Life

Jeb Bush wasn't exactly promoting amnesty. And Trump now holds the same view on immigration as George W. Bush. Which is amnesty.Ergo, he's moved to the left of Jeb. Also, Ann Coulter legitimately believes that immigration is the single most important issue in American politics. Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan were howling on air when they heard Trump speak on Hannity.

There is no scientific evidence to support that statement.Continue.

Yeah except Ann Coulter and Jeff Sessions wrote his immigration policy and Trump screwed them.

I don't get the health idea.Nobody is going to not vote for either Trump or Clinton because they're unhealthy. All it is a performance by both sides instead of calling out deficencies in their stances. My favourite is Trump's immigration flip. He went from villifying amnesty to a position that is significantly left of Cruz and Jeb Bush. I'm not surprised but come on. Changing your mind is one thing. But now I'm going to say that you're soft on immigration and use Cruz as my example. That, of course, is one of the reasons why DT isn't a conservative. Of course, Hillary's campaign should also be in shambles due to Huma Abiden but apparently having a uterus means that you're immune to criticism.

Yes, it is. It's sanctioning a gay marriage.This person doesn't want to do that. They haven't said "you can't have a gay marriage". All they've said is "please don't include me, bakary x will probably take your request". When the government forces the bakary to comply, it is at the end of a gun. That directly goes against religious freedom because they are not able to adhere to their religious beliefs. Having a wedding is not a right. That's something important to realize here. I don't see the equivalency of that to gun manufactorers. Can you explain?

But the case was "I don't want to participate in your gay wedding, please don't ask me to".You're effectively saying the request of someone religious is not as important as someone who is gay.

Yeah, they took their sweet time. But before then, they believed that slavery was vital to the economy. And slaves were people who had forfeited their freedom.I'm not agreeing with it. But I can understand that moral hypocrisy. But when I say that the USA was founded on freedoms, it was on ideals of freedom. So maybe the founders were slightly hypocritical in their actions, their idea transcended that. As for the article, yeah it's terrible. But it's a liberal site agreeing with the idea that hate speeh laws limiting free speech. That's what significant and why I brought HuffPo. Ironically, I don't even want to live in the USA. But I understand the ideals on which the country was founded on and believe in those.

1) Again, if you quote my book at me, you play by my rules.That is a major misinterpretation of the line. I can tell you that because I went over the Hebrew version. First of all, there is no mention of rape. What it does say is that if a man sleeps with a virgin girl, he must pay 50 shekels of silver (which was a lot of money) and then they should marry because he has taken her virginity and it would be an insult to her to simply cast her away. Marriage in Judaism protects the wife more than it does the husband. There is no rape in that sentence. In the future, use Mechon Mamre to validate lines from the Torah rather than any other source. 2) Ok. Shellfish is legal to sell. Great. There is no law saying that I have to eat it. Gay marriage is legal in the USA. Great. There is no law saying that I have to take part... unless the court considers Fancy Cakes as presidence. Then there is. Ironically, this is why I brought up that bacon hypothical. Because you went on to ask me about it but using shellfish rather than pig. 3) A limit on free speech means that speech is not truly free. I'm not saying "go out and declare war on other people" but I do value the ability to speak without legal reprecussions. Actions are where I draw the line. 4) No. I'm using examples like Fancy Cakes or Hobby Lobby. Racism is not sanctioned under freedom of religion and you know that. Speaking of Hobby Lobby, what is your opinion on Hobby Lobby?

Freedom of speech.Let's compare with Canada for a second. Canada has laws against hate speech. Now so that I'm not misrepresented, while I have my views on transexuals that everyone knows (and we are not going to rehash that one), I do not back the idea of calling for violence against minorities. I also do not believe the government has a moral right to actively discriminate against a minority in any way, shape or form. But I am allowed to have my opinion and I should not be jailed for expressing it. And that does not happen in Canada. http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/2324999 I know, HuffPo. But bear with me. I back having freedom of speech because it allows me to say what I want without worrying about being arrested. Will I be self-regulated by the public? Yeah. And that's a good thing. But I should still have the right to be able to express my opinions in a public forum in a controlled way. That's one right (for example) that the USA has that pretty much no other country replicates.

Question. Why is it so bad when I say something like that about Islam (which is practiced in said form across many countries) but your shot about my book is acceptable?Not offended, just interested. And Jews don't take anything that the New Testament says as binding for us. In fact, if it isn't in the "five books of Moses" or the Mishna (not Talmud, Mishna), it isn't Jewish law.

Slavery and racism were not the same thing in the 1850's.Slaves were mostly black but it wasn't because they were black. White slaves existed too. And there were quite a few black slaveholders in places like New Orleans. As for slavery, it was mostly for econimical gain. I'm not justifying it but that was the cheapest and most efficient way for people to make money on farms and plantations. Was it tyrannical? Sure. And the USA ended up fighting a bloody war over it in order to end it. Yeah, it took time to get there but it happened and it was done by adding the 13th Ammendment to the Constitution.

I can't agree with this post enough.Thank you for articulating my views on a way I couldn't.

Ok, you've called bullshit.Now explain why I must be wrong aside just saying "well, it's clearly a religion".

Blacks were not slaves because they were black. They were slaves because they had been brought to America as slaves.Not only that but America went on to banish slavery (and they didn't corner the market on slavery, it very much still exists today) because it was unconstitutional. They had to fight a civil war to do so but they did and emerged all the stronger for it. If you say that it is propaganda, how do you justify British rule over the American colonies until 1775?

Oooh, trying to trap me, right?Except didn't I state that I believe that Islam is an ideology with a prophet and god? I know nobody likes that idea but you have two options in the religion. Convert or die. Maybe not yet in Western countries but it's coming. But if you look at Islam as an ideology rather than a religion, they stop being protected by the First Ammendment and have to answer to things like honour killings (which are legal in most Islamic countries) and domestic abuse. I'll re-instate Islam as a religion when I know that I can choose to be not a Muslim and not have to die. Until then, the faith is a secondary notion in Islam. You're not going to like me for this one.https://quran.com/4 Yep. The Woman. Nice Sura. First 13 verses in Sura 4 state such: - If a man is not pleased with his woman, he may have up to four legal wives [4:3] - If a woman does not obey her man, he should "take it in satisfaction and ease" [4:4] - A woman is literally worth half a man (check the math) [4:11 and 4:12] Look, I've already stated that when you pull something from the Torah, you play by my rules. So I'm playing by yours. Am I missing something here? As for apostasy: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/ 23 countries list apostasy as a capital offense. They're all Islamic.

You also missed the part where the government cannot pass laws contrary to the religion's belief. Otherwise you don't have freedom of religion.That is like arguing that Canada or England has free speech. No, they don't. If you can be jailed for "hate speech" (a very loosely defined term that can essentially end up meaning a difference in opinions), you don't have free speech. I don't think you get the idea of freedom. But then again, you don't like the idea. Otherwise, you wouldn't say below that "some tyranny is good". I was going to conceed this point entirely but when I looked at the reference, I changed my mind.First post in this topic. The answer to Enigmar's question is "there isn't and there won't be". My question doesn't exclude the possibility of not happening. It is a terrible hypothetic on reflection but it can be grounded in reality. Covered in the other topic. But not every law is a form of government tyranny because some are rooted in common sense and religious values (don't kill is an example). Jesus fucking Christ.I'm saying that a law shouldn't exist at all. You are actually saying "fuck you Christians, homosexuals need to be accepted by your religious beliefs as acceptable". How is that not discriminatory against Christians? What about Islamic bakaries? They also won't sell to homosexuals. Do we do the same there or is that Islamophobic? Why is the target always only Christians? Edit: I want to point out one more thing of why Islam is a problem (and why there is no such thing as being a moderate). Forget Iran. Forget Syria. Let's take the most moderate Islamic country out there. UAE. https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=United+Arab+Emirates - Adultery carries a death penalty. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321504/UAEs-highest-court-rules-men-beat-wives-long-leave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises). If this is moderate, then something is wrong here.

I think that Pheonix's post where he claims "tyranny is good and sometimes necessary" is an important one. That was a mistake to delete it, eclipse. I want to address that point. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny That is the definition of tyranny and where we differ. If you believe in authoritarianism, then sure. But the USA was created as a bastion from tyranny. No taxation without representation. They fought against the tyrrany of the English and won their freedom. They drafted the Constitution in order to keep their own government from becoming tyrannical. If you believe that tyranny is good and sometines necessary, that is exactly what the founding fathers stood against. It includes freedom of religious belief, freedom of opinion and the right to bear arms. There's our divide.

It's a good example but I was actually there at the parade when it happened.Haredi communities turned around and said "this is terrible" when he did it. That didn't happen with say... the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. Remember the moderate response? "Well, they shouldn't have drawn Muhammed so I don't really feel bad." That guy tried to do the same thing 10 years prior, was sent to jail and did it again. There isn't widespread teaching of this being good even in extreme camps in Judaism. Islam is the only religion that teaches that it is acceptable TO take that next step towards violence.

It doesn't matter here if it exists elsewhere and that is spreading.This is fundamental Islam. It takes Muhammed's word as gospel. And personally, I don't see it slowing down. You're jumping all over the place. Just because you know a few Muslims that don't believe in it doesn't mean all Muslims are like that. The Middle East is proof. Those rules came from God for us to judge on this earth. After that, God will also judge for the world to come. Judaism doesn't believe in a concept of hell and maintains that you are still resposible for your actions on earth.All I'm doing now is reinforcing why I don't like organized religion even though I do understand it. But it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

You missed the part about the Temple.You literally cut out half the sentence.

Good arguments.The logic behind it for Judaism is that because the Temple does not exist, we cannot force judgment upon someone who has broken a law like idolatry. When the Temple is rebuilt by the Messiah, then God will allow us to judge the laws as they are written. Silly, right? Judaism conforms to the times. Unless you're Haredi but they still don't go lynching gays or anything near fundamental Islam (my landlord is Haredi, for example). The worst you'll get are a few diapers thrown at you. Iran.

If you're going to quote my own book at me, you play by our rules.First of all, Judaism is not taken at face value. That's your first mistake. There is not a single rule from the Torah that does not have paragraphs of commentaries and arguments over even a single line. That is the ultra-orthodox view. Next, your interpretation is wrong. As in factually wrong. As in not even the Naturi Karta believe that. Regarding other nation, only the natiom that it is acceptable to exterminate is Amalek. But since nobody knows today who is Amalek, we don't. But the religion doesn't view converts as apostates. At the end of the day, you don't get to make up interpretations that even the ultra-orthodox don't believe in.

I can toss out quote number 3 right now due to it not being in the Torah. Next.The other two talk about "other gods". Which refers to physical manifestations of a god (a statue). So "don't pray to statues or you die". Not "don't be religious or you die". Try again. I used to be religious, dude.

Religion requires faith. Where is the faith component in Islam?And explain to me why conversion from Islam carries the death penalty when Judaism/Buddism/Hinduism/Christianity don't. I'm saying two things:1) That you are simply arguing for reverse descrimination. You make it seem that a religious belief is outdated and barbaric. And anyone who follows Judeo-Christian values are deeply bigoted people because it's fun. 2) Religion is a god-given right and is outlined in the Constitution. If you have a problem that, then say "People should not have the right to freedom of religion". Most of your arguments are based on "they're being a dick". Maybe they are. Or maybe you shoving an idea in their face that makes them feel uncomfortable is an issue for them. You can't pretend to be the moral superior here when you do the same thing that you accuse them of doing.

So why do you have such a hard-on for making Christians suffer?All they're saying is "hey, I don't want to make a cake for your gay wedding". Meanwhile, Islamic countries give out the death penalty for being homosexual. Be consistant. Edit: Remember, I'm not even Christian or religious.