- Joined
- Feb 3, 2016
- Messages
- 43,134
- Reaction score
- 16,115
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Nearly any ideology that is purified down to is fundamental elements would overthrow the Constitution.
Nearly any ideology that is purified down to is fundamental elements would overthrow the Constitution.Islam must follow the United States Laws.
But you admit the Hadith, no?The Koran is the basis for Islam.
And, yet, I've been spanking you for pages now.Nope. You can't even explain yourself in your own words because you know nothing about this subject.
So you admit the Hadith and it's allowances for lying.It does, sure. It still is secondary to the Koran.
I've simply been backing-up my own words with sources. It's standard practice in a debate. You don't like my sources as they--like me--continue to prove you wrong.As usual, you cannot debate using your own words so you have to resort to linking what others have said and cannot even express them in your own terms.
Is this a joke?I'll give you credit; your ability to regurgitate what others have said is impressive. And yet you still fail to counter what I have said.
As have I.I have quoted the Koran verbatim.
I said they lie and then backed it up with the Koran, the Hadith and other sources that all say the same thing...Islam allows you to lie.It's you who cannot think of counters or ideas on your own so you have to borrow what others have written.
...and prove you wrong.The only thing you have proven is that you can copy and paste links...
See above.You can't even write in your own words counters to what I say; more proof you are out of your league.
You should apologize for trying to derail this thread as a last-ditch--and useless--effort to keep from losing this debate.I apologize for thinking you could keep track of more than a two things.
See above.You are as unfamiliar with history as you are with Islam.
As you are now reduced to personal insults instead of genuine, legitimate debate, I will simply accept the victory in a gentlemanly manner and seek a more thoughtful and intelligent debater in another thread.I can see reading is hard for you.
But you admit the Hadith, no?
And, yet, I've been spanking you for pages now.
I've simply been backing-up my own words with sources. It's standard practice in a debate. You don't like my sources as they...
Is this a joke?
Seriously, if you can't do better than this I'm done.
This is fundamentally stupid.
I've said that Islam kills people who don't convert and back it up with sources as is standard practice. You simply chose to ignore that whole argument.
I've backed-up what I've said with multiple sources and you're only defense has been:
1. I don't like your source therefore it is not credible.
2. You post sources so therefore you can't speak for yourself even though there are literally pages of me correcting you time and again.
As you are now reduced to personal insults instead of genuine, legitimate debate,
This is why the Framers had the forethought to include the Establishment Clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment.Nearly any ideology that is purified down to is fundamental elements would overthrow the Constitution.
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
My comment wasn't limited to only religions. It's any ideology, religious or securlar.This is why the Framers had the forethought to include the Establishment Clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment.
I agree with you about religion.My comment wasn't limited to only religions. It's any ideology, religious or securlar.
Marxism pushes secularism which, when broken done to it's purist forms, ends up oppressing religious people. That's why you often see religious persecution in communist countries. Or, hell, I can say the same for capitalism, which is the form of economy that I prefer. If you had pure laissez faire capitalism then you'd have robber barons and basically have people be owned and governed by corporations.I agree with you about religion.
What secular ideology did you have in mind?
The problem is authoritarian governments, of which capitalism is almost certainly authoritarian. Communism isn't authoritarian and those countries in the past were never truly communist, just as East Germany and North Korea are not democratic republics.Marxism pushes secularism which, when broken done to it's purist forms, ends up oppressing religious people. That's why you often see religious persecution in communist countries. Or, hell, I can say the same for capitalism, which is the form of economy that I prefer. If you had pure laissez faire capitalism then you'd have robber barons and basically have people be owned and governed by corporations.
You couldn't have written a more wrong statement than someone had literally gone out of their way to purposefully write something that was false. Capitalism is the least authoritarian system out there, bar none. It's premised on the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Now, any system can be abused but the foundational aspects of capitalism is liberty. Conversely, communism is literally authoritarian. It's part of it's bedrock, baked in the cake. Collectivism, by it's very nature, suborns the freedom and liberty of the individual.The problem is authoritarian governments, of which capitalism is almost certainly authoritarian. Communism isn't authoritarian and those countries in the past were never truly communist, just as East Germany and North Korea are not democratic republics.
Uhhhh....this just demonstrates even more that you absolutely do not know what you're talking about Marxism most definitely is secularism. It's one of the pillars of it.Marxism is not secular. It's an economic idea of group ownership of goods and control, and it can be either anarchist, moderate or authoritarian. It is easily possible to have a socialist or true communist form of government that has protected religious rights or even a theocracy.
Would be a surprise to the Caliphates, many of whom held substantial populations of Christians and Jews for centuries.
That's where the Jizya comes in.
Okay? Doesn't change that fact.
I'm pretty sure that's what my post agreed to. To confirm, non-Muslims may live in Muslim-run countries as long as they accept inferior status and pay a religious tax. Correct?
So, they had to pay taxes. Just like the rest of the world.
Except, the Jizya was actually an easier burden on the populace than Persian or Byzantine rule. Which is why the Arabs didn't face any significant resistance to their rule.
Nope. That was a disingenuous deflection. I'm talking about an EXTRA tax called the Jizya - and you know it.
Source?
There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out how people in Dar Al-Islam had to pay taxes like the rest of the world.
The insinuation you want is that the Muslims were more asshole-ish because they made people pay their special tax, even though by most marks life under Arab rule, at least initially, was superior to Persian and Byzantine control.
How many revolts did the Arabs face after their conquests?
Still trying to insinuate that the Jizya is 'just another tax'? Rock on. I won't be correcting you again on that, so enjoy having the last word.
Let's impose a special tax on Muslims living here and see how that goes.
So, no source. Noted.
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?