"Sharia law makes a lot of sense" - Linda Sarsour

[CapnAwesome]

Clarify what you said then.

Perhaps dont jump to such conclusions as me defending sharia law or me having no problem with it being implemented, especially when your mind is set on one particular conception of sharia. And considering that the person being discussed in the OP is a progressive, what youre arguing here is irrelevant. Because her idea of sharia is not what youre thinking, nor is she hoping that what youre thinking of be eventually implemented in the US (in a sense its already implemented in the US per her interpretation). She has different ideas of jihad and sharia and such, not unlike many moderate Muslims, adhering to conceptions that are abstract principles as opposed to promoting barbaric practices which you speak of. Not every Muslim advocating sharia or talking positively about it is thinking of the same sharia you and the fearmongering right on Fox News think of, deliberately or not.

Want more clarification, check this link:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer-wh...sharia-law

Except that the sharia that I'm talking actually exists, in reality, for millions of people.

[Cyberman]

Christians consider atheists such as Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin to be pretty horrifying.
They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.
Don't try weaseling out of it either.

Ooh, well, I'd better stop being an atheist, then. I don't think I like being part of something that tells me I have to kill people.

Oh, wait... that doesn't happen.

[GUBU]

About as much sense as Christianity, or any other religion, in fact.

As much sense as your contention that nothing made everything?


You need to watch "A Matter of Gravity" by professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.
It is on YouTube.com

---

You do realize that atheists generally consider Christians and Muslims BOTH deluded. Sharia law is just as horrifying as Mosaic law. It's a good thing not to many people follow the OT to the letter, eh? Otherwise a sex slave trade would be allowed to exist (so long as you don't beat your slaves to death, that is.)

Christians consider atheists such as Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin to be pretty horrifying.
They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.
Don't try weaseling out of it either.

Only one of those people you mentioned could be argued as atheist. Pol Pot was a weird mix of buddhism and catholicism, Stalin was Russian orthodox. Only Mao could be considered atheist, but then again could you call the focus of a nascent religion atheist?

[Cyberman]

Emboldening mine:

Brilliant.  No, really.  You atheists are special.

Don't call me "friend" when all you and your pals do is attack and criticize me, and in the present case, with extremely ignorant grammar.

tsk, tsk

Initial capital missing. Full stop absent.

[Tobie]

Your deceptive arguments are your relentless atheist claims of being oh-so-intelligent and rational and scientific.
Despite all this claimed intellectualism, you can't write simple English.

When presented with compelling opinions of scholars, you call them "out of date."  
Yes, like Darwin?  Since when was calculus "out of date" because it was invented by Isaac Newton?

Absurd, like so many of your flip answers.

Poor spelling does not mean poor intelligience. Dismissing an argument because of an issue you have with the person making it is simple ad-hominem and avoiding the debate.

Your second point is another fallacy - the argument from authority. Newton was a genius in terms of mathematics, but that has no bearing on whether his opinions on religion, the mating habbits of the common shrew or any other unrelated topic should be relevant. For example, Thomas Midgley Jr. was a great engineer and chemist, but he also hospitalised himself for a year due to drinking leaded petrol.

[Starman]

Poor spelling does not mean poor intelligience.  (sic) Dismissing an argument because of an issue you have with the person making it is simple ad-hominem and avoiding the debate.

Your second point is another fallacy - the argument from authority. Newton was a genius in terms of mathematics, but that has no bearing on whether his opinions on religion, the mating habbits (sic) of the common shrew or any other unrelated topic should be relevant. For example, Thomas Midgley Jr. was a great engineer and chemist, but he also hospitalised himself for a year due to drinking leaded petrol.

"Intelligience."  Brilliant, Tobie.  No, really.  Writing simple  English is so much easier than logic and reason, so if you fail at the most basic level of writing to communicate, what hope is there for you to think about serious matters.

"MY" second point was not mine, but your fellow atheist's.  HE said that opinions voiced decades ago are out of date and therefore invalid because they were, in his tortured thinking, too old.  I brought up Newton because his calculus is still brilliant and useful.

I made no mention of Newton's "opinions on religion," much less the mating "habbits" of the common shrew.

Grow up and learn how to think, Tobie.  It's important.

Now you see, there are countless responses to my writings.  Should I ignore all of them?  You will accuse me of being fearful and running away from discussion.  If I respond, I am "trolling."  You hateful atheists are so intolerant, you have an accusation to spear anyone you hate.

[Tobie]

Poor spelling does not mean poor intelligience.  (sic) Dismissing an argument because of an issue you have with the person making it is simple ad-hominem and avoiding the debate.

Your second point is another fallacy - the argument from authority. Newton was a genius in terms of mathematics, but that has no bearing on whether his opinions on religion, the mating habbits (sic) of the common shrew or any other unrelated topic should be relevant. For example, Thomas Midgley Jr. was a great engineer and chemist, but he also hospitalised himself for a year due to drinking leaded petrol.

"Intelligience."  Brilliant, Tobie.  No, really.  Writing simple  English is so much easier than logic and reason, so if you fail at the most basic level of writing to communicate, what hope is there for you to think about serious matters.

"MY" second point was not mine, but your fellow atheist's.  HE said that opinions voiced decades ago are out of date and therefore invalid because they were, in his tortured thinking, too old.  I brought up Newton because his calculus is still brilliant and useful.

I made no mention of Newton's "opinions on religion," much less the mating "habbits" of the common shrew.

Grow up and learn how to think, Tobie.  It's important.

Now you see, there are countless responses to my writings.  Should I ignore all of them?  You will accuse me of being fearful and running away from discussion.  If I respond, I am "trolling."  You hateful atheists are so intolerant, you have an accusation to spear anyone you hate.

Great, continue to ignore my point. 

Newton's calculus is brilliant, but like I said, it has no bearing on whether his other opinions are or not. 

I do enough thinking already, thank you. I would advise you to give it a go though - maybe brush up on the basic premises of debating

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Circular reasoning

No it is not.  

The insuperable statistics of precisely designated physical constants are quite obviously the product of an Intelligent Designer.

The absurd alternative, posited with supposedly straight faces by atheists, is the Multiverse.
This from people who decades ago claimed that the universe was too large for God to have made it just for mankind.
Now the universe is far too little, and everything made everything in infinite proportion just to skirt what is so blatantly obvious 
that you refuse to acknowledge it.

So Allah made man from mud or was it Yahweh who made man from dust?

---

About as much sense as Christianity, or any other religion, in fact.

As much sense as your contention that nothing made everything?


You need to watch "A Matter of Gravity" by professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.
It is on YouTube.com

---

You do realize that atheists generally consider Christians and Muslims BOTH deluded. Sharia law is just as horrifying as Mosaic law. It's a good thing not to many people follow the OT to the letter, eh? Otherwise a sex slave trade would be allowed to exist (so long as you don't beat your slaves to death, that is.)

Christians consider atheists such as Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin to be pretty horrifying.
They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.
Don't try weaseling out of it either.

It's doubtful if Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin personally murdered anyone.  They certainly didn't personally kill a hundred million people.  Stupid cowardly nitwits did that because they were too scared to blow the hell out of Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin.  They were surrounded by rotten people who did all of the dirty work.

[Mister Agenda]

As much sense as your contention that nothing made everything?


You need to watch "A Matter of Gravity" by professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.
It is on YouTube.com

---

Christians consider atheists such as Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin to be pretty horrifying.
They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.
Don't try weaseling out of it either.

Only one of those people you mentioned could be argued as atheist.  Pol Pot was a weird mix of buddhism and catholicism, Stalin was Russian orthodox.  Only Mao could be considered atheist, but then again could you call the focus of a nascent religion atheist?

Even Mao referred to 'returning to the good God' in an interview when he was older. I don't doubt much that Stalin was an atheist, but I doubt it a little. He wasn't clear about it. He was certainly raised Orthodox, and went to seminary, IIRC.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

 Sharia law, which originated in the early Islamic states in the 8th and 9th centuries, allows wife beating, permits marriage and sexual intercourse between men and pre-pubescent girls, calls for the stoning of gays, condemns Muslims who convert to Christianity to death, and condones female genital mutilation.  About the specific details of Sharia,

Linda Sarsour tweeted, “Sharia law is reasonable, and once u read the details, it makes a lot of sense.”

Yes indeed, genital mutilation, whippings, stonings, treating women like cattle - all this "makes a lot of sense."

Have you seen the story about the Indian muslims who are going apeshit crazy because they see the name "Mohammed" in the logo on packages of Pampers?  http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-group-burn...me-2656787

It's like the dummies in Louisiana who think that the square root symbol represents a gun.  http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-w...04224.html


It's a good thing that breathing is automatic because too many people are too stupid to live otherwise.