Which line do you take issue with??? [Archive]

dhyatt

01-28-2004, 02:53 PM

The following prayer (which has been making the rounds on the Internet since 1996) was used as the opening prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday (Jan 27th, 2004):

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know your word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that:

"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.

"We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

"We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.

"We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.

"We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.

"We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

"We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

"We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

"We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.

"We have abused power and called it political savvy.

"We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

"We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

"And we have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

"Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

"In the name of your son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."
********************
Rep. Wally Straughn of Phoenix led fellow Democrats in filing an official protest stating:
"Pursuant to House Rule 20, we, all the members of the House Democratic Caucus, protest the lack of respect that was shown the members of this body and the citizens of Arizona during the opening prayer on January 26, 2004.

"The opening prayer is the one opportunity during each day that we can come together as a body. The opening prayer should unite us, not divide us.

"But the prayer on January 26, 2004, was divisive. It was a pandering, mudslinging, name-calling political statement. It was hateful and mean-spirited. It was undignified.

"The citizens of Arizona deserve better. We are diverse. We have unique perspectives. And our unique voices should be respected. Especially during the opening prayer, as members of this body we must set aside our differences and show respect for Arizona in all of its diversity."
********************
I have a little trouble with the line "We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare." because I think there are some legitimate cases where welfare is warranted (although I'd prefer adequate level of private - not public - welfare). Otherwise, I don't see a whole lot to debate/discuss :wink: but I'm sure some of you feel differently :-)

SteveG

01-28-2004, 03:30 PM

johnb

01-28-2004, 04:24 PM

I value the contributions of moderate Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. to our nation.

Yes of course. Except for the fact that the "contributions" of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are relative to the size of those demographic groups and are amazingly small if not nearly non-existant.

Those Christian fundies everyone likes to tear into are actually the one group most responsible for this nation. From the colonization of the land, to what the British called "that damned Presbyterian revolt", the abolitionist movement, the foundational groundings of the US Constitution, state constitutions, and subsequent laws on Judeo-Christian theology, and so on and so forth.

"Moderates" stayed home during the colonization of America Steve, they didn't pick up a gun during the revolution, they didn't get involved in the abolitionist movement. They're the undecideds, that mass that looks at the great events of their time and mutters something about "fanatics" as they turn away in order to avoid having to exert any effort in addressing the issues of the day.

The "contributions..." gobbledegook is nonsense. How many Buddhists died on Omaha Beach? How many Muslims were there at Shiloh or Gettysburg? Too bad no one checked on the numbers of Hindus at Bunker Hill huh?

SteveG

01-28-2004, 05:21 PM

I value the contributions of moderate Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. to our nation.

Yes of course. Except for the fact that the "contributions" of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are relative to the size of those demographic groups

But their contributions to society are, in fact, on par with Christians on a per-person basis, especially today, and so the writer's implication that our society's tolerance of their faiths is sinful is on its face discriminatory and counter-productive.

Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all have developed strong civilizations; the dominance of Christianity in the USA is owed primarily to the fact that the Europeans happened to master shipbuilding and firearms construction before anybody else. The ability of recent immigrants of diverse faiths to flourish in our American meritocracy illustrates the irrelevance of religious background. The Christian religious right fundies look to use the government to dictate religious beliefs because the flavor of fundamentalism they prefer cannot compete, to their satisfaction, in an open marketplace of ideas.

-Steve (whose ancestors on Connecticut operated a stop on the underground railroad, complete with secret rooms for hiding people)

johnb

01-28-2004, 06:41 PM

But their contributions to society are, in fact, on par with Christians on a per-person basis, especially today, and so the writer's implication that our society's tolerance of their faiths is sinful is on its face discriminatory and counter-productive.

You are making some pretty far reaching assumptions Steve.

-We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

Tolerating the presence of other religions or the members of other religions is totally consistant with believing that religion to be utterly corrupt. I don't know of ANY Christian denomination saying Hindus or Buddhists or _insert numerically insignificant and exotic religion here_ be deported or persecuted. Fact is this is NOT a nation built on the theology and jurisprudence of Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism. I can understand there is a form of self-hatred amongst many in the west to denigrate the culture and instistutions that created this society and look to the foreign or exotic. I think THAT is far more likely a motivating factor than any call to high minded and phony "tolerance" on the part of the complaining political hack.

Let''s not confuse repudiation with persecution Steve and yes, I'm sure the "contributions" of deaf-mute lefthanded Slovakian midgets to American culture is appreciated by everyone.

We can tolerate, even appreciate, foreign cultures. We should, however, realize that because two cultures exist that does not make them morally equivalent. The west Europeans didn't accidently get into the ship building business by mistake. Their cultures were something the cultures of east Europe, the Ottoman Empire, and others were simply not able to compete with the dynamism, relative tolerance and freedom, and educational/scientific progress sustained in and by the west.

Darwin's law applies to systems as well as species Steve. Cultures, economic and political systems, even nation states that cannot compete effectively had best adapt or be prepared for extinction.

Part of every immigrants desire to come to America is an implicit rejection and condemnation of the society that was incapable of sustaining them intellectually or economically or politically.

Karen

01-28-2004, 07:13 PM

Cathy

01-28-2004, 07:55 PM

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a
nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right,
which Heaven itself has ordained." --George Washington

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this,
that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more
than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his
obligations." --George Washington

"[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of
republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity
under all government and in all the combinations of human
society." --John Adams

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light
of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and
superstition, and that every person may here worship God according
to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and
in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's
religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws,
nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest
Offices that are known in the United States." --George Washington

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by
the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions,
their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not
only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the
establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also
which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the
United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious
exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has
been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with
the States." --Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and
State." --Thomas Jefferson

Make the argument for proving that by saying this prayer, the House of Representatives have "established a religion" by law.

dhyatt

01-28-2004, 08:25 PM

"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.

"We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

It sounds like the writer advocates that, despite our constitutional separation of church and state and a diverse population, our government should endorse one, and only one religion, accept the literature of that religion as "absolute truth", and deny participation by anyone of a different faith.

I value the contributions of moderate Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. to our nation. I believe they make the nation stronger, while speeches like the one above represent an attack against the foundation of our free society and secular government. The Founding Fathers, who understood the religious persecution faced by many emigrants who arrived in the United States, would likely have disagreed with those words.

-Steve

Steve,
I hate to say I've set a bit of a trap but oh well... I did. You see, opening prayers at the US House of Representatives have been done by people of all faiths, including some by "Jains", a group many of you I'm sure have never even heard of. (See http://www.jainworld.com/society/jainevents/22_jain_prayers_at_us_congress_on_3.htm)

None of them met with the kind of outcry like the one I quoted did and that outcry has nothing to do with the prayer's overt Christian basis. It has everything to do however, with a couple of big donor groups to the Democratic party. I'm sure you can do the math so I won't belabor the point any further. It's nothing more than yet another example of hypocritical Washington elitist career politicians. I sure wish I knew how to put some of them on the fast track out of town...

Cathy

01-28-2004, 09:38 PM

SteveG

01-29-2004, 12:44 AM

Fact is this is NOT a nation built on the theology and jurisprudence of Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism. I can understand there is a form of self-hatred amongst many in the west to denigrate the culture and instistutions that created this society and look to the foreign or exotic. I think THAT is far more likely a motivating factor than any call to high minded and phony "tolerance" on the part of the complaining political hack.

This nation was built on tolerance for religious freedom more than it was based on any one religion. Democracy works for people of many different faiths; it was invented by the Greeks, spread by Christians, and now cherished by many Hindus and Muslims. If many of the great accomplishments of western civilization and Americans in particular were inspired by religious faith, that's wonderful, but I don't think that any particular faction of Christianity has a monopoly on spiritual motivation to achieve greatness. The world's religions have far more important things in common than they have different; the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond describes at length the circumstances that led to the rise of the West. Furthermore, many of the most inspired early Americans worked to move themselves away from religious dogma to develop secular systems of ethics and self-improvement. Ben Franklin's autobiography describes his own very personal efforts at such.

I believe that some people find this particular prayer objectionable because it so closely resembles fundamentalists' calls for literal interpretation of religious writings and intolerance of reasonable alternative views. Many Americans believe this closed-minded approach represents a rejection of the processes of the Enlightenment in favor of another Dark Ages where reason cannot compete with religious tyranny.

SteveG

01-29-2004, 12:58 AM

johnb

01-29-2004, 10:21 AM

I don't have much knowledge of past prayers at the House, but I don't find the Jain prayer offensive. I think Americans are much more accepting of a prayer that says, essentially, "This is my faith, and this is the good for which I hope" than a prayer that says "Mine is the one true God."

Then most Americans are idiots. Claiming adherance to a religion in which the adherant does not accept the truth claims of the religion is imbecilic. All major religions have truth claims which make them contradictory to other major religions. You cannot be a Jew or a Muslim and believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. You cannot be a Christian and accept Mohammed as a prophet of God. You cannot be a Hindu and be a monotheist. This goes on and on.

There is no value in pretending all major religions are complementary. They are not. They are mutually exclusive in their truth claims. Respecting that does not mean anyone has to abuse their intelligence by pretending that there are no significant difference among them.

There are no Christian denominations that I am aware of out calling for the persecution of any other denomination or religion. That's not happening. That you don't like Christians articulating the truth claims of Christianity in the public arena is what I see happening.

Muslims are free to articulate the truth claims of Islam, Jews those of Judaism, Jains those of Jainism, etc.. etc..

dhyatt

01-29-2004, 10:29 AM

You see, opening prayers at the US House of Representatives have been done by people of all faiths, including some by "Jains", a group many of you I'm sure have never even heard of. (See http://www.jainworld.com/society/jainevents/22_jain_prayers_at_us_congress_on_3.htm)

None of them met with the kind of outcry like the one I quoted did and that outcry has nothing to do with the prayer's overt Christian basis.

I don't have much knowledge of past prayers at the House, but I don't find the Jain prayer offensive. I think Americans are much more accepting of a prayer that says, essentially, "This is my faith, and this is the good for which I hope" than a prayer that says "Mine is the one true God."

But nowhere does this prayer actually claim to be to the "...one true God." I suppose the line "We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism." could be interpreted as implying that, however all non-polytheistic prayers purport to be directed at the "one true God." I suspect only Christians feel that this particular prayer is somehow different from the myriad others that are offered on a daily basis. I think House leaders have taken a practical approach (though not necessarily morally defensible) by allowing prayers from all religions. I just find it somewhat ironic that everything from Buddhist chants to Muslim Prayers of Absolution can be offered up, yet a Christian prayer (especially one denouncing a few "politically correct" viewpoints) is resoundingly thrashed by many (though not all) Democratic leaders.

johnb

01-29-2004, 10:37 AM

This nation was built on tolerance for religious freedom more than it was based on any one religion.

That is patently wrong. Don't confuse "religion" with "denomination". The founders were grounded in Christian theology in education and upbringing. Their work in the Constitution and other foundational documents is drenched in Christian jurisprudence. They were determined that no one Christian denomination gain govermental sanction over another Christian denomination.

Democracy works for people of many different faiths; it was invented by the Greeks, spread by Christians, and now cherished by many Hindus and Muslims.

This is hilarious Steve. You cannot be serious? You realize of course that the ONLY places where Muslims can "cherish" democracy is in India, Israel, the United States (three major targets of Islamofascist terrorism) and other non-Muslim nations. There are no Muslim nations that can be classified a "democracy" with a straight face. Before you point at Turkey let me nip that in the bud. As someone who lived in the Republic I can asssure you whatever you may or may not want to call it the people in Turkiye do not have the rights to freedom of religion, press, assembly, etc ad nauseum.

I find it incredibly humorous that to "cherish" democracy Muslims have to leave Muslim dominated lands.

If many of the great accomplishments of western civilization and Americans in particular were inspired by religious faith, that's wonderful, but I don't think that any particular faction of Christianity has a monopoly on spiritual motivation to achieve greatness.

"IF"? There is no question about that Steve, it is an immutable fact of history. No one, however, said anything about any particular denomination having sole posession of "spiritual greatness." That is irrelevant.

The world's religions have far more important things in common than they have different;

Actually, that is false. The gulf between Christianity and Hinduism is as complete as it can be. The only major religions which have much in common is Christianity and Judaism. While Mohammed created Islam on some foundations he picked up from Judaism and Christianity, he mixed enough native Arabian paganism (including worship of/at the Kabaa) to neutralize that base.

I believe that some people find this particular prayer objectionable because it so closely resembles fundamentalists' calls for literal interpretation of religious writings and intolerance of reasonable alternative views.

Thereby necessitating your intolerance of them huh?

Many Americans believe this closed-minded approach represents a rejection of the processes of the Enlightenment in favor of another Dark Ages where reason cannot compete with religious tyranny.

Many Americans believe a lot of nonsense Steve, they believe in UFO's, they believe the government killed Kennedy, whether they believe such nonsense as you claim - I hope they are more responsible/reasonable than that.

SteveG

01-29-2004, 10:39 AM

That you don't like Christians articulating the truth claims of Christianity in the public arena is what I see happening.

If the "truth claim" is the idea that respecting others' legal right to worship under a different faith is sinful, then yes, I take issue with that. Stating such a belief is protected speech, but doing so in the House will attract all the backlash it deserves by those who support freedom of religion. It's simply poor taste in venue.

Unwavering commitment to literal interpretations of scripture and insult to all who disagree is one of the reasons why religion is often avoided by critical thinkers. I'm happy to let somebody say that he believes the world is flat, but if he tries to insult me for believing otherwise, I won't react in a friendly way.

johnb

01-29-2004, 10:49 AM

If the "truth claim" is the idea that respecting others' legal right to worship under a different faith is sinful, then yes, I take issue with that.

Wrong. The issue of anyone's "legal right to worship" exists only in your own head Steve. There was no call nor insinuation in that prayer that other religions be persecuted. Period. *IF* the speaker had urged the legislature to pass laws banning the practice of the Hindu religion, you would have a point. He didn't and you don't.

Unwavering commitment to literal interpretations of scripture and insult to all who disagree is one of the reasons why religion is often avoided by critical thinkers.

I love this, "smart people like me don't like religion". LOL. You gotta be kiddin' Steve.

I'm happy to let somebody say that he believes the world is flat, but if he tries to insult me for believing otherwise, I won't react in a friendly way.

How about people who claim simplistic prejudice against a complex and vast system of theology which contains within it the basis for our civil government and our societal foundations? Do you react friendly to them too? Oh, wait.........

Cathy

01-29-2004, 11:03 AM

I think this has been said before, but......
Some of the most vehemently intolerent people that I know are some who consider themselves "enlightened liberals".
Nels is a good example of "PC" intolerance with his smoking ban crusade.
Not to mention these religious extremists:

Tithing to the Church of Green

http://www.freecannon.com/GreenChurch.htm

SteveG

01-29-2004, 11:04 AM

That is patently wrong. Don't confuse "religion" with "denomination". The founders were grounded in Christian theology in education and upbringing. Their work in the Constitution and other foundational documents is drenched in Christian jurisprudence. They were determined that no one Christian denomination gain govermental sanction over another Christian denomination.

In other words, they extended religious freedom to cover all the variations with which they were familiar in everyday life in the colonies. There simply weren't enough politically active members of non-Christian faiths in the colonies for them to make explicit mention of such. Had there been, what about the Founders do you think would have made them write constitutional law that would discriminate against non-Christian faiths?

This is hilarious Steve. You cannot be serious? You realize of course that the ONLY places where Muslims can "cherish" democracy is in India, Israel, the United States (three major targets of Islamofascist terrorism) and other non-Muslim nations.

This only reinforces the supremecy of nations that protect religious freedom. Some Christians have been just as atrocious as some Muslims in their attempts to cleanse their nations of religious diversity, and suffered the consequences; do we blame this on Christianity itself? The Muslims I know personally are very respectful of the need to tolerate other religions. If there is something fundamental about the Muslim faith that prevents it from being compatible with democracy, then what exactly is our President's strategy for Iraq?

The gulf between Christianity and Hinduism is as complete as it can be. The only major religions which have much in common is Christianity and Judaism.

Virtually all religions teach the same valuable lessons about commitment to the welfare of family and society through ethical conduct. They provide similar promises about prosperity after death as a result of good behavior. Although they tell very different stories to accomplish this, I believe that if religious truth is to be found anywhere, it is in the similar teachings of compassion and understanding.

SteveG

01-29-2004, 11:18 AM

Karen

01-29-2004, 11:54 AM

"We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

The anti abortionists concider abortion murder, and those who perform them murderers. I have never understood the hypocrisy of a member of the prolife movement commiting the same crime he so passionately opposes. He opposes murder, in God's name usually, commits murder, but in his mind his murder is "okay". I will never understand this rational...it is NOT justifiable...

Karen

Yes, and I have also never understood how it could be consistent that those who fight for freedom to abortion are usually against the death penalty. Are these people following party politics or is there some strange logic to being inconsistent?

I'm thinking some strange logic to being inconsistant. :roll:

I went to a Jesuit college in PA, and this was actually a topic of discussion in my freshman theology class one day. The rational of the prochoice/anti death penalty faction seems to be the issue of CHOICE, not necessarily DEATH, or murder. It's okay for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, but not okay for society to choose whether or not a person should be put to death. Society doesn't have the right to impose it's own values on another person.

But I'm with you Cathy. The logic is inconsistant. Both in the Prochoice and Prolife movements.

Karen

johnb

01-29-2004, 12:39 PM

The rational of the prochoice/anti death penalty faction seems to be the issue of CHOICE, not necessarily DEATH, or murder. It's okay for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, but not okay for society to choose whether or not a person should be put to death.

That statement might contradict itself, *IF* the choice were solely her own body, ie, boob job or tummy tuck, there is no argument. Why gloss over the fact that there is a second life in the equation?

Society doesn't have the right to impose it's own values on another person.

Wow. Someone should tell the city council and Wind Bag Hunter this. All those ordinances the city keeps passing and the traffic tickets the cops keep writing, if not an expression of the community standards/values what are they? Every law is an expression of societal values, good or bad.

But I'm with you Cathy. The logic is inconsistant. Both in the Prochoice and Prolife movements.

Only if you take the arguments of radicals seriously. The vast majority of those who believe abortion is wrong also believe the murder of an abortion provider is wrong. That majority cannot be defined by half a dozen kooks.

johnb

01-29-2004, 12:49 PM

"We have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word and called it pluralism.

Is it not reasonable to infer that this is a slam against those who disagree with unwavering literal interpretations of religious writings? Isn't it understandable that there is enough legitimate debate about some religious interpretations that such a statement would be inflammatory?

What it is not is not a call to persecute or crimminalize another denomination or religion. If you are that concerned that someone might hear something that would upset their delicate sensibilities that prayer should be the least of your concerns. There is nothing said which cannot or will not be taken as "infalmmatory" by someone who sees profit in being inflammed. I don't believe a Muslim Imam would offer up a prayer conceding the truth claims of another religion, nor do I think a Hindu, a Jain, a Mormon, or Sikh would. Unless, the goal of those religions is not to offend you personally. I am unfamiliar with any religion which espouses that as it's central doctrine however.

Who is "We"? My interpretation is that "we" are the Americans, some of whom have different names for their God. The listener may interpret the author as saying that tolerating this multicultural reality is sinful.

Names? Yes, political correctness, consumerism, apathy, moral equivalency, there are many gods to worship Steve.

The best way to prevent such speech from building into actual legal prohibitions against religious expression is to argue against it at the outset. That's all that is happening here. Free speech at work.

You really sense some Christian plot to impose a theocracy on America do you Steve? You're not a Dean or Kucinich voter are you? :P

SteveG

01-29-2004, 12:57 PM

You really sense some Christian plot to impose a theocracy on America do you Steve?

It can never grow to become a plot as long as people exercise their first amendment rights to expose the flaws of such and nip it in the bud....

-Steve (whose favorite religion is Christianity, despite the frequent preaching of hate instead of compassion by some would-be Christians who are not participants in this forum)

johnb

01-29-2004, 01:24 PM

That is so far down on the list of "where we might be headed" that, IMHO, it is laughable to contemplate it, no matter how scary secular types (media, Hollywood, et al) find Christians generally and evangelicals particularly.

I think the reverse is more likely to occur, not that it is likely, but more realistic, ie, persecution of religion/religious believers. It has already begun in Canada, where preachers run the risk of prosecution under the "Human Rights" laws of that nation if they speak against homosexuality. That type of governmental action, all in the name of "fairness" and "plurality" and other such nonsense will erode our freedom of religion.

I am wondering why no one ever told me about that 11th commandement? Thou shalt not offend anyone's political, sexual, or environmental sensibilities unless that person is a rightwing crazy homophobic basher.

dhyatt

01-29-2004, 01:30 PM

[snip]
The Muslims I know personally are very respectful of the need to tolerate other religions. If there is something fundamental about the Muslim faith that prevents it from being compatible with democracy, then what exactly is our President's strategy for Iraq?
[snip]

At its most basic level Islam is, in fact, by definition incompatible with democracy. At lest democracy as understood and practived by most western nations. In "Political Authority in Classical Islamic Thought" (found here: http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/qadaya/islamic-3/islamic1.asp)
the author tries to make the case that Islam is not a theocracy. IMO he fails miserably. He pretty much ignores the fact that Islam is governed by clerics who decree whatever the hell they want. They invoke Sharia law which conveniently is the very thing that supports them. They interpret the laws however they want and unfortunately one such interpretation is "kill anyone who doesn't agree with me in the name of Allah."

A real Islamic nation will never be 'democratic' if there's one set of laws (subject to interpretation by the local cleric) for the Muslims and another set of laws for everyone else. It's an intractable problem. It's also one that I think was a little underestimated in Iraq.

johnb

01-29-2004, 02:11 PM

Very good point Don. The status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands is a screaming disgrace.

Muslims tell the same lie slaveholders told, their subjects were better off under their rule. Right.

The Serb wars in Yugoslavia in the past decade were a reflection of the Serbs status as dhminis under Muslim rule and should be understood as such. The Spanish did not expel the Moors from Spain because the Spanish were mean, racist, homophobic bashers. They expelled invaders who held them in subjugation and slavery for 7 centuries invaders who held the Spanish in a state of destitution and servitude.

The glorious civilization of Al Andalus was glorious only if you were a Muslim, otherwise, you were a slave.

To this day, non Muslims in Muslim lands do not have the same civil rights as Muslims. In Egypt, the real Egyptians (the descendants of those who built the pyramids) - the Copts, cannot build churches without government approval. They are attacked in occasional pogroms and have been slaughtered through the past 1000 years of Arab rule. Same for the Maronites and Druze in Lebanon, the Jews formerly throughout Arab lands, Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, and a host of other victims of Islamic theocracies.

SteveG

01-29-2004, 02:45 PM

dhyatt

01-29-2004, 03:10 PM

So are we saying that the President is getting incorrect advice about the potential for democracy to work in Iraq, or is the President ignoring advice contrary to his aims?

-Steve (who has believed since 1990 that the downfall of Saddam would likely result in Iraq devolving into a fundamentalist Islamic state.)

Probably a little of both. Unfortunately, very few Iraqi's know what 'true' freedom really is. I suspect it will take several carefully monitored elections before they even get a clue. Religious intolerance is passed down from father to son and usually only those fortunate enough to get a western education can see through the muck. Many of those that are able to gain an understanding of the rest of the world seem to simply use the knowledge to further their own personal agendas.

I think the best we can hope for is that the Iraqi people will develop a taste for freedom and therefore a tolerance for the rest of us. Those are both things that we'd never see if Hussein was still in power. Here's a question for you: Are the Iranian people better or worse off than they were under the Shah? What about the rest of the world? Will the Saudi people be better or worse off if the monarchy is overthrown? What about the rest of the world?

Unless you have a particular desire to hide your wife in a burkha and grow a beard, these are questions that have to be understood and answered - before it's too late...

johnb

01-29-2004, 03:15 PM

One thing is for sure, whatever happens, the Kurds are gonna catch hell and the funny thing is as much as the Arabs hate the Kurds, Islam's biggest military hero is a Kurd, Saladin.

Bush is ambitious and visionary in his thinking. He is wrong however.

Islam cannot and will not tolerate a democracy in it's midst.

That's part of the hatred directed towards Israel, coupled with a vicious anti-Semitism, throw in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and you've got a region of kooks.

We just have to be ready to kill Islamofascist terrorists when they next attempt to export their murderous ideology. Let them torment their own people all they wish.

Cathy

01-29-2004, 03:42 PM

Once again, John, you prove my previous assessment of your contributions on this forum. Thank you.

"Forum General" ?????? 8-O
You might deserve that.....:wink:
Cathy

dhyatt

01-29-2004, 03:43 PM

For those of you really interested in the whole Arab/Muslim thing, you should read "Arabism and Islam: Stateless Nations and Nationless States" I've rounded up a copy and put it on the site. It's a little dated but has some excellent background information.

http://carypolitics.org/mcnair10.pdf

Karen

01-29-2004, 05:16 PM

[]only if you take the arguments of radicals seriously. The vast majority of those who believe abortion is wrong also believe the murder of an abortion provider is wrong. That majority cannot be defined by half a dozen kooks.

It's the kooks I have a problem with. And unfortunately they are the ones who get all the media attention. My best friend is a catholic nun, and her parents are prolife, anti death penalty, and basically anti any killing. Makes for many an interesting conversation...

Karen

Brent

01-29-2004, 05:54 PM

"Forum General" ?????? 8-O
You might deserve that.....:wink:
Cathy

...and if I recall correctly, those who get to 1,000 posts become Forum Gods. But JohnB is already a deacon in the Church of the Painful, or something like that, right? :lol: If JohnB makes Forum God, we'll have to start another thread about religious diversity and tolerance. :wink:

Brent

01-29-2004, 05:55 PM

It's the kooks I have a problem with.Karen

Karen, then why the heck are you hanging out here? :wink: :lol:

johnb

01-29-2004, 07:02 PM

Bada Bing!

All of us plus JULIEFORCARY!, the RINO, and the rest of 'em reading it all qualify as kooks I suppose.

johnb

01-30-2004, 09:12 AM

This might be of interest considering the direction this discussion has taken. I'm not Roman Catholic, however, the Archbishop is 100% correct as far as fulfilling his responsibilities as bishop and in exercising his right to religious expression. He did nothing improper. Charges that he supposedly "crossed the line" in the separation of church and state are the desperate whines of individuals wanting to have it both ways.....claim to be a Catholic in order to pander for votes in the parish hall, while voting in the legislature in a fashion completely inconsistant with the religion they claim membership in.

==============================================

Leading His Flock
Has the new archbishop of St. Louis crossed a line?

By Robert P. George & Gerard V. Bradley

The Catholic Church proclaims the principle that every human being — without regard to age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency — is entitled to the protection of the laws. In line with the indisputable facts of human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development, the Church teaches that children "hidden in the womb" are human beings. It is the obligation of legislators and other public officials to honor and protect their inalienable right to life. Yet many Catholic politicians, including the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress, are staunch supporters of a "right to abortion." What should the leaders of the Church do about such people?

Raymond Burke, who was installed this past Monday as archbishop of St. Louis, has an answer. He has declared that public officials who act to expose the unborn to the violence of abortion may not receive Holy Communion, the sacramental symbolic of Church unity.

Pro-life citizens of every religious persuasion have applauded the bishop's action. Many commented that it is long past time for religious leaders to show that they are serious about their commitment to the sanctity of human life. Believers in "abortion rights," by contrast, were quick to condemn Bishop Burke. They denounced him for "crossing the line" separating church and state. In one of the wire stories we read, the partisans of abortion branded the rather mild-mannered Burke a "fanatic."

The "crossing the line" charge is silly. In acting on his authority as a bishop to discipline members of his flock, Bishop Burke is exercising his own constitutional right to the free exercise of religion; he is not depriving others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people: They are called "Catholics."

By demanding that Catholic legislators honor the rights of all human beings, the unborn not excluded, Bishop Burke may cause them to reconsider implicating themselves in the injustice of abortion. (Surely he hopes to do that.) But not even his harshest critics charge that the bishop said or implied that the law of the state should be used to compel anyone to accept his authority. Catholic legislators remain legally free to vote as they please. Bishop Burke, in turn, enjoys the legal right to exercise his spiritual authority as a bishop to order them to refrain from receiving communion so long as they persist in what the Church teaches are acts of profound injustice against their fellow human beings. Freedom is a two-way street.

What about the allegation that Burke's actions show that he is a fanatic?

The bishop said that he acted for two reasons. One was to warn Catholic legislators that their unjust acts were spiritually harmful to them — "a grave sin." The other was to prevent "scandal": that is, weakening the faith and moral resolution of others by one's bad example. Having made every effort to persuade pro-abortion Catholic legislators to fulfill their obligations in justice to the unborn, Bishop Burke articulated the obvious: Any Catholic who exercises political power to expose a disfavored class of human beings to unjust killing sets himself against the very faith he claims to share. The Church cannot permit such a person to pretend to share in the faith he publicly defies. By receiving communion — the sacrament of unity — pro-abortion Catholics are pretending exactly that. The bishop has called a halt to the pretense.

Scandal is not a peculiarly Catholic or even religious concern. Business executives who wink at accounting shenanigans or racist humor permit a corrupt or racist corporate culture to flourish. We have all heard of cases where male employees' sexual bantering was tolerated, despite a firm's pretense of wholesomeness and sexual equality. Actions speak louder than words. Where leaders do not act to uphold stated principles, everyone concludes that the principles are nothing more than cynical propaganda. No one need take them too seriously.

Scandal occurs in religious communities in the same way, and has the same effect. When Catholic Church officials did nothing about priests who abused children, those who knew the facts had to wonder: Do church authorities not really mean it when they say these acts are immoral? Are such acts really wrong, if nothing happens to those known to perform them? If they are wrong, wouldn't the bishops act decisively against those who commit them?

The same concern underlies the discussion of what Church leaders did and failed to do during the Holocaust. No serious person suggests that the German bishops or Vatican officials actively supported the Nazis' murderous policies. The suggestion, rather, is that by their (alleged) failure to denounce those policies and to excommunicate those Nazi leaders who had Catholic backgrounds, Church officials signaled that Catholics could legitimately support Nazi policies without peril to their souls or to their standing in the Church. Critics of those Church leaders suppose precisely what Bishop Burke supposes: If the Church is to be in solidarity with victims of injustice, bishops must not permit those Catholics who commit or abet the injustices to pretend to be Catholics in good standing with the Church.

What Bishop Burke's critics have failed to see is that he is not acting as a political partisan or lobbyist. He knows perfectly well that his actions might, in fact, redound to the political advantage of the legislators to whom his order is directed. His specific aim is not to win specific legislative battles over abortion (however much he would agree that these battles should be fought and won); his purpose, rather, is to defend the integrity of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and to confirm in the minds and hearts of the Catholic faithful their solemn moral obligation to oppose the killing of the innocent.

Most of Burke's critics — Catholic and non-Catholic alike — are liberals. Many insist that "separation of church and state" means that no religious leader may presume to tell public officials what their positions may and may not be on matters of public policy. But if we shift the focus from abortion to, say, genocide, slavery, or segregation, we see how implausible such a view is. When, in the late 1950s, the Catholic archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated Catholics who opposed desegregation, liberals applauded him. They were right then; they are wrong now.

Anonymous

02-02-2004, 09:40 AM

Tolerating the presence of other religions or the members of other religions is totally consistant with believing that religion to be utterly corrupt. I don't know of ANY Christian denomination saying Hindus or Buddhists or _insert numerically insignificant and exotic religion here_ be deported or persecuted.

John is finally making some sense. And he's right, he doesn't know of any Christians saying that Hindus should be persecuted, though to be Christians he full well knows that they have to believe that Hindus are wrong, that Hindus are morally inferior, and that Hindus will be condemned to burn in hell. "He that is not with me is against me" Matt. 12:30. I suppose that true Christians, while still believing is such things, no longer say them in public for political expediency. Which makes God angry.

So I'm told.

Anyway, nevermind that most Christians are required to believe that homosexuals should be put to death, that the sun must revolve around the earth, and that wives are the property of their husbands...

We can tolerate, even appreciate, foreign cultures. We should, however, realize that because two cultures exist that does not make them morally equivalent.

Agreed, but of all the major religions mentioned in this post there has been shown zero relative moral difference. I think it's impossible to show otherwise.

Darwin's law applies to systems as well as species Steve.

Not necessarily true, and not just because of a semantic parsing that such a theory would no longer be Darwin's, or even Darwinian, but because of the considerable debate that major proponents of social evolution have even amongst themselves, to say nothing of their myriad detractors.

Anyway, I thought the prayer was funnier than it was offensive, though it was plenty of both.

Karen

02-02-2004, 10:43 AM

John,

I read with great interest the article on Bishop Burke that you posted. I am Roman Catholic, and I agree 100% with the bishops actions. If you are Roman Catholic, receiving the holy sacrament of communion should not be taken lightly, as with any of the sacraments. To me, it is not a "right" to receive communion just because you happen to be catholic, but a privilege because you believe in and agree with what it is, and because you believe in the teachings of the church. You are not just receiving some stale piece of bread, you are receiving the BODY of CHRIST. Bishop Burke has every right as a church leader to protect the sanctity of the sacraments.

Of course I could go on with some of the hypocrises I see within the church that I whole heartedly disagree with but... :D

Karen

johnb

02-02-2004, 10:56 AM

John is finally making some sense. And he's right, he doesn't know of any Christians saying that Hindus should be persecuted, though to be Christians he full well knows that they have to believe that Hindus are wrong, that Hindus are morally inferior, and that Hindus will be condemned to burn in hell.

I know Christians who believe Hinduism is false and that those who are members of it condemn themselves, absolutely. I also know Hindus who believe the exact same thing about Christianity. Your statement is neither profound nor enlightening. It is a mere statement of the obvious, that a particular major religion views itself as exclusively true. You want to point merely at Christianity and shake your head and wag your finger disapprovingly. That, I believe, is far more revealing than your explicit comments.

"He that is not with me is against me" Matt. 12:30. I suppose that true Christians, while still believing is such things, no longer say them in public for political expediency. Which makes God angry.

Actually, what is interesting is that unlike most major religions, in the holy writings of Christianity it's founder/leader does NOT call for his followers to persecute non believers.

So I'm told.

You shouldn't believe everything people tell you. You end up buying into nonsense like "I didn't inhale".

Anyway, nevermind that most Christians are required to believe that homosexuals should be put to death, that the sun must revolve around the earth, and that wives are the property of their husbands...

Required? Who requires this? You are theologian or a rumour peddler? Nonsense.

Anyway, I thought the prayer was funnier than it was offensive, though it was plenty of both.

Well, your comments are by far the most nonsensical posting deposited on carypolitics.org I've read to date. Gotta love that "required to believe" tripe. LOL

Anonymous

02-02-2004, 12:32 PM

Who requires this?

Logic, reason and consistency.

It's tough to ignore Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." No way around that really, remember, it is the direct word of God (Lev. 20:1 begins, "And the Lord spake uton Moses")

Also consider "Six days may work be done, but in the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosever doeth any work in the sabbath Day, he shall surely be put to death" (Exod. 31:15). Most Christians I know, then, are on the reapers short list.

I see no reason why any Christian professing a belief in the bible (which I take to be one of the requirements of so being) should disregard this direct word or God while upholding, or, as in the case of abortion, inventing, others? I fail to see how one determines which portions are to be respected and which are not - the cases of slavery and women's subjection also falling into this troublesome quandry.

So, on the one hand, the most zealous of religious fundamentalists have more of my respect than what passes for a Christian (or any other organized religion) 95% of the time. It is as ludicrous as a Christian's not having a literal belief in Adam and Eve, and millions of self proclaimed Christians in this country, and abroad, do not.

And, John, you needn't try to read into my comments anything that isn't there. I think all organized religion is at best superfluous and at worst dangerous - but my studies have been and comments are best limited to the big three of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which, despite your wanting it otherwise, are closely enough linked technically and textually that nearly all scholars treat them in a similar fashion and with the same recurring themes. Of my limited knowledge of some Eastern and more outlying religions I find in them, too, much to be desired, though in some cases they tend to be preferred over those previously mentioned due precisely to the fact that their metaphysics requires less logical inconsistency than, say, the old testament.

Also, I didn't comment on it earlier, but despite the fact that the founders of this state were, no doubt, Christian men brought up on religious principles, this country was the first in the world to be explicitly and decidely secular in nature. The Constitution is our founding document and the basis of our laws, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. Further, all religions that claim exclusive knowledge of the truth are inherently totalitarian. And while Jesus may not have specifically ordered his followers to persecute the non believing, rest assurred that in every Christian's mind should be "Thou therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen; be not merciful to any wicked transgressor." (Ps. 59:5) Christians needn't bother themselves with the killing and death of infidels, God will take care of that. Hardly a benign position. Paul commands Christians to have nothing to do with unbelievers in 2 Cor. 6:14. And Chrisitians, as they are wont to do, have of course disobeyed both and continue to kill in the name and fraternize freely.

I don't know if you're practicing yourself John, perhaps you should explain your murderous, Jesus-hating, sentiments to your religious official of choice?

We just have to be ready to kill

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 12:52 PM

Who requires this?

Logic, reason and consistency.

It's tough to ignore Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." No way around that really, remember, it is the direct word of God (Lev. 20:1 begins, "And the Lord spake uton Moses")

Also consider "Six days may work be done, but in the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosever doeth any work in the sabbath Day, he shall surely be put to death" (Exod. 31:15). Most Christians I know, then, are on the reapers short list.

I see no reason why any Christian professing a belief in the bible (which I take to be one of the requirements of so being) should disregard this direct word or God while upholding, or, as in the case of abortion, inventing, others? I fail to see how one determines which portions are to be respected and which are not - the cases of slavery and women's subjection also falling into this troublesome quandry.

So, on the one hand, the most zealous of religious fundamentalists have more of my respect than what passes for a Christian (or any other organized religion) 95% of the time. It is as ludicrous as a Christian's not having a literal belief in Adam and Eve, and millions of self proclaimed Christians in this country, and abroad, do not.

And, John, you needn't try to read into my comments anything that isn't there. I think all organized religion is at best superfluous and at worst dangerous - but my studies have been and comments are best limited to the big three of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which, despite your wanting it otherwise, are closely enough linked technically and textually that nearly all scholars treat them in a similar fashion and with the same recurring themes. Of my limited knowledge of some Eastern and more outlying religions I find in them, too, much to be desired, though in some cases they tend to be preferred over those previously mentioned due precisely to the fact that their metaphysics requires less logical inconsistency than, say, the old testament.

Also, I didn't comment on it earlier, but despite the fact that the founders of this state were, no doubt, Christian men brought up on religious principles, this country was the first in the world to be explicitly and decidely secular in nature. The Constitution is our founding document and the basis of our laws, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it. Further, all religions that claim exclusive knowledge of the truth are inherently totalitarian. And while Jesus may not have specifically ordered his followers to persecute the non believing, rest assurred that in every Christian's mind should be "Thou therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen; be not merciful to any wicked transgressor." (Ps. 59:5) Christians needn't bother themselves with the killing and death of infidels, God will take care of that. Hardly a benign position. Paul commands Christians to have nothing to do with unbelievers in 2 Cor. 6:14. And Chrisitians, as they are wont to do, have of course disobeyed both and continue to kill in the name and fraternize freely.

[snip]

Unfortunately, your studies are incomplete or slanted at best. The whole point of Christianity is the promise fulfilled of Jesus and his "New Testament". The strongest of your arguments are in very early Old Testament text and by definition are supplanted by the true Christian message as alliterated in the "New" Testament. Paul certainly says to have "nothing to do" with unbelievers but he was speaking to a new church in Corinth and was primarily reminding them to focus on Christ and not get distracted until their faith was stronger. Even so, "having nothing to do with" is a far cry from killing. Modern Christianity (except for the occasional wacko) is 1000 years past the crusades. Radical Islam is in the midst of another one of their "crusades" (they've had many through the centuries) and they're coming after you too...

Mark

02-02-2004, 12:53 PM

My apologies, I recently formatted my drive and forgot that I would no longer be logged in. Those last two Guest posts were from me, if anyone hadn't yet so concluded.

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 12:54 PM

My apologies, I recently formatted my drive and forgot that I would no longer be logged in. Those last two Guest posts were from me, if anyone hadn't yet so concluded.

I had surmised as much but thanks for clearing it up :)

Wuptdo

02-02-2004, 12:56 PM

Wow - this is certainly a heavy duty thread. I thought I was back in Philosphy class. Of course, I got stuck on the do we actually exist or are we just "brains in a vat" argument, i.e., is the "Matrix" actually real. It is good to see just good arguments and not personnal attacks. However, when reading this thread, I couldn't help it but look over at my little friend on my desk and smile (What do you think?) :wink:

http://ship-of-fools.com/Gadgets/Autos/108.html

Wuptdo B-)

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 01:04 PM

Mark

02-02-2004, 01:42 PM

The whole point of Christianity is the promise fulfilled of Jesus and his "New Testament".

Don, that's all well and good, and I don't disagree, but the new is necessarily reliant on the old and I focused on the old primarily to broaden my criticism from just Christianity proper.

So, for example, I mentioned that many, though I might say most, Christians probably don't have a literal belief in the fable of Adam and Eve. Rightly, in my view. But if not, that calls into question the entire enterprise of Jesus and salvation, and perhaps infant damnation and baptism. I'll quote Jerry Falwell (and we're in agreement) "If man is not basically bad; if he is not inherently evil, having received from the fall the very nature of sin and having had death passed upon him and all men.... then the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ were needless and worthless." And it is on this point that many Christians, including some friends of mine, if they're troubled by any doctrine, find themselves doubting.

So, my point is basically that it's tough to go through the whole process of the new testament doubting, in this instance, or at least being uncertain of such a major doctrinal event. Or, to take another example, how to reconcile the two stories of creation presented (in Gen. 1:20-26 and alternately in Gen. 2:15-20)? Either one or the other must be true.

I would further suggest that you are only partly right about modern Christianity's being 1000 past the crusades - and here I borrow heavily from Tom Friedman. He writes that it's not really Islam vs. Christianity/Judaism it's Islam 1.0 vs. Christianity 2.2/Judaism 3.0. The older religions of the west have undergone some changes in scripture, but they are vastly different that they were 1000 years ago in interpretation and practical application. Islam is younger, and still deciding how to reconcile its religious and political elements. Both Christians and Jews have debated for ages over that division and today reside in states where there are discrete secular and religious realms. Friedman argues that Islam hasn't yet separated the two, but thinks they will at some point in the future after internal strife.

My thinking along his line of reasoning is that it is only in practice that Christianity is significantly different than Islam. So when someone comes along touting one or the other as superior in moral, or as less dogmatic, I have to laugh. The Christianity practiced today is practiced largely by uncommitted, waffling, inconsistent but otherwise good people. The texts still say the same thing, the pressures of political expediency have changed - and yes, Christianity does temper its "one true nature" slightly in its texts vis a vis some other religions, but it is still as dogmatic and intolerant as any of the rest.... it just attempts to conceal that fact more effectively.

Now, having said all that, I don't find all religious teaching totally objectionable. The new testament contains, by and large, a reasonably good guide for living and standards of moral conduct. Though, I'd argue that where they're good they are not so due to divine or any religious inspiration, but are perhaps the fundamental ethical principles which human kind has seen fit to provide for itself since we began living in society with others. And it also those principles which I see in the Constitution of the U.S., those universally applicable principles on which all could agree regardless of religious affiliation or not.

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 03:17 PM

Mark,
There's no doubt the bible is filled with contradictions. And lo it came to pass that many a book were written proclaiming man's interpretation of divine scripture as flawed and subject to human error :wink: And I'll grant you the notion that underlying theology is similar between Chritianity, Islam, and Judaism. Indeed, as has been pointed out earier, they all share basically the same "Old Testament" history. Even the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh is generally acknowledged as paralleling the biblical telling of Noah and the great flood.

You make exactly the right point (or maybe it was Friedman) by noting that current "practice" is what differentiates the major religions. Unfortunately, only one major religion - Islam - currently "practices" and condones killing "infidels". The rank and file followers (and too few clerics) practice their religion peacefully. They're not the ones I'm worried about.

johnb

02-02-2004, 03:29 PM

Logic, reason and consistency.

No, Mark, you are, as usual, off base. No one claiming to be a Christian need take theology lessons from you.

Most Christians I know, then, are on the reapers short list.

You display an amazing failure of comprehension of basic Christian theology. Are you as vocal with bad Islamic theology as you are with bad Christian theology or is Christianity the only religion you inflict your "expertise" on? I am not sure there are any Christians who would accept your implicit demand, that adherance to the OT law is mandatory for Christians.

I see no reason why any Christian professing a belief in the bible (which I take to be one of the requirements of so being) should disregard this direct word or God while upholding, or, as in the case of abortion, inventing, others?

Let's just agree that your vision is faulty then. Your motivation is to find passages you find objectionable, regardless of any and all other factors and throw them around in an attempt to silence opposition. I doubt anyone has a need to take theology lessons from you.

I fail to see how one determines which portions are to be respected and which are not - the cases of slavery and women's subjection also falling into this troublesome quandry.

If you assume the purpose of the New Testament is to alter human institutions to fit some model of your choosing there would be problem. That is probably not the purpose of the NT message though. In fact, I would hazard a guess the message of the NT is NOT to perfect human institutions and society but instead to reform individuals who choose to adhere to it's call. No authoritarian call to supress non belief, no call to impose a system of governance on anyone, not even a "go throw a rock at the unbelievers". You yourself not that there isn't even an backhanded call by Christ to employ force on behalf of his message, yet you persist in wanting to have a boogeyman so desperately you become a Dionne Warwick style mindreading wacko telling us what's in the head of "every" Christian.

It is as ludicrous as a Christian's not having a literal belief in Adam and Eve, and millions of self proclaimed Christians in this country, and abroad, do not.

Yes, I can see it would anger you that there are Christians or Muslims, or Jews who do not claim adherance to the simplistic, crude, and vicious chariactures you construct of their religion.

"... their metaphysics requires less logical inconsistency than, say, the old testament."

Really? The never ending cycle of reincarnation of Hinduism, the temporal fatalism of Buddhism, the Emperor deification of Shintoism, and the Jain penchant for placing insect life on the same moral plane as human life really fit that bill? I would be afraid to ask you define your terms Mark.

Also, I didn't comment on it earlier, but despite the fact that the founders of this state were, no doubt, Christian men brought up on religious principles, this country was the first in the world to be explicitly and decidely secular in nature.

This is absurd. Non-sectarian yes, secular? No, that is not an accusation that can be supported by the historical record. From the Congressional calls for national days of prayer, fasting, and Thanksgiving to the acknowledgement that human rights are ordained by God in the Declaration to the daily involvement religion and religous men in the public life of the republic there is a clear and consistant historical repudiation for your absurd comment.

Further, all religions that claim exclusive knowledge of the truth are inherently totalitarian.

No, that is another nonsensical statement. Those religions which call for the use of force to compel belief are totalitarian. Your comment is pure nihilism, nothing more.

And while Jesus may not have specifically ordered his followers to persecute the non believing, rest assurred that in every Christian's mind

Where would Christianity be without Mark to tell Christians what each and every one of them believes or is supposed to believe? You are incredibly arrogant. You have NO IDEA what is in the mind of "every Christian" or any Christian for that matter. The more you post the more convinced I become that you have no idea what is in your own mind. You are exactly what you accuse others of Mark. Totalitarian.

We just have to be ready to kill

I notice you failed to post my complete comment Mark. You do things like that a lot. That's why you have such a deficient understanding of Christian theology. You seem to understand only sound bite length snippets.

The US must be ready to kill the Islamofascist terrorists who would attempt to destroy this nation. Otherwise leftwing lunatics would not be free to rant in an Islamic theocracy. :twisted:

SteveG

02-02-2004, 03:38 PM

You make exactly the right point (or maybe it was Friedman) by noting that current "practice" is what differentiates the major religions. Unfortunately, only one major religion - Islam - currently "practices" and condones killing "infidels". The rank and file followers (and too few clerics) practice their religion peacefully. They're not the ones I'm worried about.

Fortunately, we already have laws against murder, and all but a tiny fringe of those Muslims who are cititizens or residents of the USA would never dream of hurting others over the name of their god. The majority of Muslims in the USA denounce such violence (and wish to bring an end to calls to such by religious leaders) the same way most Christians in the USA denounce calls for violence by, say, the KKK.

Most Americans likely believe that it's not the name of your god that makes you a sinner, but the harmful acts that you commit against others. Discouragement of such acts is the centerpiece of every mainstream religion practiced in the USA. Most American religious leaders are proud of what they have in common with those of other faiths; those few who choose to fuss over the differences in a culturally diverse public forum will always need to be prepared to deal with the arguments that will inevitably ensue.

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 03:48 PM

Mark

02-02-2004, 04:55 PM

John, I'm not trying to suggest that "adherence to the OT law is mandatory for Christians" only that Christians believe some of the most fundamental precepts introduced there. I know plenty of Christians that believe in some form of evolution, possibly not in its most scientific form, but in some, that also profess faith in the stories, plural, of Genesis. We all know Christians that have baptised their children that don't really believe Adam and Eve were historical beings, that a snake really coaxed Eve into eating an apple, that sin really is transferred to a newborn. Yet they want to be Christians? Why the need for Christ with these people?

All I want is for anyone that continues to be delusional about the nature of religious activity to be honest about it. That it's not a rational enterprise, and that there's no reason for believing one way or another. If you, or anyone else, is unable to explain why, for example, Christians are free to disobey the direct word of God about advocating the death of homosexuals then there is absolutely no ground on which to substantiate the truth value of any of the other claims, including, at the logical extreme, the exsistence of God himself. This is an old argument, but one I still find frustrates the faithful. 99% of Christians don't read the bible literally or live their lives as fundamentalists. The minute they don't, they've executed a grim trigger scenario by opening up every single one of their beliefs to challenge - once one issue can be chalked up to a shift in interpretation they all can fall victim to the same thing.

My motivation is not to find passages that are objectionable. There are dozens of email messages floating around that do that. I wouldn't expect anyone in civilized society to keep to some of the laws presented in both testaments. I'm merely suggesting that no Christian has the scriptual right to reject any element, and if they move beyond the text they'd better have very good reason for doing so. In my estimation, they don't, and in so doing the entire religion, and even God, ceases to have any force whatsoever.

Regarding the logical inconsistencies of other religions, you bring up a good point. The metaphysics of all major religions require a lot of faith by the devout. But, as it stands in practice, I find it unlikely that more than a cursory number of adherents to any religion believe, without reservation, everything their religion "says." You obviously don't believe in the command, "thou shall not kill." I deliberately left off the "Islamofacists" from your quote, "We just have to be ready to kill," beacuse I'm fairly ceratin God doesn't care - or does your bible read "thou shall not kill except as provided in the following conditions..." in invisible ink? So, insofar as the extent of a solid belief in much of the OT and, what I would call more fundamentalist Christian religion, is supposed to the underpinning for how Christians should be acting in daily life, is different than extent to which other religions require belief in their more fundamentalist precepts, we can compare their inconsistency that way.

And don't start lamenting that I'm leaving things out of your quotes, which I had good reason to do, and then claim that I think I know what is on every Christian's mind by quoting me as writing, "...rest assured that in every Christian's mind" leaving out the next word, "should" which was instrumental to the point I was making, which was, despite the fact that Christians are not usually explicitly exhorted to defeat their theological adversaries, they can, and do, operate within the framework that non-believers will be subject to punishment.

Further, your comments regarding the religious nature of the US are ill founded. Forget, if possible, for the moment that the declaration of independence is actually a document that has any force of law whatsoever. The Constitution and the legally binding treaties enacted according to its provisions are the "supreme law of the land." And, in that document they took great pains to omit any reference to a Creator, specifically refused to endorse a national religion, and made it technically difficult for states to impose their own various religions. And yet you want to continue to deny, even in the context of the political climate of the day, that this was not explicitly secular. Non-sectarian? What is that, what would a non-sectarian prayer look like, for example? Why even suggest that it is possible to craft a document that will somehow harmonize Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism along with atheists? The only principles, the ones the constitution takes pains to posit, that can attain universal validity are secular arguments for the social and political polity. If any religious element is inserted than other religions, and the irreligious, will question the basis on which that element was established. We can't say murder is wrong because God said so without invoking a series of questions like, "Well how do you know God's will, or that he even exists." or "Did God say anything else (like we should kill homosexuals) that you no longer believe? Why?) But, if you say that we shouldn't murder people because it is the only way that people can live together in a civilized society, this is not something that will raise much, if any, objection.

johnb

02-02-2004, 05:38 PM

Yet they want to be Christians? Why the need for Christ with these people?

See, this is a "Mark" problem, not a Christianity problem. Whether an individual professing to be a Christian believes the Genesis story of Adam and Eve to be literal or figurative is at some point irrelevant to the message of the New Testament. The significant factor in the story is that the relationship of Creator to Creation. The story in Genesis does not give a scientific disertation on light, it merely records an omnipotent deity commanding it to be. What is important for the believers is not the mechanics but the mechanic.

All I want is for anyone that continues to be delusional about the nature of religious activity to be honest about it.

The first step in your healing process is to stop making assumptions and assertions about what others believe based on crude cariactures.

If you, or anyone else, is unable to explain why, for example, Christians are free to disobey the direct word of God about advocating the death of homosexuals then there is absolutely no ground on which to substantiate the truth value of any of the other claims, including, at the logical extreme, the exsistence of God himself.

This is a good place to start. Since Christians are followers of Jesus Christ I would have to ask where Jesus Christ ever commanded anyone to kill homosexuals? Having you define Christianity seems to be mildly different from allowing Islamofascists to define Judaism.

"We just have to be ready to kill," beacuse I'm fairly ceratin God doesn't care -

Oh? You and He are pretty tight are you? You may wish to equate killing in self-defense with the actions of the homicide bombers in Israel, with the al Qaeda terrorists, and other such actions, however, most of us are sane enough to understand that taking the life of a homicidal maniac is NOT on the same moral plane as blowing up a bus full of Jews in Tel Aviv.

"...we can compare their inconsistency that way."

In that it may infuriate or otherwise displease you does not make it inconsistant. The Christian religion does not mandate the rules and laws of society, again, it addresses personal belief and action. Christians are commanded to obey their civic leaders. Questions regarding the death penalty, killing by soldiers in war, and such subjects are simply not covered. What is covered is a command to individuals to not kill. I realize that subtlety does not appear to be your strong suite but individual action and state action are not synonymous. It is simplistic and even moronic to attempt to extrapolate teachings directed towards individual believers to entities they were not intended for.

The Constitution and the legally binding treaties enacted according to its provisions are the "supreme law of the land."

Mark, you have your little hatred of religion going for you and there is no way that anything is going to get in the way of your biases in this matter. You may as well deny the historical reality we know as the battle of Gettysburg. Unfortunately the historical record is so heavily weighted against you that denying it is self-damning. I understand you have a distinct dislike of religion generally and Christianity specifically. That hate does NOT mean that the men who organized and participated in the revolution, who wrote the Constitution, who ran the government were not all steeped in and familiar with Christian theology, that almost all of them were believers, and that the historical record of their actions in the new US government would make the non/anti-theists of this time howl in agony if the occurance was contemporary. Their goal was to create a system in which no one denomination/sect was granted preferential treatment by the government and that the citizenry was not compelled to support denominations/sects with which they disagreed.

If you are going to read your personal hatred of religion back into US history this is going to be a most unproductive thread. The only way to learn from and understand history is to allow the people and events be understood in that time in which they occured.

dhyatt

02-02-2004, 05:38 PM

Mark,
Your last post was addressed to John and I'm sure he will respond accordingly but I have to point out a couple of things:

I'm merely suggesting that no Christian has the scriptual right to reject any element, and if they move beyond the text they'd better have very good reason for doing so. In my estimation, they don't, and in so doing the entire religion, and even God, ceases to have any force whatsoever.

Christians do indeed have the right to reject various elements and to some extent it's almost required unless you're one of the very few that believe the King James Bible is the only true divine word of God and is 100% accurate. Otherwise, which translation is to be adopted??? For instance, the oldest Aramaic text for the Old Testament doesn't use the word for "kill" in the 10 Commandments in Exodus. It has an entirely different word - the word for "murder". A rather trivial example for sure but one that exemplifies that fact that the bible is a living document. It can't be absolute because it's been written and re-written by man. You probably consider yourself to be a law abiding citizen yet do you obey the speed limit - always? Christianity is no different. It's about love and forgiveness - not about following a 2000+ year old rule book.

SteveG

02-02-2004, 05:38 PM

We all know Christians that have baptised their children that don't really believe Adam and Eve were historical beings, that a snake really coaxed Eve into eating an apple, that sin really is transferred to a newborn. Yet they want to be Christians? Why the need for Christ with these people?

My infant son was recently baptised; this was important to my wife, but troubling to me, because I was concerned that the baptism ceremony symbolized a degree of belief that I did not have, and that by participating in the ritual I would be, in effect, lying to the church and to God.

To address this dilemma, we had a long lunch with my wife's minister, who would conduct the ceremony, to discuss my love for the good that the church does, my background of critical thinking and scientific skepticism, and my concern over particular portions of the ceremony text and various interpretations of it. The minister understood that my motivation for the meeting was out of respect for him and his Church, and my desire to be honest to him and myself.

All of us including the minister were very happy with the outcome. The minister was much more interested in encouraging our family to participate in church activities despite my skeptical nature, than in requiring a uniform literal interpretation of the ritual. He suggested that we find mutual understanding of meaning, and for those portions which there was no way we could really mean the same thing, I would simply remain silent. It was a wonderful service, and my son really seems to like the minister.

The minister certainly could have, alternatively, decided that unless I was willing to accept every idea word for word, that I couldn't participate, and that we would be unwelcome in the church. However, he didn't seem to think that result would have been better for us, for my son, or for the church. The strength of his leadership appears to benefit from his tolerance, compassion, and desire to influence by positive example.

Mark

02-02-2004, 06:13 PM

Glad to hear that you had a positive time of the ceremony Steve. I too have found that ministers of nearly all denominations are increasingly concerned with providing the opportunity for spiritually and skeptically religious (as opposed to dogmatically *in the most benign sense* religious) people to participate. I don't deny that the church can and often is a positive experience for those that partake of it, and am happy to hear that your views are being accomodated.

By contrast I have a female Catholic friend and an even more militantly atheist friend than I who were recently wed in a Catholic chruch. The first official with whom they talked decided that they could not be married in the church (we feared they might not allow it, as my male friend implicitly rejected several of the requirements to do so, e.g. that they would raise their children Catholic, that he believed in a Supreme Being, that they would participate in the pre-marriage counseling). Later however, after some bargaining, and some half truths, they were able to - though the ceremony was not performed by the afformentioned, and perferred priest.

Karen

02-03-2004, 01:39 PM

By contrast I have a female Catholic friend and an even more militantly atheist friend than I who were recently wed in a Catholic chruch. The first official with whom they talked decided that they could not be married in the church (we feared they might not allow it, as my male friend implicitly rejected several of the requirements to do so, e.g. that they would raise their children Catholic, that he believed in a Supreme Being, that they would participate in the pre-marriage counseling). Later however, after some bargaining, and some half truths, they were able to - though the ceremony was not performed by the afformentioned, and perferred priest.

From above information given it appears to me that the couple, and yourself, seem to think that it is some sort of "right" for the catholic woman to be married in a catholic church "just because she is catholic". WRONG! Marriage is a SACRAMENT in the church. Not to be taken lightly, just like John's post on communion. If you are not commited to the SACRAMENT of a catholic marriage which includes the vow of raising your child catholic, believing in GOD, and premarriage counceling, get married SOMEWHERE ELSE. It disturbes me greatly that they used "half truths and bargining". This shows me that the woman does NOT take this sacrament seriously. And it shows me that your friend compromised his values and beliefs.

And I have first hand knowledge of the above having been in a similar situation. My husband did not want to agree to raise our children catholic, and we both refused to lie about it. I take the sacraments seriously. We didn't have a Catholic wedding but it was still wonderful and special because I married the man I loved, and still love.

Karen

dhyatt

02-05-2004, 08:24 PM

<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0">
<tr><td>http://worldnetdaily.com/images/WND.logo.116x19.gif

Thursday, February 5, 2004

<font face=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif color=#440000 size=-1>GLOBAL JIHAD</font>
<font face=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif color=#000000 size=+2>Official Egyptian paper:
Killing kids OK</font>
<font face=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif color=#000000 size=+1>Says Palestinian suicide attacks should be blamed on Israelis
</font>

<font size=-1>Posted: February 5, 2004 5:00 p.m. Eastern</font>

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

An editorial in an Egyptian government newspaper asserted suicide bombings are legitimate even if children are killed.

The daily Al-Masaa praised suicide operations, calling on Palestinian organizations to not publish the names of the bombers so that their families' houses would not be demolished, according a translation provided by the Washington, D.C.-based monitor Middle East Media Research Institute.

The editorial came amid debate in the Arab media over the dispatching of a mother by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Reem Al-Riyashi, who left behind two toddlers, hid a bomb underneath her robe at a Gaza border crossing, killing four Israelis.

In a farewell video, Riyashi said,"It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists."

The Egyptian daily said, "We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion, [an enemy] who has deadly weapons prohibited by international law, that is not deterred from using them against the defenseless Palestinian people."

The paper asserted even if civilians or children are killed in the suicide operation, "the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi."

"Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation," Al Masaa said.

The paper said, however, it questions the Palestinian organizations' practice of publishing the names of the people who carry out the attacks.

Publishing the names, Al Masaa said, "is a valuable gift that the Palestinian resistance gives the Zionist entity, since as soon as it receives this gift, the armies of the [Zionist] entity hasten to the home of the martyr's family, wounded by the loss of its son, in order to multiply its pain by destroying its home."
</td>
</tr>
</table>