Bill Maher Absolutely Crushes Charlie Rose For Comparing Islam To Christianity

[bigrebnc1775]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

 

[daws101]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

to appease the unwashed masses who still to this day don't understand the word deist.

Deism is not a specific religion but rather a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

to appease the unwashed masses who still to this day don't understand the word deist.

Deism is not a specific religion but rather a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept.

And to keep the well-scrubbed and -tailored intelligentsia on its toes, the overwhelming majority of the Founders were Christians, not Deists, and a number of the Deist-leaning Founders, like Franklin, actually believed in praying to the Creator. So some Deists believed that God was not entirely indifferent to the affairs of the Grand Design.

But to be accurate, Franklin's belief system, perhaps like that of Washington, the religious enigma, was a religious hybrid: a cross between Christianity and Deism, that is to say, theistic rationalism. On the other hand, it seems that Washington tilted more toward Christianity than Deism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Seems to me more that those within the "Religion of Peace" who proudly require war with the infidel are far more up front about it than you are willing or able to admit. They do not deny their intent ... why do you?

If you do a little research, I think you'll discover two things.

First, a Holy War or Jihad does not necessary mean a war against Christians or even a war against Non-Muslims. King Mohammed VI of Morcoco uses the term constantly calling for a Holy War against illiteracy, terrorist, poverty, Israel, and various political factions. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for a Holy War about every other day against Israel. In the Iraq Iran war both Saddam and Khomeini repeated called for a Holy War against their brother Muslims. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called the gas war of 1973 a Holy War. In fact, many Islamic scholars disagree as what is meant by a Holy War in the Koran

Second there is nothing even close to an agreement among Muslims in a call for a Holy War against non-Muslims. For example- - King Abdullah II of Jordan, who is widely considered the most influential Muslim in the world had this to say about a Holy War.

"The Prophet Mohammad tells us that the “greater” holy war is not against others at all but against one's own failings – the “war against the ego.” Moreover, in a famous speech, the Prophet's follower and first successor, Abu Bakr, commanded Muslim soldiers: “Do not betray, do not deceive, do not bludgeon and maim, do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man . . . do not burn, do not cut down a fruit tree. . . . If you come across communities who have consecrated themselves to the [Christian church], leave them.” - King Abdullah II of Jordan

I've known the people of the Mideast perhaps longer than you have been alive and while it is legit to point out that not all Muslims heed the call to war against the infidel, many do so proudly.
To deny their existence and their numbers or to proclaim their POV to be "not Islamic" is naïve at best, mendacious at worst, and dangerous in either event.

I certainly don't deny that many Muslims in world would give lip serve to a call to war against infidels and some would heed the call. However, we probably differ considerable on the number. Of the 2 billion Muslims in the world, I think we are talking about less 1%. However, that number could certainly rise if extremist on both sides play their cards right.

You think? the number has been estimated to be much higher up too 15% or more and the rest don't speak out, or are simply too afraid to do so. When we begin seeing massive protests throughout the muslim world against the radicals, that means there is change, until then your post are naive and pretty much useless in the big scheme of things. Funny we did see protest against the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Obama was against them. We saw protests against the regime in Iran Obama didn't support them.

Mosques across Germany are planning to unite against Islamist extremists this week. UK Muslims are holding a rally against extremist as a part of Islamic peace conference in London on Saturday, 5,000 in Norway protested in Aug. Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority has condemned the armed groups Islamic State and al-Qaeda as apostates and labelled them the “number one enemy of Islam” as have numerous Muslim leaders around the world. There're many protests unfortunately they're drowned out in media by extremist atrocities.

Well, that's encouraging news: the denunciations, not the drowned out part.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

People who like to hate, who need someone to hate, find an easy target in Islam. They can stereotype the entire religion on the actions of a tiny minority. They can twist the facts and realities to suit their hatred. They can feel superior to someone else, despite the fact they are not superior. And so on.

Islam is easy to hate because it is the religion of hate, beheading's, stoning's, rape, abusers of women

another a la carte "christian" who knows jack shit about what he professes to believe

I thought he was pretty clear about what he hates. I hate Islam too. It's a lie, and like all blasphemies, it's evil.

 

[Jroc]

If you do a little research, I think you'll discover two things.

First, a Holy War or Jihad does not necessary mean a war against Christians or even a war against Non-Muslims. King Mohammed VI of Morcoco uses the term constantly calling for a Holy War against illiteracy, terrorist, poverty, Israel, and various political factions. The Muslim Brotherhood calls for a Holy War about every other day against Israel. In the Iraq Iran war both Saddam and Khomeini repeated called for a Holy War against their brother Muslims. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called the gas war of 1973 a Holy War. In fact, many Islamic scholars disagree as what is meant by a Holy War in the Koran

Second there is nothing even close to an agreement among Muslims in a call for a Holy War against non-Muslims. For example- - King Abdullah II of Jordan, who is widely considered the most influential Muslim in the world had this to say about a Holy War.

"The Prophet Mohammad tells us that the “greater” holy war is not against others at all but against one's own failings – the “war against the ego.” Moreover, in a famous speech, the Prophet's follower and first successor, Abu Bakr, commanded Muslim soldiers: “Do not betray, do not deceive, do not bludgeon and maim, do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man . . . do not burn, do not cut down a fruit tree. . . . If you come across communities who have consecrated themselves to the [Christian church], leave them.” - King Abdullah II of Jordan

I've known the people of the Mideast perhaps longer than you have been alive and while it is legit to point out that not all Muslims heed the call to war against the infidel, many do so proudly.
To deny their existence and their numbers or to proclaim their POV to be "not Islamic" is naïve at best, mendacious at worst, and dangerous in either event.

I certainly don't deny that many Muslims in world would give lip serve to a call to war against infidels and some would heed the call. However, we probably differ considerable on the number. Of the 2 billion Muslims in the world, I think we are talking about less 1%. However, that number could certainly rise if extremist on both sides play their cards right.

You think? the number has been estimated to be much higher up too 15% or more and the rest don't speak out, or are simply too afraid to do so. When we begin seeing massive protests throughout the muslim world against the radicals, that means there is change, until then your post are naive and pretty much useless in the big scheme of things. Funny we did see protest against the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Obama was against them. We saw protests against the regime in Iran Obama didn't support them.

Mosques across Germany are planning to unite against Islamist extremists this week. UK Muslims are holding a rally against extremist as a part of Islamic peace conference in London on Saturday, 5,000 in Norway protested in Aug. Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority has condemned the armed groups Islamic State and al-Qaeda as apostates and labelled them the “number one enemy of Islam” as have numerous Muslim leaders around the world. There're many protests unfortunately they're drowned out in media by extremist atrocities.

Well, that's encouraging news: the denunciations, not the drowned out part.

Very little, very weak and non in the middle east. No protest at all there in the cradle of the beast

 

[Flopper]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

For the same reason they mad slavery legal in the new nation. They screwed up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

For the same reason they mad slavery legal in the new nation. They screwed up.

Stop right their, you say they weren't Christians nor was this country a Christian nation? Is this true?
How can that be if they voted for a Christian congressional chaplain?
But thanks for side stepping with the irrelevant comment about slavery.
If modern day liberals and anti religion people are right the founders would never have voted for a congressional chaplain

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

For the same reason they mad slavery legal in the new nation. They screwed up.

Nonsense. Your invariably tyrannical, Hegelian-Rousseauian construct of separation is showing. You should zip that up. And the Framers didn't make slavery legal. It was already legal. Moreover, the free-states asserted the Three-Fifths Compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified, yet not permit the slave states to assert as much electoral or congressional power as the latter desired.

 

[Flopper]

I've known the people of the Mideast perhaps longer than you have been alive and while it is legit to point out that not all Muslims heed the call to war against the infidel, many do so proudly.
To deny their existence and their numbers or to proclaim their POV to be "not Islamic" is naïve at best, mendacious at worst, and dangerous in either event.

I certainly don't deny that many Muslims in world would give lip serve to a call to war against infidels and some would heed the call. However, we probably differ considerable on the number. Of the 2 billion Muslims in the world, I think we are talking about less 1%. However, that number could certainly rise if extremist on both sides play their cards right.

You think? the number has been estimated to be much higher up too 15% or more and the rest don't speak out, or are simply too afraid to do so. When we begin seeing massive protests throughout the muslim world against the radicals, that means there is change, until then your post are naive and pretty much useless in the big scheme of things. Funny we did see protest against the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Obama was against them. We saw protests against the regime in Iran Obama didn't support them.

Mosques across Germany are planning to unite against Islamist extremists this week. UK Muslims are holding a rally against extremist as a part of Islamic peace conference in London on Saturday, 5,000 in Norway protested in Aug. Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority has condemned the armed groups Islamic State and al-Qaeda as apostates and labelled them the “number one enemy of Islam” as have numerous Muslim leaders around the world. There're many protests unfortunately they're drowned out in media by extremist atrocities.

Well, that's encouraging news: the denunciations, not the drowned out part.

Very little, very weak and non in the middle east. No protest at all there in the cradle of the beast

In the Middle East there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets. Contrary to common image, many Muslims have spoken out against 9/11, and against terrorist attacks in general but that's often not considered newsworthy. Muslims are just as concerned, possibly more so than non-Muslims. The reason being 8 out 10 victims of terrorist attacks are Muslims.

I think you'll find that there very few protests in the Middle East or elsewhere in support of Islamic Terrorism. Some people regard any protest by Muslims against the US as a protest in support Islamic terrorism which is of course nonsense.
.



.

 

[Discombobulated]

It's better to go to the link and watch the short video.

Bill is correct, as always.

BTW - that link, and that headline is from....FOXNATION.com!

He said this about FOX News just recently......

 

[daws101]

Why did the founders and signers of the U.S. Constitution give their vote for the approval of the congressional Chaplain?

For the same reason they mad slavery legal in the new nation. They screwed up.

Stop right their, you say they weren't Christians nor was this country a Christian nation? Is this true?
How can that be if they voted for a Christian congressional chaplain?
But thanks for side stepping with the irrelevant comment about slavery.
If modern day liberals and anti religion people are right the founders would never have voted for a congressional chaplain