The debate "Are republicans just stupid or do they not see the similarities between islam and their own beliefs" was started by
November 16, 2016, 6:20 pm.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 5 arguments, neveralone posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 19 arguments, historybuff posted 6 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 15 arguments to the disagreers part.
thereal, LiberalDemocrat, WolfiesMom, human and 10 visitors agree.
dalton7532, historybuff, Yanksxx21, arpita00, neveralone, jack_tim_45, north, Neopatriarch, allyssa, harshita, Rajat, ProfDoke, RedWolf and 11 visitors disagree.
So the leaders of Trump supporting organizations aren't influential? People advising his transition team aren't influential? Why do you think the guy comparing it to the internment camps was being interviewed on Fox? He isn't just some guy they picked off the street.
As I said, this doesn't reflect on Trump unless he endorses it. Otherwise it is just a snapshot of a portion of his supporters. I'm not saying everyone who voted Trump wants internment camps for Muslims, but if the leader of a group that funded Trump's election uses that as justification, you can hardly claim he exists in a vacuum.
Go ahead knock yourself out, you won't any influential or quantitative amounts of republicans that are for it in our country
So no other Republicans have agreed? If 8 look on social media, I won't find Republicans claiming a national registry is a good idea?
what's the argument?
It's one person who has said this?
First, you know they will be removed how? They haven't announced anything to that effect that I have seen.
Second, it was one of his SUPPORTERS who suggested that the internment camps gave him precedent. It wasn't people attacking him. Until more information is released, I will remain concerned.
Finally, I am not sure a registry will even be implemented since they haven't actually released any concrete information. It is the supporters who believe the internment camps give justification and precedent for requiring a Muslim registry. This doesn't reflect on Trump and his team unless they try to implement something terrible.
The article name is misleading. If you actually read it, you will see it is talking about a registry for IMMIGRANTS from muslim COUNTRIES. Not people already in this country, not just anyone who is a Muslim. There is an imminent threat from radicalized muslims in western societies, and a registry of immigrants from certain countries with high percentages of radicalized muslims will prevent those kind of terror attacks. There will be no internment camps or anything like that, it's all with good intent, and once they get citizenship their name will he removed.
So it's evil if your enemies do it, buy acceptable if you do it? That sounds awfully convenient.
You are disgusted by the comparison but not by the idea that creates it? What distinction do you see between a registry of Muslims and a registry of Jews that makes comparison impossible and disgusting?
Now don't compare the Nazis to republicans, very disgusting
There is a key difference when those that coming from diffrent parts of the world want to harm us, besides Trump won't implement..
You don't see an issue for a registry of people of a specific religion? You don't see how that could be relevant to historical examples like the Nazis and the internment camps?
It's prominent in that it proves nothing to your claim, it's just restating the same fellow as earlier, and states that trump will not imprison Muslims for their religion, what did you think this would accomplish for your argument?
Prominent enough for you?
You don't actually know what the word bigoted means, do you?
Secondly "they" are not advocating this, show me an actual individual to whom advocates this that is influential
Not an executive just a random supporter, that's not evidence for your bigoted claim
Who was that executive who made that order?
Bigoted stament, just because there is very few trump supporters that believe that, does not mean the majority is like that
Yep, Republicans are bastions of logic and equality. That's why they are advocating mass incarceration based on religion.
nowhere really. last thing I was on was history trying to insult me.(and failing:-).)
Where in the debate are we at now? Catch me up
It doesnt work. They wont admit economic fascism.
cool. the Closest place u would recognize is OKC
haha where are u from?
By the rest of the world you mean the fascists in Europe and Canada. The rest of the world pretty much doesn't care about politics in America unless they are going to go to war or isn't going to be allowed to trade.
r u talking to me?
I don't know where you are from. probably the heart of right wing religious extremism country. because the rest of the world is horrified by pence.
it does if they do it willing. it makes me sad and that we need to take them to counseling because society probably made them feel like they aren't worth anything.
I disagree on if he should be allowed or not. I haven't heard anyone complain about him until I got on this app. haha some are hopeful that Trump will get assassinated so pence can run the country which is messed up but still there
some people are pressed into by family members or loved ones. some are pressured by their faith. it really doesn't matter. the practice is torture and it doesn't work. it should not be allowed, let alone funded by the government. Pence is an ideological lunatic. he has no business representing the American people.
okay when it started it was really messed up. sounds like it mellows but doesn't work. I'm Christian and I don't support it or gays. theres definitely a better way. did they go through that willingly?
This explains it better than me.
Basically attempting to change gay people to straight people. It consists of therapies that are full of negative punishment that psychologically messes with the person without them changing. Including is shocking people when certain pictures are shown to them.
what is this conversion therapy u r talking about?
I didn't say he wasn't crazy, I just said he didn't sign a bill that criminalizes gay marriage, that claim is false. I truly believe he doesn't care about it that much, if he cared about it he would probably look past the bible, and it doesn't need that much of a look past the Bible to know that conversion therapy is basically torture. And don't say he never looks outside of the Bible because he would not be a successful governor of Indiana if that were the case.
he also supported amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. effectively violating freedom from religion si that he can enforce religious law.
he wanted to divert money from HIV treatment to conversion therapy. so instead of helping people he wanted to fund barely concealed torture methods that have been long since disproven.
he opposed repealing don't ask don't Tell in the military.he voted for the ability to punish men and women fighting for their country if they made their sexual orientation public.
Mike pence has long faught for the right of Americans to discriminate against gay people. the line between forcing someone out of their career in disgrace and physical violence is not a very big jump.
It says right here that the bill was only to change the types of felonies, because Indiana created a new system that year. Absolutely no new content was added kn that bill, only changing the specific term of punishment.
and did that get passed? no it didn't. if they want to get married in a religion that permits that it's their choice
History of all the dumb and arrogant statments you've made in my time here, that takes the cake. Not even remotely are we Saudi Arabia, and I love you double standard in respect to your stance in clinton accepting donations from a barbaric country.
What law was that? Not the one allowing for the exemption of persons from legal action if they act in accordance with religious beliefs? Because that has nothing to do with locking gays in prison.
This hysteria from the left is despicable.
Is the family unit beneficial to society?
Now let us veer away from that digression. What is a gay right? To receive something from the government?
Yes they are men. It is the tradition of the Church. You are ignorant on the church authority. The opinions and beliefs of men and women are identical. The tradition of the Church is everything to the church. One who criticizes the Church's inner workings for "sexism" are clueless. Women have entirely different roles in the church.
The priesthood must discriminate be discriminating against married couples because they cannot receive holy orders. But this ignores the fact that married couples take the vocation of marriage which holds a very high reverence in the church.
Every catholic holds that each member is equal in the eyes of the public and of God.
sorry, he signed the bill. he didn't vote for it.
the next vice president of the united states voted to throw gay people in prison if the try to get married. you aren't as far away from being like Saudi Arabia as you think.
So no Christianity and Islam are different, they may share general yet I may add grey areas of relativity, however the ways into that they act
towards and express towards what they disagree with is completely different, so there is no pattern and are not the same.
Your lacking a bif difference however, if we look at Saudi Arabia the Govt. is not radicalized so to speak, yet they throw gays off buildings.
Fundamentalist conservatives are against gay rights, as are Muslims.
Fundamentalist conservatives think their religion should be permitted everywhere (creationism in schools), so do Muslims.
Fundamentalist conservatives believe that their moral compas should guide everyone to everyone's benefit, I hope you are starting to see a pattern here.
Muslim extremists are similar to white supremacists and Christian extremists who beat gay people to death and bomb clinics. Neither represent the whole, but both take the views to their most extreme and sometimes violent limits.
At heart there is not a lot of difference between fundamentalists of these groups because both are based on the same structure and grew from the same root.
The Republicans who are not Christian fundamentalists but are for trade and smaller governments are less similar to Muslims because they are not as unified in their beliefs.
You don't understand catholicism if you can't recognize that the top authorities are all men, and can only be men. Saying it's because of the apostles is like Muslims saying their practices are due to Mohammed. Historical religious justification for sexism.
There is nothing wrong with women; however, the priesthood is for men because of the apostles.
Your argument history that Christianity is similar is dumb founded and bluntly wrong
So some republicans oppose gays, however we are not nor will we ever harm them. That isn't remotely similar to Islam..
I got a friend who's Catholic and he has no problem with gender
Yo I'm back, and the basis that Republicans base their claims off of is just plain fact. Islam is a dangerous and in my opinion a barbaric religion, it needs a reformation such as that of the Roman Catholic Church , so gays wont be thrown of off buildings and women will not be oppresed. This religion stands against the United States for what we believe on as freedom to be or live as who ever you choose, and this religion threatans this.
I understand I have to do the same thing all the time
You dont understand Catholicism if you think gender makes a difference in authority.
@neveralone what difference does the percentage of Americans make? the large majority of Christians will not allow women in leadership positions. it doesn't really matter where they are.
@rogueamerican I don't care if priests want to only be men. nuns are only women. the problem is that all the positions and of power require you to be a man. if you are willing to let female, non priests be Pope then I have no problem with priests being only men. but since all positions of power in Catholicism require a penis, your religion discriminates against women at a fundamental level.
I can settle for that. Some of the things I believe as a catholic (trinity, Eucharist being body and blood) are unbelievable by their definitions.
Haha np. Im just trying to clarify. A lot of things said about the catholic church are misunderstandings!
I'm not meaning to distancing myself from u exactly. I only ever heard the Catholic faith as that. never have I heard until now that its a part of the Christian faith. for example when people in movies are asked(idk how many diff sec. of Christians u've met so I'm using movies) they say Christian or they say Catholic they never put the two together. though this debate I searched it and found out and apologize for any wrongdoing on my part.i just don't think Catholic faith should over wash the whole faith since we can agree we see stiff different.haha look we see stuff diff. but we still agree together better than him.h e kind of left so I guess we win?
I would also like to add that repetition is used by Catholics in the rosary as a meditation. Repeating the hail mary by itself is inconsequential. As you repeat it, you reflect on the mysteries of Christ and the faith.
Ive seen it before. Its distancing from Catholics; misrepresenting Catholicism instead of just not commenting on it. I won't judge to be an expert on Protestantism, but I do know the moral philosophy of it since ours are one on the same. We both follow only Christ as our creator and God. You dont need to dissociate and borderline mock Catholicism in order to refute a ridiculous argument. The only difference between our religions are that protestants view God as a personal relationship, but Catholics receive this relationship (grace) through the church. We do still pray on our own. We still believe in the same Christ and teachings.
I'm not spiteful if that was to me. I just cut out the middle man
also 70.6 percent of America is Christian and only 20.8 percent are chathilic.
But my goodness I have found that protestants remain truly spiteful.
The reason women are not allowed in the priesthold is because none of the apostles were females. This tradition has continued through apostolic succession. Everyone who is a priest was ordained by another successor to be able to perform the sacrament. The tradition is so inherently strong that only men may be priests (a female couldnt be no matter what we said).
The pope is the successor of Peter. The pope is the voice of God for the uniformity and doctrine of the Church. The pope is a man, and nobody worships him. The pope, like other ordained clergy, are the ones who intercess.
That isnt marginalizing women. Modern definitions of equality are truly disturbing. Women have their own vocations. Just because priests are definitionally male, that doesnt mean not allowing women is wrongful discrimination. There is a rich tradition behind the preisthood.
chathilic. again I consider the two separate. they have a man as there leader we have God.
you're right. the "candidate" for Christianity is the Pope. he represents approximately 50% of all Christians. he won't allow women in leadership roles. or how about the eastern Christian patriarchs? they won't allow it either.
your analogy doesn't work since the leadership of the majority of Christians marginalize women.
that's Muslim not christian.
If that is true than why in Muslim countries women are still not allowed to drive or many other basic societal functions and gays are still thrown off of roofs or burned?
I'm not reaching I'm trying to explain it to u and thought u might understand an atheist analogy best.
that's a section of a group. like most political parties main group of people are the grass roots. though they don't embody the party the canidate does.
you are really reaching. first of all atheists are not one group. atheist means you don't have a belief, they are not a group that is unified by anything.
secondly if you can prove that the majority of a group has one characteristic then it is not unreasonable to characterize the group as such.
ok let me put this a diff. way. let's say a group of atheist believe a certain thing that not all do and there majority. then since they act stupidly they blow up a church. would u say all atheist are hateful vengeful people who should be crushed. also on a personal note I don't judge someone by the religion or lack thereof. would u say atheist make up ur saying entire life? I judge them by there character and actions. and before u start talking about crusades is there even a single person alive that was in there? no so why would that matter. if u went then ignore this part
if you could prove that the large majority of atheists are jerks then I would be comfortable with you categorizing atheists as jerks. however since that isn't true and would be impossible to prove, it is entirely irrelevant. it is established fact that the majority of Christian women are marginalized in their religion. no matter what small factions of Christians believe, that is the norm for the majority of Christians.
I would say it more fair to say Catholics marginalize women not christians. if most atheist are jerks should I say all atheist are jerks?
again. I don't know what sect you are from. but your group only represents a tiny fraction of Christians. the majority of Christians women are marginalized in their religion. it is fair to say that is the Christian norm.
Catholic practically have their own religion. I'm talking about the rest. we don't have a pope. we don't say fifty same prayers and we don't marginalize women
catholics make up half of all Christians. there are many other sects that have the same discrimination such as eastern Orthodox. so the majority of Christian women are marginalized and barred from any leadership role.
not Christian.idk Catholic.
But it is fair to say that the majority of christian women are marginalized and have little to no say on their religion. They are barred from any kind of leadership role based solely on their gender.
Women are still highly influential. Holy Orders are sacraments for men. Communion is exclusive for catholics in a state of grace. Yes, things are exclusive in the Church. But we see women and we see a different call. Mary the mother of God is one of the most influential women in history. Mother Theresa is one of the most influential women in the church.
Murder isn't a moral platitude.
that might be true with Catholics but not Christians. anyone can be at the top. no matter what.
no and no
That's is exactly the problem. The tradition is to marginalize women. Women cannot have a voice in the upper levels of the church. Do you believe that tradition best serves all of society? If we took that moral philosophy and applied it to government, would you agree that barring women from public office was alright since it is traditional (as it was at one point)?
I agree but would also say that we are not supposed to do that. they went outside there role of Christians and did that. Jesus literally says to love all and a Psalms that I can remember says to not judge and we won't be judged.
There have been many gay people beaten and/or killed by Christians for being gay. I know that not all Christians do this, but you can hardly claim that the religious morals benefited the people being beaten to death.
u actually know ur stuff.:-) u agree with the middle and add we believe it's a sin but like all sins a) it can be forgiven and b) we will not force our faith down ur throats. that goes agaisnt free will
Women cannot be priests because that is not the religious tradition. There is nothing wrong with tradition. Priests are definitionally male.
The Church is against homosexuality. The Church doesnt monitor what you do in your own confines, you do. The church does seek to protect your soul; however, your soul is in your own hands. Also sex is a major part of marriage. A male and female may sin just as gravely outside of the confines of marriage.
For christians meat during lent is sacrificial (modern diets have change ill admit). Many of the kosher laws were meant to keep people safe and have a harmonious society.
Not when those religious moral philosophies discriminate against people or groups.
Why can women not be Catholic priests?
Why does the church care what two men or women do in private?
Why are certain foods forbidden?
On the whole I think religions are beneficial to the world. They encourage generosity and discourage mistreating people. There are, however, almost always aspects of faiths that are damaging to society or at least needlessly restrictive.
Nobody has an issue with muslims. We dont like terrorists. If a muslim is not a terrorist, theyre an average joe.
What is wrong with religion? Would the world not be better if everyone had children while married? Are the moral philosophies of religion not beneficial to society?
dude the real insults will get u no where. they don't help ur argument and makes it actually more hollow.
no I'm not stupid and no it does not. politics and religion are two different things. I'm guessing ur atheist would u say that's why ur atheist? no u agree with there plans not a certain religion or not.
neveralone, being christian has everything to do with political beliefs. are you stupid? most of the reasons that republican politicians use to defend or support something include "well god said..."
and muslims dont have racist views, thats just white americans in general.
jack, learn to read. i never said all republicans were christians, i said most republicans are christian. MOST, which is true. if you look at the facts, only 30% of democrat supporters are christian whereas 56% of republicans are. muslims dont hold more sexist, more homophobic views, if you knew anything about the bible, you would know that the bible and quran have the same views on "sexism' and "homophobia".
the only legit arguement you have i guess is that christians and muslims have been beefing for centuries.
what does being Christian have to do with my political beliefs?I could just as easily vite for a Democrat than a Republican. u need to give more facts than generalizing a whole party
1. It is a stereotype in itself to believe all republicans are Christians or all Christians are republicans.
2. The battle between Christians and Muslims have gone on for 1500 years and these new Islamic extrimists gives them another reason to hate them.
3. I think it's hilarious liberals or feminists or social justice warriors or whatever defend Muslims and hate Christians despite Muslims actually having more sexist, racist, and homophobic views.
Most republicana are strong christians who believe in being pro-life, are against drug decriminalisation, the sanctity of marriage, God, and a strong family structure etc etc. these views are all the same as islam and what muslims believe. Most muslims would actually probably be Republican supporters if the Republicans weremt hell-bent on getting rid of them. are they just stupid or do they really not see how closely their beliefs are? muslims are actually closer in belief to republicans than they are with democrats.