(Part 2) Best history of religion & politics books according to redditors
We found 455 Reddit comments discussing the best history of religion & politics books. We ranked the 154 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Don't hold your breath. Conservative media outlets will be selling alternate reality for a few more decades at least. Fear makes for good money.
Some tasty readings for those whose interests have been piqued by this thread:
Muhammad required this ridiculous restriction because he was pandering to the Jews who eventually discarded him anyways. Check out People vs Muhammad
My cousin actually wrote a book on this topic if anyone is interested, he used a photo from this meeting for the cover. :)
This actually looks legit. The SPLC reported on a servery sent out to some teachers at schools. "Then reported that 40 percent of the more than 10,000 educators who responded to the survey “have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation." However they didn't report about the 20% who reported derogatory language directed at white students.
They found this out from the SPLC themselves. "Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”"
Something I fished up well looking was this. https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480?tag=nypost-20 The writer of this story seems to have an agenda to push, but this story also seems to be correct. (You can be both bias and right or non bias and wrong.)
More links:
Here is the story from the SPLC: https://www.splcenter.org/20161128/trump-effect-impact-2016-presidential-election-our-nations-schools
Here is the servery: http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/u76079/Teaching%20Tolerance%20Post-Election%20Survey.pdf
Here is the org that sent out the servery: http://www.tolerance.org/
I'll also note that he servery is not very scientific and they do mention that in the original report by the SPLC.
There is no crisis in the middle east. There is territoriality of the kind seen since the Babylonians, and there is extremism practiced primarily by disaffected European muslims against the rest of the West.
source
The way to solve the perceived crisis in the middle east is to eliminate foreign involvement in the middle east so that what are primarily local struggles can continue to be local struggles. This can be achieved by energy independence from OPEC. Which, since Saudi Arabia likely hit peak oil in 2004 or so, is an eventuality anyway.
source
To deal with the extremists that come to our borders, the best approach would be to ensure young, educated Muslims in Europe a place at the table and a sense of belonging within their communities so that they do not feel disenfranchised from their countrymen and do not align themselves with internet extremism.
source
As to religious extremism of all stripes, be it Islamic, Christian or Jewish, the solution is always to integrate, to respect, and to divorce political and economic enterprises from religious enterprises. One thing few people remember is that Osama Bin Laden became a radical when the US opened bases in Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield (his quote at the time was "once we let the infidel in, he will never leave). One thing even fewer people remember is that after September 11, we pulled our aircraft out of Saudi Arabia and there have been no Bin Laden-endorsed attacks against the US since.
source
Yes, you have to fucking read. But you know what? The Internet can't solve everything.
>How many terrorist attacks has Hezbollah conducted in Europe and the US?
Let's expand that to include anywhere except the Middle East:
Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985.
The 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires.
The 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, in Argentina.
The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack in Panama.
The 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack in the United Kingdom.
The 2012 Burgas bus bombing in Bulgaria.
In 2002, Singapore accused Hezbollah of recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.
Foiled assassination of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S.
>Israel has pinned a few attacks on Hezbollah in South America etc, but Hezbollah never claimed responsibility, like ISIS/Al Qaeda love to do.
First, you are wrong when you state that Israel is the one making those claims. The governments of the countries where these terror attacks happened have made those claims, not Israel. Secondly, ISIS derives its popularity by publicizing its attacks against the West. It is part of their propaganda model. Not so with Hezbollah. There is no reason for them to publicize their terror attacks across the world, hence they don't.
Your thinking is extremely simply-minded and black-and-white. Yet, I am dumbfounded at the enormous number of upvotes you received.
This book is a good resource on Hezbollah's terrorist activities.
Read the book. The author, Elicka Peterson Sparks, is an associate professor of criminology at Appalachian State University among other honors. The bibliography is over a hundred pages. She did her research. You can call it clickbait, but I'd recommend the book.
Amazon link for the hell of it
ttps://www.amazon.com/Devil-You-Know-Conservative-Christianity/dp/1633881504
And its worth the money.
Paul Sperry's "Infiltration" makes it very clear and should be compulsory reading for every Western Civilisation citizen.
https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480/ref=sr_1_1/155-0055977-2818765?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474623421&sr=1-1&keywords=Infiltration
http://www.independentsentinel.com/the-ten-year-plan-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/
http://shoebat.com/2014/10/09/30-year-muslim-plan-control-america-six-years-go/
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
https://counterjihadreport.com/muslim-brotherhoods-plan-for-america/
If you research Christianity with the same goal to find the truth most of us researched Mormonism, it's pretty much the only conclusion. Christianity has just been around a lot longer so the apologists have an easier time. Christians by and large also have no interest in researching anything which might challenge their faith in Christ.... Kinda like Mormons.
Edited to add: History of God did it for me as far as the historical claims, but The End of Faith and Why I Am Not a Christian are good too. History of God is really heavy, but also an amazing experience in itself. I've read it twice. I read The Spiral Staircase by the same author first, which is a much easier read. It is a memoir of her own loss of faith. She was on the verge of graduating from novice to full nun. Studying apologetics did it for her, much as it does for exmormons. It's the beginning of the end for the critical thinker.
You can also read Mother Theresa's letters wherein she often questions her belief in god pretty strongly and for long periods of time. One of the most interesting things Armstrong discovers in her research is that many of the most learned leaders and aesthetics of all 3 monotheist religions are virtual atheists themselves. She interviews several from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's just something that happens when you study it to that degree. She is a really interesting person and an aesthetic in her own right.
Building on that, many Evangelicals believe in an "Authoritative God" (to use the terminology in the excellent book America's Four Gods: What We Say about God—and What That Says about Us), a God that is both active in human affairs and judgmental—in other words, an authoritative father figure who lays down the law and expects obedience. Trump actively symbolizes this same authoritative viewpoint, so many of them are willing to overlook his other flaws. It's not that farfetched; look at how they generally treat sins like gluttony and greed compared to hot-button issues like homosexuality or abortion.
While not all Evangelicals believe this way, many of them do (as shown in the above book using comprehensive data from the national Baylor Religion Survey).
Edit: A word.
Have you looked up the Magdeburger Bekenntnis? A Lutheran confession from 1550 outlining the city's rationale for armed resistance against Charles V.
It doesn't speak directly to the War of American Secession, but might help you as a Lutheran to think through your position. Downside, I think there's only one English translation and it was produced by a theonomist group. Upside, if you read German or Latin, you can probably find a free copy online.
My favourite intentional look-alike from the political book section...
Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter
Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate by Susan Estrich
God Bless Brigitte Gabriel! See more: https://www.amazon.com/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis/dp/0994362986/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Letters to a Young Contrarian
One of my absolute favorites. Probably the best ratio of powerful prose to pages ever. Slim read. Highly recommended.
Here's a book you can read on how and why the alliance was formed and how it has impacted the world.
https://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-World-War-Relationship/dp/1784531820
Yes, I see this too. In English law at least, the 'golden thread' of family law is that the child's best interests come first. Yet they assume that it is always a starting point that the child's best interest is to have ongoing contact with their biological father and seek to facilitate this, even if the father is abusive, without sufficient regard to the family unit as a whole and to the mother's trauma.
In terms of the religious courts specifically, it is really insiduous because what proponents will tell you is that the decisions they make are not legally binding. Technically speaking, you can always go to the secular/normal court and get your divorce or your custody heard, right. Except that this is NOT how the lawyers in those courts or the community officers describe it to the women. These women have marriage contracts and orders which are signed and which they think are legally enforceable; and even if they know they're not in the secular courts, you think they always have the power to tell their husbands and families that they want this tried in the secular system? I have the most experience with Shariah courts, coming from a Muslim background myself, and we know from the research done on these that a lot of these women are told to stay in abusive marriages and told not to report it to the police, they are told to dress better and be nicer when their husbands abuse them, their rape is overlooked, and there were reports a while ago that they were being locked 'into marital captivity' due to the way divorce law is structured in Islam. See, for example: here and here. I don't have as much experience with Jewish courts in the UK personally, but I have heard similar accounts and reports.
I note you've said 'England and Wales is particularly poor on child protection compared to other European countries.' Would you be able to expand on this or provide any sources? The comparative angle is something I am really interested in.
I would eventually love to go into this sort of legal academia which compares various legal frameworks globally for the best outcomes for women, not just in family law but also in other areas such as prostitution. Might be a way to use my training to do something I actually care about.
>Why did you leave the faith?
In regards to the first question. Just a few links concerning why individuals have left Islam...
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4l4v9f/previously_casual_muslim_here_seeking_your/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4ai9gv/why_i_left_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4if6fg/someone_asked_me_what_were_the_reasons_that/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4o7tx1/what_made_you_leave_islambecome_an_atheist/d4amofx
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/g9jy3/so_why_is_it_that_you_left_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/mh66e/so_why_is_it_that_you_left_islam_part_2/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4jh3j9/why_did_you_leave_islam/
>
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4m970a/seriousat_what_point_you_stop_believing/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4nu9rk/why_did_you_leave_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1jvnyo/why_i_as_a_muslim_sold_myself_and_left_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3sn113/discussion_why_are_you_an_exmuslim/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3ncax0/ex_muslims_whats_your_main_reason_for_leaving/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3qn2zl/why_did_you_leave_islam_question_from_a_muslim/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4jwyjm/what_exact_questionevent_made_you_leave_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/43yrr4/why_did_you_all_leave_islam/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4acim7/what_made_you_leave_islam_was_it_a_gradual/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/4k93qm/whats_your_story_exmuslim_help_needed/d3ekq99
> http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/02/28/why-i-left-islam-and-chose-not-to-return/
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-it-feel-to-leave-Islam
> Why I left Islam?" - (By Ishina)
> "Why I left Islam & goodbye"
>https://youtu.be/ra9QQ58b7JY
> "7 reasons why I left Islam"
>https://youtu.be/ZZ6c66G99A4
> 'The Apostates: When Muslims Leave Islam' [1] - by Simon Cottee.
"The Apostates is the first major study of apostasy from Islam in the western secular context. Drawing on life-history interviews with ex-Muslims from the UK and Canada, Simon Cottee explores how and with what consequences Muslims leave Islam and become irreligious..."
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24284240-the-apostates
> 'Arabs Without God: Atheism and freedom of belief in the Middle East' [1] - by Brian Whitaker.
"...In this ground-breaking book, journalist Brian Whitaker looks at the factors that lead them to abandon religion and the challenges they pose for governments and societies that claim to be organised according to the will of God..."
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23206783-arabs-without-god
For more see this interesting read
There is a Kindle edition - https://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Muhammad-Psychological-Analysis/dp/0994362986
https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Church-Liberalism-Ann-Coulter/dp/1400054214
https://www.amazon.com/Bounded-Choice-Believers-Charismatic-Cults/dp/0520240189
>No, Zionism began in 1882.
There were movements for Jews to return to the Land of Israel centuries before the term "Zionism" was coined. Most of them were of a messianic character, but they were for a return of the Jews to their national homeland. Many of them were fairly large and led to continuous settlement in the land. (See the essay "Dispersion and the Longing for Zion, 1240-1840" by Arie Morgenstern in "New Essays on Zionism", edited by David Hazony, Yoram Hazony and Michael Oren (former Israeli Ambassador to the US), published by Shalem.
Before the term 'Zionism' became generally accepted as the label for the Jewish nationalist movement, the term most used was the Russified 'Palestinofilstvo' (love of Palestine).
***
www.amazon.com/New-Essays-Zionism-David-Hazony/dp/9657052440/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520286470&sr=1-1&keywords="New+Essays+on+Zionism"David+Hazony,+Yoram+Hazony+Michael+Oren)
There's a lot of social science literature about images of God. Folks "see" God differently and one of the scales actually does measure on a "Mother" and Father" dimension. There's also a loving vs. judging dimension. You would be really surprised how much diversity there is.
I could dump a ton of cites on this as I was attempting to write a paper on the topic a few years ago. If you really want a decent, non-academic introduction you could look at a book called "The Four Gods" by Paul Froese and Chris Bader.
Bruce Bawer, American writer and expat in Europe, has been writing about radical Islam and saying these exact kind of things about Scandinavia for a loooong time. And he's a thoughtful moderate guy, not a Fox News-type pundit. He's basically argued that through misguided multiculturalism or political expediency, political elites are allowing the undermining of centuries of European cultural tolerance by Islamic radicals who despise everything that Europe and the Enlightenment stand for.
Political elites, professors, media and other intelligentsia tended to ignore or belittle such discussion ... until now.
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying-ebook/dp/B000FCKPEO/ref=pd_sim_351_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=41-yZKvuJ3L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_OU01_AC_UL160_SR106%2C160_&refRID=1YY3T3WA6ATRH2FBK5BW
https://web.archive.org/web/20060411153438/http://www.hudsonreview.com/bawerWi06.html
http://www.amazon.com/New-Quislings-International-Massacre-ebook/dp/B00655U34W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326044073&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Surrender-Appeasing-Islam-Sacrificing-Freedom-ebook/dp/B00296SVTK/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1459434408&sr=1-3
In order of likelyhood of pissing off your friends:
.
Christopher Hitchens: "God is not Great"
This is a brutal and unforgiving deconstruction of theism. It won't make you any new friends, and might alienate your existing friends. I really enjoyed it.
Sam Harris: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
Another brutal deconstruction, this one is gentler and easier to stomach. Think mail fist in a velvet glove. This is only gentle in contrast to Hitchens.
Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
A more positive, life affirming approach. Still ruthlessly atheistic, but less evangelical than Hitchens and Harris. Warning: Complex ideas, complex writing, it's not an easy read. Fun, but not easy.
Richard Dawkins: An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist
Similar to Krauss' book, but even easier to read. Dawkins does have a reputation for outspoken atheism, which will turn off some readers.
Lol. You can buy the paperback version of The Conservative Revolution for 45 cents.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Revolution-Cory-Bernardi/dp/1922168963/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
You are starting from flawed assumptions.
2)That is god is the god you agree with because of the religion you just happen to follow vs Islam, Hindu, Jewish, Zoroaster, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Native American, ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc, etc etc.
What I find annoying with your question is you presume to talk about god from your set bias. Its a done deal when you talk about god as automatically being Christian.
America's Four Gods: What We Say about God--and What That Says about Us
Even with Christians have differences concepts of what god is and isn't.
As a non believer its not about god its the issues with Christianity that sustains my doubt.
"the most common reasons for disaffiliating from Islam among the respondents turned out to be the lack of logic in Islam, the fact that it contravenes science and its inhumane nature"
http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/ep/0004/article/download/4572/5002/
"Many respondents said their doubts centred on misgivings related to the intellectual architecture of Islam: that is, they suspected that Islam’s cognitive claims about how the world is or came to be are not true."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apostates-When-Muslims-Leave-Islam/dp/1849044694
If your interested, read up. But no one on this site reads books...
> http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting/dp/1936488604
> http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263
> http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggle/dp/0767917855/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453493219&sr=1-1&keywords=americas+secret+war
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Next-100-Years-Forecast/dp/0767923057
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Cosmic-War-Globalization/dp/1400066727
Actually, I do own them. They cannot leave my possession, and if they do, they can be returned to me as my possession. The closest thing they are to humans are small children, and I don't even agree with that. They belong to me, regardless of it being right, wrong, or indifferent. If you are a dog-owner you own a dog, simple as that. My dog has no independence outside of that which I allow, and that is fine because he cannot be trusted in society to build an adequate life for himself. He loves me because he doesn't know any better and because I treat him well.
The explanation she gives is very similar to the religious "I don't hate you as a sinner, I just hate the sin you commit." They're wiggle words. The idea of branding yourself as "XYZ" and not "like the rest" creates an "us vs. them" mentality. That is to say, I only believe what I believe because I've been indoctrinated in to it. You're actually speaking to a former vegetarian, believe it or not. Granted, I didn't stick with it long, but this isn't the first time that I've ever thought about it.
I understand your mentality, I just do not agree with it beyond that something should be done to stop some of the more egregious actions taken against these farm animals. After all, “It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.”
A dog gets killed instead of "going to prison" for murdering a human being (because if they are our equals, than they can commit murder) because they won't be able to dwell on their actions and rectify them. They do not have the capacity to do so. They don't go on trial for manslaughter for the same reason a baby doesn't go on trial if they commit murder in some way. They are not responsible for their actions because we've deemed their actions instinctual, which they are.
And of mosquitoes, why can't they just kill us all off in self defense? They're equal to us, so their need to defend themselves should be just as important as our need to defend ourselves. If animals started revolting against farmers and killing them off to protest their treatment (which they never will because they are not intelligent enough to recognize the complete weight of the situation that they are in) would that be justified? If so, why aren't you helping to kill for them to escape their enslavement, if they are no different from Jews at Auschwitz?
They are racist but you don't understand why they are racist. I've met a few former Neo Nazi's and spoken with a practicing neo-nazi, and beyond looking at the whole origin of the hatred of Jews (because it is extensive as hell) they don't see them as actual humans. They're treated like animals because they feel threatened by them, and they think it will cause a "white genocide" of sorts. Ironically, the woman's points in her video are very similar to the points made in this video. That isn't to call her a Nazi by any means, but to compare the Nazi movement for eugenics to the animal rights movement is a bunch of complete nonsense.
I've done my reading on speciesism. It is not, nor will it ever be as important as the issues with racism and those with sexism. Animals cannot have any form of beliefs. That is to say, they cannot dictate what is right or wrong, only what is. Belief as an idea is something that only humans possess. An animal cannot be religious, nor can an animal be an atheist. An animal cannot support slavery and an animal cannot be opposed to slavery. They do not have interests in the same way that humans do. Their interests are guided only by instinct as a means through which to reproduce. Morality only exists in the minds of those who can rationalize it, and animals simply can not. Women can, and people of all races can. Therefore animal rights are not on the same level as racism or sexism.
I do want to thank you though for having me read and look up those things though. Genuinely, not to be an asshole. I feel like I came out more developed as a thinker and more readily able to defend my belief that eating meat is not immoral. Though, you can work on not insulting the person giving the argument. The idea of a debate isn't to "beat" the other person, it's to enlighten them to the correct way of viewing things, while being open to having your mind changed as well. You should read Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens. Absolutely wonderful book.
Still open to any rebuttals you have to make though.
The same argument could be made for Hezbollah's bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in 2012. That doesn't make it any less apparent that Hezbollah was responsible. After all, we are talking about revolutionaries with an extreme and violent ideology.
You should check out this book. The evidence that Hezbollah and Iran did the AMIA bombing is overwhelming and was determined by more than just the United States and Israel.
You're absolutely right; the Republicans have a war on science, Hell, even a dude wrote a book on it (it's fantastic, btw). But, so do the Democrats, too. The fact is, we all value money over education which is okay to a certain point (I am fiscally conservative, after all) but don't think that the "right"s the only anti-intellectualist here.
Letters to a Young Contration by Christopher Hitchens
Here is the mobile version of your link
That's a strange question because it implies that my worldview hinges on minority crime statistics and if you were to show me some that were more complete I'd somehow be prepared to scream, "RACE WAR NOW! BACK TO AFRICA!" and register an account over on StormFront.
If you showed me such statistics and they were sound it would change my view of crime and it's relation to race and poverty. Facts are facts. I doubt it would change my worldview because my worldview takes into account more than that one thing.
If you read this would it change your worldview in regards to the equality of Christians in a secular society?
What do you think the objectives of a terrorist organization are? How would you counter said terrorist organization? How would you convince your fellow representatives to follow your initiative? How would you work against an Islamic power of Iran due to the collapse of Irans religious/local rivals due to american military presence in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Might I suggest reading How to Win a Cosmic War, Thinking Like a terrorist, Afghanistan: The Bear Trap, and Imperial Hubris to get some background on why the United States has/is losing the greater war on terror.
not according to the American right wing (each word is a different link)
[my fave]http://www.amazon.com/The-Conservative-Revolution-Cory-Bernardi/dp/1922168963
You should read the book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century Kindle Edition
by Eric Kaufmann (Author)
>Dawkins and Hitchens have convinced many western intellectuals that secularism is the way forward. But most people don't read their books before deciding whether to be religious. Instead, they inherit their faith from their parents, who often innoculate them against the elegant arguments of secularists. And what no one has noticed is that far from declining, the religious are expanding their share of the population: in fact, the more religious people are, the more children they have. The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularisation process in the West. Not only will the religious eventually triumph over the non-religious, but it is those who are the most extreme in their beliefs who have the largest families.
>Within Judaism, the Ultra-Orthodox may achieve majority status over their liberal counterparts by mid-century. Islamist Muslims have won the culture war in much of the Muslim world, and their success provides a glimpse of what awaits the Christian West and Israel. Based on a wealth of demographic research, considering questions of multiculturalism and terrorism, Kaufmann examines the implications of the decline in liberal secularism as religious conservatism rises - and what this means for the future of western modernity.
There is an interesting book about this subject written by a gay individual who moved to Europe to get away from religious persecution and bigotry in the united states and soon realized his mistake. It was even worse in Europe by the growing Muslim minority. Needless to say he got fed up and came home.
http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Destroying-ebook/dp/B000FCKPEO/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1300645498&sr=8-9
Yeah, I misunderstood the context of your post...so I deleted mine...
I found a copy of [this trash] (https://www.amazon.com/Infiltration-Muslim-Subversives-Penetrated-Washington/dp/1595552480) at my parents house yesterday. I felt dirty even picking that up... I saw a corner of it under some papers and thought it might be something similar to Robert Ferrigno's "...Assassin" books.
>I do not deny that I hate the conservatives that wish gay people ill
You define "wishing gay people ill" to be disagreeing that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. So I guess you are telling me that you hate me. Even though you hate me I don't hate you, I think that you're severely mistaken- but I can differentiate the error that you have fallen into from your dignity as a human person.
> Demographics is destiny.
Which is one of the reasons I am optimistic.
>but salivating at the empty thought that you might someday be able to forcibly annul my marriage to my husband
Under my view your marriage was never valid to begin with because both of your are incapable of consummating the marriage through the conjugal act.
>Third time I have asked this: Do other Christians interpret the Bible differently from you? Are they "obviously" incorrect? What if they told me you were "obviously" incorrect?
Ignoring the point that I am making, which is that there obviously are correct and incorrect interpretations of my and your words. If there were not then this conversation would never have been possible because we would be unintelligible to one another. It is possible for people to misinterpret scripture just like it is possible for them to misinterpret anything else. We can determine when a misinterpretation has occured by looking at the best evidence available for what the true meaning of the text is according to the context and what we know about the intent of the author- just like you have been doing this whole time with my words.
>The face of the cube is not the full cube, regardless of the perspective.
If we reduce a cube down to two dimensions it sure can be.
>For the analogy to hold, they would both have to be cubes
Or diagrams of two different faces of the same cube from different two dimensional perspectives.
>If god is "omnipotent", then there is no such thing as "not being able".
I disagree. Note that you haven't given me your source for this definition of omnipotent. The only people I have ever heard describe it thus are atheists trying to straw-man it thus. A better tactic would be to look at how Christians themselves define what God's omnipotence means.
>You believe first and foremost in a supernatural world, whereas I only accept reality.
I'm skeptical that you have any basis for saying that there is no possibility of something beyond the natural world.
> Je connais bien la situation au Canada vu que j'y vis
Ah ben c'est sûr alors, tu as raison du coup. C'est étrange, pas mal de canadiens ne sont pas d'accord avec toi.
>Et y'a pas eu de politique de multiculturalisme en Europe que je sache
Tu ne sais pas, donc.
>y'a absolument pas les mêmes problèmes qu'en Europe ici, sans doute car les immigrés sont bien accueillis et qu'on leur fout la paix
Y'a pas la même proportion de musulmans, et ils sont surtout d'une immigration choisie. C'est marrant, au RU, ils "leur" ont aussi foutu la paix, et c'est sans doute le pays d'Europe avec l'islam e plus radical.
Ce n'est pas parce que tu le vois pas que ça n'existe pas.
Je te conseille le premier chapitre de ce livre sur les politiques menées au RU, qui sont aussi menées au Canada.
> Zionism [is] a semi-modern Jewish/Israeli political movement that started in the 20th century advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and after the formation of Israel morphed into a nationalist movement.
There were movements for Jews to return to the Land of Israel centuries before the term "Zionism" was coined. Most of them were of a messianic character, but they were for a return of the Jews to their national homeland. Many of them were fairly large and led to continuous settlement in the land. (See the essay "Dispersion and the Longing for Zion, 1240-1840" by Arie Morgenstern in New Essays on Zionism, edited by David Hazony, Yoram Hazony and Michael Oren (present Israeli Ambassador to the US), published by Shalem.)
Before the term 'Zionism' became generally accepted as the label for the Jewish nationalist movement, the term most used was the Russified 'Palestinofilstvo' (love of Palestine).
In the latter part of the 18th century, the "Emancipation" arrived and Jews moved out of the ghettos in large numbers for the first time and assimilated (with passion) into the societies in which they lived. Hundreds of thousands of Jews in western Europe gave up their religious practice and cultural identification and embraced the Enlightenment.
To meet the new situation, a new anti-Semitism arose. Traditional antisemitism was a religion-oriented bigotry. Under it Jews could retain their religion, and live apart, or convert to Christianity and be, more or less, welcomed into the society in which they lived. The newer anti-Semitism was race-oriented bigotry. There was a progression from 'you can not live among us as Jews' to 'you can not live among us' (which only a few decades later, under the Nazis, reached its logical culmination: 'you cannot live').
"And so Zionism emerged. More than an old answer to an old problem, it was a new answer to a new problem. Jews throughout the world rallied around Herzl with the slogan 'We are one people.' Yet just as the persecution of the Jews was no longer religion-based, neither was the Zionist solution. For the first time in history, Jews saw themselves as a people in the national, rather than religious, sense. World Jewry—intellectuals from Western Europe, rabbis from the Pale of Settlement, merchants from North Africa—all were united by a national-cultural bond." ("The Curious Case of Jewish Democracy", by Amnon Rubenstein - Azure, Summer 5770/2010)
May I suggest some reading for you?
It needs to be remembered, that until recently, the connotation of the word 'atheist' was synonymous with "godless". Such as, Hitler was "godless", Marx was "godless", the Shinto Japanese were "godless, the Chinese are "godless", liberals are "godless", https://www.amazon.com/Godless-Church-Liberalism-Ann-Coulter/dp/1400054214
Where did the stereotype come from? From propaganda, of course.
>The argument over religious accommodations is not about whether religious people should receive any accommodation or none, it's about what level of accommodation is reasonable.
No, the 'any accommodation or none' debate is a perfectly legitimate debate. Hell, there's a pretty prominent book engaging that debate that just came out: it argues for the 'no accommodation' position.
https://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/the-self-correcting-nature-of-science/
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/science_is_self-correcting_..._sort_of (comment #3)
http://thevermilion.com/2014/09/science-is-self-correcting/
https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/i-keep-having-to-remind-myself-that-science-is-self-correcting/ (comment #10)
http://spaz.ca/aaron/school/science.html (paragraph 4&5)
Leiter, Brian. Why tolerate religion? Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 2013. Print. (pg40, use preview)
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Tolerate-Religion-Brian-Leiter/dp/0691153612
You're right, I imagined it.
> One of the dumbest comments I have ever read.
You just lack the context and sources so you speak from ignorance. Here, let's do some homework. The million woman March, a primarily anti-drumpfers SJW leftist group was headed by Muslim Linda Sarsour who has ties to radical Islamic groups:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/linda-sarsour-speaks-at-the-womens-march-on-washington_n_58869efee4b077cae730414f
Ties to radical group Muslim Brotherhood:
https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Al-Arabiya-slams-Linda-Sarsour-as-Muslim-Brotherhood-ally-573859
I have about.100 more links to prove this is true, but they're all on my home computer and I'm at work. In the mean time, read this book breaking down how my original point is 100% legit:
https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/0895260263
Dont forget under Obama, 70k-100k Somalis brought in to U.S. and mostly dropped off in Minnesota. Some of the most radical Islamic groups have come from this country and has led to the state having an Anti-Semite Senator who also has ties to radical groups and is a Democrat
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273538/terrorist-caucus-house-david-horowitz
I don't care for Chump as potus, but I do agree with limiting all immigration from radical Islamic countries. When the Dems get back into power, they will reopen the Obama floodgates on letting them in and letting Radicalism to continue to spread in areas where Muslims isolate themselves in the U.S. in their own communities