Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    27 Sep '17 23:45
    The soon to be Republican Senator from Alabama once wrote an article claiming that Muslims should not be allowed in the US House of Representatives. http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/

    Judge Roy also seems unaware that the oath (or affirmation) required in the Constitution does not end with the words "So help me God" Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 or that it forbids "religious tests" as a qualification for public office in the United States. Article VI, Section 3.
  2. 28 Sep '17 00:10
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The soon to be Republican Senator from Alabama once wrote an article claiming that Muslims should not be allowed in the US House of Representatives. http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/

    Judge Roy also seems unaware that the oath (or affirmation) required in the Constitution does not end with the words "So help me God" Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 ...[text shortened]... ligious tests" as a qualification for public office in the United States. Article VI, Section 3.
    The people of Alabama would have elected him. I thought you had no problem with people who have the support of the voters.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Sep '17 00:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    The people of Alabama would have elected him. I thought you had no problem with people who have the support of the voters.
    He seems to have a problem with the people of Minnesota's 5th Congressional District who elected Keith Ellison.

    The People in Alabama, if they elect him, are fools or worse.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Sep '17 01:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The soon to be Republican Senator from Alabama once wrote an article claiming that Muslims should not be allowed in the US House of Representatives. http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/39271/

    Judge Roy also seems unaware that the oath (or affirmation) required in the Constitution does not end with the words "So help me God" Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 ...[text shortened]... ligious tests" as a qualification for public office in the United States. Article VI, Section 3.
    This is a loosing fight. Being part of a religion isn't merely some lifestyle choice, like being a vegan. Fundamentalist Christians truly believe that there is a divine being who has commissioned them to obey and spread his commands. For them, allowing people who serve other gods into their government is insane. They truly believe other religions are tools of Satan; tools used to ensnare humanity and spread evil.

    For nonreligious people, the reaction is "What's the big deal? One religion's just as dumb as another, who cares what a politician's faith is?" Fundamentalists don't see it that way. They can't. They honestly believe that souls hang in the balance, and that we are in a spiritual war between Satan and God. Reasoning with such people may not be possible. I'm not saying this shouldn't be attempted, but that's one of the steepest uphill battles.
  5. 28 Sep '17 01:09
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    He seems to have a problem with the people of Minnesota's 5th Congressional District who elected Keith Ellison.

    The People in Alabama, if they elect him, are fools or worse.
    Yet you have no problem with Islamic countries electing officials who execute Christians for being Christians.
  6. 28 Sep '17 01:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar to No1Marauder
    Yet you have no problem with Islamic countries electing officials who execute Christians for being Christians.
    The closest story that I can find to this claim is one that I already have cited here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/09/jakarta-governor-ahok-found-guilty-of-blasphemy-jailed-for-two-years

    "Jakarta governor Ahok sentenced to two years in prison for blasphemy.
    Shock sentence comes after hardline Islamist groups called for Christian official to be
    jailed for referencing Qur’an verse."

    "Jakarta’s Christian governor has been sentenced to two years in prison after a trial that was widely
    seen as a measure of religious pluralism in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country."

    "The blasphemy charge related to Ahok’s reference to a passage of the Qur’an during his
    re-election campaign in September, which hardline Islamist groups said amounted to insulting the holy book.
    He insinuated that his opponents had used a Qur’anic verse to trick people into voting against him.
    An edited version of the speech went viral, sparking outrage. Ahok, a Christian with ethnic
    Chinese roots, is a “double minority” in Indonesia."

    "Andreas Harsono, an Indonesia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said the verdict was “a sad day for Indonesia”.
    “Ahok’s is the biggest blasphemy case in the history of Indonesia. He is the governor of Indonesia’s
    largest city, an ally of the president. If he can be sent to jail, what could happen to others?” he said.
    Harsono said more than 100 Indonesians had been convicted of blasphemy in the past decade,
    with acquittals in such cases extremely rare."
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Sep '17 01:35
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Yet you have no problem with Islamic countries electing officials who execute Christians for being Christians.
    I don't?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Sep '17 01:38
    Originally posted by @vivify
    This is a loosing fight. Being part of a religion isn't merely some lifestyle choice, like being a vegan. Fundamentalist Christians truly believe that there is a divine being who has commissioned them to obey and spread his commands. For them, allowing people who serve other gods into their government is insane. They truly believe other religions are too ...[text shortened]... ible. I'm not saying this shouldn't be attempted, but that's one of the steepest uphill battles.
    Many self-styled conservatives profess reverence to the US Constitution; however, many seem to be extremely ignorant of what it contains. I find it useful to point out that many of the right wing ideas expressed by people like Roy Moore directly contradict Constitutional provisions. I think that is also useful information for some of our more extreme, anti-American "leftists" to have as well.
  9. 28 Sep '17 08:29
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Many self-styled conservatives profess reverence to the US Constitution; however, many seem to be extremely ignorant of what it contains. I find it useful to point out that many of the right wing ideas expressed by people like Roy Moore directly contradict Constitutional provisions. I think that is also useful information for some of our more extreme, anti-American "leftists" to have as well.
    With the election of a president who relentlessly attacked the U.S. constitution during the election campaign, I think we can safely conclude that the principles of the U.S. constitution aren't valued highly by the American populace in general.
  10. 28 Sep '17 08:39
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Yet you have no problem with Islamic countries electing officials who execute Christians for being Christians.
    i will repeat the question. The main question when dealing with you.

    Are you a lying liar who lies a lot or are you completely retarded and can't comprehend basic english?

    I am unsure which one of the above you are guilty off (most likely you're split between them) but i am damn sure he NEVER said that. Nor did he implied it. And I am damn sure anyone with even a mediocre intelligence wouldn't draw such a monumentally idiotic conclusion from anything he said.
  11. 28 Sep '17 11:23
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I don't?
    You didn't when the Muslim Brotherhood was in control of Egypt.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Sep '17 11:37
    Originally posted by @eladar
    You didn't when the Muslim Brotherhood was in control of Egypt.
    Like I have always said, I want freedome FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. I think they are ALL nuts and I want to live on another planet, somewhere where people are not religious but live in harmony with each other and the land. Wait, that would have been USA 10,000 years ago.
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    28 Sep '17 12:36
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Yet you have no problem with Islamic countries electing officials who execute Christians for being Christians.
    You really can only be described with words which are banned on this site.

    You're like a fart in a space suit: completely unwelcome.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    28 Sep '17 12:48
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Like I have always said, I want freedome FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. I think they are ALL nuts and I want to live on another planet, somewhere where people are not religious but live in harmony with each other and the land. Wait, that would have been USA 10,000 years ago.
    Yes, because the irreligious Hitler's Germany and the irreligious Stalin's USSR lived sooooo nicely in harmony with each other and the land.

    People of any religion or lack of religion can be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy or any combination.

    The idea that religion itself is the problem with the world is hopelessly naive.
  15. 28 Sep '17 18:48 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @sh76 to Sonhouse
    Yes, because the irreligious Hitler's Germany and the irreligious Stalin's USSR lived sooooo nicely in harmony with each other and the land.

    People of any religion or lack of religion can be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy or any combination.
    The idea that religion itself is the problem with the world is hopelessly naive.
    "...irreligious Hitler's Germany ..."
    --Sh76

    Germany was not as 'irreligious' as Sh76 assumes. The reality was more complex.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

    "A census in May 1939, six years into the Nazi era[2] and after the annexation of mostly
    Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% considered themselves Protestant,
    40% Catholic, 3.5% self-identified as "gottgläubig" (lit. "believers in God", often described
    as predominately creationist and deistic),[3] and *1.5% as non-religious*."

    "There was some diversity of personal views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany."

    "Heinrich Himmler, who himself was fascinated with Germanic paganism[citation needed],
    was a strong promoter of the gottgläubig movement and didn't allow atheists into the SS,
    arguing that their "refusal to acknowledge higher powers" would be a "potential source
    of indiscipline".[23] The majority of the three million Nazi Party members continued to
    pay their church taxes and register as either Roman Catholic or Protestants."

    "Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not
    spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[26]."

    "Hitler called a truce to the Church conflict with the outbreak of war, wanting to back away
    from policies which were likely to cause internal friction inside Germany. He decreed at
    the outset of war that "no further action should be taken against the Evangelical and
    Catholic Churches for the duration of the war". According to John Conway, "The Nazis
    had to reckon with the fact that, despite all of Rosenberg's efforts, only 5 percent of the
    population registered themselves at the 1930 census as no longer connected with Christian Churches.""

    During the Second War, the Wehrmacht's men marched to war with this slogan inscribed
    on their belt buckles: "Gott mit uns."