Marocc

That it's false regarding all major religions. But Catholism was not. "Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” (A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48)." https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine Has someone said that religious leaders are infallible in Christianity? Actually does happen on twelver Shia sect at least. Many of them think their 12 imams are infallible. To set the laws of the Bible, they needed to do more than be 'spiritual leaders' such as they are considered today. All authority on earth is temporal.

More like fear of sinking with the bigger ship that's called the USA.

That's a highly misleading way to describe a people of a faith. It's not what works, but can one make it work. A good manipulator needs nothing. He can always manage like you wouldn't believe. Wasn't Catholism basically made by a disbeliever? But there's more than Catholism out there. This I don't know a single one where that would be applicable. Not even Catholism, imo — nevertheless, if you're going to talk only about Catholism, you should say 'Catholism' instead of 'religion'.

Yes — you want a man made religion and an idol. Those were invented long time ago.

What's your definition of a 'false religion'?

Good. Too bad. I don't think it lasts that long, though I suppose it may vary. I'm guessing 2 minutes. 5. But there are many. And - you don't need a church clock to chime the time. Actually, I don't even know what your trouble is. You have too much time - all of you - to talk empty talk. Do you realize that you are going to die one day?

But the Adhan is only 5 times a day. Not every hour. It must've been one of those long posts of yours I skipped. I know you can't discuss it so I don't see a reason to spend time readying your lengthy copy pastes and ignorant talk.

Bell chimes? I thought you said something about Sunday service. The clock is a whole different story. Well.. You do have a phone, don't you.

Hearing the call to prayer ≠ running into the individual who raped you in the past.

Yes.

Let's be fair here — the entire purpose and fuel of the forum is inciting antimulticultural and anti-religious sentiment in addition to promoting inequality, racism, capitalism, injustice and bullying.

I don't believe the division between the "dems" and the republicans to be of significant importance. I.e. I don't care.

Btw, BBC isn't credible when reporting about countries it usually doesn't write anything about.

Yes. I would think it might be because my first thought was and is that she is mentally unwell/a drug addict/an alcoholist.

Or "being a victim of terrorism is unsettling to many". I'd like to see some unbiased data on how many PTSD sufferers have a problem with hearing the adhan. Not all traumatic experiences are triggered by just anything somehow related to the traumatic environment.

Will the Uighur Muslims be heading out for picnic too?

That's narrow-minded and I wonder if you believe it yourself. An individual is influenced on countless of ways during their life time. Yet, I think, if a particular individual under discussion was poor, had been fired multiple times, lost all his friends and family, drinks away his life and steals to survive, you would be able to make dozens excuses in his defense for just about anything he may have done. You could blame the parents, the society, the friends, the boss, excessive alcohol use in the world in general, capitalism, some other country etc., but if it's a foreigner and not Caucasian — you'll make no excuses but instead you look for extra faults.

Can one say they're entirely wrong? More often than not, surely, there are multiple parties to blame.

Saying words doesn't make an attack a terrorist attack. It is defined according to the motive.

A lot of people who call themselves Muslims have relationships.

What kind of restrictions? How is it not sustainable? I get the fair part, but does everything have to be fair to be "sustainable"? Isn't capitalism an example that shows that in short periods of time, e.g. 200 years, unfairness is, technically speaking, sustainable from the point of view of the one who is in a better position? What's been going on? I don't know that I place more emphasis on it than other things. As far as I know, most mosques have separate prayer "rooms" for men and women. It's a strange example you picked. I'm sure you can understand, if you think about it, that it is not good for men or women to be distracted by the opposite sex while praying.

Nudity in Islam is not a cultural matter. It is a legal matter. I'm guessing by "he's made it clear" you mean he's never said it, but I could be wrong. You shouldn't gossip about your neighbours. Maybe they didn't know they were approaching a disturbingly immoral zone. Is that on some public statement somewhere or did you just make it up? Can you explain why they should not? Between whom? They can become aquinted. Not a valid excuse to support the right for "civilized" people to be nude in public. Maybe it is that simple for wealthy people, but it isn't for refugees. You don't have to.

Really - they wear tags? I never said anything about socialising during events, mixed gender. And no, it doesn't have to start long before marriage. If you look around the world, you'll see it's true. Islam established a democracy around 700 ad.

Muslims don't have 'relationships' outside marriage. I have been around for a while and know the definition of domestic abuse.

I am a woman.