Your favourite politicians

[Vergil]

Because this post was actually retarded enough that I can't help but go down the list of things wrong with it without having an aneurysm because someone this incorrect is this smug....

The stuff he said about Mexicans is already enough in my opinion.

Zero quotes or evidence that Trump has said negative things about all Mexicans. Useless sentence.

You don't need to wear white hoodies and burn crosses to throw around racist slurs.

He's never thrown around racist slurs. Evidence. Evidence. EVIDENCE. Give me one quote of Trump saying a racist slur. Useless sentence.

That's the point. It is a new form of racism. I doubt that Trump even believes in it. He just knows that it gets him votes.

What is this "new form of racism"? You've failed to post a single quote so this is just an empty sentence AGAIN. Nothing Trump has said has been racist, now like I said before if you would like to post some fucking quotes and evidence instead of writing super long fluff pieces where you virtue signal and waste my time, feel free to finally construct an argument.

But don't bullshit around it.

I'M bullshitting? I'm the only one who has posted facts, statistics and quotes to back up everything I've said. The bullshitter here is you. You have not posted one quote, one article, one piece of statistical information AND to top it all off you've admitted multiple times to doing absoulutly NO RESEARCH before beginning to talk about a subject as if you know anything about it.

He is using racism to catch votes.

Again, the man hasn't said a racist word. Which you'd know if you actually bothered to do some research instead of just listening and beleiving as you're told. Also if racism is his only appeal please explain all the black voters and how he has won the majority of the Latino vote in multiple states? Useless sentence.

because he dares to say the truth or something like that - yeah, like no yea, no one ever criticised immigration in the US before Trump! What a true novelty!

No one was even talking about it before Trump came in and started talking about it. All of the candidates, Democrat and Republican were either pro-immigration who didn't have anything to say about it. Also as I've already shown (because again, I actually back up my statements with facts) there IS a problem with mass immigration in this country. Especially coming from muslim countries. Not to mention that immigration is not the only appeal that Trump has to people. But of course, you live in the liberal cloud of "Trump is just an evil racist who wants to build a wall and that's it!" and obviously you've never stepped outside that cloud because you refuse to do even the most basic research imaginable.

But nothing of it is new or provocative. It's just that most people here sleept during their history class.

Now this truly is rich. The man who has posted ZERO facts to back up his claims has the gall to try and take the intellectual high ground. I didn't sleep through my history class, unlike you I was actually paying attention. The muslim world and western world have been at odds from the beginning. From the muslim invading and taking over Christian lands and pillaging the coast of Italy to Thomas Jefferson having to send the Marines to fight the Barbary pirates taking American sailors hostage. Non of these issues with Islam are even fucking new but I guess you were too busy masturbating to pictures of Lenin and Che Guevera to pick up on that.

Otherwise they would realize that a lot of regimes of the past, be it in Spain, Greece, Germany, Russia with dictatorships used this fear-of-the-foreigner to rally the masses. It's either the gays, or the jews, or the capitalist, or what ever. Something-something is always destroying and threating our way of life.

"Everyone who talks about issues plaguing the country is the next Hitler" wew. You're a real intellectual aren't you? It's not unfounded fear mongering when the group he's talking about have racked up a fucking brutal kill count already and the year isn't even over yet. Look at the list of most deadliest shootings in America. A lot of them are fucking "refugees" within the last couple of years. He's not fear rallying against an invisible group of people. He's talking about a very real and provable issue. I mean holy fuck just a few days ago a muslim man makes a 911 call pledging alliengence to ISIS and shoots 50 people and you still want to shut your eyes and ears and scream "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM" despite the fact that Islam preaching for the murder of homosexuals.

But no one, can ever give you one defined example. Like when we come down to the individual.

I've given multiple. Trump has given multiple. Just because you have some strange allergic reaction to facts and statistics doesn't mean they don't exist. There have been multiple terrorist attacks by muslims who were all devout muslims who believed in strict adherence to the faith. A faith that not only doesn't condemn these actions, but promotes them right there in the holy book. So there you go. Multiple cases right down to not only the individual, but right down to the foundation of the religion. Amazes what you can find when you open your eyes.

Temporary or not, it would still be xenophobic and a form of racism. I doubt we would have the same conversation if this was about christian fundamentalism, which is also on the loose in South Africa killing thousands of innocent people.

I've already tackled this. Christianity has nothing to do with the problems of South Africa. Also since it's whites that are mainly being murdered, butchered and raped, doesn't that defeat your whole "oh no that evil western civilization that only cares about whitey" narrative?
http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/White_Genocide_TVA.pdf

You know what is funny? There has been a build up of muslim-angst for years now, almost a decade.

You mean years and years of islamic terrorism has started to breed anger among people? What? How did you come to this earth shattering conclusion?

Aren't mosques the base for terrorists? Isn't every falavel you buy today geting you closer to adobting the Shariah law? If it is such an dangerous ideology, and actually such a huge and real threat, why don't we see some real ban and some real politics done here?

You mean like the kind Trump is trying to do? It's because OF people like YOU. Who will watch multiple islamic terrorist attacks and then say "what? a problem with islam? that's impossible". No real politics can get done because you people won't fucking let it.

For fucks sake, London has a muslim as mayor! So dangerous! They even make them ... politicans!

Yes. And he's already putting out laws forcing women to cover up.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/londons-muslim-mayor-bans-sexy-women-in-advertisements/
http://www.businessinsider.com/lond...body-images-from-tfl-adverts-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T
.....And threatening the country
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/10/l...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Also here, meet his local Imam

Thanks for proving my point easily by failing to do the tiniest amount of research required and instead start talking totally out of your ass.

It certainly isn't a question about laws, or what you can or can't do. laws have been changed and bended in the past before, including civil rights and constitutional rights, particularly if there was a real danger.

So are you telling when that if the President just said "ayy fuck it ban anyone I don't like ayy lmao" you'd be ok because "real politics" are being done? You constantly complain about the government doing all these terrible things but now you're complaining when they don't just do things randomly? The reason for those actions you were describing actually had reasons for being put in place AND the support of the American people. Again, a little research would have saved you from the embarrassment.

the people with half a brain know what this is about. It's about to create fear. Not to actually do something about it, because they know that it is not a real problem or the real issue here.

The government isn't "creating fear" mister "I have half a brain". The people FUCKING SHOOTING PEOPLE IN GIANT WAVES AND SCREAMING SUPPORT FOR ISLAM are the ones "creating fear". this isn't a made up issue, there are real bodies in the ground from REAL islamic terrorism.

The Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. That was a real problem. And here the government did something. But this, is not a real danger or a real threat to our way of life.

Funny that you mention Pearl Harbour as an example of a "real problem". There are now more Americans dead from islamic terrorism than from Pearl Harbour. Still sure that it's not a fucking "real danger or a threat to our way of life? Also don't talk you'd ever support throwing muslims in internment camps. You'd be on the front lines pissing and moaning about it.

And neither are the immigrants or the hispanics or what ever.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
According DHS status indicators, over 184,000 criminal aliens have been booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and February 29, 2016. During their criminal careers, these criminal aliens were charged with more than 485,000 criminal offenses. Those arrests include 985 homicide charges; 58,413 assault charges; 14,686 burglary charges; 57,942 drug charges; 599 kidnapping charges; 35,863 theft charges; 38,925 obstructing police charges; 3,274 robbery charges; 5,152 sexual assault charges; and 7,386 weapons charges. Of the total criminal aliens arrested in that timeframe, over 122,000 or 66% were identified by DHS status as being in the US illegally at the time of their last arrest.
According to DPS criminal history records, those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 220,000 convictions including 407 homicide convictions; 21,713 assault convictions; 7,109 burglary convictions; 28,810 drug convictions; 202 kidnapping convictions; 16,104 theft convictions; 19,205 obstructing police convictions; 1,653 robbery convictions; 2,316 sexual assault convictions; and 3,093 weapons convictions. Of the convictions associated with criminal alien arrests, over 147,000 or 66% are associated with aliens who were identified by DHS status as being in the US illegally at the time of their last arrest.
Assuming:
1) It costs $20,000 USD to incarcerate an inmate for one year in Texas
2) Assuming that each one of the 147,000 illegal convicts each served 1 year in prison (probably higher since those convictions are serious in nature)
3) Not counting court fees and public defender fees and/or all other legal expenses
U.S. taxpayers paid ~3 billion dollars to house and jail the 147,000 illegal criminal convicts in a 5 year period. So it's reasonable to assume that if we built a wall, it would pay for itself in a matter of 10 years.
Note that this doesn't include any social welfare programs as a result of illegal immigrants. This is only a number for criminally convicted illegal aliens. Realistically, the wall would most likely have paid for itself in less than 5 years.
Source:https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/15/121-murders-attributed-illegal-immigrants-released/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...covers-up-evidence-of-immigration-crime-wave/

So what was that about there being no danger from Illegal Aliens?

They just love to hate on someone. For what ever reason.

Someone just hating on something with zero facts to back up their statements? You mean that thing you do and I don't?

With the politics we see from Trump, and others including europe? You can wage wars, you can get consessions, you can make unpopular laws, you can avoid domestic policy, you can blame a small and powerless group for all of the complex problems, that would otherwise require some serious work and rethinking.

This sentence is hilarious coming from the person who has made it abundantly clear they don't understand any of these issues at all. Let's look at your horrible examples to make this clear.

Low vages? Blame the Chinese!

Are you denying that cheap foreign labour is an issue for our economy? Are you denying that companies move over to China and other countries because it's cheaper and they can basically work the locals like slaves? Wouldn't be the first time you've denied facts.....

Lots of violence? Blame the muslims!

Already made it clear that fear over islamic terrorism isn't some kinda scapegoating. People aren't afraid of the boogeyman. People are afraid of the people walking into nightclubs and gunning people down for "allah".

Global warming?! PROPAGANDA! Yeah man, fuck science.

This is a seperate topic entirely that I don't feel like getting into (give me some credit, I've written a Goddamn lot now) but if you are actually curious in the subject (which you aren't otherwise you'd actually be using well researched arguments this whole time) heres two nice videos that'll explain the basics for you.

Funny how everything in history is really repeating it self. And how the same shit was done in Serbia before the civil war. And each side said the same shit about the other one. Does anyone really think that there can be no propaganda in our world? That it can only happen on the other side?

The only person falling for propaganda is you. The media, the government, the majority of people on social media all agree with your sentiment. Does it not make you curious of your own viewpoint when people like Hillary Clinton are also singing the praises of Islam? Does it not bother you that governments and media outlets are covering up attacks by muslim immigrants from here to Europe? Are you so blind that you think we're the ones falling for propaganda when we're the only ones against the establishment? Just because everyone is patting you on the back and telling you that you're the good guy, doesn't make it true.

He would be probably just like Reagan in that sense. Doing nothing substantial, while acting all tough.

So massive Tax Reform, restructuring of the Republican party, basically ending the Cold war, winning against PATCO, and such are nothing substantial? I'm gonna guess you haven't of half of this shit cause again, you're "Cmi Vuk: Sworn enemy of facts and research".

Yes, I have arguments. Here are several links.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201...s_condemn_attacks_on_iraqi_christians/1103410

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...rupt-and-a-danger-to-islam.ashx#axzz3B1ymBb5P

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...ghs-options-to-evacuate-trapped-Yazidis-.html



A quick google search gave that. There's more, but I'm in a hurry ATM, so I could post detailed later.

See:

Yes, there are Islamic leaders that hate ISIS and radical extremists, but what Vergin is saying is that, unlike in the Catholic Church where no one would dare publicly defend pedophiles, you have people in the Islamic community defending terrorism and extremism openly:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35893123

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/29270/Default.aspx

http://freedomoutpost.com/louis-far...ll-for-10000-volunteers-to-kill-white-people/

Just saying, they aren't all advocating for an end to terrorism.

There, big wall of text over. I will not be responding to anyone else who doesn't have any credible sources to back themselves up. I've wasted enough time arguing with people who don't actually have anything but fallacies and their own made up "facts" to argue with. Never will I ever shy away from legitimate criticism or discussion but we're just wasting our own, and everyone elses time by continuing to do this back and forth where you say a whole bunch of incorrect garbage and I refute all of it factually. I look forward to your ground breaking responses that will be factually sound with sources that will totally make a fool out of me and prove me totally wrong, I really do. God Bless you all and God Bless America.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Wow. Nice that you wrote a damn novell of stuff I have already read a thousand times. Do you think that I or anyone here with half a brain will adress all of your fucked up points? Life is to precious to waste it on a useless forum post that would openly defend racism.

 

[Ragemage]

Wow. Nice that you wrote a damn novell of stuff I have already read a thousand times. Do you think that I or anyone here with half a brain will adress all of your fucked up points? Life is to precious to waste it on a useless forum post that would openly defend racism.

No offense Crni but at least he's backing up his arguments with a lot of sources, something I've yet to see you do, at least on this thread. Vergil isn't Illuminati Confirmed after all, the least you could do is try and refute some of what he's saying with actual facts. Vergil makes some decent points when compared to the sources listed, and quite a few of them aren't from biased sites.

 

[Crni Vuk]

No, no I fucking don't. If you can't see what Trump is doing and why some of his statements are racist, than I am just wasting my breath. Someone who's talking actively about building a wall between Mexico and the United states based on some questionable immigration policy is simply delusional. And than someone comes always up with Israel and how their wall is effective ... and I am asking my self ... do you REALLY(!) want that for the US? Do you want Israels position?

Do you also think it was alright for Germany to attack the Sovietunion and start the Hollocaust, and a war that killed millions of people, because of I assume some of their points had some merrit? Stalin was definetly everything they claimed he was. I already said, no one here, NO ONE(!) will tell you, all muslims are peacefull, all immigrants are nice. But we are talking about people here. Not statistics. Seriously. Why the fuck does no one ever really wonder why Germany hasn't seen any huge terrorism in the last 30 years. Or why Muslims actually abstain from targeting Germany? Why is it that so often the US or nations which owned a fuck ton of colonies have to deal with so much terror by radical Muslims? Why not Germany? Or Swiss? Or Austria? Could it be, because none of those nations bomb villages and send drones around the globe?

I mean look, what are we talking about here? We are talking about a man (Trump) who is making very simple statements about highly complex topics and which we havn't managed to solve in the last THOUSANDS(!) of years. And that people even listen to him, infact consider him as president, tells us how far the American society has really developed so far. Or should I say degenerated?

Atomkilla definetly knows what I am talking, when I say, some of us Yugos, fucking know about human nature. And what it is capable of. And that it doesn't even matter one fucking inch, if someones am Muslim, Catholic, or Orthodox Christian. We had all of those on the Balkan. And all of them had some really big fuckers who comminted the worst attrocities you can imagine. And with the Kosovo we have also seen what this western ideals actually mean on paper. Shit. They mean shit. Where is Germany now? Or the UK? Or all of those others that have been so quick in giving Kosovo its independence? The nation is starving to death, with a corrupt government and a population that is so poor, they don't know what to do. My point is. When you look at human nature in general. There is no better person, based on religion or nation. Almost every colour, or every nation you can think about has done some attrocities in their history. Either in the name of religion or nationalism.

You're quoting the Old Testament there, both times. A time when getting the Israelites set up and their lands founded was more important than peace and love. Yet people will always point to the Old Testament and say "HUR HUR LOOK THE BIBLE IS SOOOOO EVIL" while forgetting the Old Testament is full of laws not meant to be followed anymore. The laws in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Judges, etc were only to be used until the Israelites had managed to establish themselves a kingdom. You'll notice that, much like Imams today, Jewish judges/prophets rewrote laws and such throughout the Bible as time went on. They had to be harsh at first, the Israelites were completely surrounded by enemies and totally dwarfed by the other kingdoms around + foreign religions such as the Phillistines'. And then once Jesus came along, he completely rewrote the rules into the New Testament.

Anyway, not trying to make this a religious discussion. You just shouldn't attack someone else's religion when the Bible was never even mentioned throughout the entire argument.

Back on point, since this is about favorite alive politicians, I'd have to say I like my governor, Phil Bryant. He's less kooky than his predecessor, Haley Barbour. I'd still prefer someone kickass like Kirk Fordice though. That man was a legend.

That doesn't really matter when you're looking at the broad history of most, if not all religions that had enough time to establish some form of supreme power. Religion per definition, is full of dogmas.
Does one really have to dig up all the examples when someone somewhere in the world killed someone else because of a different opinion? I mean, humans can be true assholes in general! No matter their religious belief, nation or herritage. Didn't the jews killed thousands of people in the name of their god? Don't US soldiers and officials claim in god we trust before charging in combat? Havn't so called white christian settlers pretty much masacred thousands of native americans? What would they say about Christianity. What happens in Mianmar right now, with all those crazy buddhists slaughtering muslims? 30 years war maybe? ever heard about that. Catholics and Protestants really loved to bash their skulls during that time.
I mean seriously, do we really have to argue which religion has the bigger mental penis here? It's all basically the same anyway. It's meant to controll people and their thoughts. Doesn't matter if we talk about Islam or Christianity or any of the other big 5 religions. At the end of the day it comes down to arbitrary rules, and who's the biggest mofo around to enforce them. And even if you remove that, people will find all sorts of ways to kill each other, throw someone in prison or torturing them. Simply beacuse of their opinion.

I don't consider either Jews or Muslims evil. Just... misguided I suppose would be a proper word to use. Like I said, the laws in the Old Testament are now just a reference for history, they aren't meant to be followed, Jesus literally broke like 10 Old Testament laws Himself, such as when he worked on the Sabbath in order to heal the sick. This was strictly forbidden in the book of Deuteronomy yet Jesus did it anyway. That's just 1 example. Meanwhile Muslims still follow the Koran strictly and the Jews still follow the Old Testament strictly because they don't they don't believe the Messiah has come yet and thus they must follow the old "incorrect" ways until then.

It's just that many people don't make this connection because a lot of nutty preachers/politcians will act like the Old Testament is the way things should be law-wise.

The problem is that there is no absolute authority when it comes to that. Which side is misguided? And which interpretation is the real one? You could actually make the claim, that those that actually live and read the Bible or Quaran by the letter, are actually closer to their religion than moderate muslims and christians. That's one of the reasons why most religions had so many wars which often came from different schools and teachings.
I think, we in this forum are sure not the kind of people that can actually judge if religous people or fanatics are misguided or not. Not even when it comes to fanatics like ISIS who chop of heads. Because in their world, they do the right thing. And if they base their beliefs on a 1000 year old book, who am I to tell them they are wrong? It is clearly written there! Everyone can read it. That of course doesn't mean I agree with their actions! Or that I don't find their actions disgusting. I am just saying. I have no reason to assume that I am in the right. The state I am fortunate to live in, just happens to follow the concept, that a peacefull coexistence is the better way to do things. But going Star Trek style, we still don't have the moral right to actually judge others based on some moral belief. Moral for itself is just an arbitrary construct which has seen many changes over time. Some 100 years ago, not many had a problem in Europe and the US with capital punishment, and a lot of what we see today as granted has been controversial a few decades ago - see the history of homosexuality in most western nations.

The best concept, in my opinion, is force because it always remains true. Some have it and some don't. And the question is how you deal with it correctly. Most democratic states, have found a very efficient way when it comes to that trough seperation of powers. It's not a perfect system, but it is, so far the most fair one and the savest when it comes to corruption of power, trough tyrany or excessive use.

 

[Ragemage]

That doesn't really matter when you're looking at the broad history of most, if not all religions that had enough time to establish some form of supreme power. Religion per definition, is full of dogmas.

What? I think you're completely missing the point of what I was trying to say. I never said anyone was better than another. All groups, religious or Atheist, have the ability to commit atrocities. I'm saying you can't call Christians "evil" because of what happened in the Old Testament because those were simply part of the Jewish history, they have no bearing on Christian society today. We do not follow the Old Testament laws, and the only reason the Old Testament laws are so harsh is because without them the Jews would not have survived. They had to be harsh, they were surrounded on all sides by enemies who want to destroy them. Kind of like Israel today actually. Either way, not a reason to call a whole religion evil just because of a belief set that was strictly for survival and hasn't been followed in over 2000 years.

The problem is that there is no absolute authority when it comes to that.

Okay? That's your opinion. I just stated what I believe based off the evidence that's actually there.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, what authority is there? And don't tell me the state. The plane truth is, those fanatics could be just as right like you, me or anyone really. I just don't like most religious opinions out of self preservation! We all know how heretics/non-believers are dealt with in religious states ...
Anyway, I feel that there is a bit much vitriol here, and that I am at least partialy to blame for that. So let us step back for a moment. I might have missunderstood your intentions.
I will try to clarify something. What confuses me in such discussions is always the argument about interpretation. Like you're not a true christian when you do this or that, you're not interpreting Islam correctly when you do this or that. [Insert-religion-here] is about peace and freedom! And those that follow violence and dogmatic rules, are simply wrong and missunderstanding the religion.
But I find that highly problematic. What authority is there, to tell me as a mere mortal that I am, or anyone else that THEIR interpretation is now the correct one? And that is the point. There is none. Those fanatics could be just as correct in their understanding of said religion, like the moderate believers, who preach only love, peace and all that stuff.
So when you say, we do not follow the old testament or what ever, does it really matter in the end? No one, absolutely no one, can really tell you what is correct and what isnt. Religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam, are not some big cohesive entity. Henece why there are so many different teachings, schools and sects. For all we know, Hassknechts old bible-loving relative, could be closer to the true meaning of the christian religion than the pope. I mean is what we see today, really what Jesus had in mind? Has Mohamed envisioned the Islam we see today? How can we know this. It has always been a big question between schoolars what ever if the holy books should be taken literaly or not!

 

[Ragemage]

snip snip

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't agree with your opinion. I believe what I stated about the Old Testament. You can believe whatever you want. However there's multiple points throughout the New Testament that basically state the laws of the Old Testament need no longer be heeded. Otherwise Christians wouldn't be able to eat pork, have tattoos, shave their heads, etc just like how Jews and Muslims cannot do any of those things. Those are my beliefs, backed up with evidence. That's all. The authority here is many lines of the New Testament regarding the Christ basically saying the Old Testament needn't be looked at as a book of laws, but rather as a book of history. You can interpret it however you want, but that's how I view it. But I also see plenty of evidence to show how I'm right. The main point in these different views of theology comes from having proof to back up your claim, mixed with opinion on how you view what is written. I choose to interpret that the Old Testament should not be used as a book of laws by Christians because Jesus Christ Himself said that was no longer necessary by creating his own set of guidelines. There's no right or wrong on this, I'm stating my opinion. When I said Jews and Islamics were misguided, I was referring to how they kill people in the name of God over what they read.

We all know how heretics/non-believers are dealt with in religious states ...

The same thing has happened in Atheistic nations. Look at Mao Zedong's China, Ho Chi Mihn's Vietnam, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim il Sung's North Korea, Stalin's Russia, or even Hitler's Germany near the end of his reign. You can't pin that on just religious nations persecuting nonbelievers when countries turned Atheist such as the Soviet Union persecuted religious people. It works both ways friend.

 

[superdude34]

@Crni Vuk admit it Vergil is making solid arguments and you are just parroting the same stuff most progressives do, trumps racist but I can't prove it, and history makes trump bad.
He has really whipped you guys. You should probably stop now, you are just pissing against the wind.

Also I hate to go with Vergil on this one, but the mullah of Pakistan just said it was ok to beat your wives lightly. Would have thought it was not OK to beat your wives, but nah

 

[Izak]

Also I hate to go with Vergil on this one, but the mullah of Pakistan just said it was ok to beat your wives lightly. Would have thought it was not OK to beat your wives, but nah.

What the representatives of a religion (excluding the actual messiahs) say is irrelevant. If you go back X years you'll find the clergy advising that people hang all Protestants, slaughter the satan worshipping jews and wage holy war against Muslim nations, I'd be surprised if you condemned Catholicism because of that.

 

[superdude34]

If you go back X years you'll find the clergy advising that people hang all Protestants, slaughter the satan worshipping jews and wage holy war against Muslim nations I'd be surprised if you condemned Catholicism because of that.

Who gives a shit what catholics said a couple of 100 years ago. Even though I would condemn them for that because I don't think we've heard an apology. Classical catholic church, do or say some really bad stuff and then refuse to apologize.
A muslim is telling us to beat our wives now, are you saying that's irrelevant?

The same thing has happened in Atheistic nations. Look at Mao Zedong's China, Ho Chi Mihn's Vietnam, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim il Sung's North Korea, Stalin's Russia, or even Hitler's Germany near the end of his reign. You can't pin that on just religious nations persecuting nonbelievers when countries turned Atheist such as the Soviet Union persecuted religious people. It works both ways friend.

Here we go this trash again.
OK so the reason they mass murdered people is not because of their atheism, but because they did not want people to worship any gods. they wanted people to worship them, not God, and that is why they killed Christians. they weren't actually atheists, they wanted the state to be Religion and themselves to be God, so no it doesn't work both ways.

 

[Izak]

Who gives a shit what catholics said a couple of 100 years ago. A muslim is telling us to beat our wives now, are you saying that's irrelevant?

Yes, it's irrelevant, those are horrible people but they're not representatives of their religion, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

Here we go this trash again.
OK so the reason they mass murdered people is not because of their atheism, but because they did not want people to worship any gods. they wanted people to worship them, not God, and that is why they killed Christians. they weren't actually atheists, they wanted the state to be Religion and themselves to be God, so no it doesn't work both ways.

Don't be a dick to Ragemage and check your shit before posting. The Red Guard and League of Militant Atheists (among other organisations) were partly responsible for religious persecution in China and Russia, and while they were loyal to Mao and Stalin they were acting out of love for ideologies, not explicitly for their leaders.

 

[Ragemage]

What the representatives of a religion (excluding the actual messiahs) say is irrelevant. If you go back X years you'll find the clergy advising that people hang all Protestants, slaughter the satan worshipping jews and wage holy war against Muslim nations, I'd be surprised if you condemned Catholicism because of that.

Yes, hundreds of years ago. That's pretty irrelevant now. The problem here is that, when it comes to Islam, what the representatives say actually does matter. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but when it comes to the Shia Muslims, they do listen to their Imams (think priests) as if it were infallible. So when an Imam says "Oh, it's okay to beat your wife! Go right ahead!" People will take it as practically the word of God. This does only apply to Shia Muslims instead of Sunnis, but still, there's a Hell of a lot of Shia Muslims that will believe this vile man's words to be god-like. And this is happening in the modern day, not in the early 1000s.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you have some crazy nutbag preacher up on a pulpit saying "Gays are bad and they're gonna go straight to Hell! Take yer guns and shoot all the gays!" 99% of the Christian community is obviously going to ignore this man and see him for the monster he is. However, in Shia Islam, if an Imam stands up and says that gays are bad and should be killed, the Shia Muslims will believe his words to be infallible and they'll follow it.

Sources:

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=4090

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-enc...dilp-team/leadership-and-infallibility-part-1

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234975218-did-imams-ever-claim-infallibility/ (this one is from a Muslim forum essentially where you can see actual Shias confessing to the belief that Imams are infallible)

 

[superdude34]

they were acting out of love for ideologies, not explicitly for their leaders.

But they did sure love their leaders. They pretty much did exactly as Mao told them, and Mao pretty much incited all the shit that happened in China against Regions back then.
The League of Militant Atheists was established by the Communist party so they were technically loyal to the Soviet General Secretary.
These were all established to make sure the dictators were seen as gods.
My only point is they were only atheist so that the dictators could keep their power and be god worshiped.
Have you ever seen a militant atheist group established by a bunch of random Atheists, not the state? I haven't.

Spoiler

 

[Risewild]

Started as a Favorite politicians thread ends as a religious debate or why people murder eachother, 10/10. Would read again.
Unfortunately I was a tiny bit guilty about it too, but then I stopped in time after my only post on this thread when I decided not to continue posting here, because I remembered how once before I did the same in a different thread that changed from whatever it was about into slavery or something, and posted giant walls of text and links to support what I was saying and then felt awful when I realised I had helped derail the thread and was all futile anyway since it ended up in the VATS.

Since the "religious" topic seems so active, why not start a thread about it? Then there isn't teh risk of all what you guys are taking time to type and debate end up in VATS .

Now about my favorite politicians I can't really say much, I am totally out of world politics and unfortunately Australian ones are all useless and stupid... I will have to say I don't really have a recent favorite politician, but I will check out any that people mention here .

 

[Izak]

snip

No matter how much Imams and their followers claim that they're the legitimate representatives of Islam they're not, when a Muslim can pick up the Quran and decide exactly what Islam is for him/herself you have no need for a representative. The individual decides what they believe, not some guy with a fancy title.

 

[Ragemage]

snip

Sources? What in the world are those? We don't need any sources when it comes to claiming historically Atheist dictators in reality wanted to be gods themselves! Don't be silly.

snip

That's not the point. The point is that simply brushing off Imams saying that beating women and killing gays is fine, when people literally follow what they say like it's the word of God because it's a part of their belief system, is not okay. I already proved people actually believe Imams to be infallible when it comes to the Shia interpretation of Islam. These Imams need to be really careful with what they say, because in the end their words influence MILLIONS of people, who will indeed act on what these Imams say. Yes personal interpretation will happen and that's a good thing, but on the other hand, since this is part of their core belief system, if some Imam says to do something terrible, a lot of these Shia will act on it! That's the problem.

 

[Izak]

That's not the point.

That's not the point of what I was saying.
Again, there was a time when christians would hang off of the words of their priests and do awful shit as long as their representatives of god told them it was okay to do so, but I'm not going to denounce christianity because of that. Whether Shia Muslims are hanging off of the words of their Imams now is irrelevant, I'm not going to denounce Islam because of it.

snip

Ah sure, historic examples can be ignored as long as it doesn't help your argument, I got ya'.
(By the way Doomsday, you're not allowed to have 2 accounts on NMA, 'tis against the rules)

 

[superdude34]

Ah sure, historic examples can be ignored as long as it doesn't help your argument I got ya'.
(By the way Doomsday, you're not allowed to have 2 accounts on NMA, 'tis against the rules)

I was so incognito. I was like an undercover secret cop, and you have blown my cover. Screw you.

Nah I created another account to argue for Legion because I was bored of House and I couldn't be bothered to explain my change in choices, so I used an old account on which I used argue for Legion.

 

[Ragemage]

That's not the point of what I was saying.
Again, there was a time when christians would hang off of the words of their priests and do awful shit as long as their representatives of god told them it was okay to do so, but I'm not going to denounce christianity because of that. Whether Shia Muslims are hanging off of the words of their Imams now is irrelevant, I'm not going to denounce Islam because of it.

I never denounced Islam now did I? Not once. I'm simply saying you can't say the representatives of a religion don't matter when they do in this modern day. It isn't irrelevant when these Shia Muslims are actually actively carrying out the will of these Imams. You also don't seem to be grasping the fact that the gap between Christians doing this sort of heinous shit and Shia Muslims doing it are hundreds of years. The Muslims are still doing it today, which makes it completely relevant and dangerous. I'm not denouncing Islam as a whole, I'm denouncing these Imams who tell people to do horrible shit and the people that do said horrible shit.

 

[Izak]

I was so incognito. I was like an undercover secret cop, and you have blown my cover. Screw you.
Nah I created another account to argue for Legion because I was bored of House and I couldn't be bothered to explain my change in choices, so I used an old account on which I used argue for Legion.

Why are you sticking with it though? Why didn't you abandon it with the Legion thread? Either way, it's against the rules to use sock accounts but I doubt Hassknecht'd care, so whatever, I guess.
Also, it's kind of obvious that you're Doomsday since you don't really use the quote function in the correct way.

I never denounced Islam now did I?

'Twas not you that denounced Islam, 'twas Doomsday, Vergil and, friends.

You also don't seem to be grasping the fact that the gap between Christians doing this sort of heinous shit and Shia Muslims doing it are hundreds of years.

If you exclude christian militias in Central African countries sure, though ignoring them is basically the same idea as ignoring extremists in the Middle East.

I'm not denouncing Islam as a whole, I'm denouncing these Imams who tell people to do horrible shit and the people that do said horrible shit.

'Tis a fine thing to denounce terrorists and fundamentalists, I doubt anyone will argue with that.