Poor trump - Page 9

@Prager, why move the goalposts? Is it to deflect from Trump's unmanly, bigoted and unpatriotic remarks? Did I say anything about radical Muslims? Who said it's OK for Muslims to commit atrocities because Christians did in the past? Yes, we all know that radical Muslims are tied to terrorism and the mistreatment of women. Thanks for telling us what we already know. Women in the West have it better than women under Islam. We know that too. It doesn't change what is in the Old Testament. Also, Christianity isn't responsible for women having it better in the West. Liberalism is the reason why.

For whatever reason you want to argue about the evils of Sharia law but do you see anyone defending it? What are you looking to achieve? Or are you trying to show us all how smart you are since you can throw out a few facts about Islam?

Prager said, " And even if there would be such action practiced by Christians ( and it is not) then that does not excuse radical Islamist actions,... and that is what we are talking about."

No, you are the only one talking about that. No one else mentioned excusing any actions. Well, accept you. You are excusing Trump's actions by saying he told the truth or what could "seem" like the truth. Hmmmm, who is known to tell things that "seem" like the truth? Fascists.


"Hans: the facts above describe Hilary pay scheduler is for equal work for man and women. She is epitome of hypocrisy."

Uh, you do know that two people can do the same work but if one has been at the job longer they probably get paid more? There are things called raises.

Prager's cut & paste is AN interpretation of the situation as to whether people "favour making Sharia law official in their country", but relies on figures from those countries which already have Islamic status or majorities. And anyway, like lots of theoretical religious and quasi - religious questions, it depends exactly what you are asking, and how you ask it. And there are debates and different viewpoints WITHIN those communities, just as there are in the christian version. All I can tell you, Hans, is that I am used to liberal Muslim women, speaking publically about their faith in Britain (as they seem unable to do in whichever country your one 'Hindu' example lives), who argue that they are not, and women need not, be bound by some of the ancient and outmoded cultural interpretations of Islamic or Sharia 'laws'; in which case, one should not use broad generalisations like Mrs Khan "not (being) allowed to speak ...which seems true because it goes with code of Sharia where women are not allowed to" (quoting you). Especially not to back an argument that in effect calls that particular woman a liar.

• And it wasn't because of Christianity that women got the right to vote but rather it was part of the social changes during the Progressive Era. So women in the West aren't treated better because of Christianity but in spite of it.
• Also, Christianity isn't responsible for women having it better in the West. Liberalism is the reason why.

~Noitsyou

I just want to revisit these statements as I don't think they are historically accurate. I did a little research. If anyone cares to understand the intertwining of events of the groups and clubs formed by mostly white, homemaker, married women, at the turn of the century that drove reforms of the Progressive movement, which really sought to address the appalling labor issues, this link is very informative: https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/progressiveera/wctu.html

 

What is being left out is the role of the Christian Temperance Union and the Woman's Rights Movement that predates the Clubwomen of the GFWC:

•  In 1874, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was founded. Under the leadership of Frances Willard, the WCTU became the most powerful women’s organization in the late nineteenth-century. At one time, it united 150,000 dues-paying members. Although its focus was on temperance, under the leadership of Willard, the WCTU advocated a variety of social reforms, including woman suffrage.
• The woman suffrage movement actually began in 1848, when the first women’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls, New York.

 

It should be noted as well, that "Liberalism" as used by Noitsyou, and to be fair, should also include "Conservatism" have not remained static through the eras, and using them as such can make understanding it all, well, a bit confusing if the timeline isn't acknowledged properly.

 

 

Breaking news: Trump to drop out of race. lmao.

  Really????? I gotta turn on my TV!!!

You are pulling on my leg, apparently! 

@beetree, just because people in Christian groups are for something it doesn't follow that Christianity is behind it. Slavery is not outlawed in the Bible. Most abolitionists were Christians and they believed that slavery was in line with Christian values. However, that belief which goes against what is written in the Bible is a reflection of the influence of liberalism on Christianity. Human rights are not an issue that the Bible addresses. The ancient Greeks on the other hand did address that issue. Once members of the Catholic church started to study the ancient Greeks those Greek ideas influenced Christian thought.

Look at it this way, if Christianity was in favor of women's suffrage, was abolitionist, was for labor rights, etc., the why, for most of its history were Christians against those things? Why were Christians against one another on those issues?

Were women treated differently in pre-Christian Europe vs post- Christian Europe? One could argue that women had more freedom in ancient Rome and Greece vs Christianized Europe. What I'm getting at is that the West doesn't treat women better than in the ME and predominantly Islamic countries because of Christianity. The difference in treatment goes back further than that. In some ways Europeans and their descendants in other westernized nations are lucky. The liberal beliefs and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans became part of our DNA in a way. Once Christianity took hold it couldn't quite "breed it out" of us. Had that happened we would look more like the Islamic world. One reason for the conditions in the ME is the fact that they rejected Greek learning even though they had access to it before the West. They are the ones who reintroduced it to the West. Islam was able to overcome it where Christianity was not. And we are better for it.

It is interesting though that advancement of women was made possible in Christian based countries more then any other country with different religion. Your argument is just done for argument's sake and has no basis in facts. Can you show me non christian majority nation who promoted the women's rights more?

noitsyou:
Who said it's OK for Muslims to commit atrocities because Christians did in the past?

Hans :
You have .;)

It sad that it had to be fought hard for, I think you are forgetting the struggle.

@Prager, Christian based countries? They weren't always Christian. Are you saying the ancient Greeks and Romans, let's add in the Vikings too, treated their women worse than how they get treated in Islamic nations? Boadicea led an army against the Romans. Again, you want to move the goalposts. I said that women were treated better in Europe even before it was Christianized. Women's rights? LOL. The concept of rights doesn't even exist in Christianity.

As far as your other post: you are a liar. Yes, a liar. You are also a coward. Everyone here can see that I never said that. You say it because you have no problem with lies. Maybe it's a communist thing. On your forum, if I called you on one of your many lies or pointed out something that wasn't true, you could delete my posts or even ban me. You can't do that here so you have to face the music, or run away. Keep in mind you, the guy who thinks he is more American than natural born Americans and smarter than natural born Americans, posted news stories you thought were true only to have me point out that they were from satirical news sites. So your ability to think critically and discern fact from fiction is suspect. I mean, the sites actually stated they were satirical if you bothered to take a few seconds to read more than a headline which fit your narrative. Again, maybe your communist upbringing didn't include learning how to question things like information sources. If you were told it, it was true. If you read it, it was true.

You are a coward because you can't just stick to the facts but have to lie when you argue. You can't admit you were wrong so you have to "win" using lies because only a liar and a weak minded coward would call that type of victory a "win."

A while ago you said to me, in a threatening way, to be careful who I called a coward. Well, I am calling you one. And if you think I'm scared of an obese crippled senior citizen you would be wrong. Remember, I wore the uniform of my country while you sat on your couch in your dirty clothes eating doughnuts because you shot yourself.

Is this a personal attack? I would say that accusing someone of justifying atrocities is a personal attack.