Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

Yeah, for example there's this sinister religion known as "Christianity".* ''World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. [...] Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.'' (404- Not Found)* ''Those who are obedient to His commands will rule the world, reconstructing it for His glory in terms of His laws. [...] The nation that will not serve us will perish (Isa. 60:12); all the peoples of the earth will be subdued under our feet (Ps. 47:1-3)--promises made originally to Israel, but now to be fulfilled in the New Israel, the Church.'' (404- Not Found)

And yet I note that there are still a few Christians in Congress, which according to your doctrine is apparently something they should leave up to atheists and suchlike. So, your interpretation of the law is that when Christians start telling people what to do, they're not Christians but have some other religion which is not Christianity and which is not protected by the Constitution? I'm not sure I agree, but on the other hand if you can persuade the Supreme Court of this doctrine, I won't object too loudly.

Sadly they are not unique in that respect. The distinction seems to be a purely verbal one. Yes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Can you think of anyone you've missed?

Ooh, I can thing of someone you've missed. Does this ring any bells? Here's another clue: he was a theocrat who ruled over the city of Geneva with an iron fist, and he wrote that in defense of burning a man alive.Now I know you've heard of him ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You think he thought Geneva was enough? I'd say it was too much. (Note the bit about his enemies being put to death.)But in what sense do Protestants not want to rule the world? (Apart from calling it "being salt and light"? Tomayto, tomahto.) If all you mean is that very few of them want to be sole ruler of the world, you could say that of the adherents of any religion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Was any of it untrue? Yeah, when you put it like that, it seems so unfair on Calvin. He just burned *one* guy to death, and everyone's so critical of him. Well, apart from the millions of people who proudly call themselves Calvinists. Right. When I'm looking for loathsome Protestants I have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and come up with minor figures such as Luther and Calvin, the fathers of Protestantism. Ah yes, of course, that's what was wrong with Calvin, he was too darn Catholic. Well one reason is because round here you guys are the source of most of the dumb shit. I mean, yeah, Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but they don't try to get it taught in chemistry class.Another reason is that they're arguing with you. If there was a fanatical Muslim round here, I'd laugh at his opinions too. But what we have, in fact, is a diehard Calvinist, a representative of a religion which is equally loathsome and ridiculous, and one which you parade before us on a regular basis. Which bit is the truth? The bit about how we should burn Unitarians as heretics, or the bit about the talking snake?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.