Technically only to die a few days later. . . and he was one of the immortal mages and two he couldnt remember, 1 who was a dope head and the other who was evil in the end. . . its easy to be awesome when your the only one who is a spell caster. . .
I would assume you read it but apparently you didnt.
Three-quarters of Republicans said they think the U.S. has liberty and justice for all, 76 percent, while fewer than one-third of Democrats — 30 percent — said they believe that statement to be true.
Of those who said they have no party affiliation, 46 percent said they think the U.S. has liberty and justice for all.
.
again
.
Three-quarters of Republicans said they think the U.S. has liberty and justice for all, 76 percent, while fewer than one-third of Democrats — 30 percent — said they believe that statement to be true.
Of those who said they have no party affiliation, 46 percent said they think the U.S. has liberty and justice for all.
At no time in the article did they say they dont think "liberty and justice" is an american ideal. . . it says they are commenting on the state of what something actually is. . .
.
You cant be that dumb to see the difference, but just in case.
I believe in justice.
Due to variety of reasons some victumns never get justice.
or even more simple . . . .
I believe in justice for women who are sexually assaulted.
Due to a variety of reasons some victumns of sexual assault never get Justice.
Do you see the difference? My kid understands the concept, you can believe in fairness for society but not have a fair society.
You cant be this silly. . you took
X does not believe America is Y
to
X does not believe in Y
If your so biased and bigoted that you cant see your own failures to be honest, im not surprised that the world is laughing at America.
My saying athiest, you dismiss the argument by dismissing the person who makes the claim. That is neither fair honest or rational the argument stand regardless of who makes the argument. True is true regardless of who says it.
Depending upon what is said.
Darwin apparently was non-religious. . However he was reported to repent on his deathbed. However the people that claimed this were religious. These are some explanations that can cast doubt on the story.
1) darwins wife lied.
2) the priest lied.
3) other people made up to the story
4) its an urban myth that has nothing to do with what was said
5) i just made up the whole thing.
as for wikipedia, I would point t the Steven colbier (sp) and the bit on animals when he told people to re-write the article.
My herto sexual debate-mate. Thank you for providing popcorn material for me and my friends at the local bar. So i thought i would try a different tract.
P1 - The site bigots will once again spend their insecure lives tryng to disprove God and worrying over what other's believe.
p.1 - I think you have alot of doubt about "your god" which is why you can not define him or offer to demonstrate him beyond ranting. Often when people are insecure or confused they will "double down" on an issue recitign threats, cajolin and ranting rather then defend or debate the actual issue. And since alot of your rants seem homosexual in nature. I feel your revulsion is an actual projection of your own sexual insecurities. AFter spending alot of time helping people with problems I am here for you, becasue nothign worse then self hatred, except bad fasion sense. And I have provided links for demon-stration. :)
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/
.
p1.2 - Since people act on belief's are your beliefs are harmful to me, and society and unhealthy why wouldnt i be worried.
.
P2 - Ask yourself why these bigots worry so about what Christians believe. I don't spend one second worring about what other religions believe.
.
P2.1 - Uh.. . I think all unfounded belief systems are bad.
p2.2 - Your assuming that everyone is picking on you, while i am sure you have harboured unwelcome feeling of a masucline nature from others. I think secretly you desire the agressive behavior. Many gay (and some straight) men like the attention of getting picked on, though its unhealhty. Your better then what you think, you desrve a better more welcoming world then the one you have created and believe in you head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrcomplex
.
p3 - There is only one reason why they worry so much over what you believe.
.
p3.1 - Because what you believe and how you act affects those around you?
.
p4 - They feel the guilt inside.
.
p4.1 - No. Pretty sure im guilt free on the religous front. Is actaully p3.1. THough when i swear i tend to use religious terms.
.
p5. - Their conscience bothers them when they choose to live irresponsible lives. Christians shine a light on their lifestyles. Christians show that we are not bound by our selfish natures.
.
p5. - Again that projection thing going on. Christians shine a light on my lifestyle because im better then the book that christian look to. Ill use one example.
.
God molested mary to give birth to jesus. He didn't ask permision, she didn't consent. God is moral monster.
I dont molest women, Im more moral then god.
.
p6 - We all have a choice what we do in life. Bigots want to live any way they choose without people speaking out on all the problems created by irresponsble lifestyles.
.
p6.1 - IM not sure, apparently our brains make choices and we rationalize them. However that is science which requires evidence, clear terms and demonstrations. All things you fail to provide or believe in. But i have hope. Individulas i find that are like you tend to come out later in life, for science.
p6.2 - are you not being a bigot by generalization wihtout foundation of evidence or proof. . . . .
I feel for you brother. We all (no pun intended) have crosses to bear.
Totally. However for them to integrate they need a workable support system from the individuals within the country if refugee's. . . If they are just immigrant, they tend to do fine and 2nd generation tend to do better then people in the original culture.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/
Hey . . . Interesting. . . we just had this discussion. . .
oh dear god. . .seriously. . . my heterosexual life mate debtor. .
Your not being honest. I asked you to define your god in a rational way and demonstrate it. The fact that you refuse and choose not to, leads me to believe you have no god (besides allah) and you have no means to demonstrate him, or your so insecure in your ability to defend him that your scared to
Also
Why don't you just admit that you do not know or understand God, instead of pretending that you do not have the brains to understand that only God can be God?
I dont not know which go you speak of, so is it thor, zues, the god of the bible who sexually molested a girl to make up a loop hole in a rule he made even though hes all seeing. So
Can you define your god in a rational way? and if you do so, can you then domonstrate that he exists. Cuase if not, your failing god and this claim.
"and to terrorize individuals who they disagree with on a religious means? "
The difference between the two is that one is a system of absolute Monotheism (meaning no tolerance of any other belief is allowed, usually on pain of death in Muslim-majority countries), while the other is based on secular, psychological abnormality.
Have you not heard of Dominion Theology, it’s the basis for southern evangelical movement after the civil war or Reconstructionist. The entire basis for outlawing inter racial marriage, banning access to abortion services, anti-contraception, anti-health care, anti-sexual education is all from Dominion theology, as is require religious test of faith in the public sphere for elections.
"You are more likely to die by the hands of a white supremacy then a muslim terrorist since I was born."
Your chances of being raped are also fairly low. Does that mean it's not an issue? Of course not.
A weak argument and invalid question and I’ll tell you why. The Chances of me getting into a car crash are higher than getting hit by lightning. However it’s misleading for the media to portray Lightning as a greater danger to me then car crash’s. Its irrational for me to worry about Lightening more than car crashes (unless I doing things to attract lightening). And it’s intellectually dishonest to present lightening as this giant thing and ignore car crashes and make the public afraid of it.
Any rational sane person would agree to the former correct? No replace non-white Muslims in the United States with lightening and car crashes white Christian males. The same argument stands.
"You still have a lot more hate crime against Muslims n America then by muslims."
First of all, the only reason that's the case is because Muslims are far outnumbered in terms of population.
So there are two ways I can take this.
1 - So you only care about terrorism when non-white christian do it? Per capita white-christian have a greater impact then non-white muslims. Ever seen to kill a mockingbird? It’s like kind of saying “I only care if a black people assault our white women, its ok if a good old by does it.”
2 – YES they are a minority and they are suffering more crime against them PER CAPITA then they commit. So why do you not care that a) about the racism perpetuated by the media b) the stereotype that they are the violent ones
Second, try looking at just about any Muslim-majority country, and you’ll find any and all deviant beliefs or behaviors persecuted violently. Narrowing your viewpoint to only the US is like claiming a terminally cancerous organ is healthy because a significant amount of non-cancerous tissue still remains in it.
Of the 25 worst places to live, all are religious and there are Christian nations in that list. Also look at the Russia and its satellites, Gays individuals are being arrested, detained and murdered. Secular individual are disappearing or being put in jail as terrorist. Russia is a Christian nation. Your argument is invalid.
You can read
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2011/05/non-religious-nations-have-higher.html
or
its not muslim countries, its christian counties as well. Theism is the hallmark of being a worse off society.
Ergo – it is irrational to say that Muslims have earned the stereotype of violence, it should be Religious individual have a stereotype of being good for society(there not), and Muslims in a christian nation have a stereotype of being dicks
"Additionally the usa killed more civilians in the middle east last month (April) then isis in there bombing, and almost all the guns used in the conflict were supplied to both sides from USA."
Your substantiation for that claim being...?
Sorry it was March not April. I was wrong. I will correct under links.
"So yes, Christians and white males commit crimes in the larger numbers and in equal in crimes per capita as muslims."
In the US, that's entirely possible. Again, simply look at any Muslim-majority country, and tell me it's a peaceful, accepting culture.
Besides ignoring all the places where christen violence or the three greatest mass murders were all Christian trained and inspired. However the question you avoided was “did Muslims earn the reputation” (sort of), and given the fact that I have dozens of links listed where Christiana have killed just as much and if not more, its not justified to say Muslims and ignore Christians.
It’s like pointing to Chicago as evidence of Black inferiority because of black crime and ignoring that there are 6 other cities that have a white majority that have higher crimes rates and violence.
"There have been several genocides Bosnia Serbia was Christian, Russia killing gays is Christian motivated, the new anti-gay laws in several Christian nations, the holocaust was Christian, the child rape crisis in all churches (not just RC), the sexual abuse of ministers is about 30% regardless of faith organization (see spotlight)"
Assuming all those claims are true (which you have no basis for), those actions are inherently contradictory with Christianity, whereas Islam is an intrinsically violent religion.
I call BS. Again the debate above – and have you read your bible. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/
http://www.evilbible.com/
"Just saying, the bible promotes slavery in old and New Testament, and was a justification for slavery in the usa civil war."
The connotations of "slavery" have changed drastically since Old Testament times. Back then, it was essentially being hired off as a servant by one's parents; a far cry from its modern meaning. Even then, this was under Levitican law, and therefore does not apply to Christians, who are under the New Covenant of the New Testament.
AT this Im going to call you out on your BS.
1) It’s not moral to own someone at all, ever. In what context is it ok to own another person, able to beat them, use them sexual for your own pleasure, trick them into eternal servitude, pass them on to your family.
3) Do you listen or care about the 10 commandments or the prophecy of Jesus. Because if you saying the old testament doesn’t matter, and the old justifies the new ‘you don’t get to claim jesus as the son’ of god, because the old justifies the new.
3) how do you then determine which are to be listened to and which are not? And as far as I am aware, just cause, or I feel, is not a trump for god complete works.
Also Jesus - For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be obeyed until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) The rules for the old testament never get turned off because of new testament claimed the following
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
And the following video shows immorality of the bible and slavery.
https://www.youtube.com/
"IT tells rape victims to marry there assaulters."
That law is somewhat more tricky in its implications, but the claim you're making regarding it requires a very generous interpretation of the text.
IF the bible says something unclear and I can interpret it one way and you can claim interpretation (which I disagree with) another way, the book is flawed and your book as an authority is in question.
Also the rapist has to marry the women, and the father has the right to refuse. But the decision is the fathers, not the victim. Because its views women as property. Which is immoral. No matter what happens, it dehumanizes women to property, gives her no rights, and shows the contradiction of humanity and wellbeing, to me. So why are you not objecting to forced marriage. And how do you rationalize this moral inconsistence? And how is this different then torah 3.0.
" It promotes the killing of non-believers in old and new."
Oh? Do tell.
Oh? There’s not enough room. But didn’t you read you bible. Heres a simple link
http://www.evilbible.com/
"I know right. So im not sure how to answer this completely."
Given that "Muslim" and "Islam" both refer to a particular religion, and neither a race nor specific organization, what confusion is there?
Christian refers to multiple lines of faith. So the conversation is somewhat out of nuance. Unitarians vs Evangelic are completely different in outlook, there are different forms of Muslim faith and different Muslim counties. There are a number of christian extremist and muslim extremist, and to focus on one and pretend the other doesn’t exist is the definition bias.
"I do., the claims are false and unsubstantiated and your connection is flawed."
Care to explain how crime, particularly rape, in the majority of Scandinavia has skyrocketed since the floodgates of "refugees" were opened, or how videos of said "refugees" acting aggressively towards anyone entering their newly-claimed territory are flooding the internet? Quite the conspiracy you have on your hands, there.
I think you left out my links. My argument is thus – Canada took in refuges, as did other countries, we integrated them into society and gave the jobs, support, loans (which are being paid back) and gave them opportunity. There have not been the same issues as other countries. So it’s not the Refuges, is the way they are brought in and support system the find themselves in. Otherwise they would be the same violence here as in france and other countries, and there is not.
"The real issue was income inequality and gender roles."
What do any of the things you listed have to do with income inequality and (biologically objective) gender roles?
Read freaknomics and abortions. Or Freaknomics on crime and economy. They explain it in a full book that I cannot in one post. But in brief, crime is based on belief systems, economic stature and privilege. While theist commit more crime then non-thiesm, its also economics and privilege that are required.
"Europe has several areas . . . . Canada as an example, the crime rate of immigrants is lower then the norm and the boon to the economy has been demonstrably a benefit."
Do you have any basis for this claim? If so, feel free to demonstrate how economic hardship explains the above behaviors.
Besides freaknomics, superfreaknomics, Disaster capitalism, Crime statics, the crime rate in Canada refugees is below the statistical norm?
EDIT: One interesting thing of note is that about a quarter of Muslims in the US believe using violence to punish those who offend Islam is morally justified, and a fifth stated violence is an appropriate measure for spreading Shariah Law (https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/). That's just in the US. In countries with higher populations of Muslims, the number only increases, and dramatically so.*
I agree. And my only issue with that is study is, is that what they believe or is that what they believe the answer is based on the Torah 3.0. If you ask Christian, is abortion moral as the bible you get record numbers of “it’s not” but you still have chrsitians that participate and support it. So I agree, the number is high, however I disagree with the framing of the question. The reason why is muslim counties have other faith and you don’t see mass murders in those any more than any christian nation. (see Serbian & Bosnia)
Example - http://www.ncava.org/survivors.html
If you asked most Christians if rape is wrong, they will answer its immoral and criminal. However if you show them the direct link between sports and sexual assault and then ask if they will end their support for football and other sports (the largest contribute to sexual violence and glorification of violence) they will not end football, or oppose is.
Also – if you ask a well-read Christian what does the bible say about a witch, most would know it says “burn her” but you don’t see people burning witches all over do you?
.
.
So the original was do they deserve the rep they have. You claiming group M is bad and fits the stereotype.
My rebuttal - I’m claiming Group C is also bad, which means the stereotype is also fitting of other groups invalidating the claim.
My rebuttal – M does not commit crimes in same numbers per capita or size as others, so context would be needed or reputation and sterotype is invalid.
My rebuttal – M is no better or worse the C group. Just that media presents M group in bad light.
My rebuttal point dunk is – M & C are both bad, Only M gets covered
"However I would disagree that they are the ones earning that term. Its been applied by a media that skewers perception rather then actual numbers. I agree that sterotype exists, I would say that they (Muslims) did not earn it, it was applied. Just like African Americans didn’t earn “single parent families” as reported but skewered by the media and others to straw man there society."
.
Last I checked, all mainstream news networks avoid controversy (especially regarding Islam) like the Plague. Since when do they portray Islam as inherently violent?
.
My Rebottle is thus - Claiming your lack of awareness of a subject is not an argument. I found this in 10 minutes of research, these are peer reviewed papers from Eric (a peer reviewed site for the sciences), linked news articles and a ted talk. Also , media thrives on controversy. I just spent 4 days listen to “he said, she said’ on twitter about the president and everyone else.
Islam: Sterotypes Prevail by Rick Blassing – how the media manipulates and creates stereotypes in society http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6002/600208.html
Beyond the Single Story – how a single story bereft of facts and nuance creates stereotypes and contrast various races and stereotypes of the past. - http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec16/vol74/num04/Beyond-the-Single-Story.aspx
Images in Islam: Jackson, Liz, Islamaphobia in Class: Zaal Mayida, Teaching about Islam: Ibih Randa,
Hate Prejudice and Racism. – A cultural study of hatred, stereotypes and projection, this book provides a overview of how racism persists in society and how the society and media perpetuate cultural stereotypes. Focusing on Blacks and Jews, the stereotyping can be done to other races and religions. Kleg, Milton. State University of New York Press, State University Plaza, Albany, NY 12246
No Biggie: Denial of Oppression by Barbra Perry – With decreasing authority in white male and christian power structures and institutes, the racism, bigotry and cognitive dissidence in the application of fear, stereotypes and willful ignorance to the connection between stereotyping and society fears. “In other words, while students may observe racist behaviour, they do not "see" it--that is, they do not register the structured embeddedness of campus oppression.” – Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, v5 n3 p265-279 Nov 2010 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1746197910387543
A debate at the University of Oxford - At 8:40 there’s is the largest poll out that shows muslim were against 911 and its action and denounce terrorism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2DZ8bbxd8U
Antie Muslim hate crime – Washington Post & Hate crime and Racist Graffiti – Cnn
http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/
.
"Why is that when white Christians attack individuals they are lone wolves and have mental conditions? Yet when non-whites attack they are terrorists?"
To start off with, what does race have to do with this? The people groups in question are specific Monotheistic religions. Further, these people have those labels because they acted alone, demonstrated severe mental deficiencies beforehand, and acted in complete contradiction with Christianity (which you appear to be correlating with them).
To reiterate, who said anything about color? Are you implying race is inherently connected with religion?
Sorry I put my complete point in one thing, then put yours after. If you think I took you out of context please let me know.
As for the statement, I have given multiple books on the coverage and bias of the media against Muslims. I have also provide in the rebuttal numerous links to Christian hate crimes and org’s who commit acts of violence in the name of god and jesus.
Its obvious to anyone not biased, there is no difference between a white terrorist and non-white terrorist, unless your in the media. Which points to the bias of media in presentation of the muslims vs christians. And the amount of time coverage (as per the one book) it demonstrates by number how much disparity the naming of a crime and coverage it gets based on the ethic nature of the crime and the criminal.
If you have 3 groups, A, B, C. You have group A commits 1%, group B commits 4% and last but not least C commits 10% PER CAPITA. And the Media focus’s on group A & B calling them thugs and terrorists, and excuses group C or ignores it, its obvious that the perception of the people (if they are not aware of actual numbers and facts) will have their perception distorted.
My Argument is not that Muslims do not commit crimes, the OP said that they have earned there stereotype and its true. My disagreement is that Yes, there may be Muslim terrorists, there are more Christian terrorist and in greater numbers that never get reported on in the media. And that economics and religion breed the terrorism not “the wrong religion” (see debate above for example of polls at 8:40).
These are worldwide statistics - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html
And the fact that they are mathematically not more proned to terror - http://www.thedailybeast.com/no-islam-isnt-inherently-violent-and-the-math-proves-it
The video debate around 8:40 quotes the largest survey of individual who claim to be muslim and disagreed with killing others and objected to 911. Yet many Americans (and the current president) claimed and believe that “crowds of muslims were rejoicing’ at 911 despite no evidence.
"How do you (specifically you) say one is a terrorist and one is not"
When did I state that?
That your entire argument.
You claiming group M is bad and fits the stereotype.
My rebuttal - I’m claiming Group C is also bad, which means the stereotype is also fitting of other groups invalidating the claim.
My rebuttal – M does not commit crimes in same numbers per capita or size as others, so context would be needed or reputation and sterotype is invalid.
My rebuttal – M is no better or worse the C group. Just that media presents M group in bad light.
My rebutall point dunk is – M & C are both bad, Only M gets covered
"when they both claim to be acting for god"
Name a single "Christian" mass-murderer, attempted or otherwise, who claimed to be fulfilling God's wishes.
I can do so without breaking a sweat – however, with links.
Besides (1) The KKK - the 1915 Klan had an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in part on a "religious foundation" in Protestant Christianity and targeting Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities and proposes Christian Domination in the usa.
Besides (2) Ilaga, a Catholic Extremist who cut up and killed men, women and 3 children on June 19, 1971, when the group killed 70–100 Moro civilians inside a mosque.
Besides (3) The central African republic under Djoto, whose death toll is in the 1,000’s.
Besides (4) The Maronite Christian Militais in Lebanon in 1990's which targeted unarmed Palestines with rape, Murder, and was clasified as Geonodie by the United Nations General aSsemlby and they still have warents for the war criminals who purpotrated it.
Besides (5) 1981 - The army of god attacking doctors in the united states, saying they were doing this on behalf of god directed by bruce hoffman, all had ties to fundamental christian groups and were practicing members of the faith.
Besides (6) Eric Robert Rudolph did the centennial Olympic park bombing in 1996. Who attacked an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Not only is his Christian terrorism well known its documented and use by the FBI to study “christian hate groups”. (For a cool movie try imperium with the former harry potter star.)
Besides (7) Refer to Aref M Al-Khattar who studies "christian Militia", there are more Christian hate groups since election of obama, nearly doubling in number. The major theme is "white, Male, Christian".
Besides (8) Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merell - charged with bank robberies and bombings. They claimed GOD wanted them to carry out the attacks so they could jump start the aryan race war as predicted in the bible, belong to several hate groups and several churches.
Besides (9)- up until 1970 it was still illegal for blacks and whites to get married in southern states as per the bible dictates of keeping the races apart, and bible was used in testimony as evidence of gods devine plan by several US senators (see movie Jamestown for an awesome movie or Jame b III, current JOD who said KKK was ok untill they found out they did pot, because they believed in god).
Besides (10) Scott Roeder killed Dr George Tiller in a church who was motivated the Christian teaching and propaganda.
Besides (11) because its not a real troll debate or argument until you bring up hitler. The final solution was based on Christian teaching and ideology. “We are at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.” Luther.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/if-islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-so-is-christianity/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the10worstexamplesofchristianorfarrightterrorismpartner/
And Bosnia Serbia was entirely Muslim vs Christians where Christians were the aggressors and violating human rights, murdering civilians including children, making mass graves and other acts.
