Palestinian does not equal HAMAS

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels

What evidence do you have that the US is getting more religiously extreme?

I would say its the other way around...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I agree. I remember the 50s.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels

So you ARE saying that a non-religious person needs to represent their religious constituents so they need to adapt their belief system?

As you expect a religious person to do for their non-religious constituents?

Your questions make no sense... For example, if a congressperson is not religious but 98% of the voters who voted them into office are and want to ban abortion how should the congressperson vote?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Actually, you do understand as you illustrate my point perfectly.

The proposition proposed to me is that it's bad for a religious person to be in office because that persons belief system will inform their votes.

Im returning the proposition that non-religious persons should become 'religious' then to serve a religious constituency.

I gave the population of various groups.

To answer your question: along the belief system of the majority of people in their constituency. In your scenario, the non-religious representative would vote to ban abortion.

a reply to: BiothermalReactor

This is very true. I know many Arab families are wonderful. Food too...it's just the negatives their youths are brought up with...then they go radical. Absolutely not all..most all the nicest people.

Just sayin'...

Dearborn, MI

a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Palestinians support Hamas. You're either willfully ignorant or stupid.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Insurrectile

So you ARE saying that a non-religious person needs to represent their religious constituents so they need to adapt their belief system?

As you expect a religious person to do for their non-religious constituents?

And now we have a great example for arguments in bad faith.

This is ridiculous, but it must be fun at a party. Your place or mine?

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Then what’s the difference?

How can you tell them apart?

Wait so in your myopic view all Palestinians are Hamas because Hamas won an election?

Or do you care to just not take the time to make the distinction between the two?

With that line of thinking then we are all Biden supporters. Hamas has more in common with a prison gang than a legitimate government. Acting like they have any autonomy is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Israel had the opportunity to use the Oct 7th tragedy to unite people around the globe to their cause possibly resulting in some sort of meaningful resolution. Instead Israel decided to take the sadist approach instantly loosing the support of millions around the globe.

Zionism is a cancer just like Wahhabism.

The mental gymnastics from people trying to justify collective punishment against women and children is repugnant. I hope these people at least have the decency to admit what side they were on when our grandchildren ask who they supported when the largest mass murder of our generation was occurring.

We didn't differentiate between Germans and Nazi's in WWII.

originally posted by: orbhunter
a reply to: BiothermalReactor

Many Palestinian's are normal people like everyone else. Outside of Gaza.

Two million plus brainwashed Hamas educated and trained Jihadi's.

I can agree 50% of what you say here.

I agree that those innocent noncombatant civilians living in (free) Palestine are living very different lives than those innocent noncombatant civilians living under HAMAS oppressive rule(they have the guns) even to this day. HAMAS must be forcing everyone they can to pick up weapons and engage the invading IDF.

I disagree that everyone in Gaza are self declared militant Jihadi terrorists. Would you, respectfully, provide a source with data to this end?

I disagree that everyone in Gaza is expendable.

I disagree that fighting to the last HAMAS is going to keep Israel safe.

I believe the fight to the last HAMAS will only do what such things have always done, gloriously inspire rivers of new terrorist cell recruits of every generation, insuring revenge violence for generations to come.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels

The proposition proposed to me is that it's bad for a religious person to be in office because that persons belief system will inform their votes.

So as a non-religious person what sets your morals and values? I'm not religious and I don't necessarily support abortions and I know a good many religious people that have had abortions, so this isn't a Black and White situation. I have typically found religious people around me to have a better moral foundation than others who were not religious.

You can't remove religion because it's a part that makes us human, so if you snapped your fingers and it disappeared we would no longer be human.

Do I think a religious person would be more of a constitutionalist, you are damn right, and I would vote them in on that alone.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Im fascinated by that topic and question.

Where do aetheist get there value system from?


Also:

If your value system conflicts with the legal system, how far does the system need to bend?

As a former aetheist but not a theist, its a thought provoking topic.


IMHO its dependant upon what social society one wishes to live in.

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

I agree that those innocent noncombatant civilians living in (free) Palestine are living very different lives than those innocent noncombatant civilians living under HAMAS oppressive rule(they have the guns) even to this day. HAMAS must be forcing everyone they can to pick up weapons and engage the invading IDF.

I disagree that everyone in Gaza are self declared militant Jihadi terrorists. Would you, respectfully, provide a source with data to this end?

What do you call it when the social norms are built on hating Jews on a level they want to kill them all? From a very young age kids are taught in the Moquse to hate Jews and to kill a Jew or die trying is a fast pass to Heaven. They have provided cartoons, children's shows, summer camps, etc to teach kids to kill and hate Jews.




So we are talking many layers here and I think the word "innocent" is incorrectly used and maybe just say "noncombatant civilians".

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels

The proposition proposed to me is that it's bad for a religious person to be in office because that persons belief system will inform their votes.

You can't remove religion because it's a part that makes us human, so if you snapped your fingers and it disappeared we would no longer be human.

You're stating this as a fact?

Because you will have a hard time convincing any medical association that RELIGION is critical to being a human being.

If you are stating this a fact, you would be denying most of, if not, all of the medical record.



Are you stating, as a fact or as your opinion, that everyone who has ever dissociated from organized religious congregation, is somehow less human than those from whom they distance themselves who remain congregated?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xtrozero

If your value system conflicts with the legal system, how far does the system need to bend?

It's a no-brainer actually and extends to all religions: as it follows the 1st amendment, you know "treat others as you would like to be treated"

kindergarden stuff, I'm afraid.

It's a shame that some are exempt from contempt thereof, so to speak.

originally posted by: JinMI

Im fascinated by that topic and question.

Where do aetheist get there value system from?


Also:

If your value system conflicts with the legal system, how far does the system need to bend?

As a former aetheist but not a theist, its a thought provoking topic.


IMHO its dependant upon what social society one wishes to live in.

Morals and values are mostly driven by social norms and religion can mold social norms to some degree. The problem I have is looking at humans in the past when religion was absent. Things go wrong really fast... The most horrendous events in human history where we were truly evil were non-religious based.

Then you have times of pure evil when religion was used as a front, but the true event was power and politically driven where actions were not really religious outside of humans manipulating religion for their own desires.

The main reason why religion is good is most mainstream religions have good fundamental morals built into them, what this provides is when things get all out of wack there is still a foundation to fall back on to course correct.

What does a group use to course correct if they have nothing? You get events like what communism has done in Russia and China, things like Pol Pot, these extremist views we see today in America that seem to just keep spiraling out of control. The Trans Female with a beard who has decided they are also a lesbian now, how do you come back from that...lol

a reply to: BiothermalReactor

It's a no-brainer actually and extends to all religions: as it follows the 1st amendment, you know "treat others as you would like to be treated"

Were it a no brainer and kindergarten stuff, as you claim, it wouldn't be worth discussing nor pointing out various arguments and positions...yet here we are.

It's a shame that some are exempt from contempt thereof, so to speak.

What's a shame lack of intellect and honesty being represented in your postings.....

a reply to: Xtrozero


What you describe is a lack of morals and values. A system of beliefs, and they need not be religious per say, that ground someone or bring them back from stretching too far.

You don't come back from it if you have nothing to derive from, thus why I find the conversation and topic so fascinating.

originally posted by: BiothermalReactor

You're stating this as a fact?

Because you will have a hard time convincing any medical association that RELIGION is critical to being a human being.

If you are stating this a fact, you would be denying most of, if not, all of the medical record.

Wow did I push a button, or what?

It's a fact... To remove religion would be to remove humans' ability to think in the abstract. We not only think in the abstract but we spend most of our time there. We are there right now in the conversation. Everything around you was once an abstract thought, we can abstractly create anything, and much of it we can bring into the real world like 30 elements, math, and concepts like space and time. Religion is a byproduct of all that too, so to pop religion out of everyone's head would be the end of abstract thinking and the end of what we see as human.

a reply to: JinMI

Are you just playing devil's advocate here?