but.......THE CRUSADES!

[saxitoxin]

[saxitoxin]

Not that I'm anti-Christian. The only eye hospital in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that non-Jews are allowed to go to is under the protection of the Venerable Order of St. John (a Crusader order, IINM), which is probably the only thing that's kept it from being burned to the ground by the Zionists.

[thegreekdog]

So is your beef that the president used the word crusade once? Or is your beef that the United States is making war on Islamic countries and that is a crusade?

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the "making war" part and I'm indifferent to the religions of the combatants. The Catholic Church, which called for, supported, and otherwise helped to prosecute the actual Crusades are not supportive of the current American war on Islamic countries/groups (and, I'd have to check to make sure, probably doesn't care for any wars).

He declared a crusade. It wasn't used as a verb, and it wasn't approved by the Vatican, as far as I can tell.

I'm confused as to the legalistics of this. Should he have declared it more than once? Should he have had Papal backing?

My question is not whether President Bush used the term "crusade." My question is whether you view Dwight Eisenhower's crusade in Europe during World War Two similarly. In the interest of disclosure, Eisenhower was a Christian (same as President Bush). Or does it matter to you who the "enemy" is in these situations?

[thegreekdog]

Not that I'm anti-Christian. The only eye hospital in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that non-Jews are allowed to go to is under the protection of the Venerable Order of St. John (a Crusader order, IINM), which is probably the only thing that's kept it from being burned to the ground by the Zionists.

I'm not defending the Crusades and I'm not defending President Bush's decision to make war on whomever he decided to make war on. I'm questioning the idea that President Bush's use of the term "crusade" indicates that the wars he was in charge of prosecuting were holy wars of conquest by Christians against Muslims (or Jews).

[tzor]

And, of course, the Spanish Inquisition was started before the end of the Reconquista.

Only because the Reconquista took a very long time to finally complete. The process of Reclaiming Territory, forcing non Christians out or having them convert and then calling the converts into question occurred on a local level in those reclaimed cities.

[Symmetry]

And, of course, the Spanish Inquisition was started before the end of the Reconquista.

Only because the Reconquista took a very long time to finally complete. The process of Reclaiming Territory, forcing non Christians out or having them convert and then calling the converts into question occurred on a local level in those reclaimed cities.

So you were wrong? The Spanish Inquisition occurred during the Reconquista?

You see the Inquisition came AFTER the reclamation,

[warmonger1981]

I actuarial own the Baron movie. Uma Therman plays a goddess and does a good job

[saxitoxin]

I actuarial own the Baron movie. Uma Therman plays a goddess and does a good job

It was a very underappreciated film, IMO. Jonathan Price did a great job as the Mayor; he is how I imagine Metsfanmax -

[Phatscotty]

Saladin the Magnanimous:

In April 1191, a Frankish woman's three-month old baby had been stolen from her camp and sold on the market. The Franks urged her to approach Saladin himself with her grievance. Saladin used his own money to buy the child back. He gave it to the mother and she took it, with tears streaming down her face, and hugged it to her breast. The people were watching her and I, Ibn Shaddad, was standing amongst them. Saladin ordered a horse to be fetched for her and she went back to camp.

https://books.google.com/books?id=D7Wgn ... sh&f=false

Fourth Crusade, English and French knights - rendered insane from syphilis - even loot Christian churches in Constantinople (with friends like this ...):

Over the next few days the westerners began to put the city to the sword. Many of its citizens were slaughtered and women of all ages were raped as the crusaders ruthlessly despoiled the metropolis. The great cathedral of the Hagia Sophia was stripped of its priceless relics and the hundreds of churches and palaces of Constantinople were pillaged.

To the crusaders, God had approved their actions by granting them victory and many returned home proudly bearing precious relics. At first, Pope Innocent III was delighted but, as news of the atrocities became clear, he changed his view and began to express anger and disgust at the westerners’ actions. He accused one senior noble of ‘turning away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians … preferring earthly wealth to celestial treasures’.

http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-ph ... 8vk2Y.dpuf

I thought those French and English knights that lootifered the Christian Church in the 4th were already excommunicated by the Church?

[/]

The problem really isn't that “certain people” kill in the name of Christianity, it’s that the Bible explicitly, in no uncertain terms commands you to kill in the name of God. Not in an obscure part either, it's like a couple pages after the Ten Commandments.

It’s really absurd when self-proclaimed “religious” people dismiss other “religious” people as self-serving hypocrites just because the cherry picked narrative the former chose doesn't fit with the latter’s. Going on a crusade is a perfectly valid way to uphold the rules of the Bible.

6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or[b] your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns that the Lord your God is giving you to live in, 13 that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” whom you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, 15 you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword. 16 All of its spoil you shall gather into its public square; then burn the town and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall remain a perpetual ruin, never to be rebuilt. 17 Do not let anything devoted to destruction stick to your hand, so that the Lord may turn from his fierce anger and show you compassion, and in his compassion multiply you, as he swore to your ancestors, 18 if you obey the voice of the Lord your God by keeping all his commandments that I am commanding you today, doing what is right in the sight of the Lord your God.

TL;DR version: KILL FUCKING EVERYONE; Your kid that's experimenting with some new-agey Wiccan stuff, the Hare Krishnas at the airport, everyone in the city for good measure, oh and the animals too, then burn everything else that exists or may exist in the future.

[Metsfanmax]

TL;DR version: KILL FUCKING EVERYONE; Your kid that's experimenting with some new-agey Wiccan stuff, the Hare Krishnas at the airport, everyone in the city for good measure, oh and the animals too, then burn everything else that exists or may exist in the future.

Yeah, but Jesus loves you.

[Phatscotty]

So let's recap, for a moment, because in explaining things I seemed to have forgotten your stupid point. You see the Inquisition came AFTER the reclamation, and after the laws were passed kicking all non Christians out of Spain, and only after people started seeing them practice their old faith.

I think sym's stupid point is that the OP is talking about The Crusades and the effect it had on his early view on the Christian religion. Sym comes in and says "Bush declared a crusade!" as if that is the same thing as the OP is talking about, which it isn't. It's akin to sym coming into a thread about ice cream flavors and saying he likes getting sexed anally. It leaves people scratching their heads at his non sequitur except it's not funny because sym doesn't know the difference between a Crusade and a crusade.

There are parties who wish to have the US' war on terror viewed as a Crusade because it stirs certain feelings in people. As Napoleon once said- "A man doesn't fight for a half pence a day. You must speak to his soul." or something abouts. In sym's case, his animosity and hatred for all things American clouds his brain.
That's my take on it at least.

I said as much in the OP, and clarified further immediately afterwards. Sym is just Symming. I volunteered something for purposes of clarity and relevance.... not exactly for people like Symm n the sort. It never fails with certain people.... they can F up a can f soup. I suppose they see it as me clearing the fog that they count on to bullshit non-thinkers with, they don't like that, so they try to fog up whatever I say.

For now I'll ask to be excused; I'm going crusading!

show

[neanderpaul14]

Just abolish all organized religion, it's the earliest scam in humanity. A total pile of crap. "If you do what we say and give us all your money we will take care of you after you die." Absolute genius, unprovable, and yet unassailable because it can't be disproved. Greatest con game EVER. I'm not just aiming this at christians, jews, and muslims I mean ANY organized religions, BTW those were uncapitalized for a disrespectful reason. Hard to believe in this day and age people are still so fucking gullible.

[Phatscotty]

Just abolish all organized religion, it's the earliest scam in humanity. A total pile of crap. "If you do what we say and give us all your money we will take care of you after you die." Absolute genius, unprovable, and yet unassailable because it can't be disproved. Greatest con game EVER. I'm not just aiming this at christians, jews, and muslims I mean ANY organized religions, BTW those were uncapitalized for a disrespectful reason. Hard to believe in this day and age people are still so fucking gullible.

....and that first person used that tool to demand another person that 'God' (what the other does not and cannot understand) has orders to give him the other's share. If they don't give it, then it will just be forcefully taken.....like taxes



What you say can be true, yet I would say religion is going to be inevitable so long as it's also true that throughout human history our species has faced the frightening and terrorizing fact, which is to say we also 'cannot prove' how we got here, why we are here, who we are, where we come from, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos. It has been the authorities; the political, the educational, the religious authorities who attempted to comfort us, by giving us order, rules, and regulations.



I would also say there is a little more to it than giving 'all' your money and fully obeying the rules. I have not given organized religion a dime of my money, nor have I followed every single rule, as I had sex last night, this morning, an this morning again, with a woman I am not married to. But yah know what....that is not the word of God. Some dude put that in the 'rulebook' a long time ago to address some situation that likewise was an issue a long time ago. I also eat shellfish btw. I think it's one thing to know of something, and it's entirely another to understand something. Just as Saxi and Neitze and I had a 3-way over the ending of Interstellar, on a religious level, we understood how for that situation for that time and that place why it would be absolutely necessary to make a rule against same sex relationships; that being the survival of the human race and the fact that depends on opposite sex reproduction. Even though their 'God/Creator' was herself a Lesbian.

Another way to say it. I'll just assume based on the strong opinion you already shared that you are likely of the opinion that getting on your knees, folding your hands, and closing your eyes while verbally speaking or thinking to yourself with God ie praying for lots of touchdowns for your home team to an invisible sky daddy is a complete joke, right? Only a moron who needs to lie to themselves would so such a thing? But perhaps what it really comes down to is the our perceptions. Lemme me share how, in my opinion, I KNOW praying works (for me)

Getting on your knees is meant to humble and ground a person, even if it's only symbolic. Folding your hands is a way to focus and concentrate. Closing your eyes is a way to block out what your eyes can see, which obviously helps clear your mind. Doing this things together is a way to intensely focus on a certain thing I am struggling with, acknowledge it to myself that it's something I want to improve or gain courage for or overcome. Then I usually reflect on my prater a few times during the next day. Looking at it that way, maybe you can understand how in my view, the odds of making better choices for the right reasons & identifying wrong choices with flex to overcome will increase exponentially. How I might, for me personally, be just that much more likely to achieve a goal, to be that much more conscious to remind myself to try harder to do something that will lead to better results than I otherwise may have come to. Or at least can you possibly see how adding ritual like folding your hands and making a thing of it can enhance greatly something I want to focus on, compared to other random thoughts of things lasting a split second?

Just saying, there is a LOT more to it than basing an entire concept in all it's aspects on whether the spaghetti monster can fly or not.

Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly old monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it

Right in two

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
(and this is what they choose)

Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade,
And when there's one they're bound to divide it,

Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They make a club
And beat their brother... down.
How they survived so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability
to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here

Gotta divide it all right in two (x4)

They fight, till they die
Over earth, over sky
They fight, over life,
Over brawn, over air and light,
Over love, over sun. Over blood
They fight, or they die, all for what? For our rising!

Angels on the sideline again
Been too long with patience and reason
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end

Gotta divide it all right in two
Right in two

Right in two...

[crispybits]

And of course, putting yourself into somewhat of a meditative state and focusing on something you want to improve about your life is only possible with the god thing going on right? Skeptics generally don't have a problem with meditation, it's being shown to have demonstrable benefits consistent with what you were talking about. Prayer on the other hand....

If one group of people enjoy the benefits of it without all the superstitious garbage, and another group enjoy the benefits of it but also subscribe to and give social influence to the superstitious garbage and it's bronze age edicts that are often outright harmful to society, then which group do you really think needs to change the way they think about this?

[Phatscotty]

And of course, putting yourself into somewhat of a meditative state and focusing on something you want to improve about your life is only possible with the god thing going on right? Skeptics generally don't have a problem with meditation, it's being shown to have demonstrable benefits consistent with what you were talking about. Prayer on the other hand....

If one group of people enjoy the benefits of it without all the superstitious garbage, and another group enjoy the benefits of it but also subscribe to and give social influence to the superstitious garbage and it's bronze age edicts that are often outright harmful to society, then which group do you really think needs to change the way they think about this?

Not only did I not say it was the only possible way, I specifically said in foresight it works even if you don't have any beliefs at all.

I get your general point in the second paragraph, except for one important factor. I think the group with the 'garbage' are the sky-daddy's and spaghetti monster's, as I think there is a case to be made the 'superstitions' and the 'bronze age edicts' are actually theirs, and not the other groups. Along with the problem that all too often people do not blame human beings for using/twisting religion for their own benefit or to what they think is best and end up blaming religion. I happen to have a PERFECT example, and this get's me out of bumping the 'what is Obama's religion poll. dangit! hehe

Just look at the way Obama twisted and abused 'his' Christian faith back, forth, then sideways, all while it seems more likely everyday he loves, protects, and promotes Islam and wipes his ass with a Bible as clearly he thinks the Bible is just a tool to manipulate people when convenient, then he uses it again to go right back. so you see, the people who correctly smelled a fraud, like me, were attacked as racist and bigoted, not to mention an idiot for even doubting his word he was a Christian. But was it not along the lines of 'superstition' that those who blindly defended Obama's word did so passionately and without question? See how they are the 'group' that actually ended up being harmful to society? I don't think it can be measured just how harmful the truth is, which is anyone who disagreed with Obama was simply called a racist. Their reasoning, good, bad, whether or not it takes away our rights...not even listened to. That's pretty bad...... So, is not the 'bronze age' intelligence of this group that specifically provided the unchecked political correctness that brought us so low? Is that not the very empowerment of an immense tidal wave of 'social influence' that directly brought us, in the name of homosexual rights no less, the rise of one religion that is super duper against homosexuality to the point they will murder you, has made giant leaps and bounds of progress, even to the point Muslims can pray in public school in America and Christians cannot, while another religion that simply thinks marriage is something celebrating the duality of nature, and didn't embrace homosexuality, but even though Christianity is obviously a million times more tolerant to gays, it has been reduced and and trashed. They were so worried about what the Bible says about being gay, but they seem to have not a care in the world about what the Koran says, and that countries who enact Sharia law based on the Koran lock gay people up if they are lucky, and toss them off building if they are unlucky, as just happened last week in Levant. Yeah, I'm pretty sure these people are the 'group' you mentioned.

Obama, gay marriage, and wrapping a lie in the cloak of faith

In his new book Believer, former Obama strategist David Axelrod reveals that President Obama misled the American public when he said for several years that he opposed gay marriage.

In Axelrod's telling, Obama was, at heart, a supporter of same-sex marriage when he ran in 2008, but Axelrod advised him not to reveal his beliefs because "opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church." And indeed, it wasn't until 2012 that President Obama publicly came around in favor of gay marriage, after a much-mocked, faux-Hamlet period of "evolving."

In the wake of Axelrod's revelation, conservatives have been quick to note that Obama had often in the past cited his faith when opposing gay marriage. "What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman when they get married are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting," he said in 2004. "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman," he told Rick Warren in 2008. "For me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union — God is in the mix."

I've seen conservatives and Christians cite this fact as though it were prima facie damning evidence. National Review, for example, ran a post titled: "Obama Didn't Just Lie About Opposing Gay Marriage; He Kept Citing His Faith While Doing It." Critics have documented the faith element of Obama's apparent lying as if the implications were self-evident. But let's spell it out: Why is masking a lie in the cloak of faith so inherently disturbing and telling?

In terms of its magnitude, this lie might seem pretty harmless to a nonbeliever. FDR's campaign promise that "your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars" was obviously much more significant in the grand scheme of things. George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips" tax pledge and Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" were arguably more substantive lies than Obama's. But Obama's still belongs in a category by itself.

Consider this imperfect analogy. You say, "On the life of my daughter, I'm telling the truth..." and I find out that you lied. The lie itself might be about something terribly minor. But what kind of person would do that?

That's the problem here. Obama cited his belief in something sacred to buttress an argument he apparently didn't actually believe. By making his faith an accessory to a lie, he subjected something sacred to something profane.

For the faithful, this really is a damning revelation.

I'm less interested in how Obama feels about gay marriage than I am in the fact that he's the kind of person who would cite his faith to justify a lie.

http://theweek.com/articles/539012/obam ... loak-faith

[crispybits]

I think the group with the 'garbage' are the sky-daddy's and spaghetti monster's, as I think there is a case to be made the 'superstitions' and the 'bronze age edicts' are actually theirs, and not the other groups

LOL. Yeah you keep telling yourself it's the skeptics that are at fault for the ideas expressed in a book written/edited/canonised between 2600 and 1600 years ago that they outright reject...

As for the islam thing, I asked you in another thread and you never replied. Can you name one single law or regulation created in the last 6-7 years that favours islam specifically to the exclusion of any other religion?

[Phatscotty]

I think the group with the 'garbage' are the sky-daddy's and spaghetti monster's, as I think there is a case to be made the 'superstitions' and the 'bronze age edicts' are actually theirs, and not the other groups

LOL. Yeah you keep telling yourself it's the skeptics that are at fault for the ideas expressed in a book written/edited/finalised between 2600 and 1600 years ago that they outright reject...

As for the islam thing, I asked you in another thread and you never replied. Can you name one single law or regulation created in the last 6-7 years that favours islam specifically to the exclusion of any other religion?

I will reply to you, as I ALWAYS have and always do. I get the Bible has not been edited, and I addressed parts of that in the previous post. As I said, nobody thinks people are going to hell for eating shellfish, and Christians are not stoning people for being gay. Really, you are basing your opinions about Christianity on the fact the the Bible has not been officially edited, while you are missing the forest for the trees in the fact that Christians do not practice those things and has literally edited itself. And I'm not telling myself anything.... my point is valid in a very simple way, it's only a matter of to what degree. Most of the skeptics, as the OP pointed out, are skeptics based on 'but....the Crusades!' and also because 'but...it says to stone gays!' Again, that is not a reality. Their skepticism may be valid in many other ways, but on your stick in the mud about what the Bible said 1,000 years ago was meant for people who lived 1,000 years ago. Today we can eat shellfish and pork and live to tell about it. Rather than ranting about why the religion as a whole is a joke, I simply understand why it was written before microwave ovens and thermometers were invented, and that's all that really needs to be said about it.

Not to mention, Many (not all) skeptics are so based on something they haven't even taken a few hours of time to look into for themselves. Have most skeptics read the Bible? I think not. Sure, they know the handful of things that were written in ancient times to deal with ancient bronze age issues, and for some reason apply them to the post-industrial world we live in today, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, is it?

Let me make the point another way..... much in the exact same way a many-most Liberals think they know Conservatives based on numerous mindless assumptions based on messaging created by Liberals which ends up with them telling strangers they have never met and know nothing/barely anything about that they are just racist, greedy, love the military, want to circle jerk with wall street CEO's not to mention justify to themselves that their hatred and bigotry is justified and can therefore basically treat Conservatives the way they imagine a racist treats people of other races....yet most to none of that is not even close to the truth. And Liberals would know that if most of them ever took the time to actually talk normal to and listen to what a Conservative says or actually go back n forth (as you and I do ) instead of just dropping a bunch of labels and call all kinds of horrible names and accuse them of all kinds of horrible things like pushing senior citizens in wheelchairs off cliffs and if you are against Obamacare you want babies born in the street and poor people dying in the ER....yes, those kind of skeptics, in my book, do not even have an ounce of credibility. They are useful idiots, manipulated living, mindless pawns, repeating things that seem to make perfect sense, but they only make perfect sense to those who possess some to little knowledge and certainly no wisdom at all.

With Islam, I have already mentioned some major ones right here in the previous post, not to mention I have pointed them out right here on this website, in this forum, as they come, documenting them every step of the way. I am actually surprised you think you are going to call me out, thinking I can't name one regulation favoring Islam over other religions....but then again, you may just be saying what you want to say and not actually reading what I write or skipping over what I say.

So, for the second time here, and at least the 30th time overall, Muslims are allows to pray in public schools in America. The 10 commandments have already been ripped down in most schools, we are at the point of probably removing them from our Supreme Court walls, while the 5 pillars of Islam are displayed in sizes that take up entire hallways in public schools. Students are required to read prayers from the Koran in public schools,at the same time PC'ers are busy trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance to America, if the school is even allowed to say the pledge in the first place, and even where we do pledge, students can opt out. I could go on and on and on....you think a mosque will ever be forced to marry a gay couple? lemme know when that happens, k? You think a muslim Baker will be successfully sued for refusing to build a wedding cake that goes against their religious beliefs? again, lemme know when that happens. Muslims cab drivers can legally discriminate against blind people who have seeing eye dogs. BLIND PEOPLE!!! Not to mention, the OP? And the fact that we have a president who repeatedly promotes, defends and respects Islam, and wipes his ass with the Bible. I'm talking about him always repeating that Islam cannot be judged by the actions of some Muslims today, and tomorrow, and the next day, he's been saying it on constant rotation that Islam is a religion of peace. Yet, when it comes to religious extremism becoming sooo bad all around the world in the name of Islam, Obama decides to remind us 'Let's not forget terrible deeds have been done in the name of Christ. but....the Crusades! Our own president is all about pushing Islam everywhere he can, and all the power that comes with it, I mean it's so bad, he made our Space program NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam. Go ahead and doubt that, I'll show you the NASA directors saying that exactly word for word. There, is all this merely off the top of my head qualify to you as 'one law or regulation created in the last 6-7 years'? How is it you even question this? See what I mean about 'skeptics'?

[crispybits]

And I keep calling you out on these because you're factually wrong.

Muslims are allows to pray in public schools in America - so are Christians, Hindus and everyone else with religion. The restrictions are not on people praying, they are on government employees leading the prayer while on paid government tme, as prescribed by the constitution.

The 10 commandments have already been ripped down in most schools, we are at the point of probably removing them from our Supreme Court walls, while the 5 pillars of Islam are displayed in sizes that take up entire hallways in public schools - assuming you mean this (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... islam.html) I think the link explains all about how this is different from promoting a religion. I have nothing against kids being taught about all religions in an academic way, the restrictions again are about prostheletising on behalf of religions. This wall display in and of itself does not do that and the school has put up similar information about other religions, including christianity. There may be a problem with the teaching at this particular school, and if teachers are preaching islam instead of just teaching about it I'll be right beside you condemning that, but that is not what has been demonstrated.

Students are required to read prayers from the Koran in public schools - source please? Again if a sudent is asked to read a passage from the koran as part of academic learning without any preaching by the teacher, then this is no different to a student reading from a textbook or source text of any other subject. The distinction is government employees preaching instead of teaching, and the fact that christians feel so victimised by repeated slaps down over this is because they are the ones consistently found to be preaching instead of teaching...

PC'ers are busy trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance to America - yes because, y'know, the phrase does not represent all Americans and wasn't even in the pledge until the 50s McCarthy crap went down. Also I fail to see how this in any way promotes islam, last I checked they believe in a God too...

You think a mosque will ever be forced to marry a gay couple? - I don't see why not. Let me know when you find some wording in one of the supreme court decisions that says christian religion has to adapt to secular law in a way that other religions don't.

Muslims cab drivers can legally discriminate against blind people who have seeing eye dogs - no, they can't. There are many instances of mulsim cab drivers actually being punished for not taking seeing eye dogs. The muslims hold that they shouldn't be forced to, but that is very different to what the law says and what court decisions and municipal authorities have enforced.

And the fact that we have a president who repeatedly promotes, defends and respects Islam, and wipes his ass with the Bible - Just LOL - I'd be interested in seeing those NASA folks you mention though, could I have a link please? Because the quote I found is:

One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering. It is a matter of trying to reach out and get the best of all worlds, if you will, and there is much to be gained by drawing in the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.

That's just a touch different to "NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam" (note I don't actually agree with Obama that NASA should be a hearts and minds agency, it should be focused on science and space, but you are being misleading here with what you say)

By the way, I agree that there is a caricature of religion in some sections of the media that does not truly reflect the views of actual "christians" living their lives peacefully and with great tolerance towards others who disagree. (christians in ""s because I don't think anyone is actually a biblical christian any more bar a few proper loons). Thing is, I'm not interested in criticising good, honest hard working "christians", I'm interested in criticising the idea that that book (or any book) has any particular divine provenance and the ideas that "you can't be moral without God" and the like - it's those sorts of ideas that are being challenged with the "ok is it moral to stone people to death for X or Y or Z (and the list of things the bible prescribes death for is huge)

I want society to be based on the best of what humanity has learned about love, compassion, science, reality, empathy and well being. When someone tries to enter the conversation on any topic not with an actual argument but with a book and an assertion that "God said..." I want them excluded from the conversation. Not jailed or executed or harmed, but certainly mocked and paid no serious attention.

[Phatscotty]

I think the group with the 'garbage' are the sky-daddy's and spaghetti monster's, as I think there is a case to be made the 'superstitions' and the 'bronze age edicts' are actually theirs, and not the other groups

LOL. Yeah you keep telling yourself it's the skeptics that are at fault for the ideas expressed in a book written/edited/canonised between 2600 and 1600 years ago that they outright reject...

One more thing, as I'm not going to edit it into my last post. If you think I'm telling myself that skeptics alive walking the earth today are at fault for ideas written down thousands of year ago....
#1 either you missed my entire point, as rich with details as it was, but that will happen if you cut out all the details, The point being, why do a couple of those ideas (out of thousands of other ideas) deserve so much of your attention if nobody is practicing them?? There are some crappy amendments to our US Constitution, but I'm not about to criticize the entire constitution and give up all my rights to free speech, to worship what religion I want to or not worship at all, my right to remain silent and my right to not incriminate myself, just because I don't see the reason why I have the right to refuse a British soldier quarter in my house.....
#2 You are going full Symmfansmx
#3 You are aware of a time machine you assume I have access to


I continued past your one sentence you pulled out of a page or two, offering many different reasons about why some and why many are skeptics, and many reasons why their skepticism is credible and not credible. But sticking with your response, why can't I dismiss someone's skeptical opinions about a book if they didn't read it?? If they only know about an idea or two, but never read what the book actually says? If they only read a couple lines? Certainly you can easily grant that it's true that at least a small percentage of skeptics have not read the book they are skeptical about, and knowing you as the good and honest mate that you are, I would bet you can go along with me in that it's actually like a majority, and I would bet even further it's an overwhelming majority.

So then, let's go with the couple things most skeptics do know and have looked into. I will respect their opinions to a certain degree depending on if they know what they are talking about....one those couple things. But not about the entire book, certainly not about an entire religion.

And finally, I gave you an example to a point I made that either you conceded entirely, or just skipped over. The point that humans do screwed up things for screwed up reasons. Humans also do valid things for valid reasons, and over centuries and even millenia, without context or understanding, they can seem screwed up. with context and understanding, they can seem screwed up. So the post I showed you about how Obama dissed the shit out of his faith to further a goal against that faith...do you agree on the point about just how bad a person can twist religion, back and forth and back again? For example, lets say crispybits the 4th, 100 years from now, was spouting a line popularized by the media of the time, quoting Obama directly in that 'Marriage is a religious issue, God is definitely in the mix' The C-bits the 4th says 'Why did Obama go against the constitution to get gay marriage passed? Why did he not separate church n state? Clearly we must reverse that legislation, as the church interfered' And btw, I take GREAT pride in standing up for what I say and spend a good amount of time answering your usually pretty darn good questions and at least respond the best I can with my opinion to good challenges, but I notice you skip a lot of my questions lately/challenges lately. I'm not trying to rest my case with these questions, just trying take ideas and concepts further and think them over with convo and throw em in the wall see if it sticks or not. Let's go all the way!

[Phatscotty]

And I keep calling you out on these because you're factually wrong.

Muslims are allows to pray in public schools in America - so are Christians, Hindus and everyone else with religion. The restrictions are not on people praying, they are on government employees leading the prayer while on paid government tme, as prescribed by the constitution.

The 10 commandments have already been ripped down in most schools, we are at the point of probably removing them from our Supreme Court walls, while the 5 pillars of Islam are displayed in sizes that take up entire hallways in public schools - assuming you mean this (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... islam.html) I think the link explains all about how this is different from promoting a religion. I have nothing against kids being taught about all religions in an academic way, the restrictions again are about prostheletising on behalf of religions. This wall display in and of itself does not do that and the school has put up similar information about other religions, including christianity. There may be a problem with the teaching at this particular school, and if teachers are preaching islam instead of just teaching about it I'll be right beside you condemning that, but that is not what has been demonstrated.

Students are required to read prayers from the Koran in public schools - source please? Again if a sudent is asked to read a passage from the koran as part of academic learning without any preaching by the teacher, then this is no different to a student reading from a textbook or source text of any other subject. The distinction is government employees preaching instead of teaching, and the fact that christians feel so victimised by repeated slaps down over this is because they are the ones consistently found to be preaching instead of teaching...

PC'ers are busy trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance to America - yes because, y'know, the phrase does not represent all Americans and wasn't even in the pledge until the 50s McCarthy crap went down. Also I fail to see how this in any way promotes islam, last I checked they believe in a God too...

You think a mosque will ever be forced to marry a gay couple? - I don't see why not. Let me know when you find some wording in one of the supreme court decisions that says christian religion has to adapt to secular law in a way that other religions don't.

Muslims cab drivers can legally discriminate against blind people who have seeing eye dogs - no, they can't. There are many instances of mulsim cab drivers actually being punished for not taking seeing eye dogs. The muslims hold that they shouldn't be forced to, but that is very different to what the law says and what court decisions and municipal authorities have enforced.

And the fact that we have a president who repeatedly promotes, defends and respects Islam, and wipes his ass with the Bible - Just LOL - I'd be interested in seeing those NASA folks you mention though, could I have a link please? Because the quote I found is:

One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering. It is a matter of trying to reach out and get the best of all worlds, if you will, and there is much to be gained by drawing in the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.

That's just a touch different to "NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam" (note I don't actually agree with Obama that NASA should be a hearts and minds agency, it should be focused on science and space, but you are being misleading here with what you say)

By the way, I agree that there is a caricature of religion in some sections of the media that does not truly reflect the views of actual "christians" living their lives peacefully and with great tolerance towards others who disagree. (christians in ""s because I don't think anyone is actually a biblical christian any more bar a few proper loons). Thing is, I'm not interested in criticising good, honest hard working "christians", I'm interested in criticising the idea that that book (or any book) has any particular divine provenance and the ideas that "you can't be moral without God" and the like - it's those sorts of ideas that are being challenged with the "ok is it moral to stone people to death for X or Y or Z (and the list of things the bible prescribes death for is huge)

I want society to be based on the best of what humanity has learned about love, compassion, science, reality, empathy and well being. When someone tries to enter the conversation on any topic not with an actual argument but with a book and an assertion that "God said..." I want them excluded from the conversation. Not jailed or executed or harmed, but certainly mocked and paid no serious attention.

Well, aside from you contradicting yourself a couple times there (which is okay because you don't have the links yet ), such as children can opt out of the pledge because it does not represent all Americans. I won't go into how genderbread person represents about 3%-5% of Americans but somehow when it comes to sexual organs and what stimulates them 100% must participate, but specifically children reading verses from the Koran. Believe me, I have links to every single thing I said, because that's just how I roll yo. I don't say it if it's not true or was true at one time, and if I can't prove it I usually state it's an opinion based on other things.

I have most of the links here in the next 5 minutes, a couple of the older ones like the seeing eye dogs I'll have to dig up here from 5 years ago. And if that decision has been reversed since then, I will stand corrected. And for the record, Your'e gonna be taking back that 'response' about how you just lol'd, because the Nasa link, showing what I said verbatim, is the very first one I'm gonna get! btw, I wouldn't mind to see you addressing one way or the other many of the points I have made in counter to yours, the way you know for a fact I will address every single one of your points in extensive detail. This isn't about who is right and who is wrong, not to me anyways. This is about being challenged in ways that further education and understanding and context and details from others in other parts of the world. Not to mention, you kinda have a lot of balls making all those statement about my country being that you are in/from Britain. In a way it's impressive, as you overcome the not-your-fault reality that you don't live here and aren't 100% tuned into our way of thought, our understanding of ourselves and who we are, not to mention a lot of things can fall through the cracks especially if you are just googling certain things. I have so much inbetween part and parcels to, I think I'm having fun right now!



p.s. None of my links are Fox news, and none of them are tea party websites. I'm on a mission, and I don't allow the non-thinkers to get off the hook with 'but....FOX news! therefore doesn't count!'

[crispybits]

I don't skip challenges because I don't recognise them as challenges. They are rhetoric and largely flawed rhetoric. You constantly say (and I agree) that there are caricatures of religion or caricatures of conservatives being held up by some skeptics or some liberals. Do you not see that you are holding up caricatures of liberalism and skepticism in almost every post you make? If I said you were a fanboy for Wall Street CEOs and corporate greed would you spend much time debunking that or just skip to the bits of my post you actually disagree with to try and make me see your point of view more clearly?

We don't have time to deal with every single point each other make, we both write fairly long posts with many aspects, and these exchanges would turn into encylopedia length diatirbes if each of us responded to every sentence from the other. You make challenges to my points and I decide which battles to fight while keeping the debate on topic for me, and similarly you decide which battles you fight from my posts quite often and that's fine. I don't expect an answer to every point, I do expect you to back up your key arguments with facts that you can prove instead of rhetoric.

To answer your direct questions from your last 3 posts (and take a breath because this will demonstrate what I'm talking about regards lengthy posts)

But was it not along the lines of 'superstition' that those who blindly defended Obama's word did so passionately and without question? - Nope. There was nothing "superstitious" about that. Superstition is by definition totally irrelevant to Obama being taken at his word or not about being christian. You might want to claim it's dogmatic, but you'd have to show that if Obama got proved to be a muslim then those people that defended his christian faith would still hold to the view that he's christian despite the evidence. Seeing as the only evidence of what Obama thinks about God is what Obama says he believes about God and how he acts towards religion, and despite all the factually incorrect arguments you make about religious inquality in US law (which are mostly supreme court decisions and Obama has only appointed 2 of 9 supreme court judges) I have not seen convincing evidence that Obama is not following his interpretation of what christianity means (much like you follow your interpretation when you have pre-marital sex or eat shellfish)

See how they are the 'group' that actually ended up being harmful to society? - I don't see that actually. I acknowledge that there were people using dishonest tactics to defend certian ideas, but you know me, I've always said that I want good ideas that can stand up to challenges, not bad ideas that only survive by dishonest defences. I also think that if the conservatives were genuinely not being racist and had legitimate criticisms of some of Obama's ideas but wilted away because someone said "racist" unjustifiably then that's a serious show of weakness on their part isn't it?

So, is not the 'bronze age' intelligence of this group that specifically provided the unchecked political correctness that brought us so low? - I'm not even sure understand this question. Bronze Age political correctness? As I said if you have a valid point then those you are opposing should not be using dishonest tactics to defend it, but you sould also not be backing down if you feel they are playing the PC card without justification, and you should call them out on it. If you genunely are not racist, sexist, etc then they'll have a hard time proving you are and it will discredit them not you.

Is that not the very empowerment of an immense tidal wave of 'social influence' that directly brought us, in the name of homosexual rights no less, the rise of one religion that is super duper against homosexuality to the point they will murder you, has made giant leaps and bounds of progress, even to the point Muslims can pray in public school in America and Christians cannot, while another religion that simply thinks marriage is something celebrating the duality of nature, and didn't embrace homosexuality, but even though Christianity is obviously a million times more tolerant to gays, it has been reduced and and trashed? - You're equating homosexual rights with the rise in popularity of islam and I don't see where your justification is for that. Yes liberalism promotes both acceptance despite sexuality and acceptance despite ethnicity, but I've not seen any high profile liberals preaching islam as the divinely inspired word of Allah. As for christianity is a million times more tolerant, that's like saying "yes officer I was speeding at 90 but that other guy was doing 120, aren't I a good boy by comparison?" Yes you are better by comparison, but that doesn't mean you get a party thrown for you for only being a little bit illegal...

Have most skeptics read the Bible? I think not. - Actually skeptics and atheists consistently, in poll after poll afetr poll, comes out as knowing the most about biblical mythology, theology and apologetics. It's generally religious people, especially those in more evangelical movements, who tend to be ignorant of what it actually says in the Bible...

Why do a couple of those ideas (out of thousands of other ideas) deserve so much of your attention if nobody is practicing them?? - Because as long as we have it acceptable to justify anything at all by using religion (or in other words "God said so") then one of the most effective ways to discredit that is to say "well you think God said so in this book, lets see what else God says in this book and see if you really want to live like God says to..." If the Democrats proposed a bill that in spirit you largely agreed with, but it had a few clauses in there that you found abhorrent and harmful, and you were asked to vote yes or no to that bill, you'd most likely vote no and rightly so. The difference between this example is that the bill can be amended and improved upon, the bible is said to be infallible by almost all christian churches and who can say they know better than God right?

Why can't I dismiss someone's skeptical opinions about a book if they didn't read it?? If they only know about an idea or two, but never read what the book actually says? - dealt with two questions ago... read back up.

Do you agree on the point about just how bad a person can twist religion, back and forth and back again? - Yes I do, and I'm proposing tht we get rid of the "faith" excuse entirely so I don't think we disagree on the point that people can screw up religion to suit their ends, therefore I didn't think it was particularly interesting or productive to go into that in any more detail.

God is definitely in the mix' The C-bits the 4th says 'Why did Obama go against the constitution to get gay marriage passed? Why did he not separate church n state? Clearly we must reverse that legislation, as the church interfered' - If I saw that argument I'd call it out for the straw man it is. The quote says nothing about gay marriage and I'd want the full facts about the debate that happened and the positions people took and the arguments they used before I made up my mind about whetehr such and such was right or wrong.

There you go, not a single question skipped, and I just wasted a bunch of time getting us NO FURTHER ALONG with any of the interesting aspects of the debate and ended up waffling about things that aren't really relevant...

[crispybits]

Well, aside from you contradicting yourself a couple times there (which is okay because you don't have the links yet ), such as children can opt out of the pledge because it does not represent all Americans. I won't go into how genderbread person represents about 3%-5% of Americans but somehow when it comes to sexual organs and what stimulates them 100% must participate, but specifically children reading verses from the Koran. Believe me, I have links to every single thing I said, because that's just how I roll yo. I don't say it if it's not true or was true at one time, and if I can't prove it I usually state it's an opinion based on other things.

I have most of the links here in the next 5 minutes, a couple of the older ones like the seeing eye dogs I'll have to dig up here from 5 years ago. And if that decision has been reversed since then, I will stand corrected. And for the record, Your'e gonna be taking back that 'response' about how you just lol'd, because the Nasa link, showing what I said verbatim, is the very first one I'm gonna get! btw, I wouldn't mind to see you addressing one way or the other many of the points I have made in counter to yours, the way you know for a fact I will address every single one of your points in extensive detail. This isn't about who is right and who is wrong, not to me anyways. This is about being challenged in ways that further education and understanding and context and details from others in other parts of the world. Not to mention, you kinda have a lot of balls making all those statement about my country being that you are in/from Britain. In a way it's impressive, as you overcome the not-your-fault reality that you don't live here and aren't 100% tuned into our way of thought, our understanding of ourselves and who we are, not to mention a lot of things can fall through the cracks especially if you are just googling certain things. I have so much inbetween part and parcels to, I think I'm having fun right now!



p.s. None of my links are Fox news, and none of them are tea party websites. I'm on a mission, and I don't allow the non-thinkers to get off the hook with 'but....FOX news! therefore doesn't count!'

Firstly, the link from Fox News actually provides the context I'm saying you're missing, don't think just because I link Fox News that I'm saying it's aways wrong (though as you know I do think Fox is a propaganda machine first and foremost and should not be called a news organisation)

I'll look forward to the links, but can you understand the distinction between learning about something and participating in something. I can learn about hockey without ever playing it and nobody could say I was participating in it. I can learn about racism without ever doing anything racist or participating in racism. Try and keep that in mind next time you try to equate academic knowledge with active participation or even agreement with some philosophy or another.

[Phatscotty]

NASA - heck, you already pulled the quote, but here is the video. It's exactly as I said


these one's are kind of combined in this response as well as a later response as to the 5 pillars

And I keep calling you out on these because you're factually wrong.

Muslims are allows to pray in public schools in America - so are Christians, Hindus and everyone else with religion. The restrictions are not on people praying, they are on government employees leading the prayer while on paid government tme, as prescribed by the constitution.

Students are required to read prayers from the Koran in public schools - source please? Again if a sudent is asked to read a passage from the koran as part of academic learning without any preaching by the teacher, then this is no different to a student reading from a textbook or source text of any other subject. The distinction is government employees preaching instead of teaching, and the fact that christians feel so victimised by repeated slaps down over this is because they are the ones consistently found to be preaching instead of teaching...

Well, You say I'm wrong about what's going on in my own country? I will just show you some of what is going on in my country. It's not about right or wrong, basically it just comes down to who is paying closer attention. btw, just curious, are you a Muslim?

Ron Wagner, a Florida father, said his son’s world history book has gone too far with a lesson that teaches Muhammad is the messenger of God.

One part of the book, for instance, reads: “There is no god, but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God,” he said, quoting from his son’s Lyman High School history book, WFTV reported.

“Students were instructed to recite this prayer as the first Pillar of Islam, off of the board at the teacher’s instruction,” Mr. Wagner said. “For it to be mandatory and part of the curriculum and in the textbooks, didn’t seem right.”

The chapter in the history book is called the “Rise of Islam,” and includes text of the faith’s prayers and scriptures, right from the Koran, WFTV reported.

Mr. Wagner also complained that the first 100 pages of the of the religious-based chapters that deal with Judaism and Christianity are missing — and the school district explains that omission by saying the defect, which impacted 68 books, is due to a manufacturer mistake, WFTV reported.

The school also said that the “Pillars of Islam are benchmarks in the state curriculum” and must be taught, WFTV reported.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3UZJz1kah

Christians can have prayer sessions in public schools? Pretty sure the U.S. Supreme court has specifically ruled otherwise, not to mention the state in this example, michigan, has banned Christian literature in public schools Sure, a Christian can pray, to themselves, about being thankful for the food in front of them at the lunch table, or while they are taking a shit in a bathroom stall, but what I'm talking about and what is in fact going on is on a completely different level.

In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that official prayer had no place in public education. What I am giving you a taste of and what you can find tons more on yours own easily qualifies as official prayer in public schools

CAIR: Mich. School District Apologizes for Bible Study Forms
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 47182.html

then, just a few months later.....in the same district
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/musli ... e-studies/
"Public Schools have implemented a policy which fully accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools, as well as unexcused absences for students who leave early on Fridays for Jumu'ah prayers." It's pretty much the same in many other states. Some schools the Muslims take over the school library at prayer time. anyone else who is using the library during those times.....too bad. Other schools have specifically built foot sinks or something, so Muslims can wash their feet before prayer. I think that was Arizona. Basically, I already did all this research for myself about a year ago. rather than me googling the subject and just opening bunch links so I can copy them for you ie doing all this research again for someone else because they are skeptical or don't believe it or flat out think I'm imagining things or making them up or whatever..... hey, it's all there for ya mate. I suggest you do your own thing regarding delvin further into this specific issue.

The 10 commandments have already been ripped down in most schools, we are at the point of probably removing them from our Supreme Court walls, while the 5 pillars of Islam are displayed in sizes that take up entire hallways in public schools - assuming you mean this (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... islam.html) I think the link explains all about how this is different from promoting a religion. I have nothing against kids being taught about all religions in an academic way, the restrictions again are about prostheletising on behalf of religions. This wall display in and of itself does not do that and the school has put up similar information about other religions, including christianity. There may be a problem with the teaching at this particular school, and if teachers are preaching islam instead of just teaching about it I'll be right beside you condemning that, but that is not what has been demonstrated.

5 pillars of Islam hallway size display in public school, it won't let me copy paste this specific image, but here is the link. My experience, I have a family member who was on his own 'Crusade' to get all crosses, 10 commandments, literature...all of it from public schools in his city and his county. And when he was done, he moved on to public parks. I figured that was his way of getting the double headed eagle 33rd degree. Anyways, point is, and this man basically raised me, I asked him what he thought about Islamic prayer being played over the public public, not just students, and he shrugged. I didn't get it then, but I think I get it now. I hope you can see maybe just a little bit how people think it's f'd up to see the 5 pillars and Islamic literature just after living through the last 10-15-20 years where our public education system basically cleansed itself of all Christianity. Maybe these are just a few instances that went too far, and maybe this is the calling out of it that ends the envelope pushing, I have a feeling maybe not. We'll see
http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/02/f ... ror-group/

PC'ers are busy trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance to America - yes because, y'know, the phrase does not represent all Americans and wasn't even in the pledge until the 50s McCarthy crap went down. Also I fail to see how this in any way promotes islam, last I checked they believe in a God too...

Well, promoting and establishing Islam was only half of the statement, the other half being Christianity being demoted and removed. Being you seem familiar with this issue, I don't think I need to provide links about what has happened and is happening concerning the pledge of allegiance.

You think a mosque will ever be forced to marry a gay couple? - I don't see why not. Let me know when you find some wording in one of the supreme court decisions that says christian religion has to adapt to secular law in a way that other religions don't.

Well, now that relevant links have been provided, it's already being established in the public education system that the wording of the supreme court decision seems to only make Christianity accountable, while clearly as Muslims being granted all kinds of things to officially be allowed prayer services, places to pray, time off from school, etc, and this isn't just in 1 or 2 schools, it's in many many schools in many many states in America. I will chalk that one up among the likes of the popular response to how religion is specifically protected in the U.S. Constitution, so religious people don't have anything to worry about concerning the ramifications or redefining marriage. Similarly, I have documented many cases here where religion has not been protected or there are suddenly new definitions of what protection is and new information about what used to be protected no longer is. See Atlanta Fire Chief fired, full frontal assault on first amendment, t-shirt maker forced to create products that will promote things that go against their religion, religious fire fighters civil rights suit tossed out 13 years after the fact they were forced to celebrate gay pride, etc etc etc, the baker, the churches forced to perform same sex marriage, something clearly even marriage redefiners were confident would not happen, cuz religion is protected n stuff...

btw, are you seriously unfamiliar with the way this works? Doesn't matter what country you look at, doesn't matter what religion is dominant. They put their religion on top of everybody else and everything else, it's simply a matter of what % of the population is Muslim. Betiko has a lot of faith France will not change. I wish I could actually believe that. Granted I'm not from France and really don't know what exactly he's talking about or why other than a general explanation, I do know what the birthrates are, and it's simply a matter of time. Unfortunately them and other countries with 6-8-10% populations, if you don't know history, it will be repeated. And that is sad because really it's extremely repetitive, cut and dry, same thing over and over, stamp it all with a cookie cutter.

And ya know what, they are right. Christians will not stand up for what they believe in. Christians will not fight. Christians will be rolled over, and by the time they wake up, it will most likely be too late. I envy Saxi in this regard. He gets to live through his glorious and proud ascendance. I would compare it to the American generation that came back home victorious after WW2. But right now this is getting too long and if my comp crashes I would likely give up for the day so I'm gonna post, see what links I'm missing and come back

[crispybits]

Improving muslim relations ≠ promoting islam. I'll remind you of your actual claim:

I mean it's so bad, he made our Space program NASA declare it's first and foremost priority is to promote Islam.

And now the NASA quote:

...and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

It's weird, I don't see any kind of affirmation or promotion of the islamic religion there and somehow you do....

So students reading from a history book means that teachers are automatically promoting/preaching the views contained by everyone within that book? If the book had a quote from Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot to give context about how those guys tried to justify carrying out atrocities and as part of the class a student was asked to read one of those quotes out loud to the class, would you be up in arms about the class promoting nazism, communism or whatever the hell Pol Pot was smoking, or would you look at the wider context of the lesson as academic learning about facts about the world?

On the school prayer thing, I see nothing in those links that allows teachers or other government employees to promote islam. They make accommodations for the religious beliefs of their students sure, and they should do the same for christian students if justification for this is provided (like Amish kids being homeschooled is allowed for example, a decision that has led to a lot more homeschooling by a lot of other christian parents), but what christians are repeatedly being slapped down for is not wanting accommodations for christian practices, it's promoting christian religion or activities.

As I linked, that display was part of a broader display about religions in general. There was also a christian imagery, some hindu information, etc. There is nothing wrong with learning about religions as an academic exercise, and indeed most skeptics encourage that because there is a strong correlation between learning about religion and not subscribing to any particular religion. The more educated you get about how twisted the religious doctrines that everything is based on are, the more chance you reject them all.