Ok you want to defend Islam, we get it. You have not addressed the fact that Muslims have forced conversion for centuries and consider non muslims inferior to be taxed. Have you lived in a muslim country? any non muslim who has doesn't want to be there, they stay because they don't have the means to escape.

Ok you want to defend Islam, we get it.

I'm not defending terrorists.

I know plenty of Muslims, have worked with a few and they are decent people.

Only 1% of Muslims are terrorists.

Thanks for responding before Stone becomes outraged that I posted this and deletes it.

They've had plenty of time, and examples, to get their mind right and civilize.
Still a brutal, bloodthirsty, medieval death cult that keeps its women in black garbage bags,
no matter their trappings of wealth from oil discovered and rendered valuable by others.
A now-deceased friend of mine was an internationally-known expert and advisor on Wahhabism;
there is something evil and wrong about far too many of them.

Fck 'em and the camels they rode in on.

I'm guessing you don't know any muslims personally.

You have not addressed the fact that Muslims have forced conversion for centuries

Is it true that Muslims burn people on the stakes alive, for small deviations from the doctrine?

Is it true that Muslims burn people on the stakes alive, for small deviations from the doctrine?

I thought that was a specialty of you Catholics.

Muslims certainly do kill cruelly and wantonly but they don't have a reputation for burning people at the stake in the way that Catholics do for burning their own Joan of Arc, or the auto-de-fe's of the Spanish Inquisition, or the burnings of millions of elderly mentally ill women as witches during the Middle Ages because they were accused of muttering to themselves or had a cat.

I thought that was a specialty of you Catholics.

Yes, Catholics burned witches in New England, Calvin was also a notorious Catholic.

The entirety of the Catholic religion, and Christianity holds the burning of witches as an evil act, and are ashamed of it. How many are ashamed of honor killings, FGM, or teaching that peace means absence or submission to Islam? The Mosques of the world are full of Imams teaching the doctrine of death to unbelievers. Christians of today are teaching that we deserve death for being so prosperous. Seriously now, Christian doctrine teaches love for your neighbor, but don't let him treat you like a second class citizen. Unless you get into the nitty gritty of scripture, Christianity is practically invisible in government. Islam is not, even in majority Christian nations.

The entirety of the Catholic religion, and Christianity holds the burning of witches as an evil act, and are ashamed of it.

Few centuries ago it was different. But Christians changed, so Muslims can too. Most of the later already changed.

In our times people kill for political, ideological and economic reasons, in bigger numbers.

Is it true that Muslims burn people on the stakes alive, for small deviations from the doctrine?

History is a wonderful mirror, and many races and religions have savage rituals but noone has persisted in the savagery into the twenty-first century as has the Muslim. Nor is this savagery confined to one country but can be found across the world, not burnings but beheadings since wood is a scarce commodity in the Muslim world.

So get real, the problem is a religion which has practiced this savagery for 1,400 years unabated

Yes, Catholics burned witches in New England, Calvin was also a notorious Catholic.

The New England witch burnings were a tiny fraction compared to the vast death toll of the Inquisition over the centuries.

Calvin did not burn Servetus. Servetus was condemned by the town council and in accordance with local law and, incidentally, the laws of Catholic Europe. The Inquisition wanted to get their hands on him badly so they could burn Servetus first.

Don't bother to go running to Calvin. Both Catholics and Prots wanted him (Servetus) dead. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state had not been applied yet and almost all religious penalties carried severe secular punishments, up to and including execution.

Catholics and Prots did a lot to persecute each other in huge numbers. A lot of innocent people did die as a result.

The New England witch burnings were a tiny fraction compared to the vast death toll of the Inquisition over the centuries.

Very "clever" response, you almost got me. You forgot though, that burnings by Protestant did not take place ONLY in New England.

Calvin did not burn Servetus. Servetus was condemned by the town council

Yes, town council were Muslims. And Inquisition did not rely on secular authorities.

Either way, are we talking about Muslims versus Protestants, or Christians in general?

History is a wonderful mirror, and many races and religions have savage rituals but noone has persisted in the savagery into the twenty-first century as has the Muslim.

One humanitarian intervention in the name of liberal democracy can kill millions. Or in the name of Aryan race superiority, or whatever.

5 Catholics on the Supreme court can cause millions of babies to be murdered and call it a right.

5 Catholics on the Supreme court can cause millions of babies to be murdered and call it a right.

What is the Muslim position on abortion?

What is the Muslim position on abortion?

If it is a christian woman to abort it for her in a crowded subway with a bomb strapped to yourself.

What is the Muslim position on abortion?

https://rcrc.org/muslim/

Pro abortion according to these muslims.

There is consensus that abortion is allowed if the life of the woman is endangered at any period during pregnancy. Some scholars have now taken the position that the fetus is to be treated as a person from the moment of conception, and as such, any abortion is forbidden. This, however, contradicts with the classical Islamic practice in which the fetus was never seen as a legal person before birth. This is best illustrated by the practice of accepting the testimony of a midwife in the case of istihlal. In the settling of inheritance cases, a fetus could not inherit, since it was not a person. But if it could be proven that the fetus lived even for a nanosecond, then, since it emerged from the womb alive, it could inherit. To determine whether it lived for such a time period, the testimony of a midwife was required, and the legal texts show that this was allowed by one of Islam’s earliest judges, Shurayh h. Harith (died ~718 C.E.).

Then there is this from their website.

Pro Faith. Pro Family. Pro Choice.

What is the Muslim position on abortion?

Why The Abortion Rate In Pakistan Is One Of The World's Highest

www.wbur.org/npr/66176331...-rate-in-pakistan-is-one- of-the-worlds-highest

The Iranian Law on Abortion is Less Restrictive than the One in Alabama.

patheos.com/blogs/margino...-law-on-abortion-is-less- restrictive-than-the-one-in-alabama/

Some scholars have now taken the position that the fetus is to be treated as a person from the moment of conception, and as such, any abortion is forbidden. This, however, contradicts with the classical Islamic practice in which the fetus was never seen as a legal person before birth.

Is there any Christian country where fetus is considered a legal person?

BTW, the classic Christian approach was to assume ensoulment either 40 days after conception, or 80 (Aquinas), or at the moment of quickening or when the fetus is completely formed or else. There was no one position. The shift into moment of conception started in XIX century with the advancement of embryology.

https://andrewg.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/the-moment-of-quickening/

One humanitarian intervention in the name of liberal democracy can kill millions.

Who wants to intervene, I think we should build a big wall around them and leave them to annihilate each other in the name of the caliphate

The New England witch burnings were a tiny fraction compared to the vast death toll of the Inquisition over the centuries.

(1) No witches were burned in New England.

(2) Luther's Germany burnt 50,000, and Knox's Kirk in Scotland burnt 20,000.

There is heavy blood all around. Christianity disgraced itself forever by the way it behaved back then. We will always have to answer for it, and have to explain why - no matter how committed we are to our beliefs - we can never do that again.

(1) No witches were burned in New England.

Hanged, doused, crushed, etc.

I pay little attention to the details since I have no ancestors from there and I assume that Yankees are depraved assholes anyway.

My great great great great Grandfather was torn asunder in the 1600's in Scotland for heresy. He was a Pastor, and his entire family fled to America. It was bitter and cruel how people treated each other. It made for some hardy people. I always figured that we all die, does it really matter how it happens? If there is an afterlife, it is like pulling a bandage off a childs arm. The memory will be nothing. I can remember that I remember, the pain of shattering my leg falling from a two story house. The pain lingers still, but the first 5 years were a bear. Dying is a piece of cake I hope. I haven't heard anyone complaining.

Sharia law has nothing in common with Mosaic law. Sharia is supported by over 50% of all Moslims. 750,000,000 people who will themselves be branded infidels if they refuse to to the bidding of Allah as transmitted by the Imams. They have no sects where rewrites of the Koran are accepted or taught that I have heard of. The US Constitution and a free national populace cannot coexist with Islam. We will devolve into Lebanon or Afghanistan if it is attempted.

It matters how it happens. Just as the religious point out all of the pain of Jesus in his Passion, because it was unjust, the whole world points to all of the burnings, hangings, and assorted other executions committed by Christians in the name of their God - as they point to the same things done by Muslims. It matters when religious people kill people over their faith, not so much because of the final disposition of the person killed - he is now beyond reach - but because of what it says about the religion. One does not let Nasis and Communists off the hook for their atrocities because "people die anyway", nor should one ever let Islam or Christianity, or Judaism, off the hook for their atrocities either - it is all exactly the same thing. When people murder over their beliefs, it discredits those beliefs. People can be right wing nationalists, but if they put on the colors of Nasi Germany, they cross a line into something else - something that isn't tolerable because of what it did. It's not forgiven, and should not be. Same thing with Soviet Communism. One can be on the left, and be a socialist, but if one extols Stalin and the Gulag and starts waving around the banners of that era, one has stepped over the line. Same thing with jihad and Islam. Christians howl no, no, no, but it's the same thing with Christianity. Christianity was a murderous force for evil for a few hundred years. It did not reform, it had its fangs ripped down and its power thrown down by revolution, and by aggressive kings who, for all their corruption, were certainly better than the fanatics, Catholic and Protestant alike. So, when Christians start getting in that high moral dudgeon and start speaking AS THOUGH they possess political power, EVERYBODY should remember what real Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, did with power the last time they really had it. One third of the population of Germany was wiped out in the religious wars of the Reformation - one third. And then on top of that they went primitive and burnt tens of thousands of people as "witches" (which do not really exist). So no, one does not cut Christianity any slack when it comes to political power, and one does not pretend that it was not every bit as goddamned bad as the Nasis. Nationalists, Socialists, Church ladies and even nice Muslim families are all fine. Fanatics are rabid dogs, whatever their stripe, and they bear watching, because sooner or later, fanatics always reach for the sword and have to be put down in blood, to spare the world another ravage from their evil. That's just the way it is, and it will never change.

I have no ancestors from there and I assume that Yankees are depraved assholes anyway.

Are you one of those guys who call the Civil War, the War of Northern Aggression? ;)

And then on top of that they went primitive and burnt tens of thousands of people as "witches" (which do not really exist).

To be precise, the witches or people practicing black magic do exist. Do not confuse the efficacy with the reality. BTW, in those times it was believed that magic might work, same as today people believe in reality of poisoning.

And then on top of that they went primitive and burnt tens of thousands of people as "witches" (which do not really exist).

Or liberal democrats or radical atheists for that matter. People can change their beliefs, but have difficulty with changing their bloodthirsty nature.

Nope. Unless I want to bait some rabid Yankee assholes who love to start cruel and pointless wars, both then and now.

They are the worst of America and always have been.

rabid Yankee assholes

I know one guy from Arkansas, who claims that Massachusetts is a disease.

“In those days”, meaning only in certain ignorant times. In Chatlemagne’s time, 770 AD, witch trials were abolished as barbaric and foolish, as witchcraft was properly understood even then to be delusional. Witch trials were held in benightned, barbaric places only. The. Church did kill a lot of people for heresy, but that’s a form of political suppression, carried out by fanatics. Wholesale witch trials didn’t come back to Europe until Protestantism made the North Germans and Scots stupid again.

The South: Baptist, racist and backwards: cause and effect.

projecTion

only The brainwashed proselyTize

you're a crack proof nuT case

f - off
boris

ps

you geT sTraighT A's

in undigesTed filTh

You wrote wisdom and it is working in my skinny little brain pan like saute' with Coconut oil.

I agree that fanatics not just can, but will eventually find a reason to pick up the sword.

If Christianity was so perverted and used as a dudgeon against those seen as "other", it was evil. The worst kind of evil, because it turned something good, kind and giving into hate. Maybe it had to be "beaten down" by time and governments. Just as human beings need to be hammered on to reach their best selves individually.

If that is so, the Moslems need an all fired "hammering" to reach their best selves as a religion, and individually. We should get out of their way, and not allow them to bring the strife to our shores. Come on in, we should should say. IF you lay aside your allegiance to Sharia and its commands to convert or kill infidels. If you do not do these things, you are simply not welcome. If it is not possible to renounce this without renouncing Al'lah, then they can never be tamed enough to safely dwell with those who have already fought this battle.

My fear is that if Islam and modern man come together, there will be another clash where millions die in a short while, and on every shore. Then the Beast that lives in the heart of all will be unleashed, and She is a fierce one.

I love you too Boris.

You’re roight about Islam. We didn’t allow Communists to immigrate during the Cold War, and we still don’t let professed Nazis immigrate: the ideas of both are fundamentally at war with what we are. So is Islam. Now, I’m well aware that Protestants were wildly opposed to the mass immigration of Catholics into America, claiming we would “fundamentally alter” the American culture as it then existed. And they were right too: we did, I would say for the better. It was the Catholic urban North that combined with the solid Democrat South to elect FDR and enact the New Deal.

claiming we would “fundamentally alter” the American culture as it then existed.

They did. They made abortion the law of the land.

And they were right too: we did, I would say for the better. It was the Catholic urban North that combined with the solid Democrat South to elect FDR and enact the New Deal.

Collectivists are antichristian. They don't have faith in God to take care of their needs. Government is their (Your) master. You cannot have two.

They did. They made abortion the law of the land.

Hogwash.

The Supreme Court in 1973 consisted of 9 Justices, ONE of whom was Catholic (the next Catholic to sit on the Court was Antonin Scalia, in 1986, and he was a staunch opponent of Roe). The other 8 were Protestants.

Protestants made abortion the law of the land in 1973.

Before that, the Protestant Governor Ronald Reagan signed abortion on demand into law in California, after a Protestant-dominated legislature passed it.

As with so much of what you right, your raging anti-Catholic bigotry shows through, but your "facts" are nonsense. It's your own side that has done the things you hate. But you simply choose to blame the Catholics, because of bigotry.

Roe v. Wade was a Protestant decision.

you seem To be

parroTing hisTory

inTellecTual chess

on some board

wiTh unknown rules

whackapeople by blind moles

sTrange
boris

some board

wiTh unknown rules

😁

ou seem To be

parroTing hisTory

inTellecTual chess

on some board

wiTh unknown rules

whackapeople by blind moles

sTrange boris

No, Boris.

The challenge was presented that Catholics gave us legalised abortion.

Abortion was legalised by Roe v. Wade, in 1973, in a 7-2 decision. I simply looked up who was on the Supreme Court in 1973, and then went and looked up the religion of each justice. There were 8 Protestants and 1 Catholic on the Court at that time. So I answered the false charge that Catholics gave us abortion rights with the truth: Protestants did.

Of course there was no acknowledgment of that fact on THIS board, and there never will be. Protestants have a strong capacity to deny, or simply ignore, truths that don't fit into their narrative, and return, unrepentant as ever, to the same falsehoods they told themselves before. It's why religious discussion with Protestants is so pointless. They simply manufacture facts to suit what they want to believe, they do so humorlessly. They are certain Catholics are wrong about everything, manufacture the "facts" to make that so, and really believe what they make up.

For years and years I myself really tried to bridge that gap, given that half of my family is Protestant and half is Catholic. But in the end, the Protestants pretty much dropped away from religion - they did not really believe their doctrines anymore. But though they no longer practiced Protestantism, they remained morally certain that, nevertheless, the Catholics were WRONG. THAT was the enduring legacy of Protestantism in their minds. Maybe no God like that really exists anymore, but the Catholics are still wrong. It's a very Deckardish way of looking at religion.

I've found the Catholic side to be the same as they always were. And I find the way religious discussion goes on this board to be essentially the same thing.

I used to find that distressing and just withdraw. But when preposterous things are said, gross errors and lies, I've decided to correct those errors and lies with truth. If Protestants want to melt down over having their errors of fact corrected, that's their problem, not mine.

Abortion was legalised by Roe v. Wade, in 1973, in a 7-2 decision. I simply looked up who was on the Supreme Court in 1973, and then went and looked up the religion of each justice. There were 8 Protestants and 1 Catholic on the Court at that time. So I answered the false charge that Catholics gave us abortion rights with the truth: Protestants did.

I guess I stand corrected. Catholics didn't give us abortion. But they are the ones keeping it legal today.

We can agree on that right?

There were 8 Protestants and 1 Catholic on the Court at that time. So I answered the false charge that Catholics gave us abortion rights with the truth: Protestants did.

You are not playing fair. You are using real facts against fantasies.

I guess I stand corrected ... But they are the ones ...

OK, so do not try to wiggle out with more obfuscation. And no need to guess, you got nailed.

I guess I stand corrected. Catholics didn't give us abortion. But they are the ones keeping it legal today.

We can agree on that right?

Effectively, yes. One Justice, Kennedy, was the swing vote in Casey, 1986. (The other Catholic at the time, Scalia, would have struck it down). Today you've got three Jews (Kagan, Breyer and Gisnburg) and a Catholic (Sotomayor) who are clearly pro-abortion. And you've got 5 more Catholics on the Court: Thomas (certainly pro-life) Alito (almost certainly pro-life - he has not yet opined on abortion while on the high court, but his previous work makes it very likely he'd vote to strike down Roe). Gorsuch (was a Catholic - now, he hasn't changed religions formally but he attends Episcopalian Church) He's likely a vote to strike down Roe. Kavanaugh (Trump pro-life appointee; he'll strike down Roe if it comes before the court, maybe) And finally: John Roberts, the Chief Justice. He was thought to be a staunch conservative Catholic, but his stance on Obamacare was a surprise to many. (It isn't surprising to me that a Catholic would find a universal health insurance plan constitutional). Would he vote to strike down Roe? I don't know. I doubt it. So, of the 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court, 4 are pro-life, one is wishy- washy, and one is a liberal Democrat who will of course uphold abortion. Yes, if the Catholics voted their religion on the subject, Roe would be gone. And if Republicans voted their party's platform position on the subject, Roe would have been gone in 1986, in the age of Reagan. Ginsburg is likely the next Justice to leave the court. If she leaves in the age of Trump, the next appointee will be pro-life, and that may finally be enough to get a ruling that strikes down Roe. Neither party nor religion seems to cause men and women to toe the line on this issue.

Pope Francis: ‘Eliminate Inequalities,’ ‘Injustice’ During Coronavirus Pandemic

April 19, 2020

Associate Editor

‘Let us welcome this time of trial as an opportunity to prepare for our collective future…’

(Associated Press) Pope Francis is urging the faithful to use the coronavirus pandemic’s “time of trial” to prepare for a future where inequalities are abolished and the poorest are no longer left behind.

“This is not some ideology,” Francis said. “It is Christianity.”

Francis traveled a few blocks outside the Vatican walls on Sunday to celebrate Mass at a nearby church to mark a special feast day dedicated to mercy.

Only a few priests were in the pews given Italy’s strict virus lockdown. .

In his homily, Francis said the grave, global toll of the pandemic has reminded the world that there are no borders between those who suffer, no differences in nationalities among those who are struck or spared.

“We are all frail, all equal, all precious,” he said.

“May we be profoundly shaken by what is happening all around us,” he said from the altar of the Santo Spirito church. “The time has come to eliminate inequalities, to heal the injustice that is undermining the health of the entire human family!”

While people infected with the coronavirus often experience mild or moderate symptoms, possible complications like pneumonia can put their lives at risk. Francis has been using his daily livestreamed Masses in the Vatican hotel where he lives to single out a particular group of people for prayers during the pandemic: the elderly, doctors and nurses, prisoners and those with disabilities.

On Sunday, he delivered a broader message about inequality and the need for a post-virus world to rethink its priorities.

It’s a theme that echoes the pre-pandemic preaching of the world’s first Latin American pope, who has constantly demanded greater solidarity among rich and poor.

In recent days, Francis has proposed the creation of a universal basic wage to help those who have lost their jobs as a result of the virus economic shutdown to survive.

On Sunday, he said there is a grave risk that while COVID-19 might eventually be tamed, the virus of “selfishness indifference” could take its place.

To combat that risk, he said: “Let us welcome this time of trial as an opportunity to prepare for our collective future.

Because without an ... all-embracing vision --- there will be no future for anyone.”

https://www.libertyheadlines.com/pope-francis-eliminate-inequalities- coronavirus/

"To combat that risk, he said: “Let us welcome this time of trial as an opportunity to prepare for our collective future."

hhhmmm