Bells

International human rights protects one's beliefs in their deity of choice. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Islamic terrorists, and ISIS in particular, kill more Muslims than they do anyone else in the "secular world". Muslims are also targeted more by ISIS than anyone else in the "secular world". In around 8 months in 2014, they killed more than 9,000 Iraqi's, the majority of the victims were Muslims. What a horrendously bigoted statement. In saying this, you ignore the context of how Islamic terrorism arose in the first place and the role of the West in the formation of such groups. Have you considered the simple fact that banning religion or one's religious belief is just as bad as forcing people to be of a particular religion? That it is just as oppressive, not to mention a gross violation of their basic and fundamental human rights?

Err okay... And you have repeatedly failed to address the issues raised by myself and others about Carson's policies and have instead resorted to asking questions like this: Which I answered. Quite effectively. What part of it do you have issues understanding? You mean you have attempted to avoid responding to questions about Carson and his very own comments about his policies and you instead, prefer to take this thread more off topic? And in your opinion, you would be fine with slaughtering 1 million of your fellow Canadians to save the 40 million? Or is this your way of telling us that Canada has somehow started WWIII and 40 million of your citizens face imminent death? Because your argument in this vein is nonsense. You might as well ask me if I was Queen of the world, who would I get to fly me into space to watch the sunset. Unless of course you just want to discuss the prospect of committing mass murder of 1 million people in some action movie bad script type scenario to apparently save 40 million. Both appeal to the right. And I think it would be silly to dismiss them both.

He is preaching to the already converted far right evangelicals. And they make up a fair chunk of the voting base for Republicans, don't they? He is not a politician, he is deeply religious and he is telling them the talking points they want to hear. In that sense, it is expected that he will poll well. If you notice, he isn't bothering much with anyone else, a few token efforts here and there. He views anyone who questions him as being "secular progressives".

I don't think anyone who shows any form of fanaticism should be placed in a position of power. Well the construction and use of the pyramids are fairly well established fact. Why would they be offended if an American President believed they were used as tombs for their "god-kings"? The response from Egyptian antiquities authorities towards Carson's comments has been one of mocking disdain. Egyptian antiquities officials have scoffed at claims by the Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson that Egypt’s ancient pyramids were not built as pharaonic tombs but used to store grain. “Does he even deserve a response? He doesn’t,” said the antiquities minister, Mamdouh el-Damaty, on the sidelines of a news conference about recent thermal scans of the pyramids that could reveal hidden tombs. [...] Mahmoud Afifi, Egypt’s head of ancient antiquities, said Carson’s comments were similar to other inaccurate theories about the pyramids, including that they were built by Atlanteans from a mythical lost continent. “A lot of people are trying to prove that the pyramids weren’t built for burials,” said Afifi. “Maybe they’re comments used for publicity like that man who’s not an archaeologist and says they stored grain, and I don’t know what that was based on.” They negotiated with Clinton quite well. Military cooperation between the U.S. and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni, the former Commandant of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), once said, "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me to the region." Egypt was also described during the Clinton Administration as the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. U.S. military assistance to Egypt was considered part of the administration's strategy to maintaining continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as critical route for U.S. warships transiting between the Mediterranean and either the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf. In fact, the Clinton administration did quite well all things considered. Then again, Clinton did not try to rewrite their history to suit his religious beliefs. What a bizarre question. If I had been 'grand leader of all', I would have acted before it would have gotten to the point of war, at the point of Hitler's saber rattling and his threats of invasion and I would certainly have acted the moment word started to filter through of his actions on Jews and other minorities in Germany. The writing was well on the wall and the world sat and did nothing until Hitler waged war on Germany's neighbours by invading them. Does that answer your question sufficiently? Or do you wish to rewrite history some more? Would I murder one million people? No, I would not. Would it be a war crime to slaughter one million innocent civilians? Yes it is. Then perhaps you should read what you write before you post it so that you do not come across that way.

Did Clinton govern as per his religious beliefs? Were his religious beliefs so important that he attempted to change laws and stack the Supreme Court with judges who would support his religious convictions? Carson has said that this is what he plans to do. You miss the point entirely. It isn't so much about Carson's beliefs about the pyramids, it has more to do with the fact that those opinions will have an affect on how he governs and it will have a disastrous effect on foreign policy. I ask you once more, because you have dodged this several times now.. How well do you think Arabs in the Middle East are going to want to negotiate with a President who has attempted to white-wash their history in Egypt and who complains that the lack of killing hundreds of thousands of them was due to political correctness? Egypt is an ally of the US in the Middle East. A fairly important one. And it isn't what we think he will do. Carson has already been very open about what he plans to do and it is based on his religious beliefs, from changing the tax system to one that he read about in the bible, to stacking the Supreme Court to support his religious ideology and beliefs. On taxes, he borrows from Scripture for his 10% tax plan. His flat-tax plan would simplify the current tax code by basing it on tithing. As Christians are urged to tithe 10% of their income, taxpayers would pay 10% of their income. "I want a system that's based on biblical principles, because it seems to me that God is pretty fair," he said in Phoenix in August. At a guess, Ben Carson does not understand the concept of separation of Church and State. Firstly, please do not be insulting and do not put words in my mouth. Secondly, Allied forces war crimes are fairly well documented. And yes, some faced court-marshal as a result. Or perhaps we can abide by international laws and not bomb civilians to protect our freedoms and prosperity. What in the world are you on about? Who has said this is going to happen if we do not raze parts of the Middle East and civilians be damned? And your comment is ironic considering that 3 Republican Presidential candidates just appeared on stage and shared the same stage with Kevin Swanson at the National Religious Liberties Conference. Kevin Swanson and the conference itself spent a large portion of its time discussing killing gays and even how to murder gays and whether it should be by stoning or pushing them off cliffs. You can watch it, the story about it is 6 minutes into the video. Kevin Swanson also advised at the conference that parents should drown their children before allowing them to read Harry Potter. He even describes how parents could drown their children. Three Presidential candidates were introduced to the stage at the conference by Kevin Swanson and interviewed by him. Makes for astonishing viewing because Pastor Kevin Swanson spent quite a bit of time "pointing out the gay time". Any potential leader who has fantasies about committing war crimes or who complains that a refusal to commit a war crime is because of political correctness should be viewed with caution. So you would kill a few million people, innocent civilians, including millions of the "40 million" people, because it would have been worth it? Does it make you a war criminal? You would be if you had been in a position of power and had done it. But considering it or believing it would be a good thing makes you something else and frankly, there are doctors that treat that.

Are you aware of the biblical story of Joseph? In the Old Testament, Joseph rises to become a top aide to an Egyptian pharaoh after being sold into slavery in Egypt by his jealous brothers. At one point, the pharaoh has a dream vision that Egypt will fall into a great famine, and Joseph advises the pharaoh to store a lot of grain — a move that eventually helps Egyptians survive. Carson does not read this as a mere allegory about God's grace (since God was willing to provide a vision to save so many people), but instead interprets the story literally. So he believes that this grain had to be stored somewhere, and that the structure would have to be very big and sturdy — certainly strong enough to last to this day. The structures that naturally fit into that view, according to Carson, are the pyramids. Wiki has a very good breakdown of the biblical story. If you wish to refer to the Old Testament, it starts from Genesis 37 or thereabouts. And if that was the case this time, we would not be having this discussion. Ben Carson first made these beliefs known during a commencement speech at a university. Carson made the remarks about pyramids during a 1998 commencement speech at Andrews University, a Michigan school associated with the very conservative Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Carson was addressing a religious audience, and he knew it. (Some of the audience members even shouted, "Amen!" toward the end of his filmed remarks.) [...] Carson also argued that the advanced engineering the pyramids required can be explained by divine intervention. "And various of scientists have said, 'Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that's how' — you know, it doesn't require an alien being when God is with you." (For the record, scientists do not believe that aliens taught the Egyptians how to build the pyramids.) Carson defended his views on the pyramids to reporters on Wednesday, stating, "The pyramids were made in a way that they had hermetically sealed compartments. You wouldn't need hermetically sealed compartments for a sepulcher. You would need that if you were trying to preserve grain for a long period of time." It was not the media or the internet that stretched this to the point of absurdity, as you put it. I would suggest that it is Ben Carson's beliefs that are stretched to the point of absurdity. I don't really think you can compare Clinton's actions to Ben Carson's beliefs. Clinton's sexual escapades did not directly affect how he governed. Remember, that Ben Carson intends to lead and govern as per his biblical teachings, from his tax plan being based on the bible, to implementing laws and changes to the Supreme Court to support his religious teachings. It isn't that it is his beliefs about the pyramids will affect the Presidency if he were to somehow or other, manage to win the election. The issue is that it is becoming abundantly clear that Ben Carson is incapable of leaving his religious beliefs behind and he will lead as per his religious teachings and beliefs. So in that sense, his beliefs about the pyramids become important. Not only that, it also opens the door to a horrific situation whereby a President and leader of a country is so anti-science and willing to disregard history for the sake of his religious beliefs and as a result, will end up insulting an ally to the US in the Middle East. How well do you think Arabs are going to be willing to negotiate, especially during a time of war against a terrorist organisation that does threaten security around the world, if the President is so openly anti-Muslim and anti Arab that he is willing to erase a large portion of Arabic history in Egypt and replace it with his biblical teachings and beliefs? It goes to the heart of how he will govern. The man has already said that he intends to change the tax system to be like what he read in the bible. And that's just for starters. He has already said that he views people who question his story telling in his books, and querying his questionable honesty as being "secular progressives", which to me is even more of a concern than his moronic statements about pyramids. It's not just that his beliefs will be harmful to education in the US. It is that it will be harmful across the board, from foreign policy, education, science and research, defense and the military, as well as health and general policies that affect the poor in the US. And the point of that comparison is what? An excuse for his beliefs that Iraq should be razed to the ground and if millions die, so be it? Are you aware that what happened in WWII was deemed as being war crimes and people were put to death as a result of those atrocities? What just cause can you find in deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Are you suggesting it is okay because Hitler did it? Were the participants in the genocide of WWII war criminals? Yes! We are still hunting them down and they are still being tried for their crimes. For a wannabe President to come out and complain that the US Government's refusal to openly razing a country and committing war crimes in killing innocent civilians in the war on terror, and whining that this refusal was based on political correctness is troubling and concerning..

How will his beliefs that the Egyptian pyramids were grain silos affect how he governs? The answer to that question is to look at what the man believes. Apply his beliefs to other areas of Governance. For example, Ben Carson's tax plan is from what he read from the Bible. Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said on Sunday his proposed flat-tax plan of about 10% was inspired by the biblical practice of tithing. “You make $10bn a year, you pay a billion; you make $10 a year, you pay one. That’s pretty damn fair if you ask me,” Carson said on Fox News Sunday. Carson, a former neurosurgeon who announced his presidential campaign last week, has cast himself as a non-politician and a problem solver in an attempt to set himself apart from the Republican field. He is a long shot in the race, but his idea of a single, proportional tax may resonate with conservative evangelical Christians who believe in tithes and with Americans frustrated by a complicated tax system. “I like the idea of a proportional tax – that way you pay according to your ability,” Carson said. “I got that idea quite frankly from the Bible.” His beliefs will have a tremendous impact on his job performance because he is incapable of separating his personal religious beliefs from how he would govern. The insanity does not end there. When questioned about the debt ceiling, Ben Carson also exhibited what can only be described as being complete ignorance on the debt ceiling and what happens if said debt ceiling is not raised. Nor does he understand the gravity of what would happen if the US defaulted. Ben Carson appeared to have some difficulty in explaining exactly whether he would support raising the debt limit in a recent interview. "Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut," Carson insisted in a Wednesday segment with Kai Ryssdal of the American Public Media radio program "Marketplace." Ryssdal pressed: "To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit." "No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, 'Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period,'" Carson asserted. "I'm really trying not to be circular here, Dr. Carson, but if you're not gonna raise the debt limit and you're not gonna give specifics on what you're gonna cut, then how are we going to know what you are going to do as president of the United States?" Ryssdal asked. In other words, Ben Carson does not understand that the debt ceiling is not about future expenditure, but is about the debt that already exists. This is fundamental and vitally important for a prospective President to understand. Now, you queried what does his beliefs about the pyramids being grain silos have to do with how he would govern? Consider the subject of foreign policy and what Ben Carson's comments show to the world. Instead of relying on factual history, what is known and established, he prefers to believe in his biblical stories. How well do you think that will play out in US relations with the Middle East, primarily with that of an ally of the US, if the President refuses to acknowledge or believe that Egyptians built the pyramids to bury their dead kings and instead, turns it into a biblical fantasy? How well will that play with US/Arab relations if he cannot even acknowledge that Arabs essentially built the pyramids for the purposes of burying their kings? Not only that, how well will his foreign policy be received when he makes comments like this: In his 2012 book, "America the Beautiful," Carson says America should have gone into Iraq and leveled entire cities. Further, he suggests the reason America is afraid to do so is because "political correctness dictates we cannot kill innocent women and children in the process of destroying the enemy." "I would have announced via bullhorns and leaflets that in seventy-two hours, Fallujah was going to become part of the desert because there were substantial numbers of terrorists hiding there," he wrote. "This would have given people time to flee before the city was destroyed, and is a tactic that would actually save lives not only of women and children, but also men." War crimes for everybody! The man is a doctor and he is saying that the US refusal to commit war crimes by bombing civilian men, women and children is based on political correctness. Not only is he openly denying Egyptian history, which is exceptionally insulting and offensive, he also complains that the unwillingness to slaughter men, women and children in Iraq, an Arab nation, is because the US Government is too politically correct. His comments about the pyramids have everything to do with how he plans to govern. Because his religious beliefs will infect every single part of how he governs. As for your concerns about what he might do for education, consider this: Speaking to Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” over the weekend, Carson laid out his plan to combat “indoctrination” within higher education: he’s going to have students report instances of “propaganda” to the Department of Education, which will then “investigate” the offending professor. Carson’s insistence that he’s “thought about this” notwithstanding, he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. This is obviously illegal and a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. But Carson thinks he can get around a professor’s constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech because the students are the ones reporting the “propaganda.” That doesn’t change the fact that he’s proposing a series of government investigations to determine if college professors are saying things that run afoul of what the Ben Carson administration would consider acceptable speech. Carson either doesn’t understand how the Constitution works, doesn’t understand how his own plan works, or both. A quick trip over to the “Education” section of Carson’s campaign website reveals yet another layer of incoherence. “In recent years, there has been a troubling trend of the U.S. Department of Education increasingly trying to dictate how children are educated in our primary and secondary schools,” it reads. So government intrusion in primary and secondary schooling is “troubling,” but heavy-handed government restrictions on how people are taught in universities are necessary and justified. More broadly speaking, the policy Carson has proposed here – students denouncing their own professors to government authorities as a way of fighting “propaganda” in educational institutions – would find a happy reception in really any totalitarian regime you can think of. With one breath, Carson worries about what will happen when people are afraid to express themselves. With the next, he proposes government monitoring of intellectuals to control what they say. And what if an offending professor happens to be a Muslim? Carson has already made clear that he has a blanket mistrust of Muslims and would be suspicious of those who seek to be in positions of influence and authority, so how would they fare under this surveillance-state proposition of his? And what happens when the Supreme Court rules that this absurd scheme is, in fact, illegal? Well, according to Ben Carson, the president can just ignore the court. His pyramid beliefs are just another symptom or marker to a much darker and frightening prospect.

Do you believe they ridiculed you because they thought your belief in faith healing was irrational and dangerous? Why would they suggest what medical treatment you should seek? Are they doctors or medical professionals? Could it be that they had considered you knew of the medical care and that you had ignored it because of your faith? There seems to be a lot of context missing from this story. How did they come around to start insulting you for your faith? What led to it? Is there some background that you have left out? Medical help? Or religious help? And your wording made it seem as though you suffered from cancer. You still have not addressed how he knew your religious beliefs to begin with and what would lead him to lie about trying to have you evicted from your home because of your religious beliefs. Once more, there is a lot of context and history missing from the story. Were you preaching to others? Were you trying to convert your neighbours? Were there loud prayer meetings in your home that disturbed your neighbours? What led him to say you are of this religion and therefore, tried to threaten you with eviction or lie about eviction? What is missing from this narration? No offense, but you are being disrespectful towards atheists in this thread by labeling all with one brush. Not to mention appearing to enjoy the prospect of violence against an atheist for not believing as others do: Is this respectful? Is the threat of violence supposed to garner respect? Would I ridicule sick or desperate people for seeking healing through religious faith? Probably not. But I would question their rationality and I would wonder whether they were possibly harming themselves or others in the process. Many children have died as a result of faith healing, because their parents deliberately chose to withhold treatment for their sick children in favour of faith healing and prayer. Do you think such individuals deserve to be respected? Words cannot kill you. But contemplating that someone could be beaten for words can lead to injury or death. You may believe that ridicule is devoid of reason, but your contemplating violence against the person doing the ridicule or the belief that someone would respond with violence is also devoid of reason, just as it is not calm or rational. Attempting to silence someone's opinion, be it through ridicule or not, by reminding them they could be bashed and end up on the floor is not rational. This whole thread seems to be a leading thread, with bizarre hypothetical's that are completely lacking on context, aimed at painting atheists as being some sort of monsters. And I am sorry, but literally saying that religion is being picked on because 'someone was mean to me' is not enough to prove that all atheists behave this way, nor is it enough to prove that religion is the target of any form of malicious campaign from atheists. If we were to look at a broader picture, religion plays a role in elections in many countries around the world and potential leaders have to somehow prove that they belong to a religious faith, that they practice said faith, laws are often enacted to protect the freedom of said religious beliefs, often to the detriment of others in the populace who do not share the same beliefs. From my stand point, religious beliefs are often protected while those without beliefs are treated like social pariah's. War on religion has become a popular cry from the religious right in many countries and there is little evidence to support it.

Have you considered the possibility that they were responding with exasperation out of concern for your health and wellbeing? That perhaps they were hoping to shock you out of your belief that God would heal you, if you were not seeking medical help or care for your cancer and if you were instead relying solely on prayer? Why would he say that? I find it strange that anyone would try to have someone evicted because of their religious beliefs. How did he even know what your religion was?

There is a sense of a messiah complex with Ben Carson. Presently, his stories about his life are under scrutiny, because they cannot be corroborated. The stories of how he was a violent teenager, intent on harming others, and then finding God and being reborn, if you will. It is very contrived. Whether this is deliberate or he truly believes this remains to be seen. There have been countless of articles written about Ben Carson and his messiah complex. "Ben Carson 'brilliant'? There's no real evidence of it, so find another label" "Ben Carson's chilling God complex: The commencement speech I won't soon forget" Are just two of them. What is abundantly clear, however, is that Ben Carson, like Donald Trump, is all about Ben Carson. He is the messiah, come to save and cleanse the world of the evils of progressives and the left and save it, like he has saved lives in the past as a neurosurgeon. While Trump is loud and brash, Carson is softly spoken in his self aggrandisement. It is possible that he is this mentally disturbed. And it is possible that he is clever enough to have tapped into the psyche of the religious right, to tell them just what they want to hear. He knows what will set them off. From his comments about immunisation, to his disbelief in evolution and the big bang, to his comments about homosexuality being a choice and how men who go to prison come out gay, to his comments about how the Jews could have prevented the holocaust if they had been armed with guns, and so on and so forth. His supporters lap it up. Does he actually believe this? Maybe yes. Is he stupid? No. I do agree with you that he is crazy. Whether it is an insanity that is born from a desire to tap into the religious fundamentals or whether his insanity just exists within him and is part of his persona, neither of which are good. One makes him inherently dishonest and the other makes him dangerous and not someone who should have access to any nuclear launch codes.

Sepsis is a whole body response to a severe infection, and this will usually affect all the organs in the body (especially if diagnosed sooner, rather than later). A perforated bowel is a surgical emergency, so that would take precedence and the patient would be pumped full of antibiotics immediately prior to, during and after surgery. Sepsis is a dangerous infection that does kill and so, doctors would want to immediately treat the cause of the sepsis, in this case a perforated bowel, and then the patient would be in the intensive care unit while they would try to battle the infection. General anaesthesia is always hazardous and in a patient who has developed sepsis because of a perforated bowel, even more so. Because sepsis is a whole body infection that has attacked pretty much most, if not all the major organs in the body, it (the surgery) cannot spread it or disseminate it. But with a perforated bowel, surgery will be the first option because it is a matter of no choice as it will kill the patient if not treated immediately, and because it will be in the cause of sepsis in this particular example.