Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches - thenews.com.pk
Interesting the western media totally ignored this
Ah how one forgets about our home grown fundy christers and their christer laws
Blasphemy law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches - thenews.com.pk
Interesting the western media totally ignored this
Ah how one forgets about our home grown fundy christers and their christer laws
Blasphemy law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All of which are no longer enforced and haven't been for quite some time. Try something more current Skippy.
). I'd say that's "current".Ah how one forgets about our home grown fundy christers and their christer laws
Blasphemy law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All of which are no longer enforced and haven't been for quite some time. Try something more current Skippy.
The example I quoted from his link was enforced in 1977, in my adult lifetime (and in my state
Fortunately it was, and they should be, easy cases to prove unconstitutional, but the point is the laws are/were already on the books-- in a nation that explicitly prohibits such legislation as point number one of its Constitution. I'm not much of a mathematician but 1977 looks to be nearly two centuries after that Constitution went into effect.
That's food for thought right there and it's ignored at our peril.
Don't hold back... tell the audience how you really feel..."Outlaw this..."
Sterling enough.
And radical enough for the people that had to live with the MB, to ban them from office.
30 years of truce with Israel out the window, thanks to the radical Muslim brotherhood, and an American president who lavishes praise on them. You remember the little Arab Spring speech our leader gave us don't you, after he took credit for the overthrow.
Nope. I don't know what alternate universe you inhabit.
Well, that's kind of what I say. And a "largely unsourced" story doesn't usually qualify as "facts". Kind of like Chem Trails.
Did the Egyptian Brotherhood say they would continue the truce with their neighbor Israel, which would in turn help keep peace in the region, or do they envision Jerusalem as their new capital?
Which has what to do with Muslim Americans?
Google the speech, not talking about the story any longer, but Gov. declarations. And wrong thread.
Google Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood. We have moved from your skepticism of some media to actual government events.
Egypt will not be keeping the treaty between Israel and the old regime. And the proud, patriotic, American Muslim thread is due south. This is about Muslims making demands of England.
I'm not doing the line by line dance with you. It's tedious, and makes for a boring read, so agree or don't..........
All of which are no longer enforced and haven't been for quite some time. Try something more current Skippy.
The example I quoted from his link was enforced in 1977, in my adult lifetime (and in my state
Fortunately it was, and they should be, easy cases to prove unconstitutional, but the point is the laws are/were already on the books-- in a nation that explicitly prohibits such legislation as point number one of its Constitution. I'm not much of a mathematician but 1977 looks to be nearly two centuries after that Constitution went into effect.
That's food for thought right there and it's ignored at our peril.
1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.
All of which are no longer enforced and haven't been for quite some time. Try something more current Skippy.
The example I quoted from his link was enforced in 1977, in my adult lifetime (and in my state
Fortunately it was, and they should be, easy cases to prove unconstitutional, but the point is the laws are/were already on the books-- in a nation that explicitly prohibits such legislation as point number one of its Constitution. I'm not much of a mathematician but 1977 looks to be nearly two centuries after that Constitution went into effect.
That's food for thought right there and it's ignored at our peril.
1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.
If you are speaking of the power the Vatican and RCC used to wield I'd have to agree with you. I suspect that is the inconvenient truth and we may yet see a revival of that power - accompanied by something different and more dangerous this time.
We should always be watchful for religious overreach of any form including gov. as you pointed out. To be clear, Coyote, I don't believe any religion should have a voice in politics. I believe politics benefits from the association but certainly not the church or the reputation of the church.
The example I quoted from his link was enforced in 1977, in my adult lifetime (and in my state
Fortunately it was, and they should be, easy cases to prove unconstitutional, but the point is the laws are/were already on the books-- in a nation that explicitly prohibits such legislation as point number one of its Constitution. I'm not much of a mathematician but 1977 looks to be nearly two centuries after that Constitution went into effect.
That's food for thought right there and it's ignored at our peril.
1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.
Oh yes of course I know about blue laws-- I'm from Pennsylvania
Only a few months ago I walked up to a cashier in a grocery store with a four-pack of beer (Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout if you're scoring at home) and the cashier said "I cant sell you this for three minutes". Apparently in North Carolina you can't sell alcohol before noon, or before noon on a certain day or whatever. We actually stood there and waited for the clock to tick off so I could make my purchase. That law is on the books right now.
I guess the admonition is of the hubris that comes from the attitude "maybe we were fucked up but we're all perfect now". That's never a good perch to roost on, so I like to chase us off that perch.
And yes, absolutely agree about temporal stages. I keep noting when the rabblerousers go digging up beheadings in Arabia and affixing a systemic causality solely from Islam that "we" did the same things and far worse in the Inquisition. The point there being their fixation on the symptom of one specific religion, while ignoring the disease of mob mentality born of organized religion in general.
That's in fact my whole purpose in threads like this: to point out the big picture. To quash hypocrisy.
It's like condemning American criticism of slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East by saying 150 years ago the US had slaves. I don't see any difference.
True, but the rationale is exactly the same, ie, we should not critisize blaspheme laws because we once had them and we should not criticize the institution of slavery because...well, you guessed it.It's like condemning American criticism of slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East by saying 150 years ago the US had slaves. I don't see any difference.
There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.
There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.
Coyote, you apparently support radical muslims who want to outlaw insulting islam, since you just erased my post insulting islam and threatened to ban me. Do you get bonus points at the mosque for that?
Who walked this piece of shit in on their shoe? Come on. Own up!
No discussing moderator actions - if you have an issue with moderation take it up via PM.
If you have a personal issue - take it to Flame Zone and I'll join you there.
Is that because you're embarrassed by your actions as a censor that you have to keep them hidden? And I only posted here because you didn't answer my PM.
Is that because you're embarrassed by your actions as a censor that you have to keep them hidden? And I only posted here because you didn't answer my PM.
Yo moron. Read the rules and regs. Right now you're already bent over, facing the door, ready for that swift kick.
I just wanted to say to coyote: fuck you and your pathetic censorship that doesn't work, and don't forget to kiss a carpet 5 times a day, just watch out for the stale boogers dropped there by previous carpet kissers. So please ban me again and again, you know that it's pointless, I'm smarter than you are.
1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.
Oh yes of course I know about blue laws-- I'm from Pennsylvania
Only a few months ago I walked up to a cashier in a grocery store with a four-pack of beer (Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout if you're scoring at home) and the cashier said "I cant sell you this for three minutes". Apparently in North Carolina you can't sell alcohol before noon, or before noon on a certain day or whatever. We actually stood there and waited for the clock to tick off so I could make my purchase. That law is on the books right now.
I guess the admonition is of the hubris that comes from the attitude "maybe we were fucked up but we're all perfect now". That's never a good perch to roost on, so I like to chase us off that perch.
And yes, absolutely agree about temporal stages. I keep noting when the rabblerousers go digging up beheadings in Arabia and affixing a systemic causality solely from Islam that "we" did the same things and far worse in the Inquisition. The point there being their fixation on the symptom of one specific religion, while ignoring the disease of mob mentality born of organized religion in general.
That's in fact my whole purpose in threads like this: to point out the big picture. To quash hypocrisy.
Oh we are far from perfect, I hope you don't think I was insinuating the opposite, and I do get your point, actually got it a while back. My point is I think there are better arguments than the ones you have been using, ones, that to me, have some glaring flaws that I've been pointing out.
At different periods in my life I saw Christianity then Islam in extremely negative lights, thankfully I was able to overcome those biases, hopefully there is hope for others.
True, but the rationale is exactly the same, ie, we should not critisize blaspheme laws because we once had them and we should not criticize the institution of slavery because...well, you guessed it.It's like condemning American criticism of slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East by saying 150 years ago the US had slaves. I don't see any difference.
There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.
Oh yes of course I know about blue laws-- I'm from Pennsylvania
Only a few months ago I walked up to a cashier in a grocery store with a four-pack of beer (Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout if you're scoring at home) and the cashier said "I cant sell you this for three minutes". Apparently in North Carolina you can't sell alcohol before noon, or before noon on a certain day or whatever. We actually stood there and waited for the clock to tick off so I could make my purchase. That law is on the books right now.
I guess the admonition is of the hubris that comes from the attitude "maybe we were fucked up but we're all perfect now". That's never a good perch to roost on, so I like to chase us off that perch.
And yes, absolutely agree about temporal stages. I keep noting when the rabblerousers go digging up beheadings in Arabia and affixing a systemic causality solely from Islam that "we" did the same things and far worse in the Inquisition. The point there being their fixation on the symptom of one specific religion, while ignoring the disease of mob mentality born of organized religion in general.
That's in fact my whole purpose in threads like this: to point out the big picture. To quash hypocrisy.
Oh we are far from perfect, I hope you don't think I was insinuating the opposite, and I do get your point, actually got it a while back. My point is I think there are better arguments than the ones you have been using, ones, that to me, have some glaring flaws that I've been pointing out.
At different periods in my life I saw Christianity then Islam in extremely negative lights, thankfully I was able to overcome those biases, hopefully there is hope for others.
Yes, to be clear "perfect" is both an exaggeration to make the point, and directed to the rhetoric of the more partisan wags on the battlefield -- not to you.
