SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Obama's Religion (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, February 3, 2017
, 18:28, February 3, 2017→This article is more harmful than good for this project
:::::I agree with Pokeria1. It may well qualify as a cult, but it is a religion. All they do is for a purpose--to please their "god" so they can be rewarded after death with 72 virgins. They use (and basically invented) terrorism, but that's a tool to the end of obeying the mandate to "...slay [infidels] wherever ye find them..." so that Allah is worships worldwide, by all living people. It's a horrifying perversion of religion, but it still is just that. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 12:23, 3 February 2017 (EST)
:::::I agree with Pokeria1. It may well qualify as a cult, but it is a religion. All they do is for a purpose--to please their "god" so they can be rewarded after death with 72 virgins. They use (and basically invented) terrorism, but that's a tool to the end of obeying the mandate to "...slay [infidels] wherever ye find them..." so that Allah is worships worldwide, by all living people. It's a horrifying perversion of religion, but it still is just that. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 12:23, 3 February 2017 (EST)
The problem is there are terrible leaps of logic in this article:
:Some Muslims are radical terrorists who should not be trusted.
:Some evidence suggests that Obama may be Muslim.
:Therefore some evidence suggests that Obama is a radical terrorist who should not be trusted.
The problem is that the argument is as strong or stronger in the opposite direction:
:Some Christians are serious, responsible people who should be trusted.
:A lot of evidence suggests that Obama is a Christian.
:Therefore a lot of evidence suggests that Obama is a serious, responsible person who should be trusted.
Given that Obama has left public office, does this article serve any purpose? Even if it convinces readers, would they really care? Is anyone coming to read this article to learn or are they just being sent by critics to it to get a misimpression of Conservapedia? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (EST)
== "Prepared remarks" ==
== "Prepared remarks" ==