Trump Tape

[curt]

Brent, you are now claiming that you don't want a seperation of state and religion? And it seems to me you blamed muslims for wanting to mix religion and politics - or at least you claimed it was more of a political system than a religion. The same goes for you? Or what is the difference?

If you want your political opponents to leave the country then obviously it is hard to see how you can claim to be in accordance with democratic thinking.

Where should the liberals go if all nations were thinking like you. Every border would be closed and they'd be told to return

[brent]

Curt, you totally missed the point.

I never said I oppose the democratic process of the republic. I am beginning to suspect you are a liberal and do not take in the thought for thought meaning of my words. I never said I want political opponents to leave. Well, if they are Muslims, and they want to do harm and overtake this country, then yes, they should go. We need to limit the intake of Muslims so they do not come in and destroy the culture. They do not assimilate.

The separation of church and state as the secular world defines it is "anything goes" and the government has to stay out of it. What it meant to the founding fathers was, the government cannot establish a religion or make people conform to it. The reality was, the country was framed upon biblical values, acknowledged God, referenced God in it's documents, and in the 1800s, Congress did declare the USA was indeed a Christian nation. As I said, many of the early presidents and politicians were Christians, preached, and held services in the capital. This history is not taught today. The secular world today would have you believe that this never happened, and that it should not have happened.

It's all about context. All of the people that founded this country were from a country ruled by a king, who established and manipulated the religion at will. THAT is what they had in mind. They did not want to get away from religion. They wanted to practice it freely, understanding that it WAS practiced in life. Clintons idiot sell out VP candidate admitted in the debate that he kept his religion personal, and did not let it affect his work. Well, he is a sham. His belief is a sham. He is a false witness and will bust hell wide open living like that. Hillary is supposedly a Methodist, which do not preach the full biblical Gospel of Christ and do not require people to change. They accept the perpetual sinful state as normal and acceptable. She is going to bust hell wide open. She is demonic and has all the fruit to show for it. These people say to leave your religion at the door of the capital. Well, that is what has led this country on the path to hell. Separation of church and state had nothing to do with leaving your Christianity at the door. You can't do it. In fact, the house and senate have had chapels, services, prayer, chaplains, etc since day one. Our justice system has used the Word of God to swear against until recently. We acknowledged God, the Bible as supreme truth. Does this sound like a country that never intended Christianity to be first and foremost? Nope.

I want the separation of church and state, so that government stays out of the form and function of all religious practices. But, here is the rub. Islam is considered by those on the outside to be a religion. It isn't. It IS a political system. Islam needs to be recognized as such by the government, so the government can step in and snuff it out. This will never happen, because there are so many Muslims in our government. Islam and any other religion teaching the opposite of the bible, "Obey the law of the land" and "Submit yourselves to those who rule over you..." are a danger to this Republic. Islam is above any government, has it's own laws and TRUE Muslim's believe when things go south, Islam has an opportunity to take over. This is not what a balanced religion as you call it would do. This is not the nature of God. It is the nature of Satan. In fact, former Muslims turned Christian have stated that the Satan of the Bible is the God of Quran. Our God loves, redeems, gives grace freely, with an assurance of salvation, verified by the Holy Spirit. Islam, you work for it. You hope you make it. You kill, cause civil unrest. Your goal is driven by lust and greed for sex with virgins. Come on. Nothing about Islam is peaceful toward the world. The only mandate for peace is with pure believers. If you do not agree with this, you are blind and need to read the news, because THIS IS THE REASON ISLAMIC FACTIONS WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER!!!

[Shell]

^^ What Brent said. And maybe someone should point out if the circumstances were reversed, other countries certainly would not open their borders to Americans. Just saying.

[curt]

Yesterday Brent wrote: "It just so happens that all of the people claiming responsibility ARE Islamic terrorists."

Today Brent wrote: "Nothing about Islam is peaceful toward the world. The only mandate for peace is with pure believers. If you do not agree with this, you are blind and need to read the news, because THIS IS THE REASON ISLAMIC FACTIONS WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER!!!"

In the last quote, Brent uses the ad hominem argument in which he simply claims that if I do not agree, it is because I'm ignorant. It is not a decent way to argue and it is not necessary if you have got enough evidence to prove your point.

Brent seems to generalize a lot, which makes some of his rather good points come out rather weak because he jumps to conclusions or simplyfies too much. I have not denied that there are lots of terrorist acting due to their interpretation of islam. I have only pointed to the fact that very far from all muslims are terrorists. And that terrorist are also found outside islam. And some terrorist are actually fighting islam: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mil ... 2c043c1e90 (Yes, Brent, I did read the news today)

There are lots of quotes from the Bible that could be interpreted in different ways. Take a look at Luke 14, 26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Peacefull towards the world? The only mandate for peace is with true believers?

Throughout history Islam has played a different role than it is mainly known for today. The reason we can study many of our ancient writers and philosophers is because muslims wanted to keep these writings while christians during the middle ages wanted to throw the books away and did not want to worry about anything that was not in the Bible. Again and again you point to what SOME former muslims have said. Let's not pretend they represent islam. Just like a former christian's description of christianity probably wouldn't be a fair description on your opinion. Fundamentalists want this simplyfied conflict. Let's not give it to them, because it makes it so much easier for them to recruit.

And to quote you again: "The only mandate for peace is with true believers". I fear a thinking like this is what lies behind many unnessecary religious wars and conflicts.

[Dan]

Curt, have you actually read the Koran?

[curt]

Well, Dan, once again someone in here attacks my person instead of my arguments. It's not decent to debate that way and you completely ignore all of my points. Religious scientists are aware off different possible interpretations and discuss to what degree militarism is built in. So, come on, be fair and don't just try to write me of as ignorant without providing further arguments.

[brent]

Curt, sure, you could interpret the bible lots of ways. People do, hence denominations. But you have to consider the sum total, the thought behind it. Letting the bible say what it says, in context, isn't easy, evidently.

[Mountain Man]

Well, Dan, once again someone in here attacks my person instead of my arguments. It's not decent to debate that way and you completely ignore all of my points. Religious scientists are aware off different possible interpretations and discuss to what degree militarism is built in. So, come on, be fair and don't just try to write me of as ignorant without providing further arguments.

I don't see anybody attacking you. Asking whether or not you've actually read the Koran, in whole or in part, is a legitimate question when you, as a Christian, appear to be defending it. The fact is that the Koran contains a number of open-ended passages advocating violence against non-Muslims.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages ... lence.aspx

Simply noting that people can interpret different passages different ways isn't a valid argument unless you are prepared to defend the validity of any one of those interpretations, but Islam has traditionally been a violent ideology. You can't tell me that the vast majority of Muslims over the centuries have misunderstood their own worldview.

[curt]

Do you mean to imply that most muslims are violent? Since you say it is their tradition (which at least is partly wrong) and since you say i cannot tell you, the majority misunderstood it that seems to follow. But is that what you want to say?

[Mountain Man]

Do you mean to imply that most muslims are violent? Since you say it is their tradition (which at least is partly wrong) and since you say i cannot tell you, the majority misunderstood it that seems to follow. But is that what you want to say?

What I'm saying is that Islam is an inherently violent religion and has been since its inception. This is a fact. Whether or not every Muslim takes his ideology seriously enough to actually do what the Koran says is a different matter.

[Dan]

Wow Curt, way to dodge an innocent question. I imagine this would indicate that you haven't read the Koran.

[no one]

Page 1: Trump tape, the man has a filthy mouth and poor view of women.
Page 2: But Hillary is bad
Page 3: Islam is evil
Page 4? Come Lord Jesus.

[Shell]

Page 1: Trump tape, the man has a filthy mouth and poor view of women.
Page 2: But Hillary is bad
Page 3: Islam is evil
Page 4? Come Lord Jesus.

That about sums it up. It's not unusual for posts on the Zone to go all over the place though.

[rexreed]

Trump has demonstrated he is quite able to put both feet in his mouth, while talking out of his backside. Allies like Israel would rather have Hillary in the Whitehouse, because they know what they are getting (not that they like her). But, do you really think of the activities potential politicians have done in their past? Who hasn't sinned? Who hasn't said things or done things they are ashamed of now? Who REALLY lives their life as if they are going to be P.O.T.U.S.? Who of us lived like we were God's before we agreed to he His?

Well, I've never said anything close to what he said so I guess I'll be president.

And to think there were plenty of proven, vetted, experienced people running in the primaries...and that was used against them...

[Mountain Man]

I really liked Rand Paul, but he became the invisible candidate almost as soon as he started his campaign. I'm not sure why, but he almost had negative momentum. Ben Carson is an honorable man, but Hillary would have chewed him up and spit him out. Jeb Bush isn't much better than a Democrat in many respects, plus Hillary would have crushed him, too. Ted Cruz had a promising start but turned out being such a duplicitous weasel that he lost popular support. John Kasich is a two-faced RINO who threw a tantrum when he lost. I don't trust Carly Fiorina who touts her business track record without ever mentioning the fact that she nearly bankrupted Hewlett-Packard and was pretty much blackballed as a CEO from that day forward.

If you think about it, Trump has been consistent from day one. You may not like him, but you can't say he changes with the wind. And despite the Democrats, the media, and even the Republican party throwing everything they can at him, he still stands a very good chance of winning. I don't think there's any other candidate who would still be standing after being put through the ringer like he has.