing a better future".[4]"

OK, that's one opinion. Was the contemporary New York Times opinion that the Pope was the only man in Europe standing up to Hitler also wrong?

I gathered that a while ago when you said you were a christian and then were confused on the difference between a catholic and a protestant.

You're inventing things, I was never confused on that difference. Perhaps you had a problem keeping up with the conversation.

Einstein was a genius when it came to physics but when it came to people he was not the most social.

Now comes the ad hominem against Einstein. Why does that not surprise me?

[East of Eden]

It isn't her own body, it often has a different gender and blood type. You sound like the pro-slavery crown who thought they could do what they want with their own 'property'.

I will ask again since you ignored it, if a person does not have the right to control their own body, who does? Please explain how advocating a persons right to control their body can be interpreted as being pro slavery?

And you ignored my point that an unborm baby is not part of a women's body, often having a different gender and blood type. If the child doesn't leave the mother's body, she will die.

Great! And why then would anyone object the right of a woman to get rid of something that is not a part of her body?

Because human life is involved.

Hold on. You basically claimed that a pregnant woman and a fetus are two different organisms.

Yes.

So, according to you, there are two human lives involved, not one.

Yes.

If every human life is so valuable according to you that you support enforcing others to save it against their will

That's how we act against murderers.

then why don't you start from supporting completely free medical services and education for everyone.

Non sequitor, what does free medical care have to do with far too lazy women using abortion as birth control? BTW, we can't afford free health care for all. The easier route would be to stop the killing, or at least restrict it.

After all, enforcing you to pay higher taxes is not such a big deal as enforcing someone to risk their lives.

The only lives at risk are the unborn child's.

[Polyatheist]

OK, that's one opinion. Was the contemporary New York Times opinion that the Pope was the only man in Europe standing up to Hitler also wrong?

Yes it is an opinion, anything not verified using the scientific method is an opinion. If you want to start debating using only scientifically verifiable facts, I am very down to limit all arguments to pure science that can be sited using peer-reviewed research papers. Luckily I have access to quite a large number of them. Want to start doing that? If so anything we have said so far is moot because we havn't cited any research articles.

You're inventing things, I was never confused on that difference. Perhaps you had a problem keeping up with the conversation.

Forgotten so soon? It's ok I'll refresh your memory. When we were talking about catholics being impartial to the Nazi's you brought up a group of protestants that were protesting the war (Scroll up and read the argument). I politely reminded you that Henry the 8th started the protestant church which separated them from the catholic church, making your argument against my point rather silly as they are not the same.

Now comes the ad hominem against Einstein. Why does that not surprise me?

This is a rather silly statement because I have read a lot on Einstein as I had to study his work for to help understand his theory of relativity. After he turned down the offer that was made to him to become the President of Israel he has this to say: "I lack both the natural aptitude and experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function." If you have a quote from him saying he was a perfectly functioning social individual which contradicts that statement (made in 1952) then please bring it to the table.


Here's the part you forgot: (By the way I find your 'insults' and emotes quite amusing, it's like taking to a teenage girl with alzheimer's. I don't know any other category of individuals that uses so many of them)

Interesting, but I'm still waiting for evidence that the Vatican fully supported the holocaust. There was a huge protestant Confessing Church movement in Germany that opposed Hitler, the martyr Dietrich Bonhoffer being the most prominent. Albert Einstein said the church was the German institution that did the most to oppose Hitler, much more than academia or the media. That kind of blows your argument, unless you think you are smarter than him.

"There was a huge protestant Confessing Church movement in Germany that opposed Hitler" You do know the difference between a protestant and a Catholic eh? If you did you would realize that your actually supporting my argument, not crushing it. Protestants were created by King Henry the 8th and were separate from the Catholic church because the church would not let Henry divorce his wives consecutively. This means protestant don't follow the catholic church or recognize it an any sort of authority.

[100%atheist]

The only lives at risk are the unborn child's.

That is you don't care about people after they are born. Got it. Have a nice weekend. Hope you are not my neighbor.

[Wyvern]

OK, and slaveowners used to think they had the right to do with their own 'property' as they willed. I think I know what you would have thought had you lived back then.

How is it you are getting this silly idea that I would be pro slavery when I am arguing for the right of an individual to control their body? You my friend are the one saying people dont have the right to do so which strangely enough fits in with a pro slavery stance much more aptly.

I just think you don't like having your own source material used against you. You accuse me of being argumentive in a section about you making a petty point about a technical use of a word, that's funny EoE.

So tell me, when does 'modern' start?

What, do you think all words have only one definition? In technical usage it begins as you already pointed out in the sixteenth century but colloquially modern describes the current time period.

Our prison system would disagree with you on this claim.

Non-sequitor, but I would say there are studies showing prisoners who got religion in prison have a lower ricidivism rate.

You might say that but that doesn't make it true now does it? Plus of course it totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of criminals already belong to one religion or another and in America that means a branch of christianity.

Just because they tell you what you want to hear doesn't make it true, it just means they are pandering to their viewers.

Is that why you like Rachel Maddow?

Wow you would think someone that accuses another of a non sequiter would try to not do it themselves especially directly after making the accusation. Plus where would you get such a silly idea in the first place unless this is simply a pathetic attempt on your part to derail this thread.

So you agree that Mr. D'Souza is not a good source for facts.

Not at all, you're making stuff up again.

You're the one that agreed that being prominent and influential is not a good reason for using them as a source. Is it my fault that you consider it more important to cast insults onto your political enemies than it is to defend your own claims?

I assume so since you dropped him entirely in order to make an attack against our president.

His failure is a big target. He is seriously damaging this country, unlike the brilliant D'Souza you are obsessed with.

How am I obsessed with D'Souza, you brought him up not me. I simply pointed out that he was a poor choice on your part for your argument from authority which is a logical fallacy in the first place.

Just because his views line up with yours does not mean he is mainstream.

He is completely mainstream. I hate to think who you think is mainstream, Bill Ayers? Why don't you post some evidence D'Souza isn't mainstream instead of namecalling and ad hominems?

Name calling? Before you start bringing up ad hominems maybe you should review what you have been writing. Glass houses and all that don't you know.

Hey I'm not the one that used words such as prominent and influential while trying to make an argument from authority. Do you deny Bin Laden was influential?

He was a criminal. Are people who disagree with you politically criminals?

I simply said he was influential, again do you deny Bin Laden was influential?

What does any of this have to do with accepting campaign contributions which is what this section is about?

Actually, it started about Sharia Law.

Please pay attention, the thread is about sharia law but obviously this particular section of this particular post is not.

Why is it you have no complaints about a bunch of rich republicans taking campaign contributions but apparently think there's something inherently wrong when a democrat does?

Because of Obama's hypocrisy, apparently to him rich people are bad unless they are liberals giving to him, no doubt hoping to gain in his system of crony capitalism.

I'm sure you have a quote from Obama stating this. Otherwise this is yet another of your unfounded claims.

Plus of course your statement about the nazi's is simply incorrect unless you consider homosexuals to be a race.

I don't think Jewish people would think it incorrect.

You stated specifically that the nazi's went after people because of race which means if your statement is true then homosexuals are a race since it is well known that homosexuals were targeted.

Those facts are completely in sync with the other historian I posted who thought Hitler would eventually much more thoroughly go after Christians. To be duped by a few statements publicly made early in Hitler's career to gain power is naive, to say the least.

Yes what this historian says is in line with the statements made by your other favored historian but it still doesn't take away the simple fact that your claim is unfounded and undocumented. Pointing out a persons opinion even if they are an expert in the field is still just an opinion. Provide some actual documentation of your claim or retract it, you should know by now that opinions don't count for much when we are trying to get to the truth of a matter.

[East of Eden]

The only lives at risk are the unborn child's.

That is you don't care about people after they are born. Got it. Have a nice weekend. Hope you are not my neighbor.

I care about people enough not to want to bankrupt this country with the Obamacare scheme.

[East of Eden]

Yes it is an opinion, anything not verified using the scientific method is an opinion. If you want to start debating using only scientifically verifiable facts, I am very down to limit all arguments to pure science that can be sited using peer-reviewed research papers. Luckily I have access to quite a large number of them. Want to start doing that? If so anything we have said so far is moot because we havn't cited any research articles.

Facts from that time period are good enough for me. Scientists are no less free from biases than any other group.

Forgotten so soon? It's ok I'll refresh your memory. When we were talking about catholics being impartial to the Nazi's you brought up a group of protestants that were protesting the war (Scroll up and read the argument).

Perhaps you came in on this thread late, my origianl point was that Hitler intended to more completely go after Christians, I never specified Catholic or Protestant, making your point irrelevant.

I politely reminded you that Henry the 8th started the protestant church which separated them from the catholic church, making your argument against my point rather silly as they are not the same.

No kidding, Henry VIII has nothing to do with my point.

This is a rather silly statement because I have read a lot on Einstein as I had to study his work for to help understand his theory of relativity. After he turned down the offer that was made to him to become the President of Israel he has this to say: "I lack both the natural aptitude and experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official function." If you have a quote from him saying he was a perfectly functioning social individual which contradicts that statement (made in 1952) then please bring it to the table.

Wow, a massive ad hominem against Einstein, how pathetic. He was functioning in regards to the theory of relativity, but not in observing events in Germany?

Here's the part you forgot:

(By the way I find your 'insults' and emotes quite amusing, it's like taking to a teenage girl with alzheimer's.

Just trying to relate on your level.

I don't know any other category of individuals that uses so many of them)

If you don't like the emoticons, complain to the mods.

Interesting, but I'm still waiting for evidence that the Vatican fully supported the holocaust. There was a huge protestant Confessing Church movement in Germany that opposed Hitler, the martyr Dietrich Bonhoffer being the most prominent. Albert Einstein said the church was the German institution that did the most to oppose Hitler, much more than academia or the media. That kind of blows your argument, unless you think you are smarter than him.

"There was a huge protestant Confessing Church movement in Germany that opposed Hitler" You do know the difference between a protestant and a Catholic eh? If you did you would realize that your actually supporting my argument, not crushing it. Protestants were created by King Henry the 8th and were separate from the Catholic church because the church would not let Henry divorce his wives consecutively. This means protestant don't follow the catholic church or recognize it an any sort of authority.

Your non-sequitor has already been addressed.

[East of Eden]

How is it you are getting this silly idea that I would be pro slavery when I am arguing for the right of an individual to control their body? You my friend are the one saying people dont have the right to do so which strangely enough fits in with a pro slavery stance much more aptly.

An unborn child isn't part of a mother's body any more than a slave was the owner's property.

You might say that but that doesn't make it true now does it? Plus of course it totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of criminals already belong to one religion or another and in America that means a branch of christianity.

My claim was that practicing Christians were less likely to commit crimes again.

You're the one that agreed that being prominent and influential is not a good reason for using them as a source. Is it my fault that you consider it more important to cast insults onto your political enemies than it is to defend your own claims?

Speaking of defending your own claims, how is D'Souza out of the mainstream?

How am I obsessed with D'Souza, you brought him up not me. I simply pointed out that he was a poor choice on your part for your argument from authority which is a logical fallacy in the first place.

Again, you haven't demonstrated he is out of the mainstrream. Do I have to remind you that conservates outnumber liberals in the US 2 to 1, a figure which hasn't changed in decades?

I simply said he was influential, again do you deny Bin Laden was influential?

Yes, and he was also clearly out of the mainstream.

I'm sure you have a quote from Obama stating this. Otherwise this is yet another of your unfounded claims.

Google 'Solyndra'. That bit of crony capitalism cost we taxpayers $500,000,000.

You stated specifically that the nazi's went after people because of race which means if your statement is true then homosexuals are a race since it is well known that homosexuals were targeted.

Wow, you sure pack a lot of logical fallacies in one sentance. The fact gays are not a race does not mean races were not persecuted.

Yes what this historian says is in line with the statements made by your other favored historian but it still doesn't take away the simple fact that your claim is unfounded and undocumented. Pointing out a persons opinion even if they are an expert in the field is still just an opinion. Provide some actual documentation of your claim or retract it, you should know by now that opinions don't count for much when we are trying to get to the truth of a matter.

The documentation has been provided, your ignoring that doesn't change things. Here it is again:

"In 1999 Julie Seltzer Mandel, while researching documents for the "Nuremberg Project", discovered 150 bound volumes collected by Gen. William Donovan as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes. Donovan was a senior member of the U.S. prosecution team and had compiled large amounts of evidence that Nazis persecuted Christian Churches.[55] In a 108-page outline titled "The Nazi Master Plan" Office of Strategic Services investigators argued that the Nazi regime had a plan to reduce the influence of Christian churches through a campaign of systematic persecutions."

We know for a fact these systematic persecution of Christian churches actually happened.

[Polyatheist]

Facts from that time period are good enough for me. Scientists are no less free from biases than any other group.

Clearly only facts that prove your point are good enough for you. If you think scientists are subject to the same bias then you know as much about scientists as you do about history. Educate yourself:

http://www.societyofreason.com/sites/de ... _Proof.pdf

Wow, a massive ad hominem against Einstein, how pathetic. He was functioning in regards to the theory of relativity, but not in observing events in Germany?

How is a quote from Einstein, supporting what I said an ad hominem? You either miss the definition or are so blind you have problems reading type. Yes Einstein was aware of the problem in Germany, that is why he moved to the US. That point you gave was true in that period because it was Nazis vs child molesters and the Nazis were more obvious. If you were to ask him now (if he were still alive) the opposite would be true.

Just trying to relate on your level.

How kind of you, relate to my level before I even get into the conversation (notice I pop in on page 3). Nice try with that one though, I'm glad you regard my presence so highly.

If you don't like the emoticons, complain to the mods.

The mods force you to use emoticons? You have no freedom of choice not to use them? It's not that I don't like them, it just makes you seem like a teenage girl as again they are really the only ones that use them. I know of no intelligent people who feel the need to insert silly facial expressions into a conversation.

Interesting, but I'm still waiting for evidence that the Vatican fully supported the holocaust. There was a huge protestant Confessing Church movement in Germany that opposed Hitler, the martyr Dietrich Bonhoffer being the most prominent.

So you put those two sentences next to each other knowing they are completely unrelated? You didn't use it to support the previous statement as it's in the same paragraph? A little hard to believe, it's ok I've already assessed you mental capacity at dealing with information and it's very stereotypical of your social demographic. I don't expect you to understand information as you will either be retired or dead before the highly intelligent information age starts and your obsolete.