|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2014 10:22 xDaunt wrote:
I just wish people will quit telling the lie that ISIS is not Islam. The problem is that ISIS is Islam in arguably its purist form.
What the actual fuck?
On what authority do you say this? Islamic scholars everywhere are tripping over themselves to attack Isis's entire ideology. In fact, Isis seems to have little theology at all and a great disrespect for sharia, particularly as regards the rules of jihad and treatment of people of the book.
These lands have been Muslim for well over a millennium. Why did it take Isis to kick out the Christians? Oh, because the actual Caliphates were run with some decency and tolerance. Not always, mind you, but even their worst intolerance pales before the actions of ISIS.
On September 11 2014 03:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 03:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies. You may be very surprised, but there actually are a lot of steps between closing a loophole and literally ending up as North Korea. Not everything is a slippery slope into dictatorship. Why not limit campaign spending to a certain amount? Say everyone gets 10 million bucks. It's still fair because everyone has the same amount to spend. It would put an end to this ridiculous arms race for sure.
This doesn't actually solve the problem. I'm a lot closer ideologically to you than Wolfstan, but he has a point on this one. Free speech means you get to advocate for causes you like. So Colbert can get out there and trash republican candidates, and Glen Beck can trash democrats. Hell, all of Fox and MSNBC are engaged in the same kind of game, if less transparently. How do you reckon that into donations? You can't really. You can just insist they are separate from the campaign and cannot coordinate, as we do.
Disclosure would help a lot, of course, but this is a tricky problem. I'm not sure there's an easy solution.
|
Politicians should be like NASCAR drivers and wear their sponsors' (donors') logos on their suit.
It would be very entertaining to watch a politician deny anthropogenic climate change while covered in logos of oil and coal companies. Or a politician talking about "second amendment rights" while wearing an NRA t-shirt.
It would make it much harder for them to trick people into thinking that politicians actually care about what voters want beyond pandering to them during elections.
|
On September 11 2014 11:14 SnipedSoul wrote:
Politicians should be like NASCAR drivers and wear their sponsors' (donors') logos on their suit.
It would be very entertaining to watch a politician deny anthropogenic climate change while covered in logos of oil and coal companies. Or a politician talking about "second amendment rights" while wearing an NRA t-shirt.
It would make it much harder for them to trick people into thinking that politicians actually care about what voters want beyond pandering to them during elections.
I like this idea.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
That's a pretty funny idea haha. Should be done as a skit somewhere.
|
An atheist airman at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada has until November to change his mind and swear a reenlistment oath to God, the Air Force said.
The unnamed airman was denied reenlistment Aug. 25 for refusing to take an oath that concludes with the phrase “so help me God,” the American Humanist Association said in a Sept. 2 letter to the inspectors general for the Air Force and Creech. In her letter, Monica Miller, an attorney with the AHA’s Apignani Humanist Legal Center, said the airman should be given the choice to reenlist by swearing a secular oath. She said the AHA will sue if the airman is not allowed to reenlist.
In a Sept. 5 email, Air Force spokeswoman Rose Richeson said the airman is still serving and will continue to do so for at least two more months.
“The airman’s term of service expires in November 2014,” Richeson said. “He has until this time to complete the Department of Defense Form 4 in compliance with the Title 10 USC 502.”
The four-page DD Form 4, which is titled “Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States,” contains a “confirmation of enlistment or reenlistment” oath that reads, “I, [insert name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The AHA said the airman crossed out the last four words in that oath, and was told Aug. 25 that the Air Force would not accept it for that reason. The airman was told his only options were to sign the religious oath section of the contract without adjustment and recite an oath concluding with “so help me God,” or leave the Air Force, the AHA said.
The AHA said that is unconstitutional and unacceptable and that Article VI of the Constitution prohibits requiring religious tests to hold an office or public trust.
Source
|
It may seem silly to make a fuss over a few words, but it is an oath after all. Some people, not everyone, take their words and their oaths very seriously, solemnly if you will. At the end of the day, the air force is in the wrong for requiring a religious test, as the constitution must be adhered to.
On September 11 2014 10:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bad speech. Very bad speech in fact. Haha, I could have sworn it was a black Bush up there giving that speech. I just wish people will quit telling the lie that ISIS is not Islam. The problem is that ISIS is Islam in arguably its purist form.
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion?
|
I wonder how they handle this for Christian groups that don't believe in oaths. Quakers and other ultra-literalists and the like. Or maybe it's just not a problem because the ultra-literalists are all pacifists.
|
On September 11 2014 12:12 Yoav wrote:
I wonder how they handle this for Christian groups that don't believe in oaths. Quakers and other ultra-literalists and the like. Or maybe it's just not a problem because the ultra-literalists are all pacifists.
The Air Force is a fucking train wreck. I know other branches allow you to alter the oath to fit your religious preference (I can confirm the Navy does it, as I was in it). There's no reason that the Air Force should be doing this, and they're going to get crushed in court over this.
Haha, I could have sworn it was a black Bush up there giving that speech. I just wish people will quit telling the lie that ISIS is not Islam. The problem is that ISIS is Islam in arguably its purist form.
No.
Just no.
You are so wrong that this is the only word that can be used.
|
On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion?
I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history.
|
I just wish people will quit telling the lie that ISIS is not Islam. The problem is that ISIS is Islam in arguably its purist form.
It's quotes like that especially from a president that would guarantee this turned into an all out war against all of Islam instead of just the radicals using it for justification.
It's that exact statement that they use while recruiting. That everyone in America thinks like xDaunt so we are all in fact the enemy. xDaunt has clearly identified himself as an enemy of Islam on the whole and by extension every Muslim person. Guessing he wont be invited to any Ramadan feasts any time soon...
As someone who doesn't like most religion I find this just as disgusting coming from him as I do from Bill Maher.
I didn't equate ISIS with Islam.
Preceded by:
The problem is that ISIS is Islam
Wow... just wow...
|
On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history.
Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam).
You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we?
|
On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we?
I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim.
|
On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim.
From a PR standpoint, what do you want?
Mainstream Christianity is not literal. Neither is mainstream Islam, and that's the point Obama was trying to get through. Why complicate this? To make things more divisive? Should Obama have opened the Koran and quoted its most violent passages for the sake of honesty? Is your only complaint over this speech the fact that Obama didn't equate ISIS with Islam thoroughly enough?
We can argue that Islam is the most violent world religion. It is. But that's not the job Obama was doing tonight.
On September 11 2014 13:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Most violent religion today.
Yeah, that's more accurate.
|
On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history.
It's like you've never even taken a history course.
And saying that "All I'm arguing is that people are being disingenuous by saying that ISIS =/= Islam" adds absolutely nothing to the conversation. It is blatantly obvious that the only point of that statement is to be inflammatory and divisive, so that's why you aren't being taken seriously.
We can argue that Islam is the most violent world religion. It is. But that's not the job Obama was going tonight.
Most violent religion today.
|
On September 11 2014 13:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. From a PR standpoint, what do you want? Mainstream Christianity is not literal. Neither is mainstream Islam, and that's the point Obama was trying to get through. Why complicate this? To make things more divisive? Should Obama have opened the Koran and quoted its most violent passages for the sake of honesty? Is your only complaint over this speech the fact that Obama didn't equate ISIS with Islam thoroughly enough? We can argue that Islam is the most violent world religion. It is. But that's not the job Obama was doing tonight.
I'd rather Obama just shut up rather rather than raise the point to begin with. There's enough apologism insofar as it applies to Muslims already. No need to make it worse.
|
On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim.
What's the remark about intellectual dishonesty? If you're claiming I'm going after your semantics, well I can only judge you based on what you post. I can only go by the words and their implications. People can't read your mind. Yes, your points were clear. I should actually compliment you on being very succinct and clear, rather than muddying about with terrible euphemisms. (side note: arguing semantics is important, as semantics are the meanings of your words and therefore your conceptualization of everything).
You did say ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. You also said ISIS is Islam. Then you turned course to avert disaster. That's where things got less clear. But if you were in error, that's fine. Why not just accept it and move on.
The main point to take away is that ISIS is a small subset of the concept of Islam, and that it would be begging the question to consider them the purist form of it by asking ISIS themselves.
|
On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim.
Christians follow the New Testament/Gospels, which say next to nothing about homosexuality. Most "real" christians would say Hate the sin ... Not the sinner. But above all it is Love your neighbor as yourself. So, you are wrong about the gay haters being true Christians. Islam though, has no moderation like the gospels, its old testament crazy as f*ck rules, in that sense, ISIS is a true form of Islam.
|
On September 11 2014 13:16 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. Christians follow the New Testament/Gospels, which say next to nothing about homosexuality. Most "real" christians would say Hate the sin ... Not the sinner. But above all it is Love your neighbor as yourself. So, you are wrong about the gay haters being true Christians. Islam though, has no moderation like the gospels, its old testament crazy as f*ck rules, in that sense, ISIS is a true form of Islam.
Nothing good ever comes when you say one group is a "real" x (in this case Christian) and the other group isn't. Also for almost every denomination of the Christian faith the Old Testament is just as sacred as the new and that's why both are included in the Bible. Modern Christianity focuses more on the new due to the fact that following it is far less for lack of a better word "strict" then following the old because the New Testament was much less about rules and much more about ideals and treating others with kindness which the old is well decidedly not.
I also am not educated enough to say whether or not they are following a pure form of Islam but since I do know that if one followed the Bible to its purist form it would probably also be fairly brutal they very well might honestly have that claim.
This does make them trickier to fight though because since they are well educated true believers they are unlikely to turn on there leadership and are well versed in modern technology enough to use it to there advantage in a way that previous groups were not making them tricky on multiple levels.
|
On September 11 2014 13:16 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. Christians follow the New Testament/Gospels, which say next to nothing about homosexuality. Most "real" christians would say Hate the sin ... Not the sinner. But above all it is Love your neighbor as yourself. So, you are wrong about the gay haters being true Christians. Islam though, has no moderation like the gospels, its old testament crazy as f*ck rules, in that sense, ISIS is a true form of Islam.
Last I checked, the Bible thumpers are very well versed in the Old Testament, too, which certainly has quite a bit to say on the topic of homosexuality.
And I think you need to study up on where the moderation in Christianity comes from. It certainly does not come from the texts, given that the texts predate when the moderation started to appear.
|
On September 11 2014 13:16 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:44 Roe wrote:On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2014 12:08 Roe wrote:
Well it seems like a categorical error to say that ISIS = Islam. When you say that, you're saying ISIS encompasses Islam, when it's the reverse. Islam is the greater set, with ISIS being a subset. What is the 'purist form' of a religion? I didn't equate ISIS with Islam. I said that ISIS is arguably the purist form of Islam. If you ask ISIS, they certainly will say that that is precisely what they are. And like it or not, it's rather hard to argue with them given how they govern themselves. They're a throwback to a much worse time in history. Well it's a minor point, but you did say people were lying when they said ISIS is not Islam. (edit: and the post above shows quite clearly you said ISIS = Islam). You're begging the question by asking ISIS to define Islam. Let's go ask religion 'X' which is the one true religion. Shall we? I'm under no delusions that the less intellectually honest participants in this thread aren't really interested in what I'm actually saying, but I think that the point in my original statement is clear. It is dishonest to say that ISIS is not Islam or to otherwise go out of one's way to distinguish ISIS from Islam. It would be like saying that all of those fundamentalist Christian denominations that hate gays and Planned Parenthood aren't real Christians. As for ISIS and Islam, I'm not even going to pretend to be qualified to say conclusively that ISIS represents the purist form of Islam. HOWEVER, as an educated observer, it is readily apparent to me why ISIS can and does stake such a claim. Christians follow the New Testament/Gospels, which say next to nothing about homosexuality. Most "real" christians would say Hate the sin ... Not the sinner. But above all it is Love your neighbor as yourself. So, you are wrong about the gay haters being true Christians. Islam though, has no moderation like the gospels, its old testament crazy as f*ck rules, in that sense, ISIS is a true form of Islam.
I'm with you on the characterization of Christianity, and I agree that Islam has quite a few crazy-as-fuck rules.
But ISIS is not actually very good at following the rules. Killing non-combatants is a violation of sharia (even al-qaeda had to deal with this, but declaring all Americans combatants by virtue of our democracy). Expulsion of people of the book is against sharia. Gang rape is VERY against sharia. Suicide is against sharia. Say what you will about Islam; it has a fairly developed Just War theory that disallows half of what Isis does.
On September 11 2014 12:32 xDaunt wrote:
They're a throwback to a much worse time in history.
Except that the actual Caliphates were perfectly happy to let Christians do their thing rather than crucifying them for giggles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
