Herman Cain for president?

Centrist77 said:

you keep saying that over and over again like its ture but it simply is not, many many many Muslims do NOT practice it that way just like many many many Christians do not practice their book literally, not all christian bomb abortion clinics just like not all Muslims are terrorist LMAO

Click to expand...

1. do you honestly believe what you are positing here about the comparison between the faiths. because you keep throwing in these inane "LOL LMAO" bits that don't belong, and make you look either strained and foolish, or deliberately pulling an evil clown.

2. no one has suggested that all muslims are terrorists. what has been pointed out is that the faith of Islam includes a demand for a joining of the political and religious establishment, whereas Christianity includes an instruction against it.

cpwill said:

1. do you honestly believe what you are positing here about the comparison between the faiths. because you keep throwing in these inane "LOL LMAO" bits that don't belong, and make you look either strained and foolish, or deliberately pulling an evil clown.

2. no one has suggested that all muslims are terrorists. what has been pointed out is that the faith of Islam includes a demand for a joining of the political and religious establishment, whereas Christianity includes an instruction against it.

Click to expand...

if a person says stupid, funny, entertaining or obnoxious stuff im going to LOL so they definitely belong, youll get over it

again you are going purely off your opinion and interpretation and im going off of reality, fact still remains he acted foolish, knee jerk, ignorantly and or bigoted. Nothing you say will change that fact or justify his behavior. Now Ill wait for you to repeat more meaningless banter, more attempts to insult while I just laugh cause the facts dont change lol

cpwill said:

1. do you honestly believe what you are positing here about the comparison between the faiths. because you keep throwing in these inane "LOL LMAO" bits that don't belong, and make you look either strained and foolish, or deliberately pulling an evil clown.

2. no one has suggested that all muslims are terrorists. what has been pointed out is that the faith of Islam includes a demand for a joining of the political and religious establishment, whereas Christianity includes an instruction against it.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Muslim culture seems to have a demand that church and state be one. Where does Christianity include an instruction against it? It seems to me that I can remember the Catholic church being a rather important part of governments of the past, and that the separation came about as a result of the American revolution and the Bill of Rights.

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, the Muslim culture seems to have a demand that church and state be one. Where does Christianity include an instruction against it?

Click to expand...

that would be Jesus drawing the difference between taxes and charity with the Give unto Caesar what is Caesars' line.

See, in Islam, the State is supposed to collect a mandatory religious tax for charity. It's called the Zakat, and it's one of the Pillars of Islam. It's one of the thousands of ways in which Islam twines religion and state together. The debate we're having now would make no sense in the Islamic world - it would be as if someone were to inform us that we should split politics from government.

But Centrist doesn't know that because he's too busy pretending that relativism is wisdom.

cpwill said:

that would be Jesus drawing the difference between taxes and charity with the Give unto Caesar what is Caesars' line.

See, in Islam, the State is supposed to collect a mandatory religious tax for charity. It's called the Zakat, and it's one of the Pillars of Islam. It's one of the thousands of ways in which Islam twines religion and state together. The debate we're having now would make no sense in the Islamic world - it would be as if someone were to inform us that we should split politics from government.

But Centrist doesn't know that because he's too busy pretending that relativism is wisdom.

Click to expand...

I see you are still lashing out, awwww are the facts and reality still bothering you?

fact remains his reaction was wrong let me know when youy have anything logical to debate against that.

Centrist77 said:

I see you are still lashing out, awwww are the facts and reality still bothering you?

Click to expand...

given that they are on my side in this case.... not really. given that you apparently don't really know what you are talking about, perhaps you should educate yourself before you presume to assume that facts and reality are on your side?

[later question] without looking, can you tell us what Zakat is and what it takes? can you tell us the other pillars? can you describe for us the alteration to those "unalterable" pillars that have been pushed within modern Islam? If I were to ask you whether you thought that there was room to rejuvenate the doctrine of ijtihad within one of the main Islamic camps; would you know which camp and why that was important?

Because given your responses on this thread. I'm betting (no google searches! ) that you don't.

fact remains his reaction was wrong let me know when youy have anything logical to debate against that.

Click to expand...

:shrug: his reaction was poor. his reasoning is based on an accurate depiction of the implications of Islamic teaching.

cpwill said:

given that they are on my side in this case.... not really. given that you apparently don't really know what you are talking about, perhaps you should educate yourself before you presume to assume that facts and reality are on your side?



:shrug: his reaction was poor. his reasoning is based on an accurate depiction of the implications of Islamic teaching.

Click to expand...

facts are on your side?:lamo:2rofll: only if you ignore the reality of the discussion. lol

You should be a fiction writer because the fantasy you come up with is golden! Tell me more fiction!!!opcorn2:

yes. as a matter of fact they are. feel free to go spend an hour or so trying to figure out the questions I just asked you and then get back to us.

cpwill said:

yes. as a matter of fact they are. feel free to go spend an hour or so trying to figure out the questions I just asked you and then get back to us.

Click to expand...

like i said fantasy is fun and now that you are exposed you are trying to change the debate, I can prove Christians bomb abortion clinics too, that blacks have stolen and that gays have had sex with minors too, guess i should judge them all because of that right? LMAO I can read in the bible that you should kill fortune tellers, im going to go kill the lady that lives at the end of my plan now!

Theres a "christian" in this very thread that wants american laws to reflect his interpretations of christian law, guess he doesnt really excisit or doesnt count right?

sorry, theres egg on you face and trying to change the discussion I was having wont work LMAO theres reality then there your dramatic opinion and interpretation of what you guess something to be and you sterotyping everyone based off of that delusion

please continue though, tell me the cool part about education again, each of your posts reek of desperation LMAO

so.... no, you actually know very little about Islam, which is why you can't respond.

Yup. That's about what I figured.

cpwill said:

so.... no, you actually know very little about Islam, which is why you can't respond.

Yup. That's about what I figured.

Click to expand...

thats it keep making stuff up, try to deflect, it wont work with anybody objective and smart though LMAO Ive responded numerous time and you come back with nothing each time you have showed how foolish you are, its ok its often what people do to hide their ignorance and or bigotry.

nothing I mentioned to you was made up. I have studied Islam now at the undergraduate and graduate level. I have analyzed different portions of their religious-political structure professionally in my work. Many moons ago I used to speak basic pidgin Arabic - nothing fancy, just your basic directions, asking for food, the stuff I needed for little interactions combined with the usual gesturing. I spent a year and a half on a forum dedicated to Shia Muslims - as I don't speak Farsi and was limited to the English forums, it was about half Iranian and about half second-generation Canadian diaspora. There is nothing bigoted or ignorant in the claim that Islam inherently is political just as it is religious, and see's no rightful distinction between the two. All of the mainstream schools of thought would back me up in this. I can say without a doubt that this is the historical consensus of the Ummah. You, on the other hand, would have to look up what the Ummah was.

But I'll bite since you know so much about Islam, perhaps you can tell me which of the three main Schools has come out and declared that Government can rightly be a secular institution.

cpwill said:

But I'll bite since you know so much about Islam, perhaps you can tell me which of the three main Schools has come out and declared that Government can rightly be a secular institution.

Click to expand...

Are we discounting Muʿtazilah?

Because then I don't know.

I was referencing the main schools. Hanafi, for example.



But I had never looked into these guys - usually in discussions of Ali the traditional histories move straight into the Split into the developing Umayyads v the Shia. Interesting stuff. However:

Encyclopedia Britannica Online said:

...First, they stressed the absolute unity or oneness (tawḥīd) of God. From this it was logically concluded that the Qurʾān could not be technically considered the word of God...

Click to expand...

I would say that this pretty solidly places them outside of mainstream Islamic thought. Though I am unable to find a discussion of their arguing for secular governance. If you could direct me, I would be appreciative.

But I thought Hanafi was a jurisprudence school specifically within Sunni Islam. And there are four of those: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi'i. Did you mean among those four?

It's probably not Hanbali, since Hanbali is conservative.

I would say that this pretty solidly places them outside of mainstream Islamic thought. Though I am unable to find a discussion of their arguing for secular governance. If you could direct me, I would be appreciative.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I gotcha.

http://wn.com/Mu'tazila

It's not them literally arguing, but it's a decent summary. And yes I realize they are outside the mainstream schools of thought, which is why I asked if we were discounting them in guessing which school accepted separation of church and state.

Interesting, I've seen them described as three - as I recall they rolled two of those together? I want to say Shafi was rolled into one of the others (Maliki?)... but dangit, and I imposed the no-google searching rule

Damn you, I'm an ocean away from my books and now I'm forgetting things I officially turn over this butt-whomping to you, my obviously more educated contemporary.

But no, as far as I'm aware none of the main schools schools have called for secular government. That was the point I was trying to raise to Centrist - that not a single major branch of Islamic teaching agreed with his claims, the profligate use of emoticons nonwithstanding.

cpwill said:

that would be Jesus drawing the difference between taxes and charity with the Give unto Caesar what is Caesars' line.

See, in Islam, the State is supposed to collect a mandatory religious tax for charity. It's called the Zakat, and it's one of the Pillars of Islam. It's one of the thousands of ways in which Islam twines religion and state together. The debate we're having now would make no sense in the Islamic world - it would be as if someone were to inform us that we should split politics from government.

But Centrist doesn't know that because he's too busy pretending that relativism is wisdom.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is that well known line about rendering unto Cesar, and so on, and yet the Catholic church was inextricably intertwined with government until the founders of the United States separated it. It was not until the late 18th. century that the idea of separation of the power of the church from that of the government began to take hold.

The founding fathers of the United States knew well that there would be no liberty when the power of the state and the power of the church teamed up together. They knew that because church and state had been one for hundreds of years.

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, there is that well known line about rendering unto Cesar, and so on, and yet the Catholic church was inextricably intertwined with government until the founders of the United States separated it. It was not until the late 18th. century that the idea of separation of the power of the church from that of the government began to take hold.

Click to expand...

If I may direct you to St Augustines' The City of God, you may be pleasantly surprised

The founding fathers of the United States knew well that there would be no liberty when the power of the state and the power of the church teamed up together. They knew that because church and state had been one for hundreds of years.

Click to expand...

In Britain, yes, where the Head of the State is the Head of the Church. But that had been a break with tradition in the form of a Political seizure of the Church, not the other way 'round.

cpwill said:

If I may direct you to St Augustines' The City of God, you may be pleasantly surprised

Click to expand...

And may I join him in directing you to On Secular Authority by Martin Luther, published in 1523?

Yes, there is that well known line about rendering unto Cesar, and so on, and yet the Catholic church was inextricably intertwined with government until the founders of the United States separated it. It was not until the late 18th. century that the idea of separation of the power of the church from that of the government began to take hold.

Click to expand...

There's a fundamental difference. According to Unam Sanctum, a papal bull issued in 1302, the Catholic Church acknowledges that there IS a secular political realm, and a religious realm. The state controls that secular realm, BUT religious authority is of a higher plane than secular authority. Therefore, the Papacy was allowed to intervene in temporal politics because its authority transcended them.

Acknowledging two entities and saying one is higher than the other is VERY different from saying that the two authorities are literally one and the same -- an idea which is highly prevalent in Islam. Secularism as you know it had no real foothold in the Muslim world until 1945...and even then, only to be met with failure.

Dittohead not! said:

The first step is to convince the electorate that Obama is really a socialist out to destroy the country, and not just an intelligent and well meaning, but inexperienced liberal Democrat.

Since there is no real evidence of the "socialist out to destroy the country" mantra, at least not one that anyone who would vote for a Democrat under any circumstances would actually believe, the task is quite a lot more difficult than the above post would indicate.

Sorry, but yes, the Republicans really do have to come up with an electable candidate. So far, I've seen little evidence that they will do so.

Click to expand...

Of course, my statement was satire.

cpwill said:

nothing I mentioned to you was made up. I have studied Islam now at the undergraduate and graduate level. I have analyzed different portions of their religious-political structure professionally in my work. Many moons ago I used to speak basic pidgin Arabic - nothing fancy, just your basic directions, asking for food, the stuff I needed for little interactions combined with the usual gesturing. I spent a year and a half on a forum dedicated to Shia Muslims - as I don't speak Farsi and was limited to the English forums, it was about half Iranian and about half second-generation Canadian diaspora. There is nothing bigoted or ignorant in the claim that Islam inherently is political just as it is religious, and see's no rightful distinction between the two. All of the mainstream schools of thought would back me up in this. I can say without a doubt that this is the historical consensus of the Ummah. You, on the other hand, would have to look up what the Ummah was.

But I'll bite since you know so much about Islam, perhaps you can tell me which of the three main Schools has come out and declared that Government can rightly be a secular institution.

Click to expand...

oh brother, why are you trying to change my discussion, why are you trying to change the debate, do you think thats going to work? LMAO

no matter what you say Islam is the FACT remains many Muslims do NOT follow what YOU are saying just like many Christians do NOT follow the bible to the T.

Those are the facts and the fantsy you are trying to push is that all muslims what to do what YOU are saying and your opinion and interpretation of their religion. Move the goal posts all you want, what I said stands and what you are TRYING to say will never have any merit because its simply your opinion and not true. Its your stereotypical false opinion to group all muslims. Now you are even choosing to focus on the word ISLAM when we were talkin Muslims and judging them.

So make another long meaningless post, like your other posts it wont change any of the facts about my debate, none zero LMAO:laughat: He was still wrong to respond that way and its was knee jerk, hypocritical, prejudice and or bigoted and so is anybody else that does the same thing. AGain I repeat you let me know when you can argue against the debate at hand.

Can you do it? no you can not, theres is no defense for what he did or that type of thinking, you will talk meaningless points, try to change the subject, move the goal posts and try more failed insults and once again the facts wont change and youll still be wrong. Does moving the goal post and or back pedaling every work for you? They are weak and obvious tatics

please thoough keep up the good fight in your head because you lost rounds ago and I enjoy the entertainment.

Catawba said:

Of course, my statement was satire.

Click to expand...

Of course it was, yet there do seem to be people who believe that Obama really is a socialist out to destroy the country, and that they must unseat him, regardless of who the next POTUS may be.

But, people who hold such a belief would vote Republican if "their" party ran Charlie Manson. So, the task is to either convince rational voters that Obama is what they say he is, or else come up with an electable candidate.

So far, the electable candidate project hasn't gotten off of the ground.

But, then, neither has the convincing rational voters that Obama is a socialist out to destroy the country project.

Centrist77 said:

So make another long meaningless post, like your other posts it wont change any of the facts about my debate

Click to expand...

:lol: what facts? I utterly fail to see where you have presented any.

cpwill said:

:lol: what facts? I utterly fail to see where you have presented any.

Click to expand...

I know YOU fail to see them. Thats OBVIOUS LMAO, but it doesnt change reality though, thats the best and most entertaining part. Like I said when you can argue against the topic of my debate you let me know facts have been listed whether you accept them or not:2wave:

Pardon me, I thought this was a Herman Cain thread. I'll keep looking.