[quote]Chushin wrote:
We’ve had a fucking TV cartoon censored. [/quote]
Which one would that be?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< You will have to point out where the Bible says David Koresh is not a Christian, I know it would make your argument easier if it did .
There are Radicals practicing Islam and there are Radicals practicing Christianity. Do you see the difference :)?[/quote]Galatians 1:8-9 '“8-But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9-As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” I could bury you in biblical evidence if you really cared along with mountains of documentation on Koresh demonstrating to any non brain damaged individual that whatever else that abomination he was running down there was, it was not Christian in any way that even a community college comparative religions professor would recognize.
He did not practice Christianity. He practiced Koresh-ianity and pasted disastrously tortured bible passages and concepts on top of it. Do YOU see the difference.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
We’ve had a fucking TV cartoon censored. [/quote]
Which one would that be?[/quote]
Yeah, right.
Pardon my sceptiscm that you “honestly” don’t know… [/quote]
Forgiven if you answer the question. I’m an avid consumer of American TV cartoon, and I haven’t heard of any such shows subjected to government censorship. Wikileaks are not in the TV cartoon business as far as I know.
But if you meant censored by the media organization, then there’s even more things censorship as a result of lobbying by Christians than there is by Muslims.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Islamic people are not supposed to try and convert you.[/quote]
Perfectly written. They are not supposed to try and convert you. They are to convert you or kill you.[/quote]
Not if you are Jewish or Christian they are not.[/quote]
That’s not correct. They attempt coversion, by force if need be.
What they will do is permit “people of the book” to live as dhmini (under the “dominion”). That is, you are allowed to live, but are not a full citizen, your testimony doesn’t matter in court, have limited civil rights, and have to pay a jizya — or a special, additional, tax penalty for being Christian or Jewish.
Eventually they make dhminni status so unbearable and the jizya tax so high, you either flee or convert.
It’s all about subjugation.[/quote]
And of course the Jews and Christians never ever throughout history ever mistreated people of other beliefs. [/quote]
So that is your philosophy. Because our Christian forefathers may have done some bad things in the past, we have to pay for it now in the present and our children should be made to suffer for it in the future.
[quote]
Look, as I keep saying, one set of paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago holds about as much water with me as another. They are all as ludicrous to me therefore arguing over which is the most ridiculous is kind of pointless. That said, if your laws state that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, then you don’t get to complain when those rights that protected your faith in the past now protect someone else’s.[/quote]
The scary thing about this is there are a lot of people like you in Britain. People who have no clue. You think that this is a matter of muslims on one side, Christians on the other and that as an atheist you are a neutral party in the middle. What you fail to grasp is that while the koran teaches that Christians are following god the wrong way it does allow that they can be coerced into islam through use of the jizya. Atheists like you on the other hand are an entirely different matter. Because to them what is worse than following god the wrong way like a Christian is to not believe in or follow god at all.
As you have stated here because of your lack of belief you have absolutely no idea how or why anyone would read a holy book and believe in or take any of it seriously because you think it is all “paranoid delusional rantings”. So when your muslim friends tells you they don’t take certain parts of the koran seriously (ie it’s OK to lie to nonbelievers, and they should be killed) you are all too willing to believe them.
So tell us what did your muslim friends say when you told them that you think the koran is nothing more that “ludicrous” “ridiculous” “paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago” that are not worth arguing over?[/quote]
LOL. Being the true Muslims that they were, they probably slew him by the one true God! thus cleansing the world of the infidel. Which doesn’t explain his posting history between then and now, but whatever.[/quote]
My guess would be that he keeps his mouth shut and doesn’t say anything.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
There are Radicals practicing Islam and there are Radicals practicing Christianity. Do you see the difference :)?[/quote]
Yes there is a difference.
Radicals practicing Christianity are not practicing Christianity. The Bible makes it clear to Love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. The Bible is also clear that Jesus was without Sin. If David Koresh was to have been Jesus as he claims he would have been without sin. David Koresh was having sex with 12-14 year old girls.
Radicals practicing Islam are practicing what the Koran teaches.
Pitt you are comparing apples to oranges. You are smarter than this, or you are drinking and typing again. If you have not read the Bible or the Koran you really need to stop talking about them.[/quote]
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/25.html
It would make your argument easy if I were not to question anything you say but both religions
have their KOOK factor.
[/quote]
This is typical liberal equivication. You point out that both religions have there share of kooks but then leave it there as if that is all there needs to be said on the matter. Because to take a more thorough study as to the how and why would reveal that there is not equivalence.
The new testament has multiple entries dealing with Jesus’ aggravations and frustrations in dealing with the pharisees, who were the fanatical, ultra religious priests in the temple. The kind of religious fanaticism where one would believe they could serve god by killing is something that Jesus was against.
You cannot say the same thing about islam. Muhammad did a lot of killing for god and the people following him did a lot of killing for him too. Fanaticism is one of the main tenets of islam.
The similarity is this. Both religions produce kooks through fanaticism.
The difference is islam teaches that killing for god is a good thing and encourages fanaticism. While Chritisanity discourages violence and in the crucifiction of Jesus has a cautionary tale of religious fanaticism resulting in violence againt an innocent person.
[quote]
The anti Islam movement comes from someone that is benefiting from the fear they create . I personally think it is the Christian faction of the republican party. [/quote]
That is bullshit. We are in a clash of civilizations that has been going on for over a thousand years. Our freedom and our way of life are threatened by islam. This is a very real danger not some made up fear created by a political party.
[quote]
I am not an atheist but if some one does not believe in God the all religion is quackery. [/quote]
Just because one is an atheist it does exclude them from being able to understand the values or philosophies of a religion that can be beneficial or detrimental or even applying some of them in their own lives.
[quote]pat wrote:
There is no win in this situation. I don’t really want the mosque there either, but if I am to support liberty and freedom as I do, I must just deal with it and not like it. Being a true supporter of liberty means you have to put up with shit you don’t like. I don’t like it, but I won’t trump freedom to stop it.
However, if it does become a hub for illegal or terrorist activity of any kind, it should be shut down pronto. [/quote]
Oh, how I wish the Pope would decide to build something there.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]
Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]
I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]
I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.
BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]
Just because they build it does not mean we can not picket outside of the building, and scream at the people that are going in there. Maybe that Baptist church can show up and do it for us.[/quote]
Actually it does, I’ve had a few times this year where I called the cops to eject protesters outside my church. Freedom of speech is that the government can’t shut you down, not that private citizens can’t shut you down on their land.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]
If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.
Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution. [/quote]
President Lincoln, was the last president to declare a day of fasting for the nation…
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]
Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]
I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]
I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.
BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]
Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?
I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]
Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]
This is equivalent of saying the government can’t reject a religion just because we do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed. We can and have.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]
If you look at the history of why this was done, The King in England was also the head of the Chruch. Using Religion to control the masses IMO is wrong.
Separation of church and state is not there to give you freedom from religion. I am a Christian as most of us know. If I became President, I would still pray everyday for the Lord to give me wisdom. Does this mean the chruch is over my decistions? No. Will I make the USA bow down to the Pope, or force the Country to give 10% of the tax revenue to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization? No. Your idea of Separation of Church and State is rather distorted. It is what secular people would think, but that was not the intent of that part of the Constitution. [/quote]
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.[/quote]
Eh…maybe.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Islamic people are not supposed to try and convert you.[/quote]
Perfectly written. They are not supposed to try and convert you. They are to convert you or kill you.[/quote]
Not if you are Jewish or Christian they are not.[/quote]
That’s not correct. They attempt coversion, by force if need be.
What they will do is permit “people of the book” to live as dhmini (under the “dominion”). That is, you are allowed to live, but are not a full citizen, your testimony doesn’t matter in court, have limited civil rights, and have to pay a jizya — or a special, additional, tax penalty for being Christian or Jewish.
Eventually they make dhminni status so unbearable and the jizya tax so high, you either flee or convert.
It’s all about subjugation.[/quote]
And of course the Jews and Christians never ever throughout history ever mistreated people of other beliefs. [/quote]
So that is your philosophy. Because our Christian forefathers may have done some bad things in the past, we have to pay for it now in the present and our children should be made to suffer for it in the future.
[quote]
Look, as I keep saying, one set of paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago holds about as much water with me as another. They are all as ludicrous to me therefore arguing over which is the most ridiculous is kind of pointless. That said, if your laws state that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, then you don’t get to complain when those rights that protected your faith in the past now protect someone else’s.[/quote]
The scary thing about this is there are a lot of people like you in Britain. People who have no clue. You think that this is a matter of muslims on one side, Christians on the other and that as an atheist you are a neutral party in the middle. What you fail to grasp is that while the koran teaches that Christians are following god the wrong way it does allow that they can be coerced into islam through use of the jizya. Atheists like you on the other hand are an entirely different matter. Because to them what is worse than following god the wrong way like a Christian is to not believe in or follow god at all.
As you have stated here because of your lack of belief you have absolutely no idea how or why anyone would read a holy book and believe in or take any of it seriously because you think it is all “paranoid delusional rantings”. So when your muslim friends tells you they don’t take certain parts of the koran seriously (ie it’s OK to lie to nonbelievers, and they should be killed) you are all too willing to believe them.
So tell us what did your muslim friends say when you told them that you think the koran is nothing more that “ludicrous” “ridiculous” “paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago” that are not worth arguing over?[/quote]
Wondered when you would rock up to give everyone the benefit of your narrow minded invective. [/quote]
So because I have taken the time to do my own studying of islam and come up with my own ideas, they are narrow minded invective because I don’t agree with liberal dogma that is derived from selecting the bits of the quran they like, ignoring the nasty bits and combining it with a highly selective editing of history. You Guardianista’s are something else.
[quote]
Again, you are totally missing the point. I don’t see it as Christians against Muslims with Atheists in the middle. I see two groups fighting both of which include a mixture of religious extremists, religious moderates, agnostics and atheists. Religion is just an easy way to whip the masses into a frenzy. [/quote]
Two groups? Are you serious? I mean out of the muslim atheists are there shiite muslim atheists and sunni muslim atheists or are they nondenominational so they all just get together five times a day to face east, beat their head against the floor and chant “yea atheism”?
[quote]
I have openly told Muslim friends that I am atheist and don’t believe any of what they believe. Funnily I haven’t had to go any further with them because they just accept it and change the topic. Unlike my Christian friends who typically start calling me crazy for thinking that we decended from Monkeys, telling me how empty my life must be and then telling me they will pray for me.[/quote]
Oh yeah they think your kuffar ass is going straight to hell and don’t even bother saying anything else becaue you are a lost cause! 
To your christian friends you should point out to them that even the Vatican has accepted Darwin and that creation comes from Genesis which is the beginning of the OLD testament.
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
We’ve had a fucking TV cartoon censored. [/quote]
Which one would that be?[/quote]
South Park. Comedy Central chose to censor the Mohammad episode after the creators of the show were essentially threatened by revolutionmuslim.com
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]
Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]
I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]
I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.
BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]
Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?
I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]
Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]
Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.
What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.
[/quote]
We have no right to stop someone building a temple to Bael, if they are planning to kill people without their consent in that temple we have a right to step in.
Personally, I think that if the virgins are consenting and of an age where they can make their own decisions then we should let them (though there should be careful investigation that it truly is free will) in practice the current laws of the US would block this.
[/quote]
Who in the right mind kills themselves? That’s right, No one, so free will doesn’t even play in here.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And Muslims would argue that you are misreading the Koran or using bad translations. Also, in the Bible there are horrific practices condoned or encouraged.
[/quote]
I read the koran in arabic. It’s express. They could “argue,” but they would be lying.
Point out which of the 613 Mitzva (the commands, positive and negative) in the Torah that you deem “horrific.”
Here’s the list:
I am not going to get into breaking down religions on this thread, that is not what it was about. We have gone over this kind of thing on lots of other threads. If you want to start it up again, start a new thread and I will happily join in because comparative religion is a very interesting subject.
I don’t want to hijack this thread which is about the freedom (or otherwise) to build a religious building of any denomination anywhere.[/quote]
People do not have the right to build anywhere they please. Only where they can.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Hmm…a Mosque in Ground zero? Have we not learned anything?[/quote]
What were we supposed to learn ? [/quote]
To me, it would be disrespectful to place a Mosque at GROUND ZERO. If you know or love anyone that had anything to do with the twin towers, especially ones that passed its disrespectful. Its disrespectful to glorify ground zero with a Mosque which terorrists associate themselves with. I know most Muslims don’t associate themselves with extremist views, but to me putting a Mosque at ground zero would be like saying " Sorry if we offended you, heres a tribute to your religion!" I have absoulutely no problem with Muslims and their religous choices (the non-extremist ones) you can believe what you want. If you wanna build a mosque in honor of 911…put it somewhere else, not ground zero.
Building a mosque in that honor shows America honors many religions and Honors the “good” Isalm practice…but you can find somewhere else to put it. Not somewhere that a tragedy occurred that will remind many people of who and what attacked. [/quote]
I think the issue is that the Muslims did not attack us any more than the Christians attacked us at Oklahoma city. We were attacked by terrorists [/quote]
Oklahoma City? Seriously. You consider those Christians. I think Christians need to actually start handing out pamphlets to let heathens know what Christians are so you know just because someone says they are something, they can still tell if they are just pulling the wool over their eyes.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the issue is that the Muslims did not attack us any more than the Christians attacked us at Oklahoma city. We were attacked by terrorists [/quote]
I wasn’t aware that Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing “God’s work”, that he did what he did in the name of Christianity, or that many Christians supported his actions.
Did I miss something, or is your comparison fatally flawed?[/quote]
Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh’s stated his relgion was “science.” His writings were filled with typical anti-Christian and anti-Jewish scribblings.
Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh stated his religion was “science” and filled his writings with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rantings.
Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh was an atheist. When asked what his religion he said “science.”
Actually he was raised a catholic and did think he was being guided by an unseen hand so the comparison is entirely valid.
By the way, everyone here is aware that it was not just White, Republican, Christian Americans that were killed on 9/11. Possibly that fact escaped you all.[/quote]
[/quote]
Actually he stated that he was agnostic though he felt that everything that happened was guided by a higher power. Not surprisingly for someone that was able to do what he did he was a bit all over the place. But then again, the guys who flew planes into the twin towers were also most likely a teensy bit unhinged.
The Anti Jewish stuff was definitely there, he was a white supremacist after all.[/quote]
Lawl. There is so much shady shit about OKC, that I won’t even make a comment.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Islamic people are not supposed to try and convert you.[/quote]
Perfectly written. They are not supposed to try and convert you. They are to convert you or kill you.[/quote]
Not if you are Jewish or Christian they are not.[/quote]
That’s not correct. They attempt coversion, by force if need be.
What they will do is permit “people of the book” to live as dhmini (under the “dominion”). That is, you are allowed to live, but are not a full citizen, your testimony doesn’t matter in court, have limited civil rights, and have to pay a jizya — or a special, additional, tax penalty for being Christian or Jewish.
Eventually they make dhminni status so unbearable and the jizya tax so high, you either flee or convert.
It’s all about subjugation.[/quote]
And of course the Jews and Christians never ever throughout history ever mistreated people of other beliefs.
Look, as I keep saying, one set of paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago holds about as much water with me as another. They are all as ludicrous to me therefore arguing over which is the most ridiculous is kind of pointless. That said, if your laws state that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, then you don’t get to complain when those rights that protected your faith in the past now protect someone else’s.[/quote]
As someone who is a religious studies guy, you sure aren’t very objective.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]lixy wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
We’ve had a fucking TV cartoon censored. [/quote]
Which one would that be?[/quote]
South Park. Comedy Central chose to censor the Mohammad episode after the creators of the show were essentially threatened by revolutionmuslim.com[/quote]
Comedy Central caved on re-airing the “Bloody Mary” episode too. It’s a matter of bottomline, not censorship. Based upon the official motives, the best description would be self-censorship. But it’s not so hard to figure out that the drama was engineered to create a buzz and attract viewers.
It’s a win-win. The terrorists win. The sponsors of the show win. The Muslims get to see how nice and respectful the Americans are. The anti-Muslim crowd get to show this as further proof of the Islamization of America. Everybody’s happy.
The only potential loss is that of freedom of speech. But it ain’t so because it’s a private company’s decision.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Islamic people are not supposed to try and convert you.[/quote]
Perfectly written. They are not supposed to try and convert you. They are to convert you or kill you.[/quote]
Not if you are Jewish or Christian they are not.[/quote]
That’s not correct. They attempt coversion, by force if need be.
What they will do is permit “people of the book” to live as dhmini (under the “dominion”). That is, you are allowed to live, but are not a full citizen, your testimony doesn’t matter in court, have limited civil rights, and have to pay a jizya — or a special, additional, tax penalty for being Christian or Jewish.
Eventually they make dhminni status so unbearable and the jizya tax so high, you either flee or convert.
It’s all about subjugation.[/quote]
And of course the Jews and Christians never ever throughout history ever mistreated people of other beliefs.
Look, as I keep saying, one set of paranoid delusional rantings written down over a thousand years ago holds about as much water with me as another. They are all as ludicrous to me therefore arguing over which is the most ridiculous is kind of pointless. That said, if your laws state that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, then you don’t get to complain when those rights that protected your faith in the past now protect someone else’s.[/quote]
Catholics already apologized.