Draw Mahammad Day!

[Captain Obvious]

[Guest knucklehead bob]

who might this killer be?

R E L I G I O N

[phaquetoo]

Thanks for reopening this thread! It is not about anti religion, as you see it can be about just about anything you want it to be!

 

Peace

FREE THE WEED!

Jim

[Guest OxXGarfieldXxO]

R E L I G I O N

 

Don't like it.....don't read it.

[Guest Marywanna]

[+420Atheist]

only have one person agreeing with you! and he is of the same non religion you are! (nothing wrong with your religious or non religious beliefs)

 

Oh good this is reopened. Ignoring all but this little part of the post does not take it out of context. This is a fallacy of authority called an appeal to numbers. Being in the minority does not invalidate ones premise. And being in the majority does not make one right. I'm sure you can think back in history of some times when the majority were in the wrong. And it does seem an odd argument that I am not religious that is why I am arguing for freedom of religion.

[Ionic7]

Oh good this is reopened. Ignoring all but this little part of the post does not take it out of context. This is a fallacy of authority called an appeal to numbers. Being in the minority does not invalidate ones premise. And being in the majority does not make one right. I'm sure you can think back in history of some times when the majority were in the wrong. And it does seem an odd argument that I am not religious that is why I am arguing for freedom of religion.

 

 

Im not religious and I support freedom of religion, nothing wrong with it or weird about it, we have the right to not have one just as they have the right to have one.

[Guest Marywanna]

And I support your right to say and believe as you choose. If we all agreed on everything,the world would be boring.

[Ionic7]

And I support your right to say and believe as you choose. If we all agreed on everything,the world would be boring.

 

 

Yea but its a decent line between not agreeing and being racist that people seem to cross very easily.

 

"What sets worlds in motion is the interplay of differences, their attractions and repulsions." Octavio Paz

[phaquetoo]

now did you think i was trying to get everyone to draw mahammad on draw mahammad day?

 

I was simply pointing out that muslims say death to anyone who draws a pic of mahammad. Now im an american citizen and Im allowed to draw what ever I want! a certain religion cant tell me what to do,(no religion) and cant dictate to the world their will!

 

The post was as simple as that! no more no less!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[MightyMightyMezz]

now did you think i was trying to get everyone to draw mahammad on draw mahammad day?

 

I was simply pointing out that muslims say death to anyone who draws a pic of mahammad. Now im an american citizen and Im allowed to draw what ever I want! a certain religion cant tell me what to do,(no religion) and cant dictate to the world their will!

 

The post was as simple as that! no more no less!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

Too bad we in the Western world have our own form of "drawing Muhammed" in the form of laws against "holocaust revisionism." Question whether six million died and there goes your freedom.

[Guest OxXGarfieldXxO]

Too bad we in the Western world have our own form of "drawing Muhammed" in the form of laws against "holocaust revisionism." Question whether six million died and there goes your freedom.

 

No offense, but that was one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. Where in the western world is it illegal or are you censored, to question the holocaust? Not saying people won't place those questioning it in the tin foil hat category, but I know of no where it's become state imposed that you have to believe in the holocaust. Not like we have Jews rallying because of these questions shouting chants of " Yahweh is great, death to the gentile".

 

*shakes head*

 

apples and oranges people......

[MightyMightyMezz]

No offense, but that was one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. Where in the western world is it illegal or are you censored, to question the holocaust? Not saying people won't place those questioning it in the tin foil hat category, but I know of no where it's become state imposed that you have to believe in the holocaust. Not like we have Jews rallying because of these questions shouting chants of " Yahweh is great, death to the gentile".

 

*shakes head*

 

apples and oranges people......

 

No offense taken, but you are mistaken. Ernst Zundel was deported to Canada from the US, held in jail and then deported to Germany merely for publishing a booklet years ago called Did Six Million Really Die? Irving is another historian jailed in recent years for questioning what happened in WWII. There are others you will find if you care to look.

 

Laws against holocaust denial

http://en.wikipedia....olocaust_denial

[Guest Marywanna]

Mezz what about the pictures and films from the Death Camps. Isn't that the proof?

[MightyMightyMezz]

Mezz what about the pictures and films from the Death Camps. Isn't that the proof?

 

Bulldozers pushing bodies into mass graves? It is horrific, but think about this. Looking at the footage, those human bodies were diseased and starved. I mean if they were that close to death by starvation why gas them? The whole country was starving by the end of the war. If six million human beings were deliberately murdered in death camps, how did they process so many? Where are the "mega graves" for the remains of all those millions? There must be a great many remains. Even a cremation leaves bone fragments.

 

Regardless of the existence of "proof" (means different things to different people) do we agree it should not be a criminal offense to analyze information about treatment of Jews by the Nazis?

[Guest OxXGarfieldXxO]

No offense taken, but you are mistaken. Ernst Zundel was deported to Canada from the US, held in jail and then deported to Germany merely for publishing a booklet years ago called Did Six Million Really Die? Irving is another historian jailed in recent years for questioning what happened in WWII. There are others you will find if you care to look.

 

Laws against holocaust denial

http://en.wikipedia....olocaust_denial

 

And in this case were the laws in Canada not changed in 92? Was his conviction not overturned? You're basing your arguments on one instance that no longer exist in Zundle's case. Generally in the west I think we've gotten to a place where we realize that even if someone is completely nuts, they can say what they want to say, lie or not.

 

And it's not the holocaust denial that has gotten these people in trouble (though it did place them in the spot light). It's all the antisemitic garbage that went along with it. But this reins true for Muslims as well. Or even atheist as far as that goes. People would get shut down if they called for the death of anyone. And Irving called for this if the "Jewish financiers" started another war.

 

You're allowed to be as bigoted or wrong as you want to be....providing harm doesn't come to someone because of your actions. To be honest I don't agree with the laws that Canada had, or Austria. But again, these aren't even taken place in the USA. As far as I know his books and ideas were allowed to be published here.

 

Im just not convinced there's a Jewish bias in the west . I can find books on Amazon denying the holocaust.......So a ban on the mention of it is a ludicrous statement. Germany seems to be the hardest with convictions, and I almost get it. I don't believe you should silence anyone, but I certainly understand their wanting to squash any neo-nazi re-insurgence movement and show the world they are distancing themselves from the atrocities committed by it's previous administrations. Personally I think it's overkill....But I don't live in the European block either.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Zundel only just got out of German prison this year after being arrested by US authorities, deported to Canada, held in solitary for two years, sent to Germany and serving time there for three years all for publishing the booklet decades ago.

[Rashore]

No offense taken, but you are mistaken. Ernst Zundel was deported to Canada from the US, held in jail and then deported to Germany merely for publishing a booklet years ago called Did Six Million Really Die? Irving is another historian jailed in recent years for questioning what happened in WWII. There are others you will find if you care to look.

 

Laws against holocaust denial

http://en.wikipedia....olocaust_denial

 

Well, Ernst did more than publish one little book. He had years of trouble in Canada before ending back up in Germany and serving time.

Irving isn't all innocent questioning either... One does not get barred from countries for just innocent questioning...

 

But hey, heres a fun list of atrocious actions of a few to take our minds off the Nazis

 

Astral projectionists- Luke Helder- 2002 Midwest pipe bomber- 3 injured

 

Tree huggers- ELF- 2000 attack in Elettsville, Indiana- over $500,000 in damages

ELF- 1999 attack in East Lancing, MI- over $1,000,000 in damages

 

Christians- Eric Robert Rudolph- 1996 Atlantic Olympic games bombing- 2 dead, 111 injured.

Bruce Edwards Ivins- 2001 Anthrax mailings- 5 dead, 17 infected

 

Political nuts- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols- 1995 Oklahoma City bombing- 168

killed, 680 injured, and over $650,000,000 in damages.

 

Anti-modern technology- Ted Kaczynski- 1978-1995 unibomber- 3 dead, 23 injured

 

 

There's bad apples in every barrel.. Please don't get all flaky and pounce all over everyone of that type for it..

[Guest Marywanna]

You forgot Stalin. He murdered even more of his own people. Back to Mezzs' point,Mezz the Russians have films showing when they found the first camps and liberated them. And I have seen the films with trains stopping and un-loading human cargo at Auschwitz,you can see the gates and the name of the camp. What about the suvivors? Are they lying,and why would they lie? Is it just the number you are disputing,or are you saying it never happened at all?

[MightyMightyMezz]

You forgot Stalin. He murdered even more of his own people. Back to Mezzs' point,Mezz the Russians have films showing when they found the first camps and liberated them. And I have seen the films with trains stopping and un-loading human cargo at Auschwitz,you can see the gates and the name of the camp. What about the suvivors? Are they lying,and why would they lie? Is it just the number you are disputing,or are you saying it never happened at all?

 

I'm not really taking a position on it, but I draw a distinction between camps existing and gas chambers being used to systematically execute millions. I do tend to think the "extermination campaign" was exaggerated at least in order to support the establishment of Israel. My point is actually about a certain "religious taboo" or in this case quasi-religious (Orthodox Holocaustianity?) very much existing in Western cultures.

[+420Atheist]

My point is actually about a certain "religious taboo" or in this case quasi-religious (Orthodox Holocaustianity?) very much existing in Western cultures.

 

And a good point it is. Religion always gets a pass. Criticize anything else but not a persons religion. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins makes this point very well:

 

Here's another weird example of the privileging of religion. On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that it is sufficient that they believe that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence. Conversely, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled, in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized). Religion, as ever, is the trump card. Imagine members of an art appreciation society pleading in court that they 'believe' they need a hallucinogenic drug in order to

enhance their understanding of Impressionist or Surrealist paintings. Yet, when a church claims an equivalent need, it is backed by the highest court in the land. Such is the power of religion as a talisman.

 

But why can't we criticize religion? Who do you give thanks to for your food? What are the edicts on sex placed on people by religious teachings? You thank god for your food and the church tells you that sex is only acceptable under marriage they approve. Surely you have heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The need for food and sex are two of the very basic needs. If religion can control those basic needs then in the faithfuls mind their religion is responsible for meeting those needs. To criticize their religion is to attack the very essence of what keeps them alive and human. It is so bad that they can't even imagine how anyone who does not realize the truth as they see it can possibly survive let alone be happy. All the assurance in the world can not convince the faithful that one can live a full and very happy life without the controls or magical thinking put on them by religion. You will never convince them that the wonders of science is far more compelling than that of Bronze Age myths.

 

So in my opinion Islam is just the worst at taking criticism but all have a undeserved protection from what is legitimate criticism.

[phaquetoo]

Well, Ernst did more than publish one little book. He had years of trouble in Canada before ending back up in Germany and serving time.

Irving isn't all innocent questioning either... One does not get barred from countries for just innocent questioning...

 

But hey, heres a fun list of atrocious actions of a few to take our minds off the Nazis

 

Astral projectionists- Luke Helder- 2002 Midwest pipe bomber- 3 injured

 

Tree huggers- ELF- 2000 attack in Elettsville, Indiana- over $500,000 in damages

ELF- 1999 attack in East Lancing, MI- over $1,000,000 in damages

 

Christians- Eric Robert Rudolph- 1996 Atlantic Olympic games bombing- 2 dead, 111 injured.

Bruce Edwards Ivins- 2001 Anthrax mailings- 5 dead, 17 infected

 

Political nuts- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols- 1995 Oklahoma City bombing- 168

killed, 680 injured, and over $650,000,000 in damages.

 

Anti-modern technology- Ted Kaczynski- 1978-1995 unibomber- 3 dead, 23 injured

 

 

There's bad apples in every barrel.. Please don't get all flaky and pounce all over everyone of that type for it..

 

 

your rite there are extremist in all walks of life whether they are in a religion or some kind of cult or certain types of anti government groups!

 

Here is a lil read for every one, this is our president at work for his bretheren!

 

EVERYBODY SHOULD READ THIS

 

Subject: Dhimmitude??? **

*

VERY INTERESTING READ !!! WORTH THE COUPLE OF MINUTES. MAKES YOUR BLOOD BOIL !!

 

Did you know this was in the health care bill? I didn't. This word is not in my RANDON HOUSE COLLEGE DICTIONARY. So therefore Google for information....Interesting....

 

“Dhimmitude

 

Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

 

*Has anyone heard of this word? Dhimmitude? *

*Unbelievable *

*I had my doubts so I checked with Snopes. There is an exemption for "certain religious groups" in the Health Care Bill. Obama supporters especially, check it out for yourselves. *

*Never heard the word before?---Try typing it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting.

** **

*It seems that Muslims and certain other religions are exempt from the ObamaCare penalties, and their exemptions are _supported by law_. We are surrendering from within! The prez is leading us right down the path to total Muslim control and most of us don't give a rat's patootie! Maybe you voted for him in good faith, but now yet another "truth" comes out. Perhaps we should rethink what we have done. * **

*Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for _tolerating their presence_ AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. **

* **

*The ObamaCare bill is the first step in the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims may be not only specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase health insurance, but exempted also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Seems that Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and thus is to be banned. Muslims may be specifically granted an exemption based on this. **

* **

*How convenient. So John and Jane Smith, as Christians, Jews, Buddhists or whatever, may have crippling IRS liens placed against all of our assets, including real estate, cattle, cars, etc., and even accounts receivables, and could also face hard prison time if we refuse to buy health insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance at our expense. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude. * **

*Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the Muslim masters AND over the long haul serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those minorities in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor or belief in God! If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to again sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, brother?" **

* **

*I recommend sending this email to all of your contacts who may actually give a darn about where there this country is heading. This is desperately important and people need to know about it and what the past election has done to all of us! **

P.S. Have you heard about the summit Obama is holding this month in DC for the future Muslim business leaders in the US ? He wants to increase the ability to begin business opportunities in the US for the Muslim community! Better start looking for a country that doesn't cater to the Muslims such as Australia, because this country will be overrun by Muslims like Europe is currently experiencing. And you thought our problem was the Mexicans!..... **

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[raythat]

This text contains an astounding array of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Let's start with the main proposition:

 

* Are Muslims "specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured," as claimed in the message?

 

No. There is no provision specifically exempting Muslims from mandated health insurance in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Neither the word "Muslim" nor the word "Islam" appears anywhere in the bill.

* Are any religious groups exempted from the mandate?

 

Yes, a paragraph on page 107 of the legislation does provide for individual religious exemptions, though the language is non-specific with regard to particular faiths:

 

(5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information [is required]:

 

(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual's status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

 

Similarly, on page 128:

 

"(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—Such term [i.e., "applicable individual"] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

 

The above passage amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in which Section 1402(g)(1) defines "a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof" as follows:

 

(1) Exemption

Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by—

 

(A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and

 

(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,

 

and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that—

 

© such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,

 

(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and

 

(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.

 

as you can see, the law sets the bar quite high for eligibility for a religious exemption. According to a 2009 report on MSNBC.com, the language was originally meant to apply only to the Old Order Amish, whose beliefs prohibit them from participating in public or commercial insurance. Instead, they participate in a form of self-insurance per the language above requiring exempted sects "to make provision for their dependent members

[phaquetoo]

This text contains an astounding array of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Let's start with the main proposition:

 

* Are Muslims "specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured," as claimed in the message?

 

No. There is no provision specifically exempting Muslims from mandated health insurance in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Neither the word "Muslim" nor the word "Islam" appears anywhere in the bill.

* Are any religious groups exempted from the mandate?

 

Yes, a paragraph on page 107 of the legislation does provide for individual religious exemptions, though the language is non-specific with regard to particular faiths:

 

(5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information [is required]:

 

(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual's status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

 

Similarly, on page 128:

 

"(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—Such term [i.e., "applicable individual"] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

 

The above passage amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in which Section 1402(g)(1) defines "a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof" as follows:

 

(1) Exemption

Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by—

 

(A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and

 

(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,

 

and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that—

 

© such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,

 

(D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and

 

(E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.

 

as you can see, the law sets the bar quite high for eligibility for a religious exemption. According to a 2009 report on MSNBC.com, the language was originally meant to apply only to the Old Order Amish, whose beliefs prohibit them from participating in public or commercial insurance. Instead, they participate in a form of self-insurance per the language above requiring exempted sects "to make provision for their dependent members

 

Wow you did a lot of researching! Hats off to you!

Did you look up Word of the Day: Dhimmitude

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[+420Atheist]

HaHaHa Jim you crack me up. Are you going to the Keep Fear Alive rally on the 30th? As the "article" says check snopes.com

 

This is one of those things that takes a little bit of truth and makes it sound like a terrorist plot. Religious exemption is common throughout US law and this one is not just for Muslims there are several christian sects that will be exempt too. Just ask a Amish person how much he has paid into Social Security or how many Quakers carried a gun in Vietnam.