Judge Pirro

[Rigby5]

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

Lol a husband can cut off his wife's nose or her head for no reason.

You are a delusional demented fool in full denial, shit they throw gays off buildings and still stone lesbians. You can claim that the pictures are not real, but all you are doing is mocking yourself

First of all, a husband can not harm his wife physically.
Second is that this was not done by a husband.
Third is that this is illegal in all Islamic countries.

Throwing people off buildings or stoning is totally illegal according to the Quran, which only allows for beheading with an axe or heavy sword as the means of quick execution.
You can have all the images you want, but they are not what Mohammad wrote.

More horseshit.

Quran (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word 'beat', but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means 'to strike'.

Quran (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

And who does not believe in laws with punishments?
The patriarch was the only source of order back then, so then had to act as judge.
It clearly says to be just, and to not harm anyone who has not transgressed.

Here is the recognized actual translation of 38:44,
{...
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
[We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ].
...}

Considering that we still execute in the US and have half a million imprisoned over the War on Drugs, we are in no position to criticize anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

While what I read in the New Testament sounds pretty good in general, at the same time, it was also the New Testament that was used to justify Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, burning heritics/witches, slavery, shooting abortion doctors, etc. Even invading Iraq; we would never have done that kind of murder to a European country. So there seems to be something very wrong with how westerners interpret or follow the New Testament as well. What we do is much worse than what Muslims do.

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

Lol a husband can cut off his wife's nose or her head for no reason.

You are a delusional demented fool in full denial, shit they throw gays off buildings and still stone lesbians. You can claim that the pictures are not real, but all you are doing is mocking yourself

First of all, a husband can not harm his wife physically.
Second is that this was not done by a husband.
Third is that this is illegal in all Islamic countries.

Throwing people off buildings or stoning is totally illegal according to the Quran, which only allows for beheading with an axe or heavy sword as the means of quick execution.
You can have all the images you want, but they are not what Mohammad wrote.

A husband can beat his wife to death for saying no, or for walking ahead of him.

Seriously dude you have no clue

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/283167/slide_283167_2155203_free.jpg

That is just a lie.
No Muslim is supposed to let them do that.
Islam was the beginning of rights for women, and it is the earlier Judaism where women were not even considered to have a soul or be allowed to own property.

 

[Frannie]

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

Lol a husband can cut off his wife's nose or her head for no reason.

You are a delusional demented fool in full denial, shit they throw gays off buildings and still stone lesbians. You can claim that the pictures are not real, but all you are doing is mocking yourself

First of all, a husband can not harm his wife physically.
Second is that this was not done by a husband.
Third is that this is illegal in all Islamic countries.

Throwing people off buildings or stoning is totally illegal according to the Quran, which only allows for beheading with an axe or heavy sword as the means of quick execution.
You can have all the images you want, but they are not what Mohammad wrote.

More horseshit.

Quran (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word 'beat', but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means 'to strike'.

Quran (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..." Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).

And who does not believe in laws with punishments?
The patriarch was the only source of order back then, so then had to act as judge.
It clearly says to be just, and to not harm anyone who has not transgressed.

Here is the recognized actual translation of 38:44,
{...
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
[We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ].
...}

Considering that we still execute in the US and have half a million imprisoned over the War on Drugs, we are in no position to criticize anyone.

Should lesbians be stoned to death

Yes
No

 

[Frannie]

Lol can I cut off your nose for demeaning Jesus, hold still now, fool

Woman with nose cut off - Bing images

First of all, Islam does not at all support or allow mutilation or harming anyone except in defense..
Second is that Christians do kill those who say anything bad about Jesus, even though there is no harm done by being critical of Jesus.
However, those attacking Mohammad are not just being critical, but deliberately attempting to incite hate speech against all Muslims with the intent of whipping up murders. So that is a crime that has to be punished.

Lol a husband can cut off his wife's nose or her head for no reason.

You are a delusional demented fool in full denial, shit they throw gays off buildings and still stone lesbians. You can claim that the pictures are not real, but all you are doing is mocking yourself

First of all, a husband can not harm his wife physically.
Second is that this was not done by a husband.
Third is that this is illegal in all Islamic countries.

Throwing people off buildings or stoning is totally illegal according to the Quran, which only allows for beheading with an axe or heavy sword as the means of quick execution.
You can have all the images you want, but they are not what Mohammad wrote.

A husband can beat his wife to death for saying no, or for walking ahead of him.

Seriously dude you have no clue

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/283167/slide_283167_2155203_free.jpg

That is just a lie.
No Muslim is supposed to let them do that.
Islam was the beginning of rights for women, and it is the earlier Judaism where women were not even considered to have a soul or be allowed to own property.

You are a delusional mental patient

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kEl31mFei...aU2ZV0uXE/s1600/_61973268_pakistan_nose_1.jpg

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

we are in no position to criticize anyone.

And there it is. The amoral false equivalence. Fuck that. Our society is much better than any fundemantal islamic society, and it is not even close. And the more you equivocating fools get in the way of actual reformation of Islam, the harder you make it for moderate Muslims to reform their own religion. Disgustjng.

 

[Rigby5]

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran,

And on the hadiths. In fact, much of the dominant forms of sharia law is derived directly from them. You keep saying things that are ass backwards wrong.

The Quran is supposed to be quotes from Mohammad, while hadiths are never quotes from Mohammad, but by later clerics.
No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.
Clearly the clerics have a strong bias for the traditions from before Mohammad, that actually Mohammad was intent on changing or stopping.
So often the hadiths are the exact opposite of Mohammad.

The Quoran is idiocy, all of it.

You can agree or cut off women's vaginas and noses

Have you ever actually read the Quran?
I have. It does not take that long. You can easily read it in a couple of months.
And it does not allow for any physical harm or mutilation of anyone.
The FGM is an older and mostly African things similar to the chastity belts Christians used to force women to wear.

Reading the Quoran is only accomplished by fools. The passages of hate are already posted here

So ESFOAD if you need help try a shotgun

There are no passages of hate in the Quran.
When there are encouragement to fight, it is only in defense, after all other attempts have been tried and failed.
And that is what we see in history.
There is no massacre of invasions by Islam.
In fact, the main allies that allowed Mohammad to defeat the attacking Meccans, were the Hebrew tribes.

 

[Frannie]

And on the hadiths. In fact, much of the dominant forms of sharia law is derived directly from them. You keep saying things that are ass backwards wrong.

The Quran is supposed to be quotes from Mohammad, while hadiths are never quotes from Mohammad, but by later clerics.
No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.
Clearly the clerics have a strong bias for the traditions from before Mohammad, that actually Mohammad was intent on changing or stopping.
So often the hadiths are the exact opposite of Mohammad.

The Quoran is idiocy, all of it.

You can agree or cut off women's vaginas and noses

Have you ever actually read the Quran?
I have. It does not take that long. You can easily read it in a couple of months.
And it does not allow for any physical harm or mutilation of anyone.
The FGM is an older and mostly African things similar to the chastity belts Christians used to force women to wear.

Reading the Quoran is only accomplished by fools. The passages of hate are already posted here

So ESFOAD if you need help try a shotgun

There are no passages of hate in the Quran.
When there are encouragement to fight, it is only in defense, after all other attempts have been tried and failed.
And that is what we see in history.
There is no massacre of invasions by Islam.
In fact, the main allies that allowed Mohammad to defeat the attacking Meccans, were the Hebrew tribes.

Tell that to her not me

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kEl31mFei...aU2ZV0uXE/s1600/_61973268_pakistan_nose_1.jpg

 

[Rigby5]

No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.

Except muslims do precisely that. So, instead of whining to the guy who takes them at their word, go whine to them.

And stop with your false horseshit, you are embarrassing yourself.

Except that Christians are far worse, with Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, atomic bombs, lying about WMD, invading Iraq, murdering half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, etc.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Good as a former judge she should know better. The United States is based on the idea to have freedom to practice any religion. Part of Omar's religion is to wear a hijab. Pirro is fucking ignorant to tie wearing a hijab to radical Islamic activity.

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran, which clearly say to only use force if you absolutely have to in defense.
It says that even if they have attacked you twice, you can still try a third time to work out a peaceful agreement.
It is only after the 3rd attack that you no longer have any mercy.

{... “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) ...}

{... “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) ...}

{... The word “Islam” is derived from the word meaning “peace” in Arabic. ...}

Murderous Mumbo-Jumbo

It's not about words, it's about swords.

 

[Frannie]

No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.

Except muslims do precisely that. So, instead of whining to the guy who takes them at their word, go whine to them.

And stop with your false horseshit, you are embarrassing yourself.

Except that Christians are far worse, with Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, atomic bombs, lying about WMD, invading Iraq, murdering half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, etc.

Lol. Let your hate make you whole

 

[Rigby5]

we are in no position to criticize anyone.

And there it is. The amoral false equivalence. Fuck that. Our society is much better than any fundamental Islamic society, and it is not even close. And the more you equivocating fools get in the way of actual reformation of Islam, the harder you make it for moderate Muslims to reform their own religion. Disgusting.

That's ridiculous.
We spend more than the whole rest of the world on weapons, and we have not been attacked since 1812, so they are NOT at all defensive.
We murder more than anyone.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, and countless Iranians (1953), Hondurans, Brazilians, Chileans (Pinochet), Grenadians, Iraqi, Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, etc.
We are thousands of times worse than anyone.

Muslims can take care of their own religion very well if we would stop murdering and invading.

 

[Rigby5]

The Quran is supposed to be quotes from Mohammad, while hadiths are never quotes from Mohammad, but by later clerics.
No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.
Clearly the clerics have a strong bias for the traditions from before Mohammad, that actually Mohammad was intent on changing or stopping.
So often the hadiths are the exact opposite of Mohammad.

The Quoran is idiocy, all of it.

You can agree or cut off women's vaginas and noses

Have you ever actually read the Quran?
I have. It does not take that long. You can easily read it in a couple of months.
And it does not allow for any physical harm or mutilation of anyone.
The FGM is an older and mostly African things similar to the chastity belts Christians used to force women to wear.

Reading the Quoran is only accomplished by fools. The passages of hate are already posted here

So ESFOAD if you need help try a shotgun

There are no passages of hate in the Quran.
When there are encouragement to fight, it is only in defense, after all other attempts have been tried and failed.
And that is what we see in history.
There is no massacre of invasions by Islam.
In fact, the main allies that allowed Mohammad to defeat the attacking Meccans, were the Hebrew tribes.

Tell that to her not me

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kEl31mFei...aU2ZV0uXE/s1600/_61973268_pakistan_nose_1.jpg

Care to find anything in the Quran to back up your claim that is Islamic?

 

[Rigby5]

Good as a former judge she should know better. The United States is based on the idea to have freedom to practice any religion. Part of Omar's religion is to wear a hijab. Pirro is fucking ignorant to tie wearing a hijab to radical Islamic activity.

No she isn't.

Yes, she is. Of course I didn't expect you to either be honest, or understand her message.

No she isn't. Islam is opposed to every principle this nation is founded on. Practicing Islam means doing everything in your power to destroy the United States.

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran, which clearly say to only use force if you absolutely have to in defense.
It says that even if they have attacked you twice, you can still try a third time to work out a peaceful agreement.
It is only after the 3rd attack that you no longer have any mercy.

{... “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) ...}

{... “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) ...}

{... The word “Islam” is derived from the word meaning “peace” in Arabic. ...}

Murderous Mumbo-Jumbo

It's not about words, it's about swords.

Yes it is, and who now is making almost all of the weapons?
It is the US.
What countries are Muslims invading or occupying?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are no passages of hate in the Quran.

I would call you a liar, but that would imply that you have a shred of knowledge about anything you are talking about.

"they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures” (98:6). They are “like livestock” (7:179). “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe” (8:55)."

 

[bripat9643]

Islam is based on the principles of the Quran, which clearly say to only use force if you absolutely have to in defense.

Dead wrong.

It says that even if they have attacked you twice, you can still try a third time to work out a peaceful agreement.
It is only after the 3rd attack that you no longer have any mercy.

It tells Muslims to wage war against the infidel. It says it over and over and over.

{... “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) ...}

{... “God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana, 8) ...}

{... The word “Islam” is derived from the word meaning “peace” in Arabic. ...}

The "peace" of Islam means the peace of submission. There is no peace for those who refuse to submit.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Wrong. That is the 9th Surrah, which is titled forgiveness and redemption. It is all about how you should not fight except in defense, and you should make 2 attempts at peace even with those that betray you.
The quotes you put up are AFTER they have broken treaties and attacked you twice.
You clearly have not read or understood the Quran at all.

The jizya is the same taxes that Muslims pay in the Mosque. It is not an additional tax. It is just to support widows and orphans, and Christians and Jews can't pay their due share in the Mosque as everyone else is supposed to.
And tell me one government in the world that does NOT believe that all people have to be "violently subjugated" to written law?

And it is just a lie to claim Islam ever supports expansionism or military conquest.
YOU say "in the next 100 years" but clearly Mohammad was already old when he captured Mecca even.
There was no conquests by Mohammad.
If you had read any history, you would see that around 1100 AD, Asiatics, like the Mongols, Moguls, and Turks invaded in successive waves.
And it was they who threatened Europe, not Islamic Arabs.
Islam had nothing to do with it, even though the Mongols, Moguls, and Turks later adopted Islam.

Jihad is not about self defense. It's about waging offensive war against the infidel. If what you claim is true, then quote the passages that demonstrate it. The ones I quoted don't say anything about self defense. They tell the believers to kill Jews and Christians simply because they don't believe in Allah. They also say to compel non believers to pay the Jizya .

You're obviously totally full of shit.

Why are you trying to speak sense to an imbecile

The Quran is very clear in that is says Christianity and Judaism are valid paths to heaven, the same God and goal as Islam.
The Quran says all 3 Abrahamic religions are "Brothers of the same book", referring to the same shared Old Testament.
It also says there must never be compulsion when it comes to religion.

Believers also pay the jizya, but do it voluntarily in the mosque.

The Q'uran tells Moslems to kill Jews and Christians. It also says they have to pay the Jizyah.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I stand with Judge Pirro, i believe a woman who wears a hijab shows she adheres to Sharia Law, which is against to our Constitution. And furthermore Omar’s antisemitism, to me, proves she’s a radical Sharia Islamist. Gox is wrong

How dare anyone have an opinion about Islamic Radicals.

There are no Islamic radicals there is just islam

There is a sort of Islamic radical.
In order to fight western imperialism and colonialism in the Mideast, the Islamic Brotherhood tried to unify Arabs by using Islam.
That is a worthy cause, but it does end up someone slanting the original intents and purposes of Islam.

Self-Determination for a Religion Determined to Destroy Us, But NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON

Imperialism is a worthy cause. The fact that the false-flag Right opposes outright colonization gives the Third World savages a critical advantage. Settler pioneering creates class mobility for those excluded in the mother country; that's the real reason the Preppy Republic opposes it.

 

[Frannie]

Dead wrong.

It tells Muslims to wage war against the infidel. It says it over and over and over.

The "peace" of Islam means the peace of submission. There is no peace for those who refuse to submit.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Wrong. That is the 9th Surrah, which is titled forgiveness and redemption. It is all about how you should not fight except in defense, and you should make 2 attempts at peace even with those that betray you.
The quotes you put up are AFTER they have broken treaties and attacked you twice.
You clearly have not read or understood the Quran at all.

The jizya is the same taxes that Muslims pay in the Mosque. It is not an additional tax. It is just to support widows and orphans, and Christians and Jews can't pay their due share in the Mosque as everyone else is supposed to.
And tell me one government in the world that does NOT believe that all people have to be "violently subjugated" to written law?

And it is just a lie to claim Islam ever supports expansionism or military conquest.
YOU say "in the next 100 years" but clearly Mohammad was already old when he captured Mecca even.
There was no conquests by Mohammad.
If you had read any history, you would see that around 1100 AD, Asiatics, like the Mongols, Moguls, and Turks invaded in successive waves.
And it was they who threatened Europe, not Islamic Arabs.
Islam had nothing to do with it, even though the Mongols, Moguls, and Turks later adopted Islam.

Jihad is not about self defense. It's about waging offensive war against the infidel. If what you claim is true, then quote the passages that demonstrate it. The ones I quoted don't say anything about self defense. They tell the believers to kill Jews and Christians simply because they don't believe in Allah. They also say to compel non believers to pay the Jizya .

You're obviously totally full of shit.

Why are you trying to speak sense to an imbecile

The Quran is very clear in that is says Christianity and Judaism are valid paths to heaven, the same God and goal as Islam.
The Quran says all 3 Abrahamic religions are "Brothers of the same book", referring to the same shared Old Testament.
It also says there must never be compulsion when it comes to religion.

Believers also pay the jizya, but do it voluntarily in the mosque.

The Q'uran tells Moslems to kill Jews and Christians. It also says they have to pay the Jizyah.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Schitzos create their own rules

 

[bripat9643]

No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.

Except muslims do precisely that. So, instead of whining to the guy who takes them at their word, go whine to them.

And stop with your false horseshit, you are embarrassing yourself.

Except that Christians are far worse, with Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, atomic bombs, lying about WMD, invading Iraq, murdering half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, etc.

Wrong. The Crusades were retaliation for Muslims occupying half of Christianity.

You think Muslims didn't practice slavery? Now I know you're positively insane

 

[Frannie]

No rational person would then claim that hadiths were actually the basis for Islam.

Except muslims do precisely that. So, instead of whining to the guy who takes them at their word, go whine to them.

And stop with your false horseshit, you are embarrassing yourself.

Except that Christians are far worse, with Crusades, Inquisitions, Conquistadors, imperialism, colonialism, slavery, atomic bombs, lying about WMD, invading Iraq, murdering half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, etc.

Wrong. The Crusades were retaliation for Muslims occupying half of Christianity.

You think Muslims didn't practice slavery? Now I know you're positively insane

I think we should stop this and show some empathy for this fool. Ask, what would Jesus do here and now.

 

[candycorn]

FFI is right.

Otherwise, show us where the Constitution addresses god, son.

"""The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian."""

Is America A Christian Nation?

You're living proof that people make assumptions based on rhetoric.
.
.

I am living proof that a good education is priceless.

I have always found the Left's need to "redefine" meanings and contexts a source of amusement.
IF the Constitution had been written a vacuum you might have a case.
Sadly for you and Gator it wasn't. It's context was the escape of the Colonists from the State Religion imposed by the King. There was no "Freedom of Religion" in the Kingdom. It was just the state church, the Anglican.
THAT is the context of the 1st Amendment. The genius of it is that they indeed were foresighted enough to include EVERYONE'S "Religion". Far from being godless, it protected everyone's "god".

You condescended to FFI, who stated a fact.
FFI was right. God is not in the Constitution.
Make up your mind, try to cover your ass, we don't give a flying fuck.

.
.
.

I owned him, he knows it, I know it.

Everything below is true.
I have always found the Left's need to "redefine" meanings and contexts a source of amusement.
IF the Constitution had been written a vacuum you might have a case.
Sadly for you and Gator it wasn't. It's context was the escape of the Colonists from the State Religion imposed by the King. There was no "Freedom of Religion" in the Kingdom. It was just the state church, the Anglican.
THAT is the context of the 1st Amendment. The genius of it is that they indeed were foresighted enough to include EVERYONE'S "Religion". Far from being godless, it protected everyone's "god".

Would Reagan be able to win the GOP nomination today? Likely not. Although he inspired generations of republicans…..
Sounds a lot like the right does a lot of re-defining too.

Your ignoring of the content and lack of intelligent input is duly noted

I commented on a post. That you can’t intelligently argue the other side is duly noted.