Islam religion should be banned in the U.S.

Oh, I was expecting a bad argument, but you really pulled out the worst one you could have.

Tell you what, you explain your view that muslims just moving to the US is the same thing as the genocide of native americans to some spokespeople for native americans, and you get back to me with what they say.

A little tip though; your comparison hasn't got enough "Oumpf" to it. I suggest you compare it to the holocaust. You know, because I think there is a way you could actually make less sense.

 

You mean like 200+ years of precedentthat said marriage is just between a man and a woman?

It's funny precedent doesn't mean a damn thing to you folks when it goes against your ideology. But the second it supports it you're screaming precedent at the top of your lungs.

 

Lets just ban all Religion!!!

Ban everything!!!!

 

Better yet - Lets just leave all of our Military bases that are not on US soil and stop messing with other countries internal affairs.

 

If we must have people come here, make sure they don't support kooky things, like Sharia Law, for one thing.

All coming even to visit the US should sign a document saying they do not support Islamic terror organizations, any of them, and they oppose Sharia Law.

I would also have all self-identified Muslims walk over an ISIS or Taliban flag as a show of proper disrespect.

 

Just wanted to repeat your post. Well said. As opposed to middle east Muslims, American Muslims are peaceable folk, who've somehow managed, as we all should, to tame the more wild parts or nature of themselves and their religion.

 

This is another op-ed, and it offers no science to back it up. However, here is some actual science that thoroughly debunks the paper to which they are referring.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL042314/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049236/full
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf

There are many others, but that's a start.

Roy Spencer is true believer in climate change denial, and has made numerous attempts to deny the existence of man-made climate change.

Moreover, the editor of the journal which published that study (the same journal that the last link above links to) resigned over the decision to publish that paper.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14768574

A few highlights from that article:

...the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process...

"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
"This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."

"Those who recognise that their ideas are weak but seek to get them into the literature by finding weaknesses in the peer review system are taking a thoroughly disreputable approach,"

...He is also on the board of directors of the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing thinktank critical of mainstream climate science, and an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical Christian organisation...

Now, if we want to talk about pseudoscience lol, well for one, creationism is sort of the crown jewel of pseudoscience. Disreputable practices as described above are a hallmark of pseudoscience, as well as ignoring scientific arguments, and tweaking data to suit your previously arrived at conclusion.

When you research climate change you notice the opposition usually amounts to op-eds spouting opinions and drawing massive conclusions from small or false information. When you look at those who argue (not the best word, its like I argue that smoking causes cancer, we know it does) that climate change is real, you get rigorous studies, tons of data and statistical analysis. Moreover, aside from the onsie twosie minorities like this guy, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that man made climate change is real. NASA, IPCC, AAAS, ACS, AGU, AMA, AMS, APA, GSA, International Academy, US National Academy of Science, USGCRP, the scientific bodies of the countries that signed the paris climate agreement(and one that doesn't anymore), and all of these https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php are just some of the reputable scientific organizations (in fact, probably all of them) that strongly and loudly agree that it is real and we are causing it.

If you want to believe that it is not, then you have to believe a worldwide cabal has infiltrated the deepest levels of all governments, and scientific organizations, and gotten the vast vast vast majority of scientists to abandon their principals, and lie about the evidence to support a position they prefer (which is looming disaster, not sure why they would prefer that). This would be a conspiracy to blot out all conspiracies ever conspired. And stubborn belief in THAT is as pseudo-scientific as it gets.

Even if you did believe in this conspiracy theory, were is the payout? A few votes? Some increased government control? All against the backdrop of the fact that the oil lobby, and almost all other industry have a vested interest in denying climate change, you should expect every ounce of climate change of misinformation out there. In fact, you should be concerned about climate change unless the overwhelming majority of information denied it.

Good, then the above "deflection" was a much more important discussion.

 

lol, reformation? All religions are ridiculous and we should have grown out of them a long time ago. Of all of those silly and often dangerous religions, islam is the worst, and I see no reason to pretend it isn't. However, to discriminate against a people for their religion is unconstitutional, especially considering the realistically low threat they pose.

 

The 1st Amendment prevents this in the USA and human rights treaties elsewhere such as in the EU.

 

Yet the Climate scientists and their models have proven to be fallible.


Models told us that the years of 1998-2013 were supposed to show ever-increasing runaway warming. And yet, these years actually exhibited the famous "global warming hiatus." An article published in Nature says that zero models predicted this.

Numerous modelers have told us that the Arctic polar ice would be completely gone by now. It's still there. Many models now seem to skew in the opposite direction, predicting more ice than we see today.

Modeler Kerry Emanuel's widely reported initial correlation of global warming with dramatically worse hurricane seasons has been strongly rebutted by multiple groups, leading him to reconsider.

The scientific failure here isn't that models are inaccurate -- it's that the models are presented as undebatable apocalyptic predictors, harbingers of certain future catastrophe. Omens that compel us to rethink our lives. If we take issue with that, we're heretics.

Given how fallible climate models are, why shouldn't we be skeptical of the scary headlines? How good can your science be if you try to prove your point by ruining your detractors rather than through empirical success?

Climate scientists may win their war in a friendly press and with political parties aligned with their agendas. But they make enemies of those people who make logical and empirical evaluations of their results, those who don't give in to pressure and political and professional expediency.

The crusader mentality of climate researchers leads them away from the factual debate and empirical accounting of sound science. We really deserve more from our publicly funded scientific establishments......snip~

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/climate_models_botch_another_prediction.html

Its a good discussion if you get more than one in on it and in a thread dealing with that issue. Which will get more people to bring in all those links. Just sayin.

 

No All religions aren't ridiculous and it does bring like minded people together. While I agree with that Islam being the worst. Reformation would be renewal for those that adhere to it.

Literacy was of outmost importance for the Christian Reformation with specific accent given to education in native languages. So it should work with Muslims.

 

Muslims are old hands at genocide. Just ask the Hindus. Or the Armenians.

And of course, the first Europeans who emigrated to the New World were "just moving here."

 

Just moving to Sweden, getting a home from the government, getting a job selling drugs, and celebrating local music festivals by raping the native girls. This is what we call cultural enrichment.

 

Your point of view is that religions are ridiculous. The United States, one of our major reasons for being a nation in the first place, is religious freedom. If you have a problem with that, don't get annoyed when people call you anti-American.

 

People need to stop parroting the lie that this murderous death cult is a religion. And no, I don't care what Christianity may have done in the past. The ONLY group raping, murdering and destroying TODAY, every day around the world, is pisslam. And there is no sane reason we have to cater to it and let it into our country. There are enough already here and breeding little jihadists already.

 

If you have problems taming your "wild parts"...that's your issue.

Don't project

 

You might want to look at Africa...

 

*Sigh* Global super conspiracy it is then huh?
Ok, this is the last time, you are 0-3 on buying into these things.

The global warming hiatus I already debunked pretty thoroughly(or I guess I should say science has).

The next group of links is about polar ice melting. Mostly the claim that these predictions didn't happen are just sensationalist reporting. Of all of the articles, there is not a single published paper predicting any of those things in that timeline. What is there are models that predicted a range of scenarios the worst case ones being the overly pessimistic ones the reporters jumped on. One professor did say "The final collapse ... is now happening and will probably be complete by 2015/16," but that was just a quote, not published science, same with the quote by Duarte. In two cases that I found there was a quote saying something to the effect of "I think we could see ___ by ___" But that's as strong as it gets. The only other prediction made was a quote 'she thinks a "50/50 chance" that summer sea ice disappears entirely or almost entirely within a few decades "is about right."' Again, quotes, not scientific predictions.

The last group of links was about Kerry Emmanuel. He was working on climate modeling software and predicted that an effect of global warming based on his models would be hurricanes of increased strength. The rest of the criticism is leveled at that prediction which he agrees may have been premature to publish. Nothing says it wasn't true, and in no way whatsoever was the veracity of global warming challenged.

So, again remember what i said earlier about taking small or fake information and conflating it into something that its not? Again, that's pseudoscience.

I agree, but others can still read it, and if someone really is bothered by these sorts of denialist arguments, its good that they can look and see how little there is to them.

 

lol, so religion is responsible for countless wars, the inquisition, countless crimes against humanity while trying to convert people, witch burning, child rape, lots of genocide, suppression of women, isis, 9/11, setting back advances the romans made by about 1000 years, and to this day is still used to justify slavery, murder, and rape, and still very actively works against human rights and scientific progress... but hey we got a few knitting circles.

 

No, trump and his supporters are anti-american and anti-military. Religion is ridiculous of course. One of the real reasons we are a nation in the first place was to escape religious persecution, which is another crime brought on by religion. Now ok, its a happy accident that it helped create the greatest nation on the planet, but, it was just an accident. But yes, by now we should have grown up.

 

Sounds like I hit a nerve. What's really your issue with what I said?

 

We have a president who hid from service to his country and then called everyone who was wounded killed or captured in that war a loser, then proceeded to compare his womanizing to military service and that his late nights supposedly spent building an empire were equivalent to loosing a loved one in battle, continuing on to assert that warfare and the military is such a simple mindless matter that he already surpassed all the professional generals and soldiers who dedicated their lives to their country in understanding how to conduct those affairs. Then suggested a moral equivalency with RUSSIA before gleefully spying for them.

We have a religion that seems to support him even through his attempts to undermine the first amendment not just wrt the freedom of the press but also freedom of religion, all while being nothing but prideful, and prideful in a way that it is the only thing that defines who he is with no reason to back it up.

And I'm the anti American one for thinking that religion is silly?

 

That's patently absurd. You cannot blame the religion for the actions of people who do not follow what it teaches.

 

I challenge you to show me how any of those things are justifiable within the doctrines, teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ in the gospel.

Again. You cannot blame the religion for the actions of people who do not follow what it teaches.

 

They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13)

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Your argument will be that it says something else somewhere else in the bible, and that's the problem. It isn't based on anything, and therefore can be used to justify anything. because you can never verify what it really means. The only thing they seem to agree on is that they are all mighty, and therefore anything done for it or in it's name is justified. I don't care about a religion's feelings or blame, it isn't a person, it's a weapon, and its a nonsensical weapon that has caused far too much harm, and it's time to outgrow it.