Democrat Ilhan Omar wins Minnesota House race

I really have no intention of delving into Christianity.
I know Christianity completely eliminates the punishments of the Old, and the religion takes a whole new meaning.
I don't recall the last time we had a Christian stoning.
I got out of it in my teenage years, and did a conversion to a Japanese Buddhism.
Long since got out of that.
Now my only religious readings are Islam.

 

Just a question. Ever wonder how many politicians have dual citizenship; say like Irish-American?

 

Of course you can be wrong and you are. It sure doesn’t seem to upset individuals like yourself if others who are “Christian” do not denounce their religion. Or better yet, they allow their “Christian” beliefs to enter into their policy driven actions. So yes you are wrong. Hypocrite!

 

while I am all for separation of church and state.

I would much rather a person put Christian belief's into their policies, than Muslim belief's.

 

As stated. Hypocrite.
You make them less of a citizen and you find and want it something acceptable.
Your hatred of your fellow citizens is noted.

 

Well........I did think about it........but the same defense of religion applies.

What if it had been Atheist France and Spain and Ireland?

Tell me that things would have been different.

The national interests of these players were at stake........and be they Catholic, Protestant, Pagan, Jew or Muslim.......

OR totally without any religion at all--they would cut each other's throats to become stronger and more secure.

So tell me how I'm wrong.

 

Your own revised scenario suggests that you know that you're off-base.

People use religion; I agree with you on that. But it's there to be used. It's absence--your scenarios---would change that.

 

This is correct.

It's the same with Nazis or Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or any tightly knit group.......It's hard for the moderates to moderate the others.........very hard because it often becomes a traumatic choice.......the radicals will shun you or kill you--and shunning still happens in religious families and causes much heartbreak.

I know Fundy Christians who no longer believe any of the crap taught in their churches but keep going to those churches because if they quit it would destroy their family.

Most of us would have just gone along with the Nazi plan rather than choose to die and have our families die.......so criticizing others for doing it is dishonest to the extreme.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I don't see how........would not the national interests be exactly the same and thus the aggressive actions be the same?

Religion or no religion.......the Atheist Irish would have to be crushed to strengthen England to protect against the Atheist enemies Spain and France if there was the possibility of an Atheist alliance of the three.

 

Minnesota, what a joke of a state. They elected Jesse Ventura governor!

 

You’re being silly in order to make a point. I agree that self-interest is generally what guides decision making, but the presence of a centralized religion changes the self-interest equation.

Who, essentially, was the head of state in catholic countries early on?

 

It is routinely considered the most livable state, is affluent, well-educated and recently the best state in which to do business. The joke is on you.

 

And they have great fishing.

 

B-b-but they elected Ventura about 20 years ago!

 

I guess you're talking to me.

I am completely serious and my point is valid.

Religion doesn't change national interest in any way.

Wars are fought over national interests.......religion rarely STARTS wars.........competing national interests OFTEN start wars.

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor? Why did Hitler invade......Poland, Holland, Russia, etc.???

Hegemony......not religion.

 

Ventura was a aberrant outcome in an unusual three-way election.

They usually elect pretty good people.......like most places.

 

Actually it's not,
You are giving examples that are non- Muslim.
Muslim aggression is dictated in the religion.
Sure there are side bennies,
The land, the women, the money, livestock, etc.
The religion gives them an excuse, and orders, issued by God, to do it.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, God repeatedly told them to fight only those that had attacked them.

This didn't create peace because people kept attacking them and a never-ending war developed.

Why did the 9/11 attack happen? Zionist oppression in Palestine--a case of stolen land and people oppressed and driven out of their own country.

Land........Homes.......Farms.........with or without religion the outcome is the same........two different peoples wanted the same land.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, you're in the Meccan, or early Medina Qur'an.
The problem is that we have hundreds of verses describing Muhammeds aggression.

Keep in mind also, the Qur'an is 9th century.


Expeditions Led by Allah’s Messenger: In this year, according to all Sira writers, the Messenger personally led the Ghazwa of Alwa. He left Sa’d in command of Medina. On this raid his banner was carried by Hamzah. He stayed out for fifteen days and then returned to Medina. The Messenger went on a Ghazwa at the head of two hundred of his companions in October, 623 and reached Buwat. His intention was to intercept a Quraysh caravan with a hundred men and twenty-five hundred camels.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 15

When Abu Sufyan heard that Muhammad’s Companions were on their way to intercept his caravan, he sent a message to the Quraysh. ‘Muhammad is going to attack our caravan, so protect your merchandise.’ When the Quraysh heard this, the people of Mecca hastened to defend their property and protect their men as they were told Muhammad was lying in wait for them.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 29

The Raid on Waddan was the first Maghazi [invasion]. The Expedition of Harith was second. They encountered a large number of Quraysh in the Hijaz. Abu Bakr composed a poem about the raid: ‘When we called them to the truth they turned their backs and howled like bitches. Allah’s punishment on them will not tarry. I swear by the Lord of Camels that I am no perjurer. A valiant band will descend upon the Quraysh which will leave women husbandless. It will leave men dead, with vultures wheeling round. It will not spare the infidels.
Ishaq:281


When the Qur’an passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment. When the Qur’an:authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.
Ishaq:288

 

Unfortunately for your mythology, you're not quoting the Koran, you're using the invalid and unreliable words of early Fundamentalist Muslims who have the same credibility as current day Christian charlatans like Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Pat Robertson.

In other words.......your stories are crap from hateful and self-serving religious zealots who came along after Muhammad and made up lies to justify violence.

 

Unfortunately for your logic, The Qur'an is 14 % of Islamic text, and says nothing about the religion at all.
We have a main character in Islam, Muhammed, remember him.
Where do you get your information on Muhammed.

 

The most violent book ever written is the old testament

 

The problem is that these are the writings that fueled Islam's raids for the next thousand years.
And there are lots of them.

If they didn't mean anything they would not be called the sunnah, and used in everything Islamic,

 

The christian bible fueled the crusades and inquisition