167
168

Took a brain surgeon (imgur.com)

legalizehazing が 投稿

全 68 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]dano 27ポイント28ポイント  (3子コメント)

The problem with his statement is that he went beyond what is quoted in the photo. Many religions, if followed strictly, would be incompatible with qualities we want in our president, but he then concluded that this meant we shouldn't have any Muslim as a president. This is the same discussion we had when JFK was running, I thought we solved it back then.

[–]AManExists 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for being a reasonable human being.

[–]legalizehazing[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well his original statement was super short and left a lot to the imagination. But Sharia law is apart of the religion and goes well beyond any rules any other religions have. In his clarifying statements he said simply if they put sharia above the constitution he wouldn't vote for them.

[–]shoegazer666 50ポイント51ポイント  (37子コメント)

Aren't all religious laws incompatible with the Constitution?

[–]BrunoP84 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. Its true, Sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution, but so is biblical law and a host of other ideologies and beliefs. My issue isn't what Dr Carson said, but rather why we only want to apply the message of his words to Islam when it surely applies to all religions unanimously.

[–]Ser_Davos_Cworth 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

Aren't all religious laws incompatible with the Constitution?

So, you agree with him then?

I don't think the point of this meme is to pit all "religious law" in a broad sense against constitutional law. Instead, I do think the point of this meme is to show that Islam's Sharia law, which demands that it be put above all other laws of all countries at the cost of the human lives of those who reject it, is thus uniquely incompatible with the constitution.

Sharia law denies that all human lives are equal (see Jizya in Islam and also see dhimmi status in Islam) in contrast to our constitution's 14th amendment which declares "equal protection of the laws." This simply means that states must provide all people equal treatment under the law.

Other laws from other religions may or may not claim to be of higher moral authority than the constitution but only sharia law demands to be placed above the constitution (and all other laws of all other lands) at the consequence of the death of those who reject sharia law.

EDIT: Further reading for your edification (see especially the section under "Jihad and dhimmitude").

[–]shoegazer666 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Really? I highly doubt American Muslims are talking about those kind of Iran-esque Shariah law here. Either way, it's a gotcha question. I'm no atheist but I cringe whenever any candidate tries to declare how big of a Christian they are. It really shouldn't matter.

[–]Ser_Davos_Cworth 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I highly doubt American Muslims are talking about those kind of Iran-esque Shariah law here.

Even if they denied it, could you really believe them when they are encouraged by Islam and Sharia law to lie ---taqiyya--- to further the cause of islam? Please tell me of another religion which considers lying a good and moral thing? I'll just wait here.

Also:

"In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty."

See also:

CAIR-FL Director Hassan Shibly caught in lie after lie - Taqiyya Artist.

From the description:

"Hassan Shibly tries to tell Marc Bernier that CAIR does not routinely file lawsuits against those who speak negatively against them. In truth CAIR has perfected the concept of 'LawFare.'

LawFare is using frivolous lawsuits against your detractors in an effort to bankrupt and silence them. CAIR routinely does this and will then drop the case when their victim files for CAIR to open their books and finances.

Not all WarFare is with bombs and bullets. While still a weak minority in America, CAIR - Council of American Islamic Relations, a Muslim Brotherhood entity - uses LawFare to weaken their opponents. Listen to Hassan's lies in the video:

Lie - Hassan insists that Islam does not permit Muslims to lie to advance Islam. Sorry, Hassan, the Islamic concepts of tactical deception known as Taqiyya and Kitman contradict you, and I believe the codified Islamic texts before you any day of the week. Shibly uses both skillfully.

Lie - Hassan Shibly complains to everyone that he and his mom were victims of discrimination after attending an Islamic conference in Canada. What Hassan Shibly doesn't tell you is that they traveled from New York State to see Louis Farrakhan, a virulent Jew hater, and bigoted racist neo-Nazi William Baker. This exemplifies Kitman.

The facts of this story give you a window into what lies (no pun intended) in the hearts of Hassan Shibly and his Mother - Jew-hating, Nazi-loving, racism, and bigotry.

This Lie is most important to understand because Hassan Shibly, and CAIR sell themselves as Civil Rights Advocates. Now the hypocrisy and bigotry of Hassan Shibly are exposed.

Lie - Hassan claims CAIR has no connection to "Hamas or any foreign organization." CAIR Founder Nihad Awad said in public forum he supports Hamas. This is an excellent example Taqiyya.

Hassan Shibly thinks everyone he says this to is not capable of doing a basic Google search to find the truth just like we did in this video.

I don't know what's more offensive - Shibly's pathological lies or the fact he thinks we are too stupid to uncover the truth.

Hassan Shibly is a habitual, practiced, pathological liar. It is not everyday you get to watch someone lie your face and then have those lies exposed with facts."

[–]vox_libertatis 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Actually, recent polling data indicates somewhere around 51% would like Sharia courts to be established. They want a separate judicial system that adheres to their religious ideas. We really tend to underestimate how devoted Muslims are. They don't tend to be Easter and Christmas mornings only religious folks, like today's Christians are.

[–]badkungfu 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do these Muslims expect that court to judge civil or criminal issues?

Assuming it's civil (evidence to the contrary appreciated), why shouldn't it be allowed in the same way that we currently allow Jewish halakhah courts, among other religious venues for mediation?

[–]deHavillandDash8Q400 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Islam says it is to be the law of the land. Christianity says you're supposed to follow the law of the land. Christianity does affect the laws of the land but it isn't incomparable like Islam is.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Ten Commandments are pretty compatible.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (20子コメント)

Christianity affirms the value and dignity of human life, and provides a framework for inalienable rights. That's pretty compatible with the Constitution. Coincidentally it is secularism that presents the paradox of being unable to provide the same basis. The problem is that how can one say that a person has natural rights that come from a source higher than man, but then deny any existence of such a higher being? It defies logic. Not a surprise that the atheist regimes in history have had such an atrocious record on human rights.

Edit: Atheists are out in force today, I see. No one can answer the question though. Just downvote rather than think. Way to show your intellectual superiority.

[–]AssasaiN 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

Atheist here - it makes total sense to me that I should respect the space of other humans without the need of a higher "source" providing the command/recommendation to do so. It's not my body; why should I exert any control over it? I don't believe this defies any logic that I know of.

[–]Ben_Stark 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

So, here is a genuine question. Where does your right to keep and bear arms come from? Where does your right to a fair trial and legal council come from? The Constitution very clearly implies that those are not rights granted by the government, so where do they come from?

[–]AssasaiN 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

In my life, I've generally been comfortable with living from a basic idea similar to "my rights end where your nose begins." Keep and bear arms - why should someone not have that general right? It doesn't interfere with anyone else to own or keep a weapon. Right to fair trial and legal council - you don't have a right to take my rights away unless you can demonstrate I've done something worthy of taking away my rights. That certainly seems reasonable to me without a higher being saying so.

Please bear in mind that I don't say this to attack a religion; I simply mean this is how I approach life as a general rule.

[–]tooboredtostudy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rights are the logical result of assuming that a man owns his mind and his body. I find a lot of truth in how Ayn Rand explains it:

[T]he source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law [both which can be broken at arbitrary whim], but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

[–]Superduperdoop 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

In my opinion, they come from man and are protected by man

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then by definition they are not inalienable.

[–]deadletter -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

from the humans who wrote it into a constitution and based a shared civilization on it.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can have you own personal beliefs but you cannot have an overarching framework on which to expand those beliefs to the rest of society. You personally, you can say that you ascribe to a set of values which recognize the inherent inalienable rights of others. However, you cannot by logic say that there is no higher power, and then say that we have innate natural rights that supersede the power of the state and of man. I'm not trying to convert you, only to give you some appreciation of something that is lost by ascribing to that worldview. It's a well know paradox and problem recognized amongst atheists. The fact that you are so incensed by the idea shows that you are not very well versed on the subject matter.

[–]AssasaiN 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Incensed? I don't believe you correctly interpreted my tone.

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't believe you've disproved my point: I can come to a conclusion about inalienable rights without the need for a higher source. There is literally no need for God to tell me what is right for me to generally be in agreement with rational people.

I don't know why I'm even entertaining the rest of what you've said, but I will regardless. If I wish to take my framework and "expand those beliefs to the rest of society," maybe I would do so by coming together with leaders in society and agreeing together upon a set of ideals that we would live by - kind of like the Constitution did, wouldn't you say?

I don't understand why you claim I am unable to conclude that there are rights that should supersede the power of state and of man. Why does a "source" need to provide those outside of my, yours, or humanity's own reasoning? If a number of people agree with me and we decide we'd like to set up a formal document outlining a government and our agreement to not infringe on these rights, is that not acceptable way to agree upon rights that supersede the state and man? After all, that is literally what the Constitution did, and you are a "Constitutionalist," per your flair.

This isn't a known paradox or problem recognized among atheists. I don't have any idea what would make you think that. I imagine you are basing this opinion on information from non-atheists who believe you need a source of moral absolution to act reasonably towards others.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

First, of all you have made no logical defense of your moral framework. You believe something is right because you believe it is right. Is that really all you've got? That is circular logic which is by definition, not logic. You should really take the time to read some philosophy and consider the question because it is a well defined problem and you are obviously completely ignorant of it.

If man is simply a collection of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen assembled randomly through completely natural mundane processes, what possible difference would it matter how one blob of these molecules interacts another? It's absolute absurdity. The paradox is not that difficult to comprehend. It may be unpalatable to you, but you should accept the logical consequences of your ideas - all of them.

[–]deadletter 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are other frameworks for 'inalienable human rights' that don't come from god, and therefore need not deny or even consider a 'higher being'.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please explain, because the paradox I described is a well known and admitted problem in atheist philosophy. The fact that you are debating it shows you've never given the issue much thought.

[–]War-Damn-America -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's reddit, of course atheists are down voting anything that is pro religion and they don't agree with politically, but you are exactly right. In our Constitution and through the views of natural law most notably from Locke who's ideas were used heavily by the framers our rights are endowed to us by our creator. And while it is alittle ambiguous especially today where not everyone is Christian like in 18th century America it is still clearly some divine being who gives us our rights. Because it can't be government because that means they can take them away, or any one person for the same reason. It has to be God because believe what you want about theology but he is not going to come down and take away our rights which means they are completely safeguarded, and it insures human dignity and the right to self government.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This guy gets it. I'm not even trying to convert anyone here. Just trying to explain to the atheists (who are typically so arrogant and condescending) some of the logical consequences of their worldview. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Most are utterly ignorant of philosophy and have never considered the problem and therefore lash out with emotional diatribes.

[–]AssasaiN -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't understand - are you saying that rights have to "come" from someone granting them? To me, the idea is that they are generally intrinsic - they aren't granted, but are a part of existing. It's not a human, a government, or a God that grants them; they just exist. The likelihood of a "granter" taking away rights shouldn't impact the existence of these rights.

[–]GhengopelALPHA -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

how can one say that a person has natural rights that come from a source higher than man, but then deny any existence of such a higher being?

I volunteer as tribute: Simple. I respect life, liberty, and society, therefore any law structure that also completely respects those things I agree with. I feel motivated to help my fellow men and women because we're all in this together, with a limited time on this planet, might as well make the best of it. The higher source is not necessary if all of us agree on these points.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Those are your personal beliefs. There is no logical framework to expand those as a maxim for all of society under an atheist worldview. Atheism logically concludes moral relativism. Where does the authority for inalienable rights come from if man is the ultimate power? That means that your rights come from the state and that if that state ultimately then would have the power to revoke those rights.

[–]GhengopelALPHA -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I agree that these are just my personal beliefs, but you know what, so was Christianity in its early days, and Islam, and Judaism; those were just personal beliefs held by their respective founders. The logical framework to expand those came from forced compliance under threat of future eternity spent in a bad place, be it hell or a lack of 72 virgins, and that framework I have a huge issue with, as do many others. Besides, I believe that someday we can be such a society to not require authority, to not require security, to not require establishment and defense of rights because they will all be assumed. It will probably be thousands of years from now, but I think we can look out for each other for more basic a reason than fearing the wrath of God.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe that someday we can be such a society to not require authority, to not require security, to not require establishment and defense of rights because they will all be assumed.

That's a pretty big utopian fantasy considering that you cannot even provide a logical reason to compel others to accept basic human rights. Consider this hypothetical. I just converted to atheism and now want to use my new found freedom from traditional rules to steal from and enslave my neighbor. I am physically able to do so. He has no way of defending himself from my superior force. There is no way to compel me to observe his rights. Why shouldn't I?

[–]legalizehazing[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No.

[–]mibrewer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Amen

[–]tooboredtostudy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It would depend how you define "religious law"

[–]burbet 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

No shit. I can't imagine anyone who believes it does.

[–]imalwaysthinking 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who says otherwise?

[–]Mycroft_Holmes_IV 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Correction. It took a black brain surgeon saying it to get the liberals' attention. The rest of us have known it for years.

[–]conspiracy_nut_ 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

No... liberals have known it too.... It's as incomptaible as the Old Testament, or the Code of Hammurabi, or Odin's laws. We just don't get so afraid about non-issues.

[–]HonorMyBeetus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody actually believes that it is though right?

[–]alclarkeyHurr Durr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I fucking love it.

[–]stvpt -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Religion is as religion does.

[–]chadalem 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

[–]AutoModerator[M] -7ポイント-6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Posts from the 'imgur.com' domain require moderation. Please be patient as we review. Thank you.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.