"Pedophile Protection Act"

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
LAW OF THE LAND
'Pedophile Protection Act': What's next for hate crimes?
On the fast track: Judiciary panel schedules hearing for bill Tuesday
Posted: May 10, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say, provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

WND first reported on what has become widely known as "The Pedophile Protection Act" last week, raising nationwide alarm that has already generated more than 300,000 individual letters of protest to members of the U.S. Senate.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

On Friday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.

Already well over 3,000 people have utilized the procedures and more than 300,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

(Story continues below)




WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

Akers' analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of "virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists." Critics also have expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime.

"Under [the plan] the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive," Akers said.

He said there's already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups ... to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association."

During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."

Republicans in the House also attempted to amend the bill to offer hate crimes protection for U.S. military veterans who were attacked because of their service. Democrats unanimously rejected the amendment.

"I believe this action, organized by Janet Porter, has generated more personal letters to members of Congress faster than any other effort of its kind," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, which has facilitated the delivery through Fed Ex. "I don't think the U.S. Senate has ever received 250,000 individually addressed and individually signed letters in 72 hours before. It will be most interesting to watch the impact."
 
TexasTitan

TexasTitan

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Hooray democratic controlled house, senate, and white house!
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders
 
TexasTitan

TexasTitan

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders
Youre right, haveing one party controlling all 3 of the big institutions in the legislative branch is a great happening.

Lets face it, real conservative people wouldnt let a hate crimes bill for pedos pass.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation in general.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't doubt control by one party is bad, and we saw what it was like when the right was in charge. :rolleyes:

Either way, the system is terrible and this law is a sham
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders
This is exactly it, and a reason why I don't understand your political affiliation. Both sides (of our elected officials) are corrupt and the only way we can reduce corruption is to toss out congress, and reduce government. We need to get these people out, and we need to get rid of so much government intervention in our lives.

Washington is corrupt, yet their current goal is to nationalize everything; just look at how the current administration is trying to run California. Be a part of a movement that works to shrink government, not expand it!
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
This is exactly it, and a reason why I don't understand your political affiliation. Both sides (of our elected officials) are corrupt and the only way we can reduce corruption is to toss out congress, and reduce government. We need to get these people out, and we need to get rid of so much government intervention in our lives.

Washington is corrupt, yet their current goal is to nationalize everything; just look at how the current administration is trying to run California. Be a part of a movement that works to shrink government, not expand it!
I actually voted against incumbant dems in congress for that very reason. I dont like 1 party control at all, regardless of who is in charge.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation in general.
That's it, I'm tired of you discriminating against haters Cannon! I'm mad as H! Pedophiles are people to ya know??......... yeahhhh, I'm just not feelin' that AT ALL. Nevermind. :eek:
 
suncloud

suncloud

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
intestingly enough, pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. my mom did a stint at a prison specifically for sex offenders, and there's no way they can ever loose the "fetish".

wish we'd just castrate them before their release date.

what we've got right now, is a rule that pedophiles can't live within 1000 meters of a school zone or park. that's why some cities have small parks (quarter of a block size) in weird locations - that way they can't live within city limits. napa is a perfect example of that.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
intestingly enough, pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. my mom did a stint at a prison specifically for sex offenders, and there's no way they can ever loose the "fetish".

wish we'd just castrate them before their release date.

what we've got right now, is a rule that pedophiles can't live within 1000 meters of a school zone or park. that's why some cities have small parks (quarter of a block size) in weird locations - that way they can't live within city limits. napa is a perfect example of that.
Castration doesn't do anything either, bro. It's a mental thing more than anything else.
 
suncloud

suncloud

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Castration doesn't do anything either, bro. It's a mental thing more than anything else.
i agree, 100% mental, and it cannot be controlled. maybe castration will lower their drive a bit if we can kill their test levels :)

i'm all for experimenting on a group of society that nobody wants. maybe they can do alpha trials for meds undergoing FDA approval...
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Castration doesn't do anything either, bro. It's a mental thing more than anything else.
Following the castration example, maybe decapitation would be a more direct solution if it's a head problem. ;)
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I was very fortunate a few years back to meet and speak with Meghan Kanka's mother (who, has a strength that I cannot fully understand). For those that do not remember, Meghan Kanka was the girl that Meghan's law came from. Talking to her, and hearing her story put a lot of things into perspective. Now granted, she is not 100% thrilled with Meghan's law, and neither am I, however the moment an adult crosses the line, imo they waive all rights and any veil of protection.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I don't doubt control by one party is bad, and we saw what it was like when the right was in charge. :rolleyes:
When did it happen (as we are seeing now) that the right had control of the house, white house, and fillibuster proof majority in senate?

can someone show me an example of a love crime?

To me "progressive" generally means "dilutive and lacking reasoning" more than anything else.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Following the castration example, maybe decapitation would be a more direct solution if it's a head problem. ;)
And since global overpopulation is such a part of causing pollution, thats a green solution too :)
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
And since global overpopulation is such a part of causing pollution, thats a green solution too :)
I'm running for office then EZ! I'm the green party's choice for sane liberal leadership! lol
 
Brenn

Brenn

New member
Awards
0
Since when is being a child-molester a "gender identity"? Pathology and complusion does not equal gender! If it does, serial killers and arsonists will be next on the protected species list.

Children are unlike any other victim. They are trusting, defenseless and cannot make rational decisions to keep from harm's way. There is no excuse for this. Passing such a law is just a vehicle for keeping the residents of a community QUIET for fear of being sued, when one of these crimininals is released into their neighborhood.

Anonymity is what Pedophiles want and need above all, to follow their compulsion. This law is like telling us and our children that the person most likely to harm them is more important than their right to freedom and happiness. Damned shame.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Since when is being a child-molester a "gender identity"? Pathology and complusion does not equal gender! If it does, serial killers and arsonists will be next on the protected species list.

Children are unlike any other victim. They are trusting, defenseless and cannot make rational decisions to keep from harm's way. There is no excuse for this. Passing such a law is just a vehicle for keeping the residents of a community QUIET for fear of being sued, when one of these crimininals is released into their neighborhood.

Anonymity is what Pedophiles want and need above all, to follow their compulsion. This law is like telling us and our children that the person most likely to harm them is more important than their right to freedom and happiness. Damned shame.
I have heard lawyers say it over and over, that the justice system is designed to protect the defendant/criminal more than the victim. It's a complicated issue that has many factors I'm sure, and I don't understand it enough to have an explanation.

I heard a PhD psychologist on the radio the other day, who said the majority of sexual pathology (about 30 categories) would be umbrella covered by such legislation. These categories of pathological sexual behavior include homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, incest, etc. It was his professional opinion that most of this seems rooted in very aggressive gay rights lobbies and a push for institutionalizing the homosexual agenda. These laws will rewrite the definition of what is and is not "pathological".

Am I missing something here? :dunno:
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I have heard lawyers say it over and over, that the justice system is designed to protect the defendant/criminal more than the victim. It's a complicated issue that has many factors I'm sure, and I don't understand it enough to have an explanation.
....
Am I missing something here? :dunno:
well, the justice system is structured so that 100 guilty men would go free before a single innocent man is punished by the government in theory. So in a vague sort of way, this is about giving benefit of the doubt that the person in question is now "reformed" and shouldn't be treated as if they were an active criminal. I don't agree with it, but I think thats the "reasoning" if you can call it that.

As far as the parts I didn't quote go, I think that is part of the issue many people have with gay marriage - is homosexuality pathological or is it by choice (or is it sometimes one or the other). Nobody has issues with giving some certain levels of specialized protections to groups that are that way without their own choice - race being an easy one, but many disabilities as well. And religion although able to be looked at as a choice was one of the many major reasons for immigration to the "new world". But very few people believe that you should be able to be protected against people not liking what you choose to do ie would anyone here think that its a surprise that nobody would want hire someone who shaves their head and has a swastika and pentagram tattooed on it, and that the person deserves "equal opportunity employment"? And since i'm mentioning it at all, i'll clarify my position on gay marriage :D I have no problems with any 2 (or more) people entering any sort of contractual agreement that provides for and allows for joint ownership, survivor benefits, shared health insurance, etc. However, I reserve the right for the use of the word "marriage" for a man and a woman, as i'm irritated that rainbows were already taken away from the non-homosexuals, and i'm not letting them take another word :) I voted AGAINST (so I was in a pretty small mniority) Florida's constitutional amendment on marriage as it specifically denied any contractual agreements that were significantly similar to marriage which i feel is ridiculous, had it been worded differently I would have voted yes. I don't care or even WANT to know what 2 adults do within the privacy of their bedroom, but as with many other "progressive" ideas it would primarily contribute to dilution of the meaning of the word marriage, which I am against.

/rant ;)
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I don't doubt control by one party is bad, and we saw what it was like when the right was in charge. :rolleyes:

Either way, the system is terrible and this law is a sham
Wow, your arguments are incongrueous with true debating. You keep pitching the past and don't ever discuss what is going on. Your "Well you like Bush" tactic is getting old.

Please show me where Bush protected pedophiles... cause if I remember correctly his state is the most brutal on such heinous crimes.

Whats next, throw out the Black Panther Voter intimidation case? Oh wait.....

Adams
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Wow, your arguments are incongrueous with true debating. You keep pitching the past and don't ever discuss what is going on. Your "Well you like Bush" tactic is getting old.

Please show me where Bush protected pedophiles... cause if I remember correctly his state is the most brutal on such heinous crimes.

Whats next, throw out the Black Panther Voter intimidation case? Oh wait.....

Adams
I see your reading comprehension did not "kick in" for this response. If you would have looked at the previous post that I was referencing, I was agreeing with another poster about how I felt that one party control was a negative. I DID NOT state one way or the other how when the right was in charge it was bad, nor how it is bad now that the left is in charge, just that I felt both were a negative.

Additionally, you seem to neglect my second sentence. Oh well......

Sorry if you were confused :)
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I see your reading comprehension did not "kick in" for this response. If you would have looked at the previous post that I was referencing, I was agreeing with another poster about how I felt that one party control was a negative. I DID NOT state one way or the other how when the right was in charge it was bad, nor how it is bad now that the left is in charge.

Sorry if you were confused :)
I was referencing about 30 other posts you have made recently... bush this, bush that, did you have the disdain when bush was in office.

Adams
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I was referencing about 30 other posts you have made recently... bush this, bush that, did you have the disdain when bush was in office.

Adams
Actually I have never been a fan of Bush, and btw, 30 is a tad overexaggerated.

Needless to say, (and this is something I have stated here numerous times) that I still do not believe it is fair to judge Bush just yet. IMO it is only fair after 10-15 years after they leave office. Additionally, judging Obama now is silly and fruitless, as he is coming in hopefully with the best intentions to improve upon a horrible mess that for a variety of reasons and causes he inherited.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Actually I have never been a fan of Bush, and btw, 30 is a tad overexaggerated.

Needless to say, (and this is something I have stated here numerous times) that I still do not believe it is fair to judge Bush just yet. IMO it is only fair after 10-15 years after they leave office. Additionally, judging Obama now is silly and fruitless, as he is coming in hopefully with the best intentions to improve upon a horrible mess that for a variety of reasons and causes he inherited.
But you can judge someone by their actions NOW... sucking up to the Jihadist protecting nations... shitty idea... apologizing for "American Arrogance" worse idea.

Adams
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Actually I have never been a fan of Bush, and btw, 30 is a tad overexaggerated.

Needless to say, (and this is something I have stated here numerous times) that I still do not believe it is fair to judge Bush just yet. IMO it is only fair after 10-15 years after they leave office. Additionally, judging Obama now is silly and fruitless, as he is coming in hopefully with the best intentions to improve upon a horrible mess that for a variety of reasons and causes he inherited.
I say judge now, judge later. Opinions can change easy enough. It's hard to say you shouldn't judge a president just because they've only been in office for a short while. History will always be a better judge, but that doesn't mean we can't have our say right this minute... :usa1:
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually I have never been a fan of Bush. ...
That just don't even sound right fella. :p
(sorry, bad joke)

Seriously though, while your criticism of the former president is a little distasteful, at least your optimism of the new one is commendable. Nevertheless, dig a little deeper. It sounds like you're just unaware.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Did anyone catch his speech in Cairo this morning?
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
That just don't even sound right fella. :p
(sorry, bad joke)

Seriously though, while your criticism of the former president is a little distasteful, at least your optimism of the new one is commendable. Nevertheless, dig a little deeper. It sounds like you're just unaware.
unaware no? optimistic, not really. In reality, we need to give the guy a chance. Thats the bottom line of it. We gave 8 previous years to a bad-mediocre president, and the previous 8 to another mediocre president. So, now we are in a bind, and we are stuck with this guy, and have to make the best of it
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
unaware no? optimistic, not really. In reality, we need to give the guy a chance. Thats the bottom line of it. We gave 8 previous years to a bad-mediocre president, and the previous 8 to another mediocre president. So, now we are in a bind, and we are stuck with this guy, and have to make the best of it
or we have to make sure that he only screws us for 4 years.
 
DR.D

DR.D

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
unaware no? ...
Are the depth of partisan precepts so strong in men, that they no longer recognize the superior universal truths that they BOTH live and die by?

Why do people prefer to play these political games that polarize one from the other, rather than agree on the mutual points that would unite them?

Has it honestly never occurred to anyone, how dangerously delusional it is NOT to consider reality, before they go off on their dogmatic rants?
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Are the depth of partisan precepts so strong in men, that they no longer recognize the superior universal truths that they BOTH live and die by?

Why do people prefer to play these political games that polarize one from the other, rather than agree on the mutual points that would unite them?

Has it honestly never occurred to anyone, how dangerously delusional it is NOT to consider reality, before they go off on their dogmatic rants?
the nature of man does not allow unity in essence, it is more a lean towards disagreement and destruction
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
AE,

This is quite off topic, but did you happen to catch Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday? Being a history teacher, I wanted to hear what you had to say when Obama was crediting the Muslim world with so many scientific achievements. After looking into it some, I can't help but think that almost each and every one was a flat out lie.

The compass? Arches and spirals?...there was one on some type of medicine...It's funny because Obama is such a great orator, and even to me when he speaks it sounds great, but then I go back and listen...and listen...and read the transcripts...and the majority is usually all rubbish.

Oh, and his comparison of the holocaust to Palestinian's search for land...WTF? - I'm getting really sick of the phrase "...but on the other hand..."
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
AE,

This is quite off topic, but did you happen to catch Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday? Being a history teacher, I wanted to hear what you had to say when Obama was crediting the Muslim world with so many scientific achievements. After looking into it some, I can't help but think that almost each and every one was a flat out lie.

The compass? Arches and spirals?...there was one on some type of medicine...It's funny because Obama is such a great orator, and even to me when he speaks it sounds great, but then I go back and listen...and listen...and read the transcripts...and the majority is usually all rubbish.

Oh, and his comparison of the holocaust to Palestinian's search for land...WTF? - I'm getting really sick of the phrase "...but on the other hand..."
You mean comparing the Palestinians to the American Black man? That speech?
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Did he do that? I was probably too enraged about his comparison with the Holocaust to hear that.
Yeah, correlating them to the "Illegitimate" occupation of isreal.

Going to be pissing off one of our allies to no end, to appease a few.

Adams
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yeah, correlating them to the "Illegitimate" occupation of isreal.

Going to be pissing off one of our allies to no end, to appease a few.

Adams
see the amazing thing is that somehow it seems that the moronic majority of people only hear the parts they want to hear. I mean thats how he got elected after all. So when he meets with Israelis, he'll tell a different story, and somehow nobody will notice. Its sad really
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
AE,

This is quite off topic, but did you happen to catch Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday? Being a history teacher, I wanted to hear what you had to say when Obama was crediting the Muslim world with so many scientific achievements. After looking into it some, I can't help but think that almost each and every one was a flat out lie.

The compass? Arches and spirals?...there was one on some type of medicine...It's funny because Obama is such a great orator, and even to me when he speaks it sounds great, but then I go back and listen...and listen...and read the transcripts...and the majority is usually all rubbish.

Oh, and his comparison of the holocaust to Palestinian's search for land...WTF? - I'm getting really sick of the phrase "...but on the other hand..."
Actually the Muslim world was the beginning of some great achievements. Some of which were involved in education, math and science (astronomy being a focus) etc... In terms of arches that is nonsensical, classical Rome was a major force in using a variety of arches in their architecture.

I did not see the whole thing, and missed the part you mentioned at the end. That is a sad comparison to make.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Actually the Muslim world was the beginning of some great achievements. Some of which were involved in education, math and science (astronomy being a focus) etc... In terms of arches that is nonsensical, classical Rome was a major force in using a variety of arches in their architecture.

I did not see the whole thing, and missed the part you mentioned at the end. That is a sad comparison to make.
He accredited Algebra to the Muslims. Doesn't Algebra trace back to the Babylonians? I know they weren't Muslims.

The compass I believe traces back to native South Americans.

I'm not doubting that they've achieved certain things, just not everything Obama said.
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Algebra itself is much earlier, however there we advancements made during the Muslim golden age in mathematics. He is overexaggerating.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Algebra itself is much earlier, however there we advancements made during the Muslim golden age in mathematics. He is overexaggerating.
Muhammed Mathematics: Lesson 1​

Word Problem​

A man comes home to discover his wife and three daughters in an orgy with the mans brother. Upset, the man beheads his wife, disowns two of the daughters, and sells the other...how many women does this man now live with?​


I kid. I kid.
 

Similar threads


Top