Is there a set amount of off topic replies after which threads are split?


I understand that, but then I said after I clearly said I don’t. Outside of rabbis and scholars, very few people would know mosaic laws.

But what about these people

“Wikipedia page”

About the 10 commandments

“Wikipedia page”

What about, what about. Where is the conversation even going?


what is this about?


Again, I’m not about to go parsing conversations to see if people’s arguments are sound or not. It seems basically relevant to me. If it seems irrelevant to you, no one is making you respond.


“I don’t like Islam”
“Yeah but what about Christianity? Yeah but what about judaism? Yeah but what about mosaic law? Yeah but what about unrelated event that happened in a different place, at a different time and perpetrated by different people?”

On and on and on forever.


Aaaahm. OK, I got confused when I read about biengtangs and being fat.


It still isn’t off topic.

With hindsight I would have titled the thread “I don’t like organised religion, but here’s why Islam particularly annoys me.”


I use Wikiland because it’s convenient. It saves time. If you want serious research, PM me for a quote. :money_mouth_face:


You could still retitle (?)


When people talk about something like it’s unprecedented, but it’s actually not, context is needed.

For example, a certain colorful member made a big deal in IP about how a small number of people, some of whom were Russian, had recently been added to the US naughty list (had their assets frozen, travel ban, whatever), and this was supposed to be proof that the Trump regime is “tough on Russia” or something. (I don’t recall the details.) In fact, that sort of thing is not uncommon, it involves people from various countries, it’s been going on for decades, and there was no explanation as to how those few people being added to the list were really so important as to be worth posting about.

If I were more knowledgeable about the naughty list(s), I would probably cite other, specific examples of people being added at various times and contrast that with all the people who would probably qualify but for whatever reason don’t get added. I don’t know much about it though, so I simply made the point that there is a context you need to know to understand the significance.

Likewise, when people talk about Sharia in western countries as if it were (1) something new and (2) a feasible campaign to bring (back) capital punishment for homosexuality etc. and (3) a feasible campaign to turn western countries into theocracies, I believe context is needed, hence my decision to bring up the USA’s 1925 Arbitration Act, the freedom or non-freedom of other religions, the abolition of religious arbitration in Ontario, the existence of other theocratic movements, and so on.

You can’t really have a serious discussion of religious arbitration – which is what Sharia “law” in western countries is – without discussing the concept of the state interfering in domestic matters, so if one of the major contributors to the thread has recently made a big deal about how the state shouldn’t interfere with his religion by changing the definition of marriage, and then he displays a seemingly inconsistent view with regard to another religion, I think it’s reasonable to question that – which you can’t do without going slightly “off topic”.

Recently, that thread has been focusing on the definition of Protestantism and whether Trump’s plan to pardon himself is more analogous to grace or karma (not that it matters, as I said). I really wasn’t trying to steer the discussion in those directions, but what’s an intellectual supposed to do? Ignore every flawed argument that gets presented?

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe…

A: I hate apples because they’re green. :frowning_face: :green_apple:

B: What do you think of red apples? :slight_smile: :apple:

A: Oh God, here we go. :roll_eyes: Yes I know there are also red apples. But have you seen the numbers? Forty-four percent of apples are green! Or at least partly green! So it’s not wrong to say apples are green. Apples are the only green fruit of any significance. And they have so much acid in them, the only way to eat them is to pour sugar on them. That’s bad for your health, man. If you keep on ignoring that, you’re basically throwing fat kids under the bus! :cry:

B: I don’t disagree with everything you say. I do care about nutrition and believe children should have snacks that are both healthy and palatable. But I think your obsession with the greenness of apples is not entirely rational. Have you never seen a green banana? Or bananas aren’t signficiant?

A: Whataboutery! :no_no: Bananas are yellow. :banana:

B: Actually, I’m looking at some bananas right now, and they’re covered with brown spots.

A: That’s just a tiny percentage of bananas. More whataboutery! :roll:

B: What other fruits do you consider significant? I have a list here of green ones…

A: Tomatoes? Come on, man! First of all people don’t eat green tomatoes.

B: Yes they do.

A: Ugh, Wikipedia?! :rage: And look, the actual fried “green” tomatoes aren’t even green. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

B: That’s because they’re covered with cornmeal. :corn:

A: Whatever, the point is, tomatoes are not fruits. And what about the time they discovered that plantation with tree after tree of green apples? Some guy even got sick after eating one that had worms in it. You don’t care about that?! :rant:

B: I’m not saying I don’t care about green apples. I’m saying worms eat all kinds of fruit, and your claim that other fruits aren’t green is false. Next on the list, kiwis… :kiwi_fruit:

A: It’s all whataboutery. On and on and on forever.

B: Indeed. :tumble:


Since we are using apples, what percentage of a apple has to be rotten for you to accept, this apple is rotten as a pretty accurate statement and not protest the 10% of apples that is not rotten. Surely at a certain point, you wouldn’t eat it. And even more, what If I said 10% of that apple will kill you if you eat it? You still just bring it right on home for your family and say, let’s just slice off the 10% and ignore it and eat them!

If not,at least follow up with why you think the 10% is important.

Most of us have lived in or are from countries that base laws on some religious foundations. And none of them force this horrible oppressive governance on people. You can openly question religion in peace. The most annoying thing is they might disagree with you on legal and moral issues. Or omg, knock on your door and ask if you heard about “deity here” and invite you to their house of worship.

Do any other religion in such a large number destroy their own country, want to come impose the very thing that keeps their country shit and tell you this is how to live under these horrendous human rights violations. And if you criticize it openly, there will be a large number of followers willing to kill you in the name of that religion?

If you’re caught up with the more rational Muslims that seems to have their own moral compass. Yes, I know there are some. I’m mostly surrounded by them and they leave me alone for the most part. Unless of course I openly speak out about Islam and or try to convert them away from Islam or to another religion. Both are illegal. So I’m not buying the let’s be tolerant of Islam because not all are bad speech when even a moderate Muslim country doesn’t allow much of a tolerance. Hell you can’t even have a Red Cross symbol because you can’t “carry the cross” Islam is the most intolerant religion you can have. I will only afford it the tolerance it gives.

And I’ve given Islam credit where credit is due unlike other posters. I did not skip over the positives.

On the marriage issue.

I said I don’t necessarily want the government to be change of marriage. But since they are in the West at least, and they did take it from the concept of the judeo Christian concept of marriage (yes I know there were similar concept all throughout civilization but they did not base it on the tribes of Thailand etc) I rather them not change it and possibly also giving way to make religious people of all kind of have to do things like hosts gay weddings and such. Like the gay couple cake incident

I then made many many none religious reasons that you ignored and just attached them like you did to pure religious reasons.


That sounds like something from the Old Testament.

Surely at a certain point, you wouldn’t eat it.

You don’t want to know about my diet. :see_no_evil:

slice off the 10%


That has great potential for ethnic jokes, but I try to resist the temptation. :speak_no_evil:

If not,at least follow up with why you think the 10% is important.

I don’t believe 90% of apples are rotten or that the average apple is 90% rotten.

You apparently don’t believe there are millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan right now. Conclusion: we have different sources.

the very thing that keeps their country shit

That sort of claim belongs in the IP forum. Does religion matter? Yes. Is it sufficient to explain why the world is the way it is? No. If it were, those you-know-what countries in Latin America and the Caribbean would be easily explained by religion, but they’re not.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, I don’t do IP. :slight_smile: :rainbow:

And I’ve given Islam credit where credit is due unlike other posters. I did not skip over the positives.


Refresh my memory.

Yes, I understand that argument, and I hope by now you understand the difference between permission and compulsion, i.e. the (western) state does not compel people to perform religious ceremonies. Or do you have evidence that it does?*

I don’t understand what you mean. Is that a typo for attacked? If so, how did I simultaneously ignore and attack your non-religious arguments?

Iirc you made arguments I didn’t bother addressing because others already had. If everyone comments on every point, it gets tedious.

*Arguably, children do not enjoy freedom of (or from) religion, as long as the state gives their parents the right to choose how they are raised, so in that sense there is religious compulsion in western countries. Should that be abolished?


Everyone’s replying to the original thread title.


Yes I do. I understand there are many aspects of why they are running. But is one of them not…Islamic groups?

If you want to see it as glass half full like look at this Muslims taking in other Muslims. And not look at these Muslims, running away from these other Muslims. Ok.

I mentioned in many threads the Islamic Golden age.


Yes yes, he eventually got to the Supreme Court and won and over turned the previous court ruling that forced him to make it for face fine.

But it continues


I wasn’t talking about the cake case. Cakes are commercial. Show me a church the state forced to perform a marriage that went against its theology.


Here you go


only a matter of time before the priests start suing for the right to be ordained in gay bars.

I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a part of a religion that says that you are living in sin, or not normal or whatever.


Also, lets look at Iran before and after the Shia fell and the Ayatollah took power if we are still not sure if Islam is not one of the primary reasons these countries are shit holes



First of all,

That’s not compulsion to perform a religious ceremony. Is it compulsion on the bishops to run their churches a certain way? Yes, but there’s a reason for that.

There’s a clue in the article, hiding in plain sight.

Denmark’s church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote “historic”.

Why do you suppose Denmark has a cabinet minister for religious affairs?

It’s the state church, funded by taxpayers, with the King as its head. You can’t really complain about state interference when you are the state.

So the Telegraph article is basically fake news. It’s not all churches in Denmark, just the ones the government administers, and the bishops who need to make these arrangements are essentially public servants.

(Oh and btw, you can’t play the non-Protestant card when they’re frigging Lutherans. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)


My understanding is that it is compulsory if you stay a part of the state branch of the church. You can refuse by breaking off.

Yes I know the church is a branch of the state. Which is back to my point of something we can both agree with I hope.

Separation of church and state.

I don’t want the state involved in marriage, but since it is…I’m hesitant of them changing the definition of marriage.