2 votes

Christian Taliban

So let me get this straight: If I believe that the non-aggression principle applies to everyone equally, as the good doctor does, I am a part of the "Christian Taliban." Just call me Mohammed, because that name calling is so adult and really helps the discussion.

The issue really revolves around whether a baby has rights or not. So, if you'd like to explain why it doesn't, go ahead, and stop the name calling, as it leaves the odor that you don't have any valid underpinnings to your belief. Apparently the man for whom this website is named is a part of the "Christian Taliban"; should Micheal rename it "The Daily Taliban"?

Anyone who throws around terms like "Christian Taliban" (or "godless" or any other pejorative moniker) instead of addressing the underpinning beliefs behind a statement needs to learn some tolerance and respect because being an asshole does nothing to foster critical thinking and the spread of knowledge. It is utterly unconvincing and destructive to discourse.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

?

Operative terminology.

"instead of addressing the underpinning beliefs behind a statement"

I don't know

I posted the lonk with a question mark because I don't really get it.

Christian Taliban is like Jumbo Shrimp, Military Intel..

I don't get it.

Hmmmm…

Funny but, in a VAST majority of my "dealings" with those who profess themselves to be "Christian" and most of all with those of the "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" varieties, I've found the most un-Christian people I've ever met. JUST SAYING…

But then, there are those un-believers that feel that they are possessed of a greater sense of reality and therefore will defend the unqualified murder of children simply because it is their, mostly unqualified and unquantified, "Scientific" belief that life begins after birth (or some other such nonsense), and that,prior to such a date wherein the "done" button pops out, it is the mothers right to kill a child.

I even lived a long youth devoid of any stance, for or against, abortion leaning more to the side of "Mother's Rights to her own body"…until I saw my child grow in his mother's belly via regular sonograms, and then when I saw him reach for an inserted needle during an amnio extraction.

Then I watched as he decided to come out a month early. The amnio exam happened within a few months so…early…sorry to the woman's rights bunch as he was a conscious being very, very early in the process and some would have murdered him…or allowed someone to…one having taken the stance simply because they don't like Christians or agreed with their beliefs.

God love science and opinions are like a$$holes…but how did a "fetus" see and then decide to reach out for something invading his domain? Wherein was his inquisitiveness in reaching to examine the needle if he was/is not conscious and thinking? I personally know 12 humans who arrived long before they were supposed to 4 being in my family alone. I'm sure glad some scientific mind wasn't in charge of deciding whether or not to throw them away as being "unfinished" and therefore disposable.

Seems the best way to deal with such idiots is to assume that they, in their learned minds…must have SOME date whereby the "fetus" becomes conscious and therefore worthy of protection as a viable life. So what day is that and how does the respondent come by his assumption?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

"Funny but, in a VAST

"Funny but, in a VAST majority of my "dealings" with those who profess themselves to be "Christian" and most of all with those of the "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" varieties, I've found the most un-Christian people I've ever met. JUST SAYING…"

I couldn't agree with you more. The fifth best Christian I ever met was a gay atheist.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77