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.?

[Polyatheist]

You've never even told a lie? I think pride is a sin, you lose there too.

What is more prideful: thinking you are not a sinner (which is a silly man made construct anyways) or thinking everyone is a sinner and you along with your fellow religious buddies are the only ones with a way out?

Who says lying is a sin? You do, pride is a cruel mistress.

Lazy is making an allegation and not defending it, as required in debate. Here is a link debunking your myth, (apparently your spoon has some holes in it.) it found FOX viewers were about average informed, with one poll showing them ahead of MSNBC and CNN:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -are-most/

I don't suppose they publicize things like that link in the left-wing fever swamps you inhabit.

Now that was an interesting link, Fox still scored lowest in 2 but not terribly in 1, not too shabby for a bias news channel. It's cute you think I'm left-wing but I'm not even on the political scale as I believe all current systems of governing a highly intelligent and diversely conscious species has not been found thus far.

So why pick on Nixon? IMHO the rot started with FDR, and was accelerated greatly under LBJ. Of courst our current president, friend of Bill Ayers and devotee of Saul Allinsky, is making it MUCH worse.

Nixon was the first puppet president, he was an actor not a politician. Most of the decisions he made can be tracked to people much smarter and with larger agenda's then Nixon ever had the intelligence to muster. There may have been worse presidents before Nixon, but he open the floodgates to the idea that the president could easily be made as a puppet. Of course you have to pay your puppet handsomely for his 'effort'.

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.

[Wyvern]

I said life begins at conception, not that every cell is a separate life. You've stumbled into the truth, those cells ARE part of a woman's body.

Unless you are also saying a person does not have the right to control their own body you have stumbled into the truth. Until those cells become separate they are a part of the womans body and as such the woman has the right to do what she wants with it.

s it his fault that he obviously was using the colloquial usage of the term modern while you decided to play word games and confuse the issue by bringing up the technical usage of the term. This is no different than how so many people confuse the technical and colloquial uses of the word theory.

I think you just like to argue.

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.

And yet with this teaching throughout the millenia christians still somehow have no problem murdering. Maybe if you weren't so hellbent on trying to make atheism look bad you would find similarities between all these dictators regardless of religion or lack thereof be they Stalin, Mao, Hitler or even Cardinal Richeliu.

Yes, we are all bad, hence the need for a Savior. We are generally less bad with the moral restraints of the idea of a Creator we will answer to.

Our prison system would disagree with you on this claim.

If it sells copies absolutely they would, look at fox news for confirmation of this idea.

I love FOX news, it's a breath of truth in sanity in the media wasteland.

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

Being prominent or influential has nothing to do with being truthful.

Yes, look at Obama.

So you agree that Mr. D'Souza is not a good source for facts. I assume so since you dropped him entirely in order to make an attack against our president.

After all look how influential Osama Bin Laden was to America but would you look to him for useful facts and figures on an issue?

Wow, now you're comparing Osama to prominent, mainstream conservatives? I feel like I'm reading Democratic Underground or Michael Moore.

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

So this radical in the white house is doing the exact same thing the republican candidates are doing but you only complain about him taking campaign contributions, you're funny.

The GOP isn't engaging in class warfare, like Obama. The Nazis attacked people due to race, the left does it because of class.

What does any of this have to do with accepting campaign contributions which is what this section is about? 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? Plus of course your statement about the nazi's is simply incorrect unless you consider homosexuals to be a race.

Simply amazing how you bold the one historian that gives credence to your claim but totally ignore another historian that states specifically that your claim is nothing but an "undocumented assertion", which is strange because thats exactly what I asked you to do so thank you for proving my point that your claim is unfounded paranoia.

Anybody that knows any history of that era knows that the longer Hitler was in power, the more openly anti-Christian he was. That assertion posted is a reasonable one.

Even if it was reasonable it doesn't take away the fact that your claim is undocumented which is exactly what I was asking you to provide. Bolding the statement of one historian that agrees with your notion while completely ignoring another historians statement in the very same article which states there is no factual basis of the claim is being less than truthful on your part and I would go even further by saying this is indicative of your desire to win rather than simply be truthful.

[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?

[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. Aren't you glad your mother didn't do that to you?

[East of Eden]

Unless you are also saying a person does not have the right to control their own body you have stumbled into the truth. Until those cells become separate they are a part of the womans body and as such the woman has the right to do what she wants with it.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Even if it was reasonable it doesn't take away the fact that your claim is undocumented which is exactly what I was asking you to provide. Bolding the statement of one historian that agrees with your notion while completely ignoring another historians statement in the very same article which states there is no factual basis of the claim is being less than truthful on your part and I would go even further by saying this is indicative of your desire to win rather than simply be truthful.

You want more documentation? Historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers."

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.

[Polyatheist]

You want more documentation? Historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers."

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.

Catholic Nazis anyone?


By the way that is the pope ^

[East of Eden]

You want more documentation? Historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious. The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers."

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.

Catholic Nazis anyone?


By the way that is the pope ^

You didn't address my post of what Hitler did to the church. With the exception of the Croats possibly, you can't say the Pope supported the holocaust. According to this link, the Catholic Church was responsible for saving 860,000 Jews.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

What does a picture of the Pope with Hitler prove? Does a picture of FDR with Stalin mean FDR was a Communist?

I'm not a Catholic, perhaps you should ask one your questions.

[Polyatheist]

You didn't address my post of what Hitler did to the church. With the exception of the Croats possibly, you can't say the Pope supported the holocaust. According to this link, the Catholic Church was responsible for saving 860,000 Jews.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

What does a picture of the Pope with Hitler prove? Does a picture of FDR with Stalin mean FDR was a Communist?

A website written by a Catholic about defending the pope and citing 1 source written by a Jewish man who's works have been discredited by all real Holocaust historians, that not bias at all. Here's the real book written by a PhD historian that won the National Jewish Book Award for Jewish-Christian Relations, and the Sybil Halpern Milton Memorial Prize of the German Studies Association in 2002.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Unde ... doPwxjeCsC

You might want to check the legitimacy of your sources before citing them.

The picture doesn't prove anything, I just found it amusing. I never said the pope necessarily supported it, he was indifferent to it's existence.

I'm not a Catholic, perhaps you should ask one your questions.

This is not a properly constructed sentence, I don't know what to make of it.

[East of Eden]

A website written by a Catholic

So what if he's a Catholic? Are you biased the other way because you aren't one?

about defending the pope and citing 1 source written by a Jewish man who's works have been discredited by all real Holocaust historians, that not bias at all.

I pulled up his Wiki bio and it said nothing about this. Rather than ad hominems a la Wyvern, why don't you respond to the facts in the link:

"We must remember that the Holocaust was also anti-Christian. After Hitler revealed his true intentions, the Catholic Church opposed him. Even the famous Albert Einstein testified to that. According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Einstein said:

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

In another, similar statement, Einstein referred explicitly to the Catholic Church (Lapide, p. 251). This is an extraordinary testimony by an agnostic German scientist of Jewish heritage. Even though there were traitors in her ranks, the Church still opposed the Nazi movement.

The December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine contains an interesting article about Christians living in Germany, both Catholic and Protestant, who opposed and suffered under the Nazis. On page 38, it claims that by late 1940 over 200,000 Christians were prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with some estimates as high as 800,000. On page 40, it reports on the Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic opposition in Germany against the Nazis. In an Advent 1933 sermon, he preached: "Let us not forget that we were saved not by German blood but by the blood of Christ!" in response to Nazi racism. In 1934 the Cardinal "narrowly missed a Nazi bullet", while in 1938 a Nazi mob broke the windows in his residence. Even though he was over seventy and in poor health, he still led the Catholic German resistance against Hitler.

Not trusting the new regime, the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Reich on July 20, 1933 in an attempt to protect the Church's rights in Germany. But the Nazis quickly violated its articles. In Lent 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (With burning sorrow) with the help of German bishops and Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It was smuggled into Germany and read in all German Catholic churches at the same hour on Palm Sunday 1937. It did not explicitly mention Hitler or Nazism, but it firmly condemned the Nazi doctrines. On September 20, 1938, Pius XI told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites.

The recent slander against the Church and Pope Pius XII can be traced back to 1963 with Rolf Hochhuth's play, "The Deputy." In this play Hochhuth criticized Pius for being silent and portrayed his silence as cold indifference. Even though fiction, people took it as fact.

Pope Pius XII was a diplomat and not a radical preacher. He knew that he first needed to preserve Vatican neutrality so that Vatican City could be a refuge for war victims. The International Red Cross also remained neutral. Secondly, he knew how powerless he was against Hitler. Mussolini could quickly shut off electrical power to Vatican Radio during his broadcast (Lapide, p. 256). Finally the Nazis did not tolerate any protest and responded severely. As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein (Lapide, p. 246). Pius knew that every time he spoke out against Hitler, the Nazis could retaliate against the prisoners. His best attack against the Nazis was quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes action. According to The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (V8.01) under Pius XII, "Wishing to preserve Vatican neutrality, fearing reprisals, and realizing his impotence to stop the Holocaust, Pius nonetheless acted on an individual basis to save many Jews and others with church ransoms, documents, and asylum."

The charity and work of Pope Pius XII during World War II so impressed the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, that in 1944 he was open to the grace of God which led him into the Catholic faith. As his baptismal name, he took the same one Pius had, Eugenio, as his own. Later Israel Eugenio Zolli wrote a book entitled, Why I Became a Catholic.

But Pope Pius XII was not completely silent either, especially in his Christmas messages. His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis. According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24):

The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.

Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states:

This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things."

This is not a properly constructed sentence, I don't know what to make of it.

It means I am not a Catholic, perhaps you should ask one your questions on that church. No doubt as with any large group, you can find heroes and villians, althouth according to Einstein there were more heroes in the church than any other German institution.

[Polyatheist]

I pulled up his Wiki bio and it said nothing about this. Rather than ad hominems a la Wyvern, why don't you respond to the facts in the link

Hmmmm trust wikipedia, which anyone can edit or post with their own opinions, or a PhD historian. Hmmmmmm I'll think on that for exactly 0.001 ps, the accredited historian every time.

Although you seem to love wiki quotes so here's the one I was referring to (from a review of "Three Popes and the Jews"):

"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]"

It means I am not a Catholic, perhaps you should ask one your questions on that church. No doubt as with any large group, you can find heroes and villians, althouth according to Einstein there were more heroes in the church than any other German institution.

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. Einstein was a genius when it came to physics but when it came to people he was not the most social. He was also referring to Nazi Germany in which that statement is very correct. Today however the Catholic church is constantly fighting off pedophile claims and the Germans are having to support the EU single-handedly.