- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 58,409
- Reaction score
- 26,456
- Location
- Mentor Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Childish? No...its insightful, sorry you can't get it. That is your problem.
It is referring to a very specific type of Christians, with a play on words, but which still doesn't include all of those types of Christians who are "born again". Again, a ridiculous argument because he wasn't referring to all Christians nor all born again Christians, just specific types of Christians who want to see us living under a Christian based legal system, much like the Taliban.
Wrong again. But perhaps you will dazzle me with your knowledge of Christianity and the Taliban and tell me in what way the two are even remotely comparable. You wont any more than he will. Why? Because Talibornagain is a childish smear that for some reason you have decided to chime in and support. You, of course, are free to do that, but I am also free to conclude that your credibility is garbage.
Archbishop of Canterbury once joked that evangelicals are ‘homophobic versions of the Taliban’ · PinkNewsThe Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby once joked that evangelical Christians are like “homophobic European versions of the Taliban”, it has emerged today.
How about you summarize that in your own words.do some reading and bone up on the now-common comparison:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/20xto4/do_people_commonly_compare_evangelical_christians/
Do Evangelicals simply want to create in America what the Taliban had in Afghanistan?
America's own Taliban - Al Jazeera English
Archbishop of Canterbury once joked that evangelicals are ‘homophobic versions of the Taliban’ · PinkNews
there are theocratic similarities. unfortunately
identical?
in no way
but similar enough to allow non-evangelicals so inclined to mock those having such extreme beliefs
just the way it is
There you are. Great. Glad you are here. Now please fill in the blanks on this 'insightful' comment of yours and dazzle me with your knowledge of Christianity and the Taliban by showing me the links between the two. If you cant or wont, then I will just have to assume that it is what it looks like it is--a childish smear. Thanks
How about you summarize that in your own words.
Nice try. The Taliban happens to be (and you would know this if you were even mildly interested in facts) perhaps the most barbaric group since the Nazis. So any comparison between ANYONE and the Taliban is an ignorant and absurd comparison.I was vacationing in Mexico last few days. Someone that wants to rule via their holy texts is a theocrat, like the taliban are. Radical zealot christians that want the nation ruled via their holy texts are like taliban, hence the term. Its a great term, it says a lot about the zealots. Its my opinion if you don't like it too bad.
There is no comparison between born again Christians and the Taliban. Any comparison is ignorant, childish or both.I'm not giving you links to an opinion, but if you can't see the similarities between the zealotry of two religious fringes, then no one is going to be able to explain it to you. Thankfully, religion is being replaced with reason all over the globe. Free thought is winning.
I didn't ask for links.Jeez, you ask for links, someone gives links, and then you bitch that it isn't in their own words.
FAIL
Nice try. The Taliban happens to be (and you would know this if you were even mildly interested in facts) perhaps the most barbaric group since the Nazis. So any comparison between ANYONE and the Taliban is an ignorant and absurd comparison.
There is no comparison between born again Christians and the Taliban. Any comparison is ignorant, childish or both.
I didn't ask for links.
You asked for the links between the two, and you got links that show the links.
You should be happy now, but I doubt it.
Wrong again. But perhaps you will dazzle me with your knowledge of Christianity and the Taliban and tell me in what way the two are even remotely comparable. You wont any more than he will. Why? Because Talibornagain is a childish smear that for some reason you have decided to chime in and support. You, of course, are free to do that, but I am also free to conclude that your credibility is garbage.
You read those links did you? Prior to formulating your opinion? I doubt it, particularly since those links wont open on my computer.
Nothing will change your mind, you are too deep into your dogma to have a rational opinion.
Look who's talking lol. I love liberals who think they aren't dogmatic in their leftism. And anyone who tries to link modern American Christians with the Taliban has no claim to a rational opinion on the subject. Its just a Godwin where Nazis are replaced with the Taliban.
If you have a Federal judge that is ignoring Federal Law and is, instead, using his interpretation of biblical law, then you have a theocrat. We don't do that in America...that is what the Taliban do...but with their Kortanic law.
You are just being purposely ignorant on this, I can't help you. Nothing liberal or conservative about this issue, and nothing Godwin about it, yet, you try to make it be...and you fail miserably.
He's not a federal judge. He's the Chief Justice of the Alabama STATE Supreme Court.
My bad....still...he is refusing to follow actual law.
Actually no. He's failing to recognize as genuine a SCOTUS decision made by five of the nine SCOTUS justices. A decision even the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS says does not comport with the constitution (see my sig line). In fact, he's following his oath of office.
Btw, unlike the SCOTUS justices, his is an elected position.
So.........you think that 5 of 9 justices voting for something means its not actual law?
REALLY?
No, SCOTUS does not make law. Or at least they're not supposed to. But the issue is what it has been since the beginning, as a justice of the supreme court, state or federal, do they follow their oath of office. That is a matter of conscience. The Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court went with his reading of the Constitution and decided in order to be in keeping with his oath he would disagree with the decision five US Supreme Court justices made. Interestingly enough, four other US Supreme Court justices felt the same way, one of them also a chief justice.
And I bet most if not all of those 4 SCOTUS justices would say that he is wrong for refusing to follow a SCOTUS ruling, since I'm willing to bet none of them would want to open up the possibility that one of their decisions would be ignored in the future, no matter how much they dislike the results of this decision.
Agreed. They're not going to blow the court's cover. But I think you have it wrong. Take Roberts (see my sig), I don't think he dislikes the result of this decision. What he dislikes, and should, is the way in which it was made - extra-constitutionally.
According to him. That is why we have a SCOTUS because people don't always agree what the Constitution means or protects or whose rights are more important.
Precisely. And that's why we have state's supreme courts, which btw have done a better job of protecting and following their state's constitutions than the SCOTUS has with the federal. Moore is following his oath. I don't agree with his personal stance about homosexuality or bringing the 10 commandments into the public square, but I agree with his defense of the state's constitution. He's also correct in this regard concerning the federal constitution.
I don't agree with it because the states are constantly trying to violate the rights of individuals. Why bother having constitutional protections from a large federal government if the states are just going to violate those rights?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?