The Hadith is a collection of writings from a long line of Islamic scholars. Hadith are separate from the Koran, and have been added to over the centuries by many, many people.

Tell me the Old Testament is peaceful.

The Inquisition--ooops. Forgot about that one.

Forget it Ashman--you are dealing with deeply ignorant people who get their info from wingnut websites and Faux News.

Violence within Muslim cultures has to do with culture, not Islam. What if Muslims concluded that Christians shoot up elementary schools as part of their religion.

And whoever posted this question was just trying to provoke the same kind of stupid bullshit rants you see on right-wing crazies' websites.

Oooooooh! The unseen! Pray tell me about the unseen!

I mean it. Let's hear about this unseen. I love it when people use "the unseen" as the basis of an argument without providing one single example or shred of evidence. Usually the same people, by the way, who resort to ad hominem (look it up) attacks rather than deal with the substance of the point made......

Here is a thought experiment. You abstain from using or touching any good or service provided through tax dollars. You police your own town. You fight your own fires. You pave your own roads. You try and mail your own letters with your own, private postal service. You send your kids to private school (no student loans!)

Have fun living in the woods with no electricity, home schooling your kids and sending smoke signals. Be my guest.

I'm just guessing--you live in a red state that sucks up more federal dollars than it contributes.....

I wonder where the people who are against single-payer or government-paid healthcare live? What states?

Because the single largest objection seems to be to use the collective pool of money (taxes) to pay for everyone's health care. Like it violates some sacred right or some sacred ideal.

Why did I ask you what state you live in? Because if you live in Alabama or Mississippi or Indiana or Iowa, for example, then you get more in federal dollars than you contribute to the federal coffers. Which means that I, who live in California--where we send more to the IRS than we get back in federal funding--am basically paying for your stop signs and freeways.

That's right. Your highways are free for you because you aren't paying for them. I am. New Yorkers are. I say this not to gloat, but to show you through example how tax dollars work. AND to let you know that I don't mind paying for your stop signs. I wouldn't mind paying for your health care, either--so long as we could all have it.

I would bet a fat man that everyone here who objects to single-payer like they have in Canada is a white male from a red state......

Okay Cambriel, your argument is just stupid. Not only is it stupid, it does not deal with the question. The question is not whether doctors should get paid, it's who should pay the health care bills.

Get a clue

I chose "yes" arbitrarily. My argument is actually that your question is way too broad, especially in that I might think it's headed in the right direction in some ways and in the wrong direction in other ways.

For example--I belive that we are headed in the wrong direction in terms of our relationship with Israel, but I also believe that we are headed in the right direction in terms of our attitudes toward gay marriage.

Excuse me, but you show a shocking lack of knowledge of the justice system. Police are not "ordered" to kill murderers. The only entity permitted to "kill" murderers is the state--after a conviction after a trial. And many appeals. Police are "ordered" to apprehend suspects.

I know what you meant, but really--just basic knowledge about how things work under our Constitution would be quite refreshing....

What are you talking about? Animals do not practice vengeance--only self defense or defense of the young.

Hang on--who said the guy will necessarily be financially ruined? A little extreme, maybe?

Bottom line--any time a man and woman have intercourse there is always a risk of pregnancy. But on whom does the vast majority of risk fall on? That's right. The woman. Health risks, 9 months of pregnancy, her life and body disrupted. Not to mention the fact that a man can walk away from the pregnancy at any moment without an abortion or a birth leading to adoption.

So requiring a man to pay is virtually the only consequence or risk of consequence a man faces. So it looks like a bit of cosmic justice.

It is a really interesting question, though. When a woman conceives, the fetus or baby is half "hers" and half "his' genetically. But you are right. The ultimate decision whether to bring the baby to term is the woman's unilateral right. (I'm not sure if the mother can unilaterally decide whether to give the child up for adoption, though. I'm going to make an educated guess that if the biological father objects, she cannot unilaterally give the child up.)

But anyway--someone else said it--if the mom agrees in a legal instrument, the father can give up all rights and not pay support.

Otherwise, a dude gives up his right to a financial abortion when he chose not to get a vasectomy or wear 3 condoms at the same time.