Protesters blocking access to Trump Rally

[Bill Cipher]

I don't believe that Trump is either Jesus or the Devil, but the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe a Trump presidency will be much like the Nixon presidency - some really great, solid policy decisions, and horribly bad ones that will haunt us for decades.

That is an interesting thought; a frightening thought, but an interesting thought.  Do you think there's a risk it might end in a potential impeachment as well?

[Charlespg]

Why would believing in majority rule make you decide to vote for Trump?  Are you saying that somebody who decides to vote from someone else does not believe in majority rule?  Are you saying that somebody who decides to vote for someone else does not believe in the right of Americans to pick their own government?

And if those are really values, then Trump seems ill-suited to them since he has as good as threatened riots by his supporters if he isn't given the nomination simply because he has the largest plurality of delegates, even though he doesn't have a majority.

As far as agreeing with Trump on illegals and muslims, I certainly cannot gainsay that you believe what you say you believe, but I can't see Trump's categorical hatred of muslims as being at all consistent with the Constitution which was intentionally designed to deny the use of religious tests.

I know what the 1st Amendment says about religion , I also support religious tests for muslims  due  to the very strong evidence that Islam is a violent totalitarian philosophy and arab nationalism pretending to be a religion

And Illegals are just that illegal

[Bill Cipher]

I know what the 1st Amendment says about religion , I also support religious tests for muslims  due  to the very strong evidence that Islam is a violent totalitarian philosophy and arab nationalism pretending to be a religion

And Illegals are just that illegal

So, you know what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, but you think it should be ignored when it comes to Muslims; not Christians, not white supremacists, not atheists, just Muslims?  Ok.  If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.

[musiclady]

as opposed to violently suppressing the right of assembly  and peoples right to choose their  presidential candidate ,to control their borders ? 

I will tell what is like the Soviet Union 

This   
http://www.weaselzippers.us/262492-protesters-behead-trump-effigy-hanging-from-a-noose/


http://patriotupdate.com/liberals-now-demanding-all-trump-supporters-be-shot/


you and others on here  are so dammed blinded by your hatred of Trump, You cant see whats at stake here

I decided to vote for trump because I believe  in majority rule and right of Americans to pick their own government and not have it denied  by violent mobs of leftist vermin

and I agree with Trump on illegals and muslims

The US is  not a garbage can for uncivilized trash and the Mexican government needs to get off its greedy corrupt ass and take care of its own dammed citizens instead of screwing us

Did you miss the part where I said I opposed the leftist scum protesting?

Do you just recite your anti-anti Trump mantra whether it makes any sense or not?

I'll assume the answer is yes to both of those questions....... 

Oy.

[Bigun]

So, you know what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, but you think it should be ignored when it comes to Muslims; not Christians, not white supremacists, not atheists, just Muslims?  Ok.  If that's what you believe, then that's what you believe.

I believe that Islam is not a religion at all as most people understand it. I believe Islam to be a political movement posing as a religion and I say that as one with considerable experience in dealing with them.

[Bill Cipher]

I believe that Islam is not a religion at all as most people understand it. I believe Islam to be a political movement posing as a religion and I say that as one with considerable experience in dealing with them.

Then we'll have to disagree on whether Islam is a religion because I see it as a religion with a totalizing impulse - an impulse it shares with Judaism and Christianity - and that because of its comprehensive nature, again, a nature it shares with Judaism and Christianity, it lends itself to being used to construct, or to affect, civic political structures.

But if we treat it as just a political movement, then it still merits the full protection of the First Amendment because one of the main purposes of that amendment was the protection of unpopular political speech.

[Bigun]

Then we'll have to disagree on whether Islam is a religion because I see it as a religion with a totalizing impulse - an impulse it shares with Judaism and Christianity - and that because of its comprehensive nature, again, a nature it shares with Judaism and Christianity, it lends itself to being used to construct, or to affect, civic political structures.

But if we treat it as just a political movement, then it still merits the full protection of the First Amendment because one of the main purposes of that amendment was the protection of unpopular political speech.

I would respectfully suggest that you don't know nearly enough about Islam!  It is in no way comparable to either Christianity or Judaism!

[sinkspur]

I would respectfully suggest that you don't know nearly enough about Islam!  It is in no way comparable to either Christianity or Judaism!

Christianity has been a political force in the past. Witness the Renaissance Popes, Henry VIII's appropriation of the Church, and the Salem witch trials in this country.

Islam is a world faith with over a billion adherents.  Most of those who follow it are civil and law abiding.  ISIS and al-Qaeda appropriate Islam for their own nefarious purposes. If there was no Islam,those cretins would find something else to latch on to.

[Bigun]

Christianity has been a political force in the past. Witness the Renaissance Popes, Henry VIII's appropriation of the Church, and the Salem witch trials in this country.

None of that was the result of any tenant  of the Christian faith in general and none of it lasted anything like 1400 years and counting!

Islam is a world faith with over a billion adherents.  Most of those who follow it are civil and law abiding.  ISIS and al-Qaeda appropriate Islam for their own nefarious purposes. If there was no Islam,those cretins would find something else to latch on to.

And every last one of them are called upon to kill the infidel simply because he is an infidel. It is a tenant of Islam.

[Bill Cipher]

None of that was the result of any tenant  of the Christian faith in general and none of it lasted anything like 1400 years and counting!

And every last one of them are called upon to kill the infidel simply because he is an infidel. It is a tenant of Islam.

That's a little too simplistic a view of either religion and human nature.  It's not a sufficient distinction to say that Christianity doesn't command people to do this or that.  Christianity says that certain things are sins that should be punished.  If God says that a certain act is a sin, an offense against God, then shouldn't a moral government stop people from committing those acts?  Isn't it immoral to stand by and let sins be committed without consequence?  After all, isn't that the argument that is made about murder all the time?  If we commit to that line of argument, then we commit to imposing all manner of physical restraint (i.e., prison) and possibly capital punishment on other people not because of any positive (i.e., material) physical harm they caused, but because they violated a tenet of Christianity.  For example, if it is against the will of God to put asunder a marriage, then shouldn't a moral government prevent that from happening, by making adultery a criminal offense?  And what about blasphemy?  Speaking out against God in public in the attempt to persuade others to reject God?  If that is immoral, then shouldn't a moral government make it a criminal offense to do that?

[Chosen Daughter]

That's a little too simplistic a view of either religion and human nature.  It's not a sufficient distinction to say that Christianity doesn't command people to do this or that.  Christianity says that certain things are sins that should be punished.  If God says that a certain act is a sin, an offense against God, then shouldn't a moral government stop people from committing those acts?  Isn't it immoral to stand by and let sins be committed without consequence?  After all, isn't that the argument that is made about murder all the time?  If we commit to that line of argument, then we commit to imposing all manner of physical restraint (i.e., prison) and possibly capital punishment on other people not because of any positive (i.e., material) physical harm they caused, but because they violated a tenet of Christianity.  For example, if it is against the will of God to put asunder a marriage, then shouldn't a moral government prevent that from happening, by making adultery a criminal offense?  And what about blasphemy?  Speaking out against God in public in the attempt to persuade others to reject God?  If that is immoral, then shouldn't a moral government make it a criminal offense to do that?

Our laws are based on the Constitution not by sin.  That is why we have to be very careful to make sure that we do not allow any part of America to govern by Sharia Law.  That is a way that they govern in Islamic countries which does set Islam apart from other religions.  In their constitutions they specify that Sharia Law is the law.  I don't know if there are any cities or states that have allowed Sharia Law but I know that they are trying.

[Bill Cipher]

Our laws are based on the Constitution not by sin.  That is why we have to be very careful to make sure that we do not allow any part of America to govern by Sharia Law.  That is a way that they govern in Islamic countries which does set Islam apart from other religions.  In their constitutions they specify that Sharia Law is the law.  I don't know if there are any cities or states that have allowed Sharia Law but I know that they are trying.

That's not quite the point.  Suppose the government decides that acts identified as sins under Christianity should be prevented.  If that is so, then all the government as to do is to pass laws that make those acts illegal.  Enforcing Christian morality would then be by law.  But that is precisely the problem.

[Bigun]

That's a little too simplistic a view of either religion and human nature.  It's not a sufficient distinction to say that Christianity doesn't command people to do this or that.  Christianity says that certain things are sins that should be punished.  If God says that a certain act is a sin, an offense against God, then shouldn't a moral government stop people from committing those acts?  Isn't it immoral to stand by and let sins be committed without consequence?  After all, isn't that the argument that is made about murder all the time?  If we commit to that line of argument, then we commit to imposing all manner of physical restraint (i.e., prison) and possibly capital punishment on other people not because of any positive (i.e., material) physical harm they caused, but because they violated a tenet of Christianity.  For example, if it is against the will of God to put asunder a marriage, then shouldn't a moral government prevent that from happening, by making adultery a criminal offense?  And what about blasphemy?  Speaking out against God in public in the attempt to persuade others to reject God?  If that is immoral, then shouldn't a moral government make it a criminal offense to do that?

Hey! I'm just a simple guy.  I stand by what I  said previously.

[Bill Cipher]

Hey! I'm just a simple guy.  I stand by what I  said previously.

The one thing you are not is a simple guy.  I'm sorry if I came across as insulting you.

[truth_seeker]

Then we'll have to disagree on whether Islam is a religion because I see it as a religion with a totalizing impulse - an impulse it shares with Judaism and Christianity - and that because of its comprehensive nature, again, a nature it shares with Judaism and Christianity, it lends itself to being used to construct, or to affect, civic political structures.

But if we treat it as just a political movement, then it still merits the full protection of the First Amendment because one of the main purposes of that amendment was the protection of unpopular political speech.

That is mighty generous of you. Islam has a recruiting philosophy something like this: Convert, pay a tax, or get killed. There is considerable evidence today, that they mean just that.

A bit harsh, for normal standing in my country as a protected religion.

[Bill Cipher]

That is mighty generous of you. Islam has a recruiting philosophy something like this: Convert, pay a tax, or get killed. There is considerable evidence today, that they mean just that.

A bit harsh, for normal standing in my country as a protected religion.

In certain places yes.  In the U.S.?  No.  Christianity used to pursue similar "evangelical" techniques.  It no longer does.

[Bigun]

The one thing you are not is a simple guy.  I'm sorry if I came across as insulting you.

No insult was even remotely percieved by me and I very much appreciate your kind words.  We simply disagree on this particular issue. 

[Bill Cipher]

No insult was even remotely percieved by me and I very much appreciate your kind words.  We simply disagree on this particular issue. 

Agreed. 

[Bigun]

In certain places yes.  In the U.S.?  No.  Christianity used to pursue similar "evangelical" techniques.  It no longer does.

When did Christianity ever pursue such techniques?  Perhaps I  missed that.

[sinkspur]

That is mighty generous of you. Islam has a recruiting philosophy something like this: Convert, pay a tax, or get killed. There is considerable evidence today, that they mean just that.

A bit harsh, for normal standing in my country as a protected religion.

Where is that evidence in the United States?

[Chosen Daughter]

That's not quite the point.  Suppose the government decides that acts identified as sins under Christianity should be prevented.  If that is so, then all the government as to do is to pass laws that make those acts illegal.  Enforcing Christian morality would then be by law.  But that is precisely the problem.

They couldn't make a law that was unconstitutional.  It would immediately be challenged by the Supreme Court.

[Bill Cipher]

When did Christianity ever pursue such techniques?  Perhaps I  missed that.

In any number of the religious wars that wracked Europe, where the official church was determined by the local sovereign, and those who, through accident or conquest, were not of the correct flavor, were not left undisturbed.  Jews were also often given the choice of converting or having very short, unpleasant lives.

[Bigun]

In any number of the religious wars that wracked Europe, where the official church was determined by the local sovereign, and those who, through accident or conquest, were not of the correct flavor, were not left undisturbed.  Jews were also often given the choice of converting or having very short, unpleasant lives.

Yes but once again none of that happened  as the result of a universal tenant of Christianity.  Islam to one degree or another has been acting on a universal tenant of the religion for 1400 years and counting.  Convert or die!

[Lando Lincoln]

No insult was even remotely percieved by me and I very much appreciate your kind words.  We simply disagree on this particular issue. 

Bigun and I have been in some brawls but we never punch one another in the face.  We're just too handsome for that!

[Lando Lincoln]

These protesters are willing idiots led by skilled anarchists.