magekillr

If the teenager knows you're going to support their decision, they have no reason to hide this from you. If they know you're against abortion, and would more than likely make you keep it, they're not going to want to tell you for fear that you will make their choice for them. If they are forced to tell you afterwards, meh, w/e. I don't think they should ever have to tell you, but I wouldn't be that opposed to telling after the procedure is finished. Of course I'd LIKE to know, but it's her choice if she wants to tell me or not; she should not be forced to tell if she doesn't feel comfortable. I would always let her make the decision after she told me anyway.

Catholic hospitals will not be forced to perform abortions, this is a Religious Right talking point that doesn't hold water with the facts.

What is the reason for parental consent regarding abortion? It's nothing but a guise so that parents can make their children have the child if the parents don't agree with abortion. I 100% support the Freedom of Choice Act, and if it's ever passed, it will be signed by its Sponsor, Barack Obama :)

Um, it's important to everyone. I also hope he knows a good deal about Islam; Obama has some of the greatest etiquette (would that be the correct term?) advisers in the world, as well as a fantastic memory. Yeah, but think of it this way. In Asian culture, it's like an ostracizing moment if you bring "dishonor" to your family, whereas it's not as big of a deal in the West.

Getting rid of Guantanamo Bay is the first step towards peace, obviously. Many atheists and many AMERICANS/People of Europe (regardless of religion) could learn something from Obama, as he just gave a great interview towards the Muslim world. He truly understands Islam, unlike most Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD3P99bxwXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E6H0lniNDY Parts 1 and 2. He mentions the word "respect" at least 12(?) times, and you guys don't know what the means to Muslims, but it means A LOT! It's important to their culture.

False. He got elected. He has done something historic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n#ccmm 60 minutes did a special on Israel's illegal settlements, it's well worth the watch.

*sigh* Now I know why Barihawk never enters the religious discussions when it comes to the Bible and the Qur'an. I seriously think it should be a requirement to take a religious studies class, as well as in depth studies of the areas/histories of the areas to fully understand it. I'm done with this side discussion, because you're clearly not getting my point. Continue on with the main discussion at hand.

Quotes are meaningless without study and analysis. Lol, it's kind of ironic that I said: And then you go and do exactly that. Citing quotations out of context without in depth study of the history in the area are completely meaningless, and are an insult to intellectualism and thought. This is coming from an agnostic, as well.

I didn't ignore it, it was an irrelevant argument because Islam IS inherently peaceful, just as Christianity is. I was arguing that Muhammad did not spread faith by violence, not that his later sons kept to how he preached. Come to think of it, while it says that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, it pays no mention to anything regarding demonizing them and denying them rights. I have also read translations that say it is not homosexual sex that is the sin, but ritualistic homosexual sex. That's something for another time, though. My sources say the opposite, my sources have many awards for their work, with few criticisms. Armstrong's criticisms: --Hugh Fitzgerald He's the author of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch I mean, really? The other criticism is this: To rectify this would require reading from more sources than just hers, which has been done.

Lmao Christian kids are leaving the faith because they run into atheism and liberalism. This guy is brilliant, where does he come up with this stuff? Oh noes! The kids are READING BOOKS! How DARE they!?!?! People like him are afraid of the population being educated so that they can form their own opinions about topics, so they have to use hate and fear to bring people to their literal translations and interpretations of the Bible/Qur'an/Torah. It's so sad. Yes, people are leaving the faith because of atheism. It has NOTHING to do with what they see as a twisted and backwards way of preaching what Jesus and Muhammad preached.

Tryto, while I think the guy has a good point, his "study" of the Qur'an is laughable, just like most atheists on youtube, and people that cite http://www.evilbible.com/.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geisler There goes that guy's credentials. Frank Turek: http://crossexamined.org/ I wouldn't recommend going to his website, it's full of viruses. Just a quick browse of it will tell how laughable this guy is as an author. David Limbaugh: LOL! You mean, Rush Limbaugh's son? Wow. Your book is a rag, garbage. My sources: -Karen Armstrong -Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam" -Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam" -Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People" - Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies" - L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage" Research their names, they're all people that study this history in depth, and have received awards for their work. They're not some nutty fundie Muslims, either. As a matter of fact, Armstrong was a Nun. Your sources are laughable, at best. Defending creationism? No field study in Middle Eastern history? More than likely Turek has a degree from a diploma mill, Geisler is a young Earth Evangelical so it's not surprising why he has a twisted view of history towards Muslims, and Limbaugh is nothing but a hate monger.

All of his conquests were in self-defense. You need to read over my post again, that's not the only argument I made. And can you honestly tell me that when he came back to Mecca, that was under self-defense? That was an act of war. People didn't like Muslims and they kicked him out. He came back with military might and took over Mecca. http://www.sacred-destinations.com/saud ... a-kaba.htm Yes, I can. As you stated, they persecuted and harassed his people. He had a treaty with the Quraysh, that their allies broke (which, their allies were provided with supplies from the Quraysh). The treaty was broken, and they conquered Mecca. When Muhammad entered Mecca, he did not want bloodshed. He divided his army into six and each of these groups was to enter Mecca through a different route. He ordered his commanders to avoid bloodshed unless attacked. In order to prevent bloodshed, he also made this announcement: "Those who shelter in the Kaba are safe; those who shelter in the house of Abu Sufyan are safe, and those who remain confined to their houses are also safe." He spoke of mercy and humility, entered Mecca on the back of his mule and proceeded toward the Kaba in utmost modesty. He stopped at the Kaba (where Idols continued to be worshipped) and asked those who assembled there: How do you expect me to treat you? You are a noble man, the son of a noble man, they answered. Muhammad then said: This day no reproach shall be on you. God will forgive you; He is the Most Merciful of the Merciful. It is important to note that during the Hijrah, Muhammad and his followers were persecuted to the point that they had to flee from Mecca. He returned to his home, victorious over the people that had so long oppressed him and his people. I don't see how returning home, avoiding as much bloodshed as possible, when your people were attacked is an offensive regime.

for anyone interested in the stimulus argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/opini ... ugman.html

*sigh* I thought I made it quite clear: All of his conquests were in self-defense.

Will do. No, this is false. Islam is inherently a religion of tolerance. The Qur'an states very clearly and emphatically that "there is no compulsion in religion." This means exactly that. Every man and woman have a right to choose (or not choose) religion. Contrary to popular (and Orientalist) propaganda, Islam did not spread by the sword under Muhammad. There is absolutely no evidence in history of such forced conversions during his conquests. A muslim is not a muslim unless he or she believes. It cannot be forced upon anyone. In contrast, in its 1400 years of history, Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere. The fact is, early Muslims faced a great deal of persecution and Arabia Muhammad was born in was a corrupt, war-torn society. Barbaric practices of female infanticide, slavery, violence were all rampant in this virtually lawless society. The battles that Muhammad (in the Battle of Uhud and the battle of Badr, for example) and his followers fought were for their survival. Karen Armstrong gives an excellent and fair account of the history of early Islam. I'll quote her here: (You can read it in its entirety here: http://www.islamfortoday.com/armstrong01.htm)

Speaking of ignorance, your knowledge of the history of these battles and Muhammad is extremely limited, and ignorant.

So you don't truly believe in freedom of expression, then? How do you suggest that we deal with the racism that plagues many European countries with regards to the immigrants? In the never ending quest to halt racism, you're preventing any form of rational dialogue about race and religion, when dialogue is how we move forward. Confining it to living rooms allows it to spread under our noses. This man's view of Islam is horribly narrow-minded, and he obviously doesn't take time to analyze it like a real scholar, but his views on allowing criticism of religion are spot on. Why can't we criticize someone's religion if there's something we need to say? I am by no means taking to the defense of this man's comparison of Mein Kampf and the Qur'an, but to penalize him for it in the form of prison is ridiculous. What is this? 1984? I thought it was a good way to start the thread so that people understand I'm not some "American-freedom" humping nationalist, that loves everything about America. How does it infringe on other people's rights? Words are powerful, but they do not infringe on anyone's rights unless they materialize into violent action. There is too much divisiveness in Europe, and they think their countries and identities are being taken over by immigrants. Not only do they feel this way, but the bloody laws being enacted are making it a reality! Forcing people to be tolerant will not make it so. They can't insult Islam? Why the hell not? I mean, I think the Dutch official that insulted Islam the way that he did is a moronic bigot, and I also think the man in this video that I provided has a horrible understanding of Islam, however, they should have the right to say whatever they want about Islam if they so choose. Are they idiots with narrow minded views of the world around them? Of course, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be vocal. Do you think that people should be allowed to display pictures of Muhammad? Moreover, do you think that this cartoonist has the right to publish this cartoon?:

As some of you know, more likely than not, I reject most of America's ideals when it comes to living and follow a more European aspect that is much more communal and not so individualistic. Europe favors helping the poor through government rather than through charity, health care is not a problem for anyone regardless of monetary income, people are being educated at higher levels at earlier ages, alcohol and drug laws are much more lax (except for maybe Sweden and Finland when it comes to the drugs), shootings are not really a problem, and there's a more sensible approach to foreign policy with regard to Israel. Anyway, one of the few areas that I embrace America's ideals over European's is our access to uninhibited free speech, where we are not prosecuted for what we say. Now, I know in Europe that they can speak freely when it comes to newsprint more so than in America (I read a study about it, quite interesting), but what I am talking about is the laws that are coming in that don't allow people to speak against others' religion, race, sex, etc in an open forum. In America, you have the freedom to say whatever you want regarding any group of people, so long as it does not incite immediate violence or widespread panic. For example, you can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded place if there is no fire. The specific example regards the recent news about the Dutch government official that will face prosecution for comparing the Qur'an to Mein Kampf. Here is the article for if anyone is interested: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481665,00.html (I couldn't find any other links to it, despite reading it on CNN and other outlets). This is where I welcome America's laws with open arms, and reject Europe with how it tries to deal with hate speech and racism. This is why you have a lot of "us vs. them" in Europe when it comes to immigrants. They feel that the immigrants are slowly taking away their own freedoms, and leeching onto society by doing menial jobs that barely help. Europe, you need to get rid of your bans on hate speech, your bans on Holocaust denial, your bans on racism, your bans on hating anyone that's different. The only sensible way to deal with racism and hatred is to let people speak about it in an open forum so they can be honest with how they truly feel to the public. Keeping these feelings inside only furthers their hatred to be talked in closed company, and it builds. Adding onto it, these types of laws are seen oppressive to them when these "others" came in and changed the laws...this only furthers the rift and causes more hatred and racism. Allow anyone to speak out about things if they want to. Allow people to hold KKK rallies, so long as no one is being harmed. Allow people to hold signs that say, "God Hates [bleep]s" or, "The Holocaust Never Happened". By doing so, not only are people allowed to vocalize their opinions in the open, but they are exposed for the idiots they truly are to the public of the nation. THAT is how you deal with hatred and racism; let their [wagon] be revealed to the general public.

Here's some interesting reads about the "Chicago elitist snob": http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ommate/?hp http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 02A906DC5F

I addressed this earlier, and it was Roberts that messed it up.

how is becoming the african-american president of the united states not historical to you? Half black. -.- Sorry but that kinda annoys me for whatever reason >.< He identifies as a black man, he would be viewed as a black man in any other circumstance, he is the first African American to assume the Presidency. Why does it annoy you? OT: Okay, before you read this article, keep in mind two things: 1) This study has not been subject to peer review and the methodology & results have not been replicated by other researchers yet. 2) Just be very mindful of your comments in here; I've seen threads on correlations of this nature turn nasty, for whatever reason. Regardless, this finding is interesting and I want to read the actual study. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/educa ... r=4&ref=us I think this hypothesis is extremely sound, and the results need to be examined in other studies as well just to make sure methodology is controlled as possible.

But...a lot of it is not historically accurate whatsoever, and we have no evidence for when there very well should be. Or, other things that are "true" in the Bible are like those "Based on a true story" movies, where the happenings in the movie are a very vague recollection of what actually happened to make it more entertaining.

Erm, let's see. Here's a run down of what Obama did in his first day in office, never mind all of the SMART CHOICES he's made for his cabinet (you know, like Steven Chu who was probably my favorite cabinet choice, or Tom Daschle that will possibly bring UHC to America when he adopts some of Hillary's ideas about it, Tim Geithner was a great choice because of his knowledge in economics despite being fairly unknown, and many others): The Obama administration has made it clear that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp will be closed within a year. Three executive orders are coming out tomorrow to facilitate this goal, where the executive orders will order the closing of the detention facility, establish new rules on interrogation methods, and new guidelines regarding the treatment of detainees. A military judge also granted Obama's request for a 120 day halt to the detainee trials such that they can review the legal process. Obama has ordered the revoking of Executive Order 13233 and has ordered the end of the practice where others besides the president assert executive privilege in order to abstain from disclosing the administration's records. Executive Order 13233 was a notorious order, which earned the wrath of archivists, librarians, and historians, mainly because it limited access to the records of former presidents. Obama's second Executive Order ordered a series of sweeping changes into how the executive branch conducts itself, which include ensuring that staff do not accept gifts from lobbyists, closing the "revolving door" that allows people to move from executive branch jobs to the private sector, or vice versa, which would allow the sector to have more influence on government, and ensuring that employers hire on the basis of qualifications, competence, etc. and not ideology or ideological connections. These new executive orders created a pay freeze for his top 100 staff members who make over 100k. He said that public service is a privilege, and that all must make sacrifices in these times of need, and that public service is a way to help the people they represent, not to advance themselves financially. Neil Cavuto of Fox News reported that he thought Obama was silently trying to send a message to corporate america that they should follow suit. His interviewee said that Obama was setting an example, and was not implicating anything other than setting an example that the Feds were sensitive to the fact that Americans are hurting right now and that Obama was aware that the salaries were paid with taxpayer money, not private money like the salaries in corporations. Obama is pressing forward with his commitment for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and called for such in a meeting with his national security advisors. He will travel to the Pentagon soon in order to relay the same message to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Finally, Obama's phoned Palestinian and Israeli officials, telling them he was committed to a peace process for the Middle East. Some sources have said that Abbas was the first recipient of a call from the White House, if that means anything... And you're telling me needs to do things?: The Washington Post gave a final tally on W's vacations. 149 trips to Camp David- total of 487 days; 77 trips to the Crawford Ranch- total of 490 days, and 11 trips to Kennebunkport ME- total of 43 days. Total? 1,020 days of vacation, equals over 1/3 of his entire presidency. Almost 3 of 8 years away.