RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S.

RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/28/2016 11:12:57 AM)
quote: I didn't suggest a different question Peon; that accolade belongs to Bounty . My mistake - apologies for that.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/28/2016 12:02:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 sure, and again, i'll partially agree with you...but all that really speaks to is the Christian influence on the government, not the government being in bed with the church. however, to backtrack a little on my use of the term "Christian" in this regard, mention and belief in "god" is not evidence of a preferential treatment of any one sect of Christianity, nor for that matter, even a sole compass pointing towards Christianity in particular or religion in general. Ok, let's examine that a little.... Does the US (or any 'christian' country in the west, including us) acknowledge the marriage and divorce rituals of anything that is not specifically western christian (protestant or catholic)??? No. Simply wrong. The ability of any faith to do marriages is recognized.. I didn't go through all of them - but you are welcome to. https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/ Alabama: (3) before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation. Arizona: B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies. Arkansas: (5) Any regularly ordained minister or priest of any religious sect or denomination; Ok, lets take some of the contents of your link - Alabama Code A) Generally. Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which the minister is a member; by an active or retired judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court, or any district court within this state; by a judge of any federal court; or by an active or retired judge of probate. B) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. [A pastor is usually an ordained leader of a Christian congregation] (C) Quakers, Mennonites, or other religious societies. The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations... Alaska Code (1) by a minister, priest, or rabbi of any church or congregation in the state, or by a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army, or by the principal officer or elder of recognized churches or congregations that traditionally do not have regular ministers, priests, or rabbis, anywhere within the state; [all of which are christian-based] (2) by a marriage commissioner or judicial officer of the state anywhere within the jurisdiction of the commissioner or officer; or (3) before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation. American Samoa Code (1) a marriage performed by a minister of any Christian religion authorized to perform marriages; (2) a marriage performed by an associate judge, or the Associate Justice or the Chief Justice of American Samoa; (3) All marriages solemnized before the enactment of this regulation by any minister of any Christian religion, duly appointed or ordained or reputed to be duly appointed or ordained. Arizona Revised Statutes 1. Duly licensed or ordained clergymen. 2. Judges of courts of record. 3. Municipal court judges. 4. Justices of the peace. 5. Justices of the United States supreme court. 6. Judges of courts of appeals, district courts and courts that are created by an act of Congress if the judges are entitled to hold office during good behavior. 7. Bankruptcy court and tax court judges. 8. United States magistrate judges. 9. Judges of the Arizona court of military appeals. B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies. Just about all of them, with very very few exceptions quote an 'authorised' person who is usually a judge or other public official. Those who hold such posts are sworn to uphold the US constitution 'so help me god' (and are thus sworn to uphold christian values). Most others that depict clergymen, ministers and others are almost exclusively christian in nature. Even in Samoa, it states "minister of any Christian religion". Please point out where any of them allow a Tibetan ritualised marriage, or a Pagan, or an Islamic one, where the tenets of the non-christian religion are the only things needed to make it legally recognised. I couldn't see one when I skimmed through them all. They pretty much rely on a christian-based person even when officiating a non-christian ritual. Much like my own Pagan wedding. I can write my own ceremony and readings to go with it. I can have my nominated Priest/ess perform it (as long as they are duly 'authorised' by christian-based law and oath). I can even have my own witnesses and record the ceremony in accordance with the law. I can have all the paraphernalia I want to make it a Pagan ceremony. But.... to make it legally recognised, I must have certain words within the ceremony otherwise it doesn't count; and those include a reverence to 'god' and a 'holy spirit' which I don't believe in. Even a non-religious ceremony has certain christian words in it or it is not legally recognised.

thishereboi -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/28/2016 3:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub sadly our enemies had to pay the price for their aggression. Butch After all the aggression caused by the USA, maybe it should be your turn to know what it feels like to be nuked? After all, without US intervention, the Middle East wouldn't be the shit hole it is today, and many coups in South America would have never occured, just to name a few examples.[8\|] That's right TKboy, the Japanese were a peace loving group before we pissed them off and forced them to start WW2. Thanks for setting us straight [8\|] Japan isn't in the Middle East and it didn't start WW2, THB. I never said it was or did.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 9:48:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Wow, you're ignorant. Mathew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body go to hell. Jesus knowledgably taught tolerance. You spread ignorant hate sorry sporto---the admonition in matthew speaks to the individual hearing it. its not an admonition for how one person treats another. so to put it more plainly since you don't read very well---matthew 5:30 does not give me the biblical justification to kill someone else if they are "sinning." other than that, forgive me if I wasn't following whatever other possible point you were trying to make with that scripture. its hard to keep up with your rambling. as for "spreading ignorant hate"---well, you'll just have to be a little bit more specific, especially in light of the quranic references in freedoms post #322 now wont you? am quite curious too, how that's "intolerant"---which by the way, I defy you to show is some universal and absolute trait jesus taught. help me out too please---does calling someone "ignorant" qualify under the "tolerance" rubric? so you've got plenty to do... oh, and rape in Albania. Try reading before responding. Jihad means struggle, and the greatest jihad in Islam is against one's own inclination to sin. If you selectively translate meaning towards developing a bias (the same method to rationalize the crusades and ISIS), you can contort any religion. But please, don't ever address what I say except to speak past or around statements and continue your Newspeak, I mean GoP talking points

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 10:39:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Try reading before responding. Jihad means struggle, and the greatest jihad in Islam is against one's own inclination to sin. If you selectively translate meaning towards developing a bias (the same method to rationalize the crusades and ISIS), you can contort any religion. But please, don't ever address what I say except to speak past or around statements and continue your Newspeak, I mean GoP talking points Perhaps you would care to actually do some research before espouting a one-sided argument as fact? Like many languages, Arabic has evolved over time and has more than one meaning. From Wiki: Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒiˈhæːd]) is an Islamic term referring to the religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning the act of "striving, applying oneself, struggling, persevering". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen (مجاهدين). The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)", to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth. Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observers—both Muslim and non-Muslim—as well as the Dictionary of Islam, talk of jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad") which may take a violent or non-violent form. Jihad is often translated as "Holy War", although this term is controversial. According to orientalist Bernard Lewis, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense." Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that *the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers. [emphasis mine]* And further: Within classical Islamic jurisprudence – *the development of which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophet's death* – jihad consisted of wars against unbelievers, apostates, and was the only form of warfare permissible. [emphasis mine] Nothing that I have read would seem to corroborate your opening sentence; ie, pertaining to one's own inclination to sin. Everything appears to point to maintaining the religion or a war and is not a recent change of meaning, at least not within the recent millennia.

DominantWrestler -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 11:06:52 AM)
Inclination to sin is the greater jihad which you put in your quote "...the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers" So they take armed struggle against wrong doers like our police are suppose to do?

Phydeaux -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 12:28:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 sure, and again, i'll partially agree with you...but all that really speaks to is the Christian influence on the government, not the government being in bed with the church. however, to backtrack a little on my use of the term "Christian" in this regard, mention and belief in "god" is not evidence of a preferential treatment of any one sect of Christianity, nor for that matter, even a sole compass pointing towards Christianity in particular or religion in general. Ok, let's examine that a little.... Does the US (or any 'christian' country in the west, including us) acknowledge the marriage and divorce rituals of anything that is not specifically western christian (protestant or catholic)??? No. Simply wrong. The ability of any faith to do marriages is recognized.. I didn't go through all of them - but you are welcome to. https://theamm.org/marriage-laws/ Alabama: (3) before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation. Arizona: B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies. Arkansas: (5) Any regularly ordained minister or priest of any religious sect or denomination; Please point out where any of them allow a Tibetan ritualised marriage, or a Pagan, or an Islamic one, where the tenets of the non-christian religion are the only things needed to make it legally recognised. I just did. Have you really never been to a Hindu wedding? A jewish wedding? I am also aware of Sikhs marrying, Zoroastrians marrying. In the end, to get married all that matters is the marriage license. You're running off the deep end and frankly just wrong when you say it requires a christian wedding.

Phydeaux -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 12:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Try reading before responding. Jihad means struggle I see you have no answer to my post #335, where I showed that your representation of the quran was a lie; and more than 20 examples of jihad meaning (paraphrased of course) 'kill the unbelievers'. Nice flexible word that jihad. So does that mean you are conceding that islam is not a religion of peace, hmm?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 1:28:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I just did. Have you really never been to a Hindu wedding? A jewish wedding? I am also aware of Sikhs marrying, Zoroastrians marrying. In the end, to get married all that matters is the marriage license. You're running off the deep end and frankly just wrong when you say it requires a christian wedding. You did nothing of the sort. All you listed were states that require either A) a christian minister/priest etc; or B) a person holding public office that is sworn to uphold christian values. I saw nothing in any of them that allow a completely independent non-christian interference with the ceremony and still have it recognised as legal. I have had Hindu and Sikh weddings held at the village hall that I used to be caretaker of. I had bookings of at least 3 or more every single week with hundreds of guests. Every single one of them was an 'after ceremony' because the traditional one wasn't recognised in law. I never said it required a christian wedding, just requires a christian person who is sworn to uphold christian values by way of holding the office to enable the declare such weddings 'legal'. Can you hold a Sunni wedding that can be performed, and be declared legal, with just the parties and a cleric??? No, it wouldn't be legal. That's the point I was making and I saw nothing in your list to corroborate it either.

Aylee -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 2:36:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I just did. Have you really never been to a Hindu wedding? A jewish wedding? I am also aware of Sikhs marrying, Zoroastrians marrying. In the end, to get married all that matters is the marriage license. You're running off the deep end and frankly just wrong when you say it requires a christian wedding. You did nothing of the sort. All you listed were states that require either A) a christian minister/priest etc; or B) a person holding public office that is sworn to uphold christian values. I saw nothing in any of them that allow a completely independent non-christian interference with the ceremony and still have it recognised as legal. I have had Hindu and Sikh weddings held at the village hall that I used to be caretaker of. I had bookings of at least 3 or more every single week with hundreds of guests. Every single one of them was an 'after ceremony' because the traditional one wasn't recognised in law. I never said it required a christian wedding, just requires a christian person who is sworn to uphold christian values by way of holding the office to enable the declare such weddings 'legal'. Can you hold a Sunni wedding that can be performed, and be declared legal, with just the parties and a cleric??? No, it wouldn't be legal. That's the point I was making and I saw nothing in your list to corroborate it either. The Sunni cleric, bride, groom, and two witnesses are what is needed for signing the marriage certificate. I am ordained and can do marriages. Yes, legally. The cleric does NOT have to be Christian. They do not even have to believe in G*d. Or be a citizen, for that matter.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 2:50:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee The Sunni cleric, bride, groom, and two witnesses are what is needed for signing the marriage certificate. I am ordained and can do marriages. Yes, legally. The cleric does NOT have to be Christian. They do not even have to believe in Gd. Or be a citizen, for that matter. You couldn't do that here. And does the Sunni cleric need to be sworn into something to perform said marriage, legally recognised across the whole of United States? Because most of what I've read, to hold any sort of public office to be able to legally sanctify a marriage you have to swear certain things and one of them refers to god. And I've seen much argued that it isn't necessarily 'the' god, as in christian, but everything in and around the reference most certainly implies such an interpretation, as per the constitution. So... you are telling me, a Sunni Imam or cleric, can fly over from Pakistan (or wherever), marry two people in the US, and it's perfectly legal and recognised?? Here, you can be a cleric and perform said marriages, but it isn't recognised in law* unless certain words are said within the ceremony. On top of that, said cleric needs to be 'authorised' and that means swearing to uphold the laws and the faith of the land; which in our case is pretty much anything christian. For instance, an Imam holding the ceremony might be fine within Islam, but not for our legal system to recognise it. Much that same as under Sharia law, the husband can divorce a wife by repeating certain words 3 times and it's done - but not according to our laws because said ceremony is not recognised as legal. ETA: Yes, I clarified that position when trying to organise my own Pagan wedding here and also asked if I could do the same in the US and still have it recognised here in the UK.

Phydeaux -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/29/2016 4:31:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I just did. Have you really never been to a Hindu wedding? A jewish wedding? I am also aware of Sikhs marrying, Zoroastrians marrying. In the end, to get married all that matters is the marriage license. You're running off the deep end and frankly just wrong when you say it requires a christian wedding. You did nothing of the sort. Dude - your preconceptions are blinding you to fact. The cite I gave you said that elders of any religious sect could perform weddings in virtually every US state. Here is a site of a Hindu conducting weddings: http://www.hinduwedding.info/faqs.html You can find dozens of other similar sites for other religions.

bounty44 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 1:27:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Wow, you're ignorant. Mathew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better to lose a part of your body than to have your whole body go to hell. Jesus knowledgably taught tolerance. You spread ignorant hate sorry sporto---the admonition in matthew speaks to the individual hearing it. its not an admonition for how one person treats another. so to put it more plainly since you don't read very well---matthew 5:30 does not give me the biblical justification to kill someone else if they are "sinning." other than that, forgive me if I wasn't following whatever other possible point you were trying to make with that scripture. its hard to keep up with your rambling. as for "spreading ignorant hate"---well, you'll just have to be a little bit more specific, especially in light of the quranic references in freedoms post #322 now wont you? am quite curious too, how that's "intolerant"---which by the way, I defy you to show is some universal and absolute trait jesus taught. help me out too please---does calling someone "ignorant" qualify under the "tolerance" rubric? so you've got plenty to do... oh, and rape in Albania. Try reading before responding. Jihad means struggle, and the greatest jihad in Islam is against one's own inclination to sin. If you selectively translate meaning towards developing a bias (the same method to rationalize the crusades and ISIS), you can contort any religion. But please, don't ever address what I say except to speak past or around statements and continue your Newspeak, I mean GoP talking points sorry again sporto---in reading the post I responded to, there's no legitimate reason to understand what you wrote about matthew being understood by the crusaders in the same way that islam explains jihad relative to your subsequent explanation in this post. put another way---all those connections existed in your head as opposed to on paper and even when they are on paper, they still don't compute. I suppose you have ample evidence that the "perversion" of matthew 5:30 served as part of "the logic" of the crusades? so, perhaps try explaining yourself more clearly when you are responding and there would be less room for any confusion. but then, I suppose that might take away from your ability to be needlessly insulting, so I guess there might be a downside to that. and way to ignore all the other aspects of my post that you pretty much cannot answer. you think the GOP is talking about this? and that what---im going to www.gop-how-to-talk-with-a-whackjob-liberal.com in order to know what to say? any idea how saavy that accusation sounds? oh, and rape in Albania.

Aylee -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 8:12:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee The Sunni cleric, bride, groom, and two witnesses are what is needed for signing the marriage certificate. I am ordained and can do marriages. Yes, legally. The cleric does NOT have to be Christian. They do not even have to believe in Gd. Or be a citizen, for that matter. You couldn't do that here. And does the Sunni cleric need to be sworn into something to perform said marriage, legally recognised across the whole of United States? Because most of what I've read, to hold any sort of public office to be able to legally sanctify a marriage you have to swear certain things and one of them refers to god. And I've seen much argued that it isn't necessarily 'the' god, as in christian, but everything in and around the reference most certainly implies such an interpretation, as per the constitution. So... you are telling me, a Sunni Imam or cleric, can fly over from Pakistan (or wherever), marry two people in the US, and it's perfectly legal and recognised?? Here, you can be a cleric and perform said marriages, but it isn't recognised in law* unless certain words are said within the ceremony. On top of that, said cleric needs to be 'authorised' and that means swearing to uphold the laws and the faith of the land; which in our case is pretty much anything christian. For instance, an Imam holding the ceremony might be fine within Islam, but not for our legal system to recognise it. Much that same as under Sharia law, the husband can divorce a wife by repeating certain words 3 times and it's done - but not according to our laws because said ceremony is not recognised as legal. ETA: Yes, I clarified that position when trying to organise my own Pagan wedding here and also asked if I could do the same in the US and still have it recognised here in the UK. Any marriage in one state is recognized in all the others. Some states require clergy to register, some do not. If your religious organization says you can do marriages, you can. It really comes down to 6 signatures on a marriage license. Bride, groom, officiant, witness1, witness2, and the county clerk. Then it must be filed in the county you live in. As far as holding office goes - it is UN-constitutional to have a religious test for office. Those who object to the word "G*d" can just not say it. Like being sworn into court.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 8:54:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Any marriage in one state is recognized in all the others. Some states require clergy to register, some do not. If your religious organization says you can do marriages, you can. Interesting you say that. My Pagan priest is able (according to our 'religion') to perform a Pagan marriage. Yet when I asked about it in NC and FL, I was told that the marriage would not be recogised. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee It really comes down to 6 signatures on a marriage license. Bride, groom, officiant, witness1, witness2, and the county clerk. Then it must be filed in the county you live in. That's pretty much the same over here. The difference, apparently, is the 'officiant' and in some cases, what words are (or not) included in the actual ceremony itself. It would appear, from what you say, the actual words are of no import in the US; whereas here, to be legal, it must contain certain words. Again, over here, my Priest is not 'authorised' to perform such a ceremony even though he is the ultimate person within my faith to do so. In my enquiries as to whether I could legally marry in the US according to my faith, I was categorically told I couldn't because of the person performing said ceremony. quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee As far as holding office goes - it is UN-constitutional to have a religious test for office. Those who object to the word "Gd" can just not say it. Like being sworn into court. And just as the western world treats a personally sworn oath to be legal and binding in a court of law, if you are a Muslim defending yourself on some jihad/terrorist charge, your faith not only says it is ok to lie to your accuser but actually encourages it. So where does the US stand on those* grounds?? I'm not just speaking of marriages but of law in general where a 'christian' element is either assumed or if not on religious grounds, that the person so swearing holds values that are intrinsically christian-based or similar. [ETA: My Pagan priest is the High Priest, the highest religious authority within my faith; the equivalent of the Pope for catholics]

Phydeaux -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 11:54:33 AM)
No offense freedom - but I don't believe you. I live in florida. As I've told you time and time again - there is nothing christian in weddings here. Youget a marriage certificate. Which you can do at the courthouse. The only thing that makes the marriage valid is the signature of bride, groom, witnesses. No christian words, oaths, whatever. The religious ceremony, if you choose to have one, is completely separate and it is that way in every state.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 12:04:14 PM)
Well it wasn't true 2 years ago when I asked my friends in Jax and Tampa to ask on my behalf. And it certainly isn't true over here. If the rules have changed, I might reconsider getting a Pagan wedding in FL.

PeonForHer -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/30/2016 1:28:46 PM)
quote: My Pagan priest is able (according to our 'religion') to perform a Pagan marriage. Yet when I asked about it in NC and FL, I was told that the marriage would not be recogised. It seems pretty clear that things are different over the pond, FD. Here, as you imply, it's considered a load of old religious balls until it's recognised in a serious way at a state-recognised Registry Office. I'm fine with that - though I'm not fine with an exception being made for Christian weddings and the particular collection of ludicrous and/or fucked up fairy stories that Christians buy into. (Though, frankly, I don't know much about this subject, nor want to know, either - since, as far as I'm concerned, my betrothal to some - as yet hypothetical - woman has fuck all to do with the State or indeed the rest of human society, anyway.)

Politesub53 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/31/2016 4:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and let me repeat this because it bears repeating, those killing in the name of islam are not islamic. No kidding, yet those here insisting murdering Christians were not indeed Christian just love to have that same old two faced argument. The notion Church and State can be absolved due to it being an unholy alliance misses the fact that every good Christian Soldier would pray before battle. It also, critically, misses the fact that in many cases the Church was indeed the power behind the throne, or at least a thoroughly willing companion.

Politesub53 -> RE: Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. (1/31/2016 4:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Show me, fuckwad, where I said that US - or Bristish policy wasn't affected by oil. Oh right never said it. What the fuck I said was - show me that the middle east wouldn't be a shit hole. Since we're toting up blame - your country - asshole - has a great deal more to be remorseful for than the US does. Britain, being, you know the colonial power in charge of the area; How many times has the US had a colony in Egypt, Palestine, ..oh right that would be none. As for oil. Hey fuckwad.. we import oil from more than 80 countries. Opec provides in total roughly 1/4 of us imports, half of that from Saudi Arabia. We've boosted Iraq imports to help its economy recover - but under sadam hussein the us generally got less than 4% of its oil from Iraq. But you know who gets a lot more oil from Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia - well that would be the EU. So shut your fucking mouth asswipe. Just what I expected from you, yet another fucking idiotic rant. There is no doubt from anyone but a few on the American right that Bush and Co made the current situation what it is today. It is easy for you to live in ignorance but even easier for me to point it out.... America intervened in the Suez crisis as they wanted Nasser to let them use Egypt as a buffer against Russia. Nasser actually played the USA and USSR off against one another. So while you may be right that you have never had a colony in Palestine or Egypt, you have certainly involved yourselves in World Politics by arming rebel factions. Bin Laden being one, Ho Chi Minh being another. Arsewipe indeed.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625