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


So you don’t think marriage should have any legal standing?


I thought the specific point here was that the state was going to compel people to perform religious ceremonies. It can’t happen in the US, unless the First Amendment is repealed.

As for why Denmark has a state church, I think it’s a great question. Maybe the country was founded by gay Communists or something… :wink:


I think it’s become useful for it to have it. Such as gaining citizenship with a foreign spouse, or at least residency.

It’s useful in other ways such as providing incentives to keep the marriage from breaking up as people pleases. And incentives to have children, as we can usually assume children to be born from it.


Oh, wow. Now you believe me. That only took, what, six weeks?

The point being, if you get lines like that from your sources, you have lousy sources, and if you have lousy sources, my advice is (1) get better ones, and (2) turn up the critical thinking dial.

Good question, but I leave wars for the IP forum.

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

But then, those Latinos are mostly Catholic, so… :wall:

Ah yes, the Pahlavi dynasty. They threw great parties – so great, the Communists and capitalists (and other royal families) all got along! :rainbow: I’m not even joking.

We’ve already seen that meme (like maybe one year ago), and we’ve already done the country X vs. country Y thing (in the “dislike Islam” thread). Try to come up with something more original.

And if you’re truly interested in the Pahlavi dynasty, that’s a whole other interesting discussion, for the Culture & History forum I suppose.


That sounds like a yes. :idunno:


It sure does.


Are they running because a Christian terrorist group is waging war and trying to impose mosaic laws?

You keep trying to compare it with Christianity, and I understand where someone would compare Abrahamic religions. But here, again are there even a comparable amount of any religious group to what Islam is doing? If not, not sure why keep going back to the well when it’s empty.

Even your own point points to Islam being a problem in Syria. Really, I don’t believe you don’t know the answer to my question. One of the main reasons of Syrian refugees isn’t because of Islamic terrorists groups like ISIS? Give me a break.


When did I ever say no?


You just said you don’t want the state involved in marriage.


I said it is useful with certain things. Not so useful like the other poster who can’t find his wife and has to ask permission to get a divorce. It’s already involved so that’s the reality of things. What would be the point of it for the state if it didn’t have legal standing.

I’ve made many cases of why it would be beneficial, keeping marriages, children, etc.


So you do want the state to be involved. I’m just trying to get some clarity. You literally just said you don’t think the state should be involved.


So we are looking at marriage as a sacrament of the flying spaghetti monster, which as we all know must involve meatballs and gravy (and cannot be eaten by weirdos who like to put in lettuce) So to protect the true meaning of marriage ‘we’ – flying spaghetti monster people - need to protect marriage from ‘them’- the authorities of the country that I say I am a national of? Is that it Andrew? :wink:

(P.S. I’m just kidding)


I sure hope that that Singaporean guy’s New Unified Theory (aka NUT) means I can go back in time and unsee that


He’ll just post again.


The war in Syria, like the whole situation in the Middle East, is far more complex than that, and that’s all I’m going to say about it.

The point of the substitution exercise is not to shit on Christianity. It’s to illustrate the double standard you get in the media (social or otherwise) and then in your own head. These refugees over here are defined primarily by their religion. Those refugees over there are defined primarily by their political/economic situation.

You see X billion humans as a homogeneous group. I don’t, whether it’s Christians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, or any other group that can theoretically be measured on that scale.


And btw – sorry to go off topic again by addressing your historical grievances like ancient Rome and all that – the Shah was also a Muslim. The majority of the population didn’t suddenly convert when Ruhollah returned from his exile in… France. They had been Muslims for well over a millennium.

The previous regime change, in the 1950’s, was also the replacement of one Muslim leader with another. The difference then was that it was a democratically elected regime that got taken down, because your country (apparently a Christian country, if we’re keeping score) didn’t want that democracy to succeed. They finally fessed up in the 90’s.

That same country was also behind the regime change in Afghanistan that kicked out those godless Communists, replacing them with people were most definitely not atheists. Supporting theocratic rebels and then complaining that they’ve theocratized the country is not consistent.

I’m not saying any of these actions were right or wrong. I’m just presenting inconvenient facts to demonstrate, again, that your black-and-white narrative fails to grasp that this planet is actually very complicated.


Not going to let the guy get up off the ground before you start kicking him again? That’s harsh.

P.S. I agree with everything you said there. 100% spot on accurate. Especially this:


Well, he recently called my arguments triple lame, so I don’t think I’m really being that harsh. :slight_smile:


I don’t get whats the big problem with harsh browns. It is a nice potato-e based breakfast addition. But anyway. Glad to see a comment calling the Iran story for what it is.


I understand there are other political reasons at play. But your refusal to see that Islam isn’t one of the root problems is either you having a double standard yourself or you just don’t want to call a spade a spade for arguements sake. No matter how peaceful some Muslims are, there’s always a more brutal and oppressive form of Islam that is going to roll them over.

Yes, the fall and collapse of many nation states in the Middle East was in some degree artificially induced by outside powers like the US. (You seem to keep missing the point although the predominant religion is Christianity in the US, most of the founding fathers themselves were the very least deists. There’s a separation of church and state) The huge problem of Islam and how it’s interpreted plays a big role in the conflicts there. If you can’t admit that, I don’t think there’s a point in even talking.

One particular reason of the conflict and power struggles are between the Shia particularly in Iran, and the Sunnis in places like Saudi Arabia. Did they use Islam as a propaganda and wedge issues and grab power, yes. Are you saying this wasn’t a problem in the making for a long long time? This split of Islam has nothing to do with the conflict of the gulf states and shia states? The US ,Europe or who ever cause this problem? Saudis and Iran both making terrorists groups for their interests is not because of Islam?

Egypt, killing each other in their own country over interpretations of Islam and the Pursuit of implementing sharia

Same with every other country.

Did other countries like the US turn a blind eye to the saudis for oil? Yes. They countries outside the Middle East meddle yes.

When when shit hits the fan, or whenever they topple whatever government they had for good or for bad. The predominant reason for continued conflict is which interpretations of Islam. National identity falls apart and which form of Islam one practices becomes how they identify themselves more.

You can turn ever arguement back at any religion like Christianity which without the doubt had this problem in history. But are 3 point Calvinist fighting 5 point Calvinist for power? No. With so many denominations openly practiced as well.