quote:Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.
...
In his weekly column, Prager said Ellison's act is "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism." He warned that allowing Ellison to use the Qur'an could pave the way for a racist to use "his favorite book" to take the oath of office.
"When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization," Prager wrote. "If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim-Americans want to bequeath to America."
Most of Prager's little rant makes him sound pretty foolish as it makes him look like he's almost trying to sound opposed to freedom of religion. But in the midst of all that, he does have one valid point. Should they be allowed to take their oath on any book they choose? I think that's only a minor question, though, since I don't exactly see anyone taking their oath on Mein Kampf anytime soon.
The larger question that Prager never asks is, should a religious book even be used at all? If "they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization," which I think is important for them to do, then shouldn't they use a document like the Constitution and keep religion out of it altogether?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Prager is wrong. More specifically, he (and other political conservatives) are wrong about this being a first. Jewish officials have taken the oath on a Tanach on at least a few occasions, for instance.
As someone commented on a blog where this was discussed a few days ago, don't we want people taking their oaths of office on books that actually are holy to them, rather than on ones that they consider to have little significance?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I can completely and totally understand why anyone who is not a Christian would not want to swear an oath using the Christian Bible. That is completely logical to me.
Personally, I don't know why swearing on a Bible is necessary. Swearing to tell the truth, swearing to uphold the law, fine, but why should it be on the Bible?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
100% agreed, rivka.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Should they be allowed to take their oath on any book they choose?
Sure. Or no book at all. Since when does the book itself enforce the oath?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Tom on a question related to religion.
*head asplodes*
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Holy Crap. We agree?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
People should be allowed to swear by whatever they believe encompasses their values and beliefs. If I were a Muslim elected into office, I would definately prefer to swear by my own beliefs than by Christian beliefs.
Is Ellison a Muslim?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I just read that yes, he is. Sorry.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
How did a Muslim get elected in Minnesota? I thought they all lived in Michigan.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
You don't have to be Muslim to vote for a Muslim, or black to vote for a black person.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I wouldn't swear on a book at all. When I had to testify about a bank robbery in Boston, I asked them if I could affirm instead of swear, and they were fine with it. In the Israeli army, when they swear soldiers in, all the secularists call out "Ani nishba!", which means "I swear", and all the religious soldiers call out "Ani matzhir!", which means "I affirm". There's a religious issue regarding the taking of oaths.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: How did a Muslim get elected in Minnesota? I thought they all lived in Michigan.
One can only assume, on a political platform that appealed to the majority of voters.
Shocking, really.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: How did a Muslim get elected in Minnesota? I thought they all lived in Michigan.
<blink> I'm trying to decide if this is whistle-worthy. You know, General, just when I think you can't lower my estimation of you, you go ahead and prove me wrong.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I hope the CIA is watching his Five.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Whistle away Lisa, I bet you are a big fan of the five Muslim Arabs in the Knesset, or does the fact that they rate more scrutiny then the rest combined judging from the articles about them tell me your more probable position?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
We had very few Nazi's in office when we were at war with Hitler.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The book used is about the oath-taker. The content of the oath is about the country. If some idiot wants to swear in on Mein Kempf, I just want to make sure I know about it before the next election.
Also, there's no requirement I could find that the oath be taken on any book, let alone a specific one.
Why would anyone who believes a text to be sacred want someone swearing on that text who didn't share that belief?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I have to say, I want my elected officials taking the oaths that they feel bind them most strongly.
I think I put more weight on the oath of office, and oaths in general for that matter, than most Americans do, though.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:We had very few Nazi's in office when we were at war with Hitler.
Ah...another one of those people.
All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
However, everyone who uses apostrophes to pluralize IS a terrorist.
Get 'em!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Sure. Or no book at all. Since when does the book itself enforce the oath?"
By what it says about the person by taking the oath. By your reasoning we might as well be taking an oath by placing our hands on the head of a police officer. Sure, a person can be a hypocrite. However, it at least helps to establish the person recognizes the same values as the rest of the society (even if they might not hold them).
As for Jews swearing on their Holy book, it should be realized that Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures to be equally as Holy. To use that as an argument is, more or less, to show ignorance of Christianity.
I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Also, there's no requirement I could find that the oath be taken on any book, let alone a specific one.
That's good, because there isn't any book that I would feel comfortable swearing on.
I probably wouldn't make a stink about it for something like testifying in court, but to me swearing on the Bible is no more binding to me than swearing on a text-book.
Well, I probably believe most of what's in a text-book, so probably even less so.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Whistle away Lisa, I bet you are a big fan of the five Muslim Arabs in the Knesset, or does the fact that they rate more scrutiny then the rest combined judging from the articles about them tell me your more probable position?
You mean the ones who publically assert that they oppose the existence of a Jewish state, and support suicide bombers? No, I'm not particularly fond of them. Then again, there are Arabs in the Likud who are absolutely good people. Could be they're Druze, rather than Muslim, but I wouldn't actually care one way or the other. The point is that it's their actions and positions that concern me. Not who they are.
You know nothing at all about this Keith Ellison guy other than the fact that he's Muslim. You made a bigoted comment. And rather than show some embarrassment for it, you decided to stand up tall and proclaim "I am a bigot". That's sick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, it at least helps to establish the person recognizes the same values as the rest of the society (even if they might not hold them).
Why is that important, or even relevant? And since when does the Bible represent the "values" of American society?
quote:I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy.
Why? How many Muslims do you know?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As for Jews swearing on their Holy book, it should be realized that Christians consider the Jewish Scriptures to be equally as Holy. To use that as an argument is, more or less, to show ignorance of Christianity.
You are missing the point. It's not that they used a Tanach; it's that they wouldn't use a Christian bible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
Any country that Muslims are banned from isn't the United States of America.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis."
Just repeating a mantra is not going to change my view that, at least in heart if not in actions, they are all terrorists. Now not all Germans were Nazi's, but that doesn't mean a large portion of them didn't at the time support the movement.
I would like more proof that even a large minority are not tengentially anti-American and more importantantly anti-Democracy. Even the most democratic Egypt is more a theocracy than a democracy. However, I do recognize that was a democratically decided political situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I probably wouldn't make a stink about it for something like testifying in court
In federal court, the requirement is that "every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." So no worries there.
quote:However, it at least helps to establish the person recognizes the same values as the rest of the society (even if they might not hold them).
That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would like more proof that even a large minority are not tengentially anti-American and more importantantly anti-Democracy.
There's far more evidence that you - someone who has said that you feel Islam needs to be banned from our country - are against American democratic values than a random Muslim in America, let alone one that managed to get elected.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Even the most democratic Egypt is more a theocracy than a democracy. However, I do recognize that was a democratically decided political situation.
Aren't you the one who wants to establish a theocracy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just repeating a mantra is not going to change my view that, at least in heart if not in actions, they are all terrorists.
You know, I have some Muslim friends who I'd like to say would love to have that conversation with you -- but in reality, it'd probably depress them.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Aren't you the one who wants to establish a theocracy?
He has expressed that opinion here before, yes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So... how long before he starts voting his faith? *SHUDDER*
Can you get Burkas at wal*mart?
(Now before you take this as a slam on muslims, this is a continuation of the "Vote your faith" argument.)
Pix
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, Lisa, I'm curious about the opposition to swearing. I know that some Christians won't swear based on something Jesus said. I'm guessing that's not the basis for Jewish opposition to swearing. Might I ask what it is? (Is it the thing with Jepthah? Because I think that story would make me extremely wary of swearing.)
Regarding swearing on the Qur'an: I agree with just about everyone here. The point of swearing on a holy book is not that you are going to uphold that book. The point is that you're going to keep the oath you're swearing, which has absolutely nothing to do with the book (or lack thereof) in question. So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
I agree with this. Maybe all politicians should take their oath on a copy of the constitution that authorizes the office in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Swearing on their honour should be sufficient. If it isn't, nothing we put under their hand will make it sufficient.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:That would be what the election was for. The oath is required by the Constitution to ensure that the Constitution will be upheld. It's not to make some nebulous statement about values so vague as to be meaningless.
I agree with this. Maybe all politicians should take their oath on a copy of the constitution that authorizes the office in the first place.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, though. The idea is for them to defend the Constitution. Swearing on it would be meaningless, since if they respect the Constitution enough to mean it, they'll already protect it, and if they don't care enough to protect it, the oath would be meaningless.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Hey, Lisa, I'm curious about the opposition to swearing. I know that some Christians won't swear based on something Jesus said. I'm guessing that's not the basis for Jewish opposition to swearing.
<dryly> That's a reasonable guess.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Might I ask what it is? (Is it the thing with Jepthah? Because I think that story would make me extremely wary of swearing.)
It's not that. It's that swearing is a very complicated legal issue. We have several different types of oaths with different characteristics, and they need to be done, when they're done, with a great deal of care. It's generally discouraged to do any of them at all unless absolutely necessary, because God says in the Torah (Deuteronomy, towards the beginning; I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that He'll specifically extract payment from those who don't keep their vows.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Stranger in a Strange Land. The Spiral Dance.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Very simple solution. You swear your oath on a puppy. If you break your oath, the puppy gets it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Swearing on their honour should be sufficient. If it isn't, nothing we put under their hand will make it sufficient.
I agree, swearing on a book shouldn't be necessary, but it seems to be a pretty important symbolic gesture to many people. But what exactly is it supposed to symbolize, that there is some higher power that binds them to their oath, or that there is some religious value system that they adhere to? I think it would just be better to remove the religious overtones from these political matters altogether.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Swear on your own honor, no book at all.
-o-
What the columnist and a couple of posters here are missing is that the bible does not represent our values as a society. Their underlying assumption is wrong, and it makes the rest of their ranting nonsense. We are a specifically secular society, and the constitution which our elected officials swear to uphold goes to great lengths to make it clear that there is no official religion. By extension, then, a religious document cannot possibly represent our civil values.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: [QUOTE] I think it would just be better to remove the religious overtones from these political matters altogether.
Agreed.
However, if a politician feels that need, then whatever book is holy to them should be used. I wouldn't trust anyone who swore on someone else's holy book. Wouldn't that just be negate the oath?
Regarding whether all Muslims should be trusted or not: What is this? The Red Scare? Give me a break. My best friend is Muslim. I live in a largely Muslim area in Chicago. I have never felt threatened by anyone here. To state that all of the people in any religion are on the same page as everyone else in that religion is false, and makes you sound ignorant.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I disagree that this is a secular society. Our currency even says In God We Trust.
The government was set up so that it would never be run by a church, that doesn't make it a secular society though.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think they should have one testicle removed and kept on ice to be returned if they live up to their conservative promises at the end of their cycle, of course I do not know what the refrigeration life of a testicle is, Kennedy's would probably be as shriveled as his liver, Kerry's would be as hard to find as they are right now and Hillary would have to loan us Bill's which have pretty high mileage on them, but at least Hillary has them on her person most the time if we really want one...
quote: All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush. "Every man who eats meat is on the same moral level with the butcher"
Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:However, everyone who uses apostrophes to pluralize IS a terrorist.
I always get punctuation crazy when I'm hopped up on cold medicine... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy
Most of the Muslims I know see Islam's political role as separate from its theology. While it's true that not all Muslims feel that way, it's also the case that not all Catholics feel that way about their church.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I think they should have one testicle removed and kept on ice to be returned if they live up to their conservative promises at the end of their cycle, of course I do not know what the refrigeration life of a testicle is, Kennedy's would probably be as shriveled as his liver, Kerry's would be as hard to find as they are right now and Hillary would have to loan us Bill's which have pretty high mileage on them, but at least Hillary has them on her person most the time if we really want one...
quote: All Muslims are not terrorists. All Iraqi's are not terrorists. All Afghani's are not terrorists. Just repeat that mantra to yourself and maybe you won't make an ass of yourself by comparing Muslims to Nazis.
Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush. "Every man who eats meat is on the same moral level with the butcher"
Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush.
Nazis were a political party, not a religion, and your inability to seperate the two makes it impossible to have a discussion.
quote:Also to give the Muslims a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Islams political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Or, said another way:
Also to give the Christians a pass because they disguise their political agenda as a religion is a bit foolish, or are you one of 'those people' who sees Christianity's political role as secondary or separate from its philosophy, whatever that really is?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
Or every time you break an oath, a kitten dies.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: So, yeah...might as well have the guy swear on something that will make him inclined to keep his promises, whether that's a Qur'an, a Bible, a Tanach, the Principia Mathematica, the Silmarillion, whatever.
That could actually get to be pretty fun.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Villain: OK, if you guys are evil, eat this kitten!
Kitten: Meow!
The Tick: Eating kittens is just plain… plain wrong! And no one should do it, ever!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
They claw your throat too much on the way down. *cough*
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
I do not believe there were any Christians during the bulk of Jewish grievences, those in more recent history that result from policies of the Catholic Church when it was the political force in Europe can clearly be laid at the feet of that power.
quote: Nazis were a political party, not a religion, and your inability to seperate the two makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Apparently the fact that I anticipated your claim and answered your reply before you made it shows which one of us is on top of this little chat, but to reiterate: Islam is a political animal first and a philosophy second, I do not seperate them because to do so is unnatural TO THEM, you do so out of your own ethnocentric sense of superiority "Of course religion and politics are different, everyone knows that" a postulate as wrong and out of touch as "Let them eat cake!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Islam is a political animal first and a philosophy second, I do not seperate them because to do so is unnatural TO THEM
Who is "them?" Are you referring here to American Muslims?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The referent of the pronoun is clearly Muslims, I looked at the sentence several times and it seems pretty clear.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Teaching the Muslims in Iraq the finer points of splitting the hair of politics from religion is our crisis in Iraq. Is Islam adopting western views inside the West? some few, perhaps those you associate with, but a large block remains isolationist and anti assimilationist to the point where crimes against gays and women, and female family members that we might have expected in Saudi Arabia are taking place in Holland, France, and New York. Islam does not teach or allow its members to make the distinction between politics and religion, so any Muslim who claims to do so is doing it to the degree that they have opened themselves up to be something else, not Islam.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I recall, it wasn't until the latter half of the last century that the Vatican found democracy to be compatible with Catholicism. We managed anyhow.
edit: I love John Courtney Murray
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In a way, Sax actually implies a good point. Muslims or members of any religion (Catholic, Jewish, etc.) that has members that have demonstrated an inability to separate their religion from their politics should definitely be discouraged from entering politics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Newt Gingrich would hate that.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
I do not believe there were any Christians during the bulk of Jewish grievences, those in more recent history that result from policies of the Catholic Church when it was the political force in Europe can clearly be laid at the feet of that power.
Why should we differentiate between Catholics and Christians? You are not differentiating between different types of Muslims.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
I do not believe there were any Christians during the bulk of Jewish grievences, those in more recent history that result from policies of the Catholic Church when it was the political force in Europe can clearly be laid at the feet of that power.
Why should we differentiate between Catholics and Christians? You are not differentiating between different types of Muslims.
Don't you know, there aren't any different types of Muslims. That's just a lie they tell to keep you from seeing the truth...
That they're all the SPAWN OF SATAN
Silly you, you've fallen for their lies. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
kmb, all things being equal, I'm completely in favor of anything Newt Gingrich hates (at least in the realm of politics).
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I cannot think of any significant political Christians apart from the Catholics before modern times, the Coptic's? Maybe you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church that was crushed by the Turks? They were essentially Catholics who did the sign of the cross the wrong way...
Having the values of a religion and treating that religion as a political affiliation are separate, I agree, Nobody seriously thought JFK was the Pope's Puppet, but the situation in Islam is more akin to electing Bishops and Cardinals as Governors and representatives.
As for there being different flavors of Muslims, I suspect I am as well versed in this as anyone, I had a year of Honors study with one of Jimmy Carter's advisers plus a year in the Middle East, and the more reasonable Sunni's gave us Al Al Qaeda while the more fanatical downtrodden Shia are Iran, Syria and our personal pet pain Iraq. Al Sadar's malitia would take a week to dismantel if we did not face the real possibility of being on the same side as the Sunni's that have been paying the kids to plant bombs to kill our troops.
Remeber that the rifts in Islam have thier roots in political power, not doctrine. More like Henry the Eighth then Martin Luthor if you can follow that. The question was one of Succession, not interpretation of the Book. As if any thinking person can miss the point that Islam is political, or that in making secular Democracies in the region we are attacking Islam.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: So should Jews blame Christians as a whole for past (and present)crimes of a select few?
I do not believe there were any Christians during the bulk of Jewish grievences, those in more recent history that result from policies of the Catholic Church when it was the political force in Europe can clearly be laid at the feet of that power.
Why should we differentiate between Catholics and Christians? You are not differentiating between different types of Muslims.
Don't you know, there aren't any different types of Muslims. That's just a lie they tell to keep you from seeing the truth...
That they're all the SPAWN OF SATAN
Silly you, you've fallen for their lies.
Sort of like the Cliff's Notes version of a Chick Tract, no? <grin>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for there being different flavors of Muslims, I suspect I am as well versed in this as anyone...
Somehow I suspect you aren't. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
Having the values of a religion and treating that religion as a political affiliation are separate, I agree, Nobody seriously thought JFK was the Pope's Puppet, but the situation in Islam is more akin to electing Bishops and Cardinals as Governors and representatives.
Read your history, dear. Lots of people thought JFK would be the Pope's puppet. And I think you are mixing your Muslims.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Swearing on their honour should be sufficient. If it isn't, nothing we put under their hand will make it sufficient.
Amen to that. Anyone who is more likely to lie when their hand is on a copy of the daily news than they are with their hand on a book of scripture, doesn't have enough honor to make their oaths worth jack in the first place.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Am too
Are not
Am too
Are not
Do you really want start that conversation Tom? I am sure you do, I have seen that you have a lawyers knack for being eloquently wrong, but really even you should be able to see the inevitable path that statement takes, I will not whip out mine to measure it against yours so tuck it back in you pants.
If you think you have information I am not taking into consideration share it, if not then be destructive as you like but do not expect me to again offer you the courtesy of a reply.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) We may not have had Nazi's in the government during WWII, but we did have plenty of Germans. (Eisenhower is not a Korean name, for example). Nobody suggested kicking all the Germans out of the country during the war. (And yes, we suffered through the results of that decision, with plenty of spies and sabotage of the war effort.)
2)Islam is not the same as Islamifascist. No more than Christian equates to those guys in the woods calling themselves "Swords of Jesus" and planning the Crusade of Violence in His Name.
3) Nowhere in the Quoran does it require burkahs, women locked away, or death to Isreal. These are all creations of various sects, post Mohammedean experts, and others not representing all of Islam. What the Qoran does say that if forced to convert, it is OK to lie. In other words, an Oath given on a Bible is not binding to a Muslim in the same way that an Oath given on the Quoran is.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Just repeating a mantra is not going to change my view that, at least in heart if not in actions, they are all terrorists.
What would it take to change that view, then?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Apparently the fact that I anticipated your claim and answered your reply before you made it shows which one of us is on top of this little chat
If only it were that simple. If you want me to believe that Islam is first and foremost a political party, then back it up with real information.
quote:but to reiterate: Islam is a political animal first and a philosophy second, I do not seperate them because to do so is unnatural TO THEM
This is unsubstantiated, and while I won't disagree that Muslim's attempt to enforce their views of morality through government, it's hardly any different than the behaviour of other major religions. However, it does not follow that all Muslims are terrorists any more than saying that all Irish Catholics are terrorists because of actions taken by Sinn Fein and the IRA.
quote:you do so out of your own ethnocentric sense of superiority "Of course religion and politics are different, everyone knows that" a postulate as wrong and out of touch as "Let them eat cake!"
Darn! I let my ethnocentric sense of superiority get in the way again! That's always happening!
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
No I have them straight, but it can be hard to keep track of the motives when they all agree about hating us. Sunni insurgents "Saddamites" and my favorite Saudi Prince raised Sunni, turned terrorist. Shia supplied from Iran doing their best to vote early and often by murdering the Sunni...
It is really our hope that they can never live in peace and unite, the only real complication is that we are the guardians of Israel, which has the Chance of a Whelk in a Supernova to paraphrase Richard Nixon with a bit of Adams (Douglas not John) without us.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The next person in this thread who uses the word "Nazi's" to mean anything other than "belonging to a Nazi" dies a slow, lingering death. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you really want start that conversation Tom? I am sure you do, I have seen that you have a lawyers knack for being eloquently wrong, but really even you should be able to see the inevitable path that statement takes, I will not whip out mine to measure it against yours so tuck it back in you pants.
Perhaps you should have considered these implications before whipping yours out to begin with.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Rivka, Why are you so hung up on Nazi's?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Saxon, you seem to be going in circles.
"All grievances that the Jews had for wrongs done in the early millenia can be blamed on the Catholics, not the Christians in general."
"All organized Christians were Catholic, just different variations. THe Eastern Orthodox church, for example, just did the Cross backwards."
So were the Catholics of early Christendom Catholic or Christian or both?
The Eastern Orthodox Church is and was very strong in Eastern Europe, well beyond the lands of the Turks. Russia is the largest country in the world, and was officially Eastern Orthodox up to the Communist Revolution. Thier treatment of Jews was deplorable. Can you say Pogrom?
The anti-semitism that allowed the Nazi "final solution" to go through came not in Catholic Italy or Spain, but in Protestant Germany.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have seen that you have a lawyers knack for being eloquently wrong, but really even you should be able to see the inevitable path that statement takes, I will not whip out mine to measure it against yours so tuck it back in you pants.
Dude, perhaps you haven't noticed, but you start these conversations by -- as you eloquently put it yourself -- "whipping it out."
I'm saying that I have considerably more experience with Islam than you have. I would be happy to argue that point with you, but I should warn you that I've got at least one ace in the hole.
I too have spent a year in the Middle East, although my year was spent talking to people instead of pacifying them. I've also followed an Islamic religion, and accumulated a number of Muslim friends. I grew up twenty miles from Detroit, which as you charmingly noted is a great place to observe free-range Islam. I've read the Qu'ran, but more importantly have read and studied the commentary.
I DO believe that there are elements in Islam which make a fundamentalist approach to that faith particularly opposed to the secular ideals of liberty and self-actualization. Out of all the religions available to choose from, I don't think it's the best fit for our post-medieval world. But neither -- and I'm speaking here from deep familiarity with it -- is it the worst, and neither is it incompatible with modernity.
Religion combined with ignorance and desperation is a bad mixture. But I think it's inherently anti-religious to argue that the problem is with religion, then, and not with desperation and ignorance.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The biggest problem I have with what you're saying, General Sax, is your insistence on continually using the phrase "they all".
Because, you know, all Americans are like this, and all Germans like this, and all Republicans like this, and all blacks like this...
I know your name is GENERAL Sax, but can we stop the generalizations, please?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*puts THT on The List*
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
*sends flowers to THT's family*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Saxon, you seem to be going in circles
Please don't call him Saxon. Neither of the other two posters with "saxon" in their name deserve even the remotest possibility of being confused with this guy.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Can't you guys stop being grammar Nazi's?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
We created the term 'Islamofacist' to give us plausable denial when accused of being 'Crusaders' I really rather like the term Crusader myself and feel no need to rename the age old enemy...
As for there being no evidence that Islam is political rather then religious in nature I guess we will have to start at a pretty elementary level of definition of each term and work from there for your benefit. Even with a snow day I am not sure I want to take the time, how bout it Tom, be useful and bring him up to speed so he can follow along. A chance to be constructive...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*seconds Dags*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Sax, Treating people in a conversation as if they're ignorant doesn't accomplish anything other than making it appear as though you're arguing from a weak position.
So, by all means, if you believe the differences are so simple to see, then clearly and succinctly make your case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A chance to be constructive...
Sax, you know what was moderately constructive? Your "I like Terry Pratchett" thread.
Create a few more constructive threads, and then I'll consider any advice you might have to offer me about being constructive.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
You know what I find interesting and somewhat revealing is that a character in one of Kim Stanley Robinson's books has a character named General Sax. That character is described thusly:
"Despite considerable mental abilities Sax is nearly socially handicapped for most of his life and often finds it difficult to relate or even basically comprehend his associates."
Go figure.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
There is an inherient assumption in your assertion Tom that the more time you spend on the subject the greater your wisdom. I disagree wholeheartedly that that is the case, in this situation which is complex, but far less so then my fantasy football league, I don't feel it needs more then a couple semesters and year of hands on lab...(as for reading the Book, please... who hasn't?)
As for not wanting to stop my train of thought to go back to bring someone up to speed, I try not to be insulted when someone claims that I need to somehow prove that Islam is political and show evidence. I need, for them, to in broad strokes describe the political activities of Islam. By Allah, if he does not know them he certainly does not belong in a discussion about it. If I can 'not take it personally' someone else can quietly tell him his fly is open.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Of course my handle is from the Book Green Mars, Saxifrage Russel not Saxon.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I cannot think of any significant political Christians apart from the Catholics before modern times
Unless you are defining "modern times" as starting prior to the Reformation, I think you may have a very strange conception of at least one of the words "significant", "political", or "Christian".
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well, the socially handicapped portion seemed to fit so well, I was just wondering if it was a plea for help or attention.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:There is an inherient assumption in your assertion Tom that the more time you spend on the subject the greater your wisdom. I disagree wholeheartedly that that is the case
Wasn't that your assumption as well when you indicated the amount of time you've spent studying the subject? If not, then why did you make such an effort to convince us of how knowledgeable you are on the subject other than to say, "I've studied the subject more than you, so believe everything I say and don't question any of it."
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.
-Epictetus
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
That it the start of the Modern era yes.
I was not detailing my credentials, I was waving a hand in thier general direction, my implication is and was the same as it would be in the mythical manhood measuring contest, for any sophisticated person the answer is, it is big enough... not "IT IS BIG" or "It is bigger then yours" or even "Ask your momma!"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Guys, can you just stop feeding him? He's either a troll, a bigot, or a fool, so there's no real way to win the argument. I'd rather go back to the meat of the thread - Should the swearing on a specific religious text be encouraged? Allowed? Discouraged? Why? How does this relate to politicians voting in line with their faith?
I'm not trying to control the thread, I just think the current tangent we're on is pretty useless.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Control Nazi's.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Godwin'd!
--j_k
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
(((((General Sax)))))
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I see the Sax stick together...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: How did a Muslim get elected in Minnesota? I thought they all lived in Michigan.
I believe New York has the largest Arab population outside of Michigan. Besides, there's only so many party stores southeast Michigan can support
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Any country that Muslims are banned from isn't the United States of America.
Amen to that Dag!
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
I found this article that claims that the whole controversy may have been fabricated. Unfortunately it seems that the source is likely biased and I haven't been able to verify the claims (i.e. that no religious book is used durring the swearing in) elsewhere. Can anyone here confirm or disprove this?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If he is a Muslim then swearing on the Qur'an will make more of an impact on him then swearing on the Bible. If the point of the oath is to instill some fear of God then using the Qur'an will serve as a better tool.
Plus having him do it will make more of a impact on his constituents. Perhaps the situation will not come up a second time.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I think this is a pretty moot debate... the only person here who has any real problem with someone's swearing his oath of office upon the Qur'an is General Sax, and he seems just a mite imbalanced...
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, Rivka! That Nazi's going to use an apostrophe in a way other than what you specified!
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
What right does Rivka have to claim jurisdiction over a Nazi's misuse of an apostrophe anyway?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Wow, was your post wrong at the point of entry, to have the point fall so flat must hurt, ((David Bowles)) As I mentioned before your claim, I have no problem with it. Let him hang for what he believes in, if he wants to make his Muslim affiliation a major point who am I to stop him. There is even something honest about it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: We created the term 'Islamofacist' to give us plausable denial when accused of being 'Crusaders' I really rather like the term Crusader myself and feel no need to rename the age old enemy...
Neither do I. And people like you simply confirm that I'm right about it.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Heh, Sax, I've made a bigger fool of myself in the past than most could ever hope to, so, no, it didn't hurt. Your gleeful embracing of bigotry, on the other hand...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Welcome back (however brief) David!
-Bok
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yes, hello, David! I was thinking of you the other day, because I heard a name like yours called over the intercom at the Phoenix airport. How have you been?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snickers @ Shig*
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
General Sax, it must suck to be so fearful all the time. To see so many enemies waiting around every corner, ready to hurt you and everything you believe in. I dont envy you the existence you must lead, filled with anger and fear and ulcer inducing angst. Nor do I envy you your self righteous certainty that you can never be wrong. It must have led to some humiliating moments in your life that you've probably surpressed all memory of so as to maintain the fiction that...well, you can never be wrong. I DO envy you your amazing ability to remain willfully ignorant despite living in a world wherein your views are considered monolithic monstrosities composed of an earlier, unhappy era in human existence. That willful ignorance must come in handy with supressing those memories of being wrong.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I want to swear on a copy of the Silmarillion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What are the words of the oath of office this newly elected person must say?
Does the state's constitution, or the Federal constitution require an oath of office? Do any of these documents require that the oath be taken with the person's right hand on the Bible?
How have people who are atheists, Jews, or whatever...been sworn in in the past?
Did Joe Lieberman place his right hand on the Bible (complete with New Testament)?
For that matter, what if someone was Christian but didn't particularly like the version of the Bible put under their hand?
"I'm sorry, I don't hold with the Apocrypha, I'll just swear on the rest of it."
or
"Hmm...King James version, eh. Sort of a problem there. Just look at the horrible translation here on page 127!"
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The Amish believe that we achieved maximum human happiness around 1880, and I somewhat agree with that. The only virtue of current times over that state of the art is in medicine and the possibility of achieving long term human survival. If it pans out then it is my hope that mankind finds a way back to a simpler lifestyle.
Still on the issue of personal fear, well it is hard to say, detachment can be almost automatic and it is pretty easy to achieve with a little practice, doing what needs doing with the smell of your burning friends in your nostrils makes life in the Midwest pretty unlikely to generate enough fear to blow the breakers.
[ December 02, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does the state's constitution, or the Federal constitution require an oath of office?
Probably and definitely, in that order.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The only virtue of current times over that state of the art is in medicine and the possibility of achieving long term human survival.
How much do you actually know about the 1880s, GS?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Once again you demand my credentials, do you only have the one hand to play? You must have a lot of letters in front of your name to only feel comfortable in that game.
Still the simple answer is, enough. I can tell my butter churn from my soap cake cutter.
[ December 02, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. I'll clarify; I wasn't asking about the technology of the 1880s. I'm interested in hearing how much you know about the culture of the 1880s, and whether your opinion that that represented a high-water mark in human happiness and cultural development is actually an informed one.
That, in turn, would inform my subsequent rebuttal.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I suspect that that the 1880s were, indeed, a redletter decade for those who believe as GS does. Considering that it was during this time period that the Chinese were severely persecuted throught the NW, our subjegation and destruction of Indian Culture was coming to a head, and our persecution of the Mormons was sanctioned by congress, I can completely understand why a religious and culteral bigot would hail it as a high point in our society. As far as the Amish beliefs about 1880, I havent been able to find anything to substantiate that. Shocking, I know.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Happiness is tricky to put ones finger on. Infant mortality, death in childbirth, sepsis, occlusions, but...
Larger families, literacy, and enough manual labor and a diet that made a farm man hard and strong and productive, a proud man.
Labor in factories was hard and getting harder, but that was for reasons of greed not necessity.
Cooking was done with care, clothing, soap, butter, the type of wood by the stove, all done with care. More then enough work for six sons and six daughters in one big farm house. Enough kids in one family for good game of anything, and dad counts for two.
If I could pick and choose, and I think in time we will be at a point to do so, but perhaps not in my lifetime, I would certainly choose many of those aspects. More home spun, larger family groups, more manual labor to do day to day things. A treadmill is not all that different from a bale elevator but the kids who train on the later seem harder and happier. I like the off the grid movement, I love books that were made with care like leather and gold jewels. I love old playing cards and chess sets.
There are technologies that fit into a lifestyle like that, electric vehicles, wind power, a cellular network, and bread machines... However the balance in our lifestyle is not happymaking, it is largely distraction until you start picking and choosing what you allow in. Then it is keeping the filters up and finding enough activity to burn off the kids energy, finding the time on top of ten hour days of sedentary brain work to stretch and work the muscles.
Work with purpose, items of craft and care. Families with cohesion and of course room to breath. These were nice things.
Of course it is obvious my roots are in the Midwestern rural lifestyle. I am certainly not the only one who feels that there were ideal elements of those times. You can see the Midwest in the face of one who grew up on a farm there. I can spot them and I have been picked out by them so I know they can spot me as well, without accents or a Hawkeye T-Shirt. There is balance to be found in that lifestyle, balance that stays with you.
[ December 02, 2006, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Yet the Mormons have carried over more customs from that era then any other group but the Amish, perhaps you should not try to look for Amish websites Hmmm...
More Indians died from contact with Spanish pigs then from contact with the White Devils and the Chinese just kept coming.
Nobody wants a return to racial discrimination. However an affiliation, like Nazism, Islam or the Freemasons is a choice and judging men by the choices they make is the core value of democracy. The power to choose is sacred, the responsibility for the choices one makes is sacred. Forget those two things and things get bad in a hurry.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Ok, I'm only going to respond to your first post, because it's the only one that doesnt make me want to... well, anyways.
I completely agree with you that all of those qualities you describe are desirable to have in your life. However, saying that we have to go back to the 19th century to attain them is simply not true. Everything you've described is attainable as a choice. It might not be the choice that the rest of the world is making, but it is a choice everyone has available to them. Quality of life doesnt really come from the people around you. It comes from(cue hokey music) inside yourself. The decisions you make are what define your life, right? So why not make decisions that lead to the type of life you want. I absolutely believe that the way of life you describe is still possible. You just have to create it for yourself instead of relying on society to change and make it easy for you.
edit: And I have to add this. Even in the 19th century, that way of life was actually available to VERY few people. For the most part, life was just as sordid, fast paced and shallow for them as it is for us. You've got a romanticized view of a specific time period, and it just doesnt mesh with the reality. However, that doesnt mean that the lifestyle you espouse didnt exist. It just isnt attached to a specific time period. It's attached to the people who chose to live that way, throughout time.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I disagree on one point, quality of life is the people around you and being worthy of them. I never advocated going back to the 19th century, I pointed out what the Amish believe and pointed to some of the truth in it. Even they go to modern health care facilities and run freezers on kerosene.
I think I did point out that one can filter our society to make your personal world better. However what I think is really needed is a serious evaluation of what does and does not add value. An inventory and then an economics of quality of life, one that strips some of the romance and emotion and treats it mathematically. Then we can build toward it without all the following of prophets and guesswork and nostalgia blurring things.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I think I pointed that out as well, (local bias) did you read my post?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
No. No I didnt read your post. I was actually going off of assumptions in my head about what you were probably going to say next. I have to say, I think I did rather well, considering I was 99% accurate without ever having read a single post of yours. In fact, I didnt read the post that this post is directed at either. I'm just assuming your going to ask me a stupid question about having read your post. I'm right arent I???? I guess I'll never know for sure, unless someone whose posts I DO read bothers to tell me. That would be kind of them.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Sorry about the comprehension problem then, practice practice practice...
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Oh no, it's OK. No need to apologize. I've already stated that your lack of comprehension is probably going to be a given in any conversation you take part in, so I've made allowances. Practice is always a good idea though. I'm really glad you've come to realize that. Gives me hope for the future.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
On topic, add my voice to the people who would hope a congressman would swear by what he holds most sacred. And, unlike probably everyone else in this thread, I voted for him.
And really, for people who want to make a stink about him, there are way easier targets than this. But they didn't work before the election, either, so I guess the right-wing nut-jobs have to grab what they can, huh?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I should think if we allow Quakers to abstain from swearing oaths for religious reasons, it would follow that other religions who are willing to swear oaths do so in the manner that suits them, so long as its more or less the equivalent to asserting their intent to be entirely honest in their testimony.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Sort of going back to the original point, I have to ask if anyone here has read the Koran, or Qur'an if you prefer? I'm reading it now, and though I have just gotten started, so far I have run across Adam & Eve, Moses, Noah, Abraham, David, Saul/Paul, the Apostles (collectively), and a few others.
The Muslim God is our God, just a different view of him. Just as the Jewish God is our God, but just a different (very generalized in this example) view of him.
So, considering this, since both books (Bible and Koran) are religious books at the foundation of the worship of the same God, I see no reason why one wouldn't be just as valid as the other.
Now the question I wonder about is what does a Buddhist swear on when he is elected???
Or Hindu, Taoist, Confucianist, or Shinto, etc....
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've heard several people who have testified in L.A. courts recently say that they raise their hand and swear but do not swear on a bible. (My dad and some of his friends are doctors and are sometimes called to testify in malpractice suits against others.)
The last time I watched a local official sworn in, she didn't put her hand on anything, either, just right hand in the air.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
BlueWizard - If we're allowing people to swear on whatever text they feel is most sacred, then the answer would probably be different for a lot of Hindus, Taoists, etc.
Hindus I could see swearing on the Vedas, but also on some of the great epics (Ramayana), or later works. Taoists could swear on the Tao Te Ching, but also on Zhuangzi, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have never seen an oath given on a bible in court. I've been in multiple Superior and District courts in DC and Circuit, Juvenile, and General District courts in Lynchburg and Charlottesville. So it's a very small sample, and I do know it's done, but it's nowhere near universal. Especially considering that Lynchburg is where Liberty College is.
Judges are split on adding "so help me God" to the oath. Most in Lynchburg did it, about half in DC did it, and one in Charlottesville did it. Most swearing in is done en masse at the beginning, out of sight of the jury if there is one. I've seen one person object, and he was given the oath without the phrase. And the jury didn't see, so there was no impact.
The swearing in Representatives do on Bibles is not the official swearing in, as best I can tell from House rules and accounts of the ceremony. It is done en masse during the first session, except for the Speaker. Many have private ceremonies using a family Bible (or a constituent's Bible in at least one case I've heard of). I can't find any single article that puts all this together, so consider it surmise based on multiple sources giving part of the information.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The two times I've served on a jury, the witnesses were sworn in in our presence, and neither case the witnesses swore on bibles. They raised their right hands. "So help me god" was not added.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Personally, I'm indifferent but leaning to saying "sure, go ahead." I mean, it's just a book, people. If anything, as others have said, swearing on oath on a book you truly believe in will make you want to follow through on the oath more than if you swore on a book that had no relevance.
Oh, and as an aside to General Sax, should I assume that your wish to return to a simpler, 19th century life also includes the social stances of that era on such things as segregation, sexism, gender roles, abortion, homosexuality? Sorry if this was already brought-up/asked (I haven't read the whole thread) or too off-topic.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
quote: Not all Nazi's gassed Jew's either, it was the hobby of a select few, yet if you are unwilling to leave the political party that is clearly up to some pretty harsh behavior you are tarred with the same brush. "Every man who eats meat is on the same moral level with the butcher"
So in other words, the pope should abandon christianity becasue the KKK is giving the entire religion a bad name. Good point .
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Wow... I am sure none of the usual logic police will call you on that since they lean pretty hard to the Left but wow...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Oh, and as an aside to General Sax, should I assume that your wish to return to a simpler, 19th century life also includes the social stances of that era on such things as segregation, sexism, gender roles, abortion, homosexuality? Sorry if this was already brought-up/asked (I haven't read the whole thread) or too off-topic.
First: I specifically listed the things from the eighteen hundreds I consider sad losses, at no time did I suggest that we could or should return to that way of life en mass. (That is twice I have clarified when someone missed the point in exactly the same way.)
Now as to the specific issues:
Segregation: Should be used only by minorities to preserve aspects of their unique culture that they value and that do not directly violate accepted human rights standards. Note that I said 'by' not 'on'
Gender Roles: I think traditional gender roles are more comfortable to both men and women. However I would certainly not roll back any women's rights or the concept of equal under the law. In fact I would do away with the laws that seem to institutionalize sexism by targeting men.
Abortion: I think that a pill that you take the next day is fine, I think that the sheer number and impact of abortion culture in our society (and even more so in Europe) is far larger then the Roe V Wade decision was sold as. It is certainly a topic that needs to be revisited. A male 'pill' holds promise since it will kick in quicker, leave fewer errors and put the responsibility in the hands of men who do not have a biological need to be pregnant. I makes no sense to me that people who fight for rights for seals and cows will gleefully flush human embryos...So I do not like abortion, it is not a choice that should be left in the hands of pregnancy hormone influenced teens for instance. It is a choice you should have to prove qualification to make...
Homosexuality: They are not hurting anybody but the kids they might have had. Do not expect to be considered married though because you are not, do not expect to act as guardian of my son if you are gay, do not expect me to let my daughters sleep over at your lesbian daughters house any more then I would let her spend the night with a boy. I have not yet formed an opinion on adoption by gay couples, since they are not married there is that issue, I do not have figures about what the effect on children's sexual orientation having gay adoptive guardians has. I do think that the future belongs to the heterosexuals, because their children inherit it.
As for Bi-sexuals who have open relationsips involving sex while maintaining stable marriage, no problem, lucky for them the have so many choices, however like all adult activities the kids need to be segregated from it until they are mature enough to make informed choices.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:They are not hurting anybody but the kids they might have had. Do not expect to be considered married though because you are not[...]
Well, of course someone can't be considered married if they're not allowed to. But why not let them marry?
quote:[...]however like all adult activities the kids need to be segregated from it until they are mature enough to make informed choices.
Wait, are you saying gay and bi kids should be segregated from straight kids? Or suggesting that being gay is a choice? I'm not being sarcastic; I'm unsure what you're saying.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I do not have figures about what the effect on children's sexual orientation having gay adoptive guardians has.
What are your figures on heterosexual parents who produce homosexual children? Considering the vast, VAST majority of parents are heterosexual parents, and thus the homosexual kids have to come from somewhere, such as their hetero parents, I wonder where the opposing side really gets it's argument from, especially considering you have no numbers to support your claim.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ]Or every time you break an oath, a kitten dies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:however like all adult activities the kids need to be segregated from it until they are mature enough to make informed choices.
I agree completely; this should apply to religion as well.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Segregate: Keep separate from....
Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
quote: What are your figures on heterosexual parents who produce homosexual children? Considering the vast, VAST majority of parents are heterosexual parents, and thus the homosexual kids have to come from somewhere, such as their hetero parents, I wonder where the opposing side really gets it's argument from, especially considering you have no numbers to support your claim.
"You" in your sentence seems to apply to me, I make no claims about it one way or another, I do not accept that homosexuality is purely biological (based on evidence), however as I stated I am unable to take a position without indications in numbers that point to us losing the genetic potential of more children by giving them to homosexual guardians at an early age. I am not the opposition... yet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I do think that the future belongs to the heterosexuals, because their children inherit it.
Um...isn't today the past's "future?"
How is it that there are ANY homosexuals given the millions of years of human evolution that have already been operating to hand the future to the heterosexuals?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
It is so that there were more women for me, a clear evolutionary advantage. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ]Or every time you break an oath, a kitten dies.
With the amount of things you could do that kill kittens, it's a wonder they're not extinct.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: It is so that there were more women for me, a clear evolutionary advantage.
Does this have to do with your Operant Conditioning theory of relationships? Women pull a lever and get you as their reward?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green.
Um, why?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Did Joe Lieberman place his right hand on the Bible (complete with New Testament)?
He did. Why, you'd have to ask him. However, a Jewish governor of Hawaii, among others, did not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Just seems silly to single out bi-sexual or gay parents and MAKE SURE that they hide their sexual activities, as if they're more likely to seriously open the door on their activities to their kids.
While we're at it, maybe we should segretate kids from each other entirely, and from culture, ESPECIALLY culture, that's where they get all that bad stuff from. Just put them in little cages with as little human interaction as possible, then open the door when they are 18, and whatever happens happens. Otherwise any talk of "segregating" them from any number of things is pointless, kids are curious, and they'll find a way. You can either lie to them, or tell them the truth, but you can't protect them, and lies do no one any good.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
However an affiliation, like Nazism, Islam or the Freemasons is a choice and judging men by the choices they make is the core value of democracy.
Once again, what do you really know about the Masons?
Every once and a while I get what you are saying, even if I don't agree with it....
....then you say something like this, and justify the poor opinion I usually have of you.
Keep talking. You prove my points against you with every stupid thing you say.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dagonee: [qb] Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green.
Um, why?
Because of the severity of oaths in it, and the concequences of holding to an oath even if it made you do horrible things.
What is that book named after, and what happened to the Elves because of those items, and Feanor's oath?
//end Tolkien Geekiness//
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Since everybody lived in one room, and probably slept in one bed at that. Now, if you'd said "the last hundred years" you might have had something.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Swearing an oath on the Silmarillion would be like sponsoring a vegan convention with Soylent Green.
Um, why?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Did Joe Lieberman place his right hand on the Bible (complete with New Testament)?
He did. Why, you'd have to ask him.
Probably for the same reason he eats publically in restaurants on Tisha B'Av. He's not really an Orthodox Jew; he just belongs to an Orthodox synagogue, and he's somewhat observant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally Posted by General Sax: Children should be "kept separate from" their parents sexual activity...
Hasn't this been standard practice for like the last thousand years? Since when are parents engaging in "sexual activity" in front of their kids at will?
Since everybody lived in one room, and probably slept in one bed at that. Now, if you'd said "the last hundred years" you might have had something.
That's not even close to being near a universal truth, you're vastly overgeneralizing. Makes a nice sound byte though. I don't blame you for being wrong though, your only point was to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, otherwise you'd have said something about the last hundred years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Kwea, shouldn't that make swearing an oath on it exceedingly binding?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
quote: It is so that there were more women for me, a clear evolutionary advantage.
How awfully amusing and original.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
how lucky for me that i was raised in a generation and region where stereotypes were mocked, more than people were mocked with stereotypes.
i have to admit that i am utterly appalled at reading so much bigoted b.s. here on hatrack. several of my good friends, including one of my absolute best friends, are muslim. they are nothing like the target practice cardboard cut-outs that have been described here by a few individuals. your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and devotion to hatred disgusts me. way to negate a human being, guys.
I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some.
i didn't think real live people still hated whole other groups of other people. at least i wished we'd finally got over that.
some muslims blow up other human beings, and some christians rape children. and yet there are still so many good people in the world. who knew.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Does this have to do with your Operant Conditioning theory of relationships? Women pull a lever and get you as their reward?
It can only be described as a 'lever' part of the time, however its more a matter of them having to settle for a crude old red-neck instead of a well dressed compulsively neat man that really understands them...
[ December 03, 2006, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Once again, what do you really know about the Masons?
In the context of the statement the pertinent information about the Freemason's is that people join them and belong of their free will. That is all I have to know to use them in this example. The implication was that these far flung groups all have voluntary membership in common and that the members are responsible for that affiliation. In no way was I implying that the Masons and the Nazis are equivalent or proximate. I used them as one good one bad sort of thing.
(Of course there is a trap here that the unwary leftist may fall into, pointing out that Muslims are not given a choice so they are not responsible, let us watch and see if anyone falls into it...)
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some
You are welcome for the happy bubble you get to stay in most of the time. Enjoy it, that is what it is for. If you are happy it is worth it for those who are tasked to keep you from meeting the 'bad Muslims'.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Why do people persist in feeding the trolls? Don't they see the signs posted? *points to signs*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by porcelain girl: how lucky for me that i was raised in a generation and region where stereotypes were mocked, more than people were mocked with stereotypes.
i have to admit that i am utterly appalled at reading so much bigoted b.s. here on hatrack. several of my good friends, including one of my absolute best friends, are muslim. they are nothing like the target practice cardboard cut-outs that have been described here by a few individuals. your ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and devotion to hatred disgusts me. way to negate a human being, guys.
I don't even know what to say. I am always blown away when my happy little bubble of respect and justice is burst. i suppose living with open minded and loving human beings has kept me rather innocent concerning the stubborn prejudices of some.
i didn't think real live people still hated whole other groups of other people. at least i wished we'd finally got over that.
some muslims blow up other human beings, and some christians rape children. and yet there are still so many good people in the world. who knew.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have never been so thoroughly disappointed by a discussion at hatrack as by this one. The unabashed bigotry being expressed by a few people in this thread is shameful to say the least.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I whole-heartedly agree. It's not just the open bigotry and mindless generalizing that gets me, it's the total lack of respect for the people who are devoting their time to giving well-reasoned responses to the bigotry and mindless generalizing.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:You are welcome for the happy bubble you get to stay in most of the time. Enjoy it, that is what it is for. If you are happy it is worth it for those who are tasked to keep you from meeting the 'bad Muslims'.
on the contrary, i am enjoying happiness maintained by those that are fairminded and loving enough to keep me from meeting bigots and hatemongers. you know, "bad people." their most efficient method for avoiding these kinds of people is by not BEING these kinds of people.
i'm quite aware of the evil in the world. i just try my best not to perpetuate it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have never been so thoroughly disappointed by a discussion at hatrack as by this one. The unabashed bigotry being expressed by a few people in this thread is shameful to say the least.
"A few"? I'm just seeing the one unabashed bigot . . .
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
The problem isn't making negative comments about Muslims (or Christians for that matter), the problem is failing to made a clear distinction between common everyday ordinary Muslims (or Christians) and irrational, fanatical, radical, fundamentalist Mulsims with a power-mad agenda.
Feel free to substitute the word 'Christian' for Muslim in the above sentence because there are and have been plenty of them too.
I will also say that Religion isn't the reason they (Christian and Muslim) do what they do, it's the excuse. It's a source of justification for whatever atrocity they decide to commit. It is a way to keep the masses in-line and off there back. It is a way to yell 'INFIDEL' and 'SINNER' at anyone who disagrees with you. If God is on your side (allegedly) then you can claim that anyone who opposes you is against God. How very convenient.
The negative comments made by people here are justified, real, and true; they are just directed at too broad a group.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
rivka,
quote:"A few"? I'm just seeing the one unabashed bigot . . .
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I have serious reservations about a Muslim respecting Democracy. At best they are suspect. It is the ONLY religion that I have felt needs to be banned from the United States of America.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, sorry.
There are some offensive posters who have been here for a while, and I literally don't see their posts anymore. Unfortunately, this internal filter doesn't seem to kick in until several months of exposure. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by: BlueWizard I will also say that Religion isn't the reason they (Christian and Muslim) do what they do, it's the excuse. It's a source of justification for whatever atrocity they decide to commit. It is a way to keep the masses in-line and off there back. It is a way to yell 'INFIDEL' and 'SINNER' at anyone who disagrees with you. If God is on your side (allegedly) then you can claim that anyone who opposes you is against God. How very convenient.
Not sure if I agree or disagree with that statement. On one hand, there are plenty of wars and fights that I could point to that are perfectly secular in nature, and plenty that are entirely of religious origin, enough to say that neither is necessarily "better" when it comes to peace or war (for causation anyway).
On the other hand, one wonders what a Middle East without religion would be like. Would they simply find a secular reason to maim each other? Most of the Christian minorities in places like Iraq are bystanders in the fight, and Kurds, not wholly but by a majority, have set aside religious differences for political ones in mostly staying out of the violence overtaking the country's center.
When you look at who is fighting, they all have different agendas. The insurgents want to set up an Islamic fundamentalist government, but I have to wonder why? If it ISN'T for religious reasons, and they are simply petty thugs who want to gain power and are using religion, and religious zealots as their tools, isn't that pretty stupid? Surely it has been successful thus far, but only successful in creating conflict, not in building ANYTHING. Are they so irrational, for secular reasons, that they can thrive on conflict forever? They are capable, smart fighters, or they wouldn't have lasted this long, so I think it's fair to assume they aren't very stupid, especially given the amount of well educated people we KNOW are in their organizations.
If they just wanted to gain power, they'd do much better to embrace democracy, corrupt the system, and buy their way into power, you know, the American way. Their nations would prosper because of it, their people would be more stable, and as a whole, everyone would be better off, themselves included. I'm forced to believe that this is thus based on a foundation of religion for the cause of the conflict, and not something using religion as a cloak to hide their true intent, just to get support.
If not, what am I missing?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
quote: Why do people persist in feeding the trolls? Don't they see the signs posted? *points to signs*
Well, ketchupqueen...I keep saying that, but people still feed them. I bet they're overweight right now... people, don't feed the trolls. Think about the children! Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It is not at all fair to label someone giving their honest opinion as a "troll". A troll is someone just looking to make trouble.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, sorry.
There are some offensive posters who have been here for a while, and I literally don't see their posts anymore. Unfortunately, this internal filter doesn't seem to kick in until several months of exposure.
Rivka thats exactly how I was feeling. People said "all these biggoted people" and I thought, "HUH? I only saw one."
*recalibrates his forum filter*
Tres: I agree with you completely, I remember a time when Pelegius was impossible to communicate with because of his pedantry, I think he has made some marked improvements.
I really do not enjoy hearing a sweeping rebuke of the forums as it typically does not help anyone. It is rare that somebody sees a general rebuke and actually notices the fault being decried within their posts.
If you have issue with what is being said in the forum try quoting people and calling others out in a respectful manner, addressing their words and not the fact they have that opinion.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Also, Occasional isn't as loud as Sax.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
quote: It is not at all fair to label someone giving their honest opinion as a "troll". A troll is someone just looking to make trouble.
I agree with you. I really do. Let me rephrase, thus. I think there is A troll here who should not be fed.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
As a practising Muslim, if I ever got into politics (I never would, though, I hate politics), I would definitely like to swear on the Kor'an (that's how I spell it, so there), but I personally wouldn't mind swearing by Cristian or Jewish scripture. In the spirit of tolerance and all.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
Well, I read two pages, and it seems to be going (mildly) off topic. I Listen to Dennis Prager from time to time, he is a reasonable and decent fellow.
Here is his point: It isn't about an oath, or anyone's trustworthiness in keeping it. It isn't primarily about Islam. The swearing in question is purely ceremonial, not the mass swearing in of a new congress. So why does it matter? It matters because tradition matters, and symbols/statements matter.
Mr. Ellision, in choosing the Koran rather than the Bible as is tradition even among Jews, Athiests, Mormons, etc., and publicizing this fact, is making the statement: "Muslims do not need to change to be American. Muslims can change America itself if there is a conflict between the values that made America and their own."
Mr Prager has since clarified that he should not have said "allowed", it is a discussion of what Kieth Ellison should do, to unite the country, rather than about any binding laws.
Kieth Ellison has a perfect right to do as he is doing, but people should be aware of what he is saying--"My religion is more important to me than the values of the country I serve." If, as was done by a recent Muslim ambassador, he used both books, it would be a gesture of unity.
--- Unrelated to this specific point is the reliabiltiy of Muslim congressmen/women. I don't think it is going too far out on a limb to say that this particular muslim, associated with the racist Nation of Islam and the terror apoligizing CAIR, is at least due considerable scrutiny.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Kwea, shouldn't that make swearing an oath on it exceedingly binding?
Yes, but it calls question on the sanity of anyone wanting to do so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Niki, did you read the other posts on this thread before posting?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: Once again, what do you really know about the Masons?
In the context of the statement the pertinent information about the Freemason's is that people join them and belong of their free will. That is all I have to know to use them in this example. The implication was that these far flung groups all have voluntary membership in common and that the members are responsible for that affiliation. In no way was I implying that the Masons and the Nazis are equivalent or proximate. I used them as one good one bad sort of thing.
(Of course there is a trap here that the unwary leftist may fall into, pointing out that Muslims are not given a choice so they are not responsible, let us watch and see if anyone falls into it...)
Ok, just making sure. I wasn't positive about the point you were trying to make. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lots of people refuse to swear on the Bible. I know a few Christians who refuse to as well. They said something about not swearing on it being actually IN the Bible, although I don't remember where.
I know people who refused to swear on a bible in court, because it doesn't represent their views or beliefs. Are THEY unAmerican as well?
Bullshit.
I hold the complete opposite view....that allowing people to refrain from swearing on MY religious symbol if their beliefs object to doing so is what MAKES us true Americans.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Niki, did you read the other posts on this thread before posting?
I think I missed this post on page 3:
quote:The swearing in Representatives do on Bibles is not the official swearing in, as best I can tell from House rules and accounts of the ceremony. It is done en masse during the first session, except for the Speaker. Many have private ceremonies using a family Bible (or a constituent's Bible in at least one case I've heard of). I can't find any single article that puts all this together, so consider it surmise based on multiple sources giving part of the information
But otherwise I thought I had some novel and clearly stated points.
By the way, I'm surprised no one has used this yet: <--Hes swearing in
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So Niki, what Mr. Ellison is saying is:
"In America we have Freedom of Religion. You are free to be of Any Religion you want, as long as its Christian. If you are any other religion, well, on important matters, you had better fake your Christianity or it shows you are Unamerican."
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote: Lots of people refuse to swear on the Bible. I know a few Christians who refuse to as well. They said something about not swearing on it being actually IN the Bible, although I don't remember where
Matthew 5:37 (Whole Chapter) Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
James 5:12 (Whole Chapter) Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
quote: I know people who refused to swear on a bible in court, because it doesn't represent their views or beliefs. Are THEY unAmerican as well?
Bullshit.
Well, I guess that depends on why, ditto Kieth Ellison. Most of the time, certainly not. But they could be. And I don't claim to be a mind reader. But the fact that he let it be known that he would not swear in on a bible makes it seem like he is making a public statement, along the lines of "I reject the values that those who founded this country held."
He could clear that up and put to rest the contraversy (sp?) by saying, "I believe my intentions are misconstrued; I respect the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans, but want this event to have more personal meaning to me."
quote: So Niki, what Mr. Ellison is saying is:
"In America we have Freedom of Religion. You are free to be of Any Religion you want, as long as its Christian. If you are any other religion, well, on important matters, you had better fake your Christianity or it shows you are Unamerican."
(I believe you mean Prager, the Pundit, not Ellison, the congressman.)
Sort of, more like, "In America we have people of every religion imaginable who get along with each other better than any other country on earth or time in history. This is due to the work of men and women who held the Bible to be sacred, and due to the values that they derived from it. It is fitting, therefore, to honor this book, even if it's theology is alien to you."
You may perhaps disagree with that, but that is what he is trying to say. A reasonable conclusion if the premise is true, and it is certainly an argueably true premise.
[ December 06, 2006, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Nikisknight ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
American =! Christian, no matter how you rephrase it. You don't have to accept one to be the other.
If he wants to use that as his logic to use a bible, he is free to do so. Others might feel an oath THEY swear should be on THEIR holy object....and expect Americans, who are so proud of their freedom of religion, to accept their personal beliefs, and be impressed with their own expression of religion.
My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
As I said, bullshit.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
Exactly. It isn't about rights. He is within his rights. It is about respecting tradition and values.
quote: He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
quote: My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
I think you're getting a bit loose with your pronouns. you are saying Prager (and probably myself) is putting words into Rep Ellison's mouth, that his swearing in is not a statement, right? Do you think public officials symbolic actions come with meaning attached? This is a symbolic act, if it wasn't, there would be no book. Announcing that he will be particular about which he'll use is a statement, is it not? What do you think that this statement means?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But there are many Americans who do not think the United States was based solely and specifically on Christian values, and that the efforts the founding fathers went to towards not making Christianity the official religion popint towards that conclusion. Rather, they believe that the values of the founding fathers were similar in many religions and they went to some pains not to favor any over the others.
I'd like to point out here that the religious slogans on our money, our Seal, and in the Pledge of Allegiance were all comparatively recent additions and not the original versions.
I think his statement, if indeed he is making one, is that America is an inclusive land with freedom of religion and respect for others and he is proud to uphold its ideals. If, of course, I presumed to guess what he's thinking.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
While I am not in any way defending General Sax's statements, I am curious about something.
Has there been a concentrated effort by non-extremist Muslims to repudiate and fight against the extremists? Where is the moderate Muslim movement? I'm sure they exist -- they are plenty of moderate Muslims, after all -- but the only ones we ever hear about are the various women's movements. Here and there a single Muslim scholar will speak out against his coreligionists, but I haven't heard of any sort of organized group that is working against the expansionist and bigoted goals of the Islamofacists.
It would be a lot tougher for people to mix all Muslims together if there was an easy-to-see alternative. But the suicide bombers get all the press...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: I don't think it is going too far out on a limb to say that this particular muslim, associated with the racist Nation of Islam and the terror apoligizing CAIR, is at least due considerable scrutiny.
He did undergo considerable scrutiny, in Minneapolis, before the election.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Rather, they believe that the values of the founding fathers were similar in many religions and they went to some pains not to favor any over the others.
If the values of the founding fathers were so similar to those of people in China, Arabia, the Aztecs, Africa, or even Europe, why are the resulting countries so different? Why in no Islamic country do they have an analog to our first amendment? Try to BUY let alone swear on a bible in Saudi Arabia, or the works of Confucious for that matter.
The values of all religions are not always similar. It is a polite fiction that they are. Perhaps other relgions can evolve in the direction that christianity did, and produce societies like those in the west that provide freedom. If so, I'll be thrilled. But that doesn't mean that the freedoms we have are not the result of people who took the Bible, specifically, very serious when constructing their novel government.
In God We Trust is a recent addition to coins, perhaps, but it is merely a restating of the Declaration of Independence: "Man is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Part of this liberty is the freedom to disbelieve in the creator that Jefferson says gives us our rights. Very well. But if enoguh people believe that it is the government that gives us our rights, not a source higher than them or the brilliant constitution, then the government will have the power to take those rights away. That is why the belief in God, though not in any official church, which could ONLY be coercive, is VITAL to our continued liberty.
Back to the Koran: It may be a wonderful book. It may mean a lot to Rep Ellison and his co-religionists. But that doesn't change the fact that it was the God of Genesis whom the founders took their inspiration for religious freedom from. That is why it is due, but NOT required, honor in our country.
I suppose I should say imo, but it has been a civil disscussion. P.S. It's about my bedtime, and I might not get back to this thread for awhile. Don't take it as a snub.
quote: He did undergo considerable scrutiny, in Minneapolis, before the election.
Well, good. I won't claim to be entirely up to date on his or most politicians' past or even ideas. I'd heard about the connections I mentioned, but not much and it might be rumors.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight:
quote:Or he could say " None of your damn business!" and be completely within his rights.
Exactly. It isn't about rights. He is within his rights. It is about respecting tradition and values.
quote: He doesn't ask if you mean you are Born Again when you DO swear on it, I bet. He doesn't take it to mean you think that the Crusades were a great idea, either.
If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
quote: My point is that he is saying " This means THAT." when in reality he has no idea what was really meant, or what the point of it really was.
I think you're getting a bit loose with your pronouns. you are saying Prager (and probably myself) is putting words into Rep Ellison's mouth, that his swearing in is not a statement, right? Do you think public officials symbolic actions come with meaning attached? This is a symbolic act, if it wasn't, there would be no book. Announcing that he will be particular about which he'll use is a statement, is it not? What do you think that this statement means?
I think no one can say what he meant other than himself. Despite what pundits claim.
I think that this country is based on freedom of religion, and that is every bit as important as respecting traditions, if not more so.
I think you, and others, are grasping at straws, ready to take offense for many reasons.
You don't get to decide what traditions are important to him. At no point did he actually say anything that you claim his actions meant, or imply it in any way.
BTW, the tradition isn't nearly as widespread as you claim it is. A ton of people, from all walks of life, have used a multitude of other religious books (or no books at all) to be sworn in on, or to take oaths on.
That is why it is allowed.
Call any religion a tradition if you want....you still have no right to force (or attempt to coerce) YOUR religion on anyone else.
I am disgusted by the attempt, to be honest. I also think that the "respect this tradition" is hogwash, and is merely leads to a lock-step march devoid of individualism.
BTW, I have sworn on a Bible. It didn't make me any more American than I was before I did it. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Christians and Muslims both follow the same God, Nikisknight. So do Jews, and members of many smaller religions.
Chris, that's exactly the point. Even if a hundred million Muslims spoke out against radicalism, fanatics will always get more press.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:BTW, the tradition isn't nearly as widespread as you claim it is. A ton of people, from all walks of life, have used a multitude of other religious books (or no books at all) to be sworn in on, or to take oaths on.
Could you quote the claim? Thanks, I don't recall bringing up how often people do swear in.[/quote]
Call any religion a tradition if you want....you still have no right to force (or attempt to coerce) YOUR religion on anyone else.
I am disgusted by the attempt, to be honest. [/quote] Well, I am sorry that you mistook a conversation as some forcible attempt at relgion, further for your disgust.
Hate to break it to you, but my religion is a good deal more complex than placing a hand on a book once in my life. So, I don't really think advising a public offical to do so once to make a statement about... (well, I said that bit already) is anywhere akin to a religion being forced upon his. As Mr. Prager did in his column.
Meanwhile, I made no attempt as such force either for explaining why I found his point reasonable.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:In our country's history, four presidents have been inaugurated without swearing an oath on the Bible. Franklin Pierce was affirmed, and swore no oath, Rutherford Hayes initially had a private ceremony with no Bible before his public ceremony, Theodore Roosevelt had no Bible at his ceremony, and Lyndon Johnson used a missal during his first term. Despite Prager's insistence that "for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament," it is clear that he is wrong. Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, took the oath of office on a Torah in 2001. Madeleine Kunin, a Jewish Immigrant and Governor of Vermont "rested her left hand on a stack of old prayer books that had belonged to her mother, grandparents, and great grandfather" as "a physical expression of the weight of Jewish history."
link Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Great link, ElJay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sorry...the YOU I was speaking to was a combinations of points from several people rather than just you. My apologies.
I was disgusted by people attempting to smear someone because he held true to his chosen religion, not by you at all. I se your points, and understand the logic behind them....I just don't agree with them.
Still, I see Mr. Prager's points as non-existent. I don't find them compelling at all, myself. I respect the politicians choice because it reflects his true beliefs, despite considerable pressures to do the more "political" solution and swear on a Bible. I don't see you reasonings a force at all....but Mr. Prager did try to force the issue by publishing what basically amounts to a mild hack job of someones character.
It smacks too much of religious intolerance, to me at least.
And I am a Christian.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
quote:Christians and Muslims both follow the same God, Nikisknight.
I have thought much about this. It is said very often. And as much as it is time to go to sleep, I must respond.
First history--Yes, I know that Muhammod heard of the ideas of monotheism from Jewish or Christian traders, and found from them, or had revealed to him, that a single God was preferable to the tribal paganism of his people. So, in the broadest historical sense, as one who cares little for the religions and sees them strictly reductive to who had what ideas when, Sure, all three faiths share the same god.
However, try going into a mosque and asking them if they worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ask to be shown an old testament. Ask them what reward Allah has for the Jews and Christians, since they simply worship him by a different name.
If they do not take offense, if they agree with you that it is the same God, I'll be wonderfully surprised. But this isn't the picture I see in the world.
Now, like my prior posts alluded to, I care more for the values of a people or faith than the particular theology. And the Islamic God, as I see him interpreted by Muslim leaders around the world, is nothing like the God I worship, leaving aside theological aspects of Jesus and such. For example: My God wishes to be freely chosen by people. The Islamic God wishes apostates killed by his followers. My God judges each person on their merits. The Islamic God sanctions honor killings. These are not the same Gods.
By analogy, I do not believe in the same George W Bush as the 9-11 conspiracy theorists do. The GWB I believe makes lots of mistakes, but has the best interests of the country at heart. Conspiracy theorists (some of them) believe in a GWB who would kill or let die 3000 of his fellow citizens to make money on oil. Yes, we both acknowledge that there is one president named GWB, but we do not belive in the same person. (which is right I don't care to debate here, the analogy stands)
However, I acknowledge that SOME Muslims believe in my God, of love and liberty and justice. (Just as there are some Christians who believe in a petty vindictive God that differs from mine just as much.) But this is not the God that is preached or promoted by Islamic spokesmen worldwide. I would love to some day be able to say, I see many Muslims who believe in my God. But I cannot now. Can you show them to me?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight: Well, good. I won't claim to be entirely up to date on his or most politicians' past or even ideas. I'd heard about the connections I mentioned, but not much and it might be rumors.
There are some connections. He wrote a column in the University of Minnesota's student newspaper defending Louis Farrakhan while he was in law school. He organized a Minnesota delegation to the Million Man March, which was run by the Nation of Islam. He was not a member of the Nation of Islam, and has since said that he didn't scrutinize the group closely enough before he worked with them, and didn't agree with their anti-semitic positions. He's also reached out to the local Jewish community since then, and has a pretty impressive human rights record all around. (As a lawyer.)
The connections to CAIR are a bit shakier. Three (I think) people who are members of CAIR donated money to his campaign.
All of it was discussed in the papers, on the radio, in the candidates forums and debates before the election. He answered the issues raised to my satisfaction. I have no doubt that he is a loyal American and will be an excellent Congressman.
I'll also note that he told a local paper that he'd be using the Qur'an in his swearing in ceremony right after he was elected. The information's been out there for almost a month. Nobody cared until this radio host picked it up. And as far as I can tell, that's stil the case here. They've been a couple of editorials about what a fuss the blogs are making about this, but it's certainly not water-cooler discussion in my circles, for Republicans or Democrats. It's a non-issue.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You could find them yourself.
Just don't look for them on CNN or Fox.
It seems like Much Ado About Nothing to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we are to swear on a book that reflects the values of our forefathers, perhaps we should choose a volume of Hume or Thomas Paine. Locke or Rousseau or Voltaire. This country could not have sprung forth from "a Christian nation" until that idea of Christianity was tempered by the Enlightenment. In quite a few Christian nations, democracy did not spontaneously occur. As a matter of fact, the Christian religion has been an obstacle to democracy. And our founders knew this. "Man is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights" is intentional in its refusal to specify whose God. And Nikisknight would indeed be surprised to learn that Muslims do in fact worship the same God as Christians. As for this:
quote: My God wishes to be freely chosen by people. The Islamic God wishes apostates killed by his followers. My God judges each person on their merits. The Islamic God sanctions honor killings. These are not the same Gods.
Seriously. Have you not heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? Do you really think that Muslims have a corner on religious coersion? I agree that killing people in the name of God is an abomination, but Muslims are hardly the only religion to make that mistake. And when Muslims do make that mistake, it is no more a reflection on God or Islam than it is when Christians get it wrong.
[ December 07, 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nikisknight:
quote:Christians and Muslims both follow the same God, Nikisknight.
However, try going into a mosque and asking them if they worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ask to be shown an old testament. Ask them what reward Allah has for the Jews and Christians, since they simply worship him by a different name.
If they do not take offence, if they agree with you that it is the same God, I'll be wonderfully surprised. But this isn't the picture I see in the world.
By all means, then, you should try this yourself, before assuming what such an outcome would be. I would invite you to come visit my mosque, but I doubt you would have the time to fly to Europe.
We also hold all Jewish and Christian saints in reverence.
You will say that I do not speak for all Muslims. Fair enough. However, that same distinction applies to all religions. I would suggest you read the Kor’an, as it contains answers to all the theological questions you might ask.
When you say that our Gods are different, and you say that the Islamic God wishes apostates killed by his followers, that the Islamic God sanctions honor killings, it is then that you offend and sadden us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So Rotar Mode, what do you think about the cartoon riots? It's hard to take the "offend and sadden us" stuff seriously when we heard so few voices of even partial moderation during that business.
What do you think of "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" (Sahih Bukhari 4:52.177)?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: However, try going into a mosque and asking them if they worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ask to be shown an old testament. Ask them what reward Allah has for the Jews and Christians, since they simply worship him by a different name.
If they do not take offense, if they agree with you that it is the same God, I'll be wonderfully surprised.
*laugh* Here's a question: how many mosques have you been in? In all the mosques I've been in, they would have gladly and cheerfully agreed that it's the same God.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've only been in two, but they would have too, Tom. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've been in quite a few and I would consider it very rude to try and argue theology in a mosque.
As a missionary one of my converts had an Indonesian maid, and she was the most friendly woman. We asked her to try reading the Book of Mormon and she very politely refused, and asked me to read the Koran. I said, "OK how about this, Ill read the Koran cover to cover if you read the Book of Mormon cover to cover.
She cheerfully refused, I expected nothing less, I was kinda sad when she went back to Indonesia, she was a really decent woman.
edit: Sorry I didn't clarify. The woman was from Indonesia which is predominantly Muslim. She was a Muslim.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I find this quite amusing.
The freedoms and values that some of these Christians are holding up as proof of Biblical superiority, and Islamic barbarism are things forced upon Christianity by barbarous secularists like Rouseau or Payne. Every Islamic crime listed here are crimes our Christian ancestors not only committed, but in some cases, used as basis for sainthood. Honor killings, murder of apostates, sectarian violence, all belong in the bloody history of Christianity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I find this quite amusing.
The freedoms and values that some of these Christians are holding up as proof of Biblical superiority, and Islamic barbarism are things forced upon Christianity by barbarous secularists like Rouseau or Payne. Every Islamic crime listed here are crimes our Christian ancestors not only committed, but in some cases, used as basis for sainthood. Honor killings, murder of apostates, sectarian violence, all belong in the bloody history of Christianity.
Dan while true, I honestly do not think you can effectively back those acts up with Christian scripture, at least not if you accept Jesus' word that the codes of the Old Testament were concluded with his death/ressurection.
I have always had a few qualms with Muslim doctrine but I would be happy to hear somebody explain how I am reading those passages wrong. Or give me a contextual basis that clarifies the meaning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I don't think those crimes were justified by the gospels, either, but, for centuries we certainly managed to use Scripture to justify atrocity. And some Christians still do. (See, Phelps for example.)
I also agree that if someone were kind enough to take the time to instruct us on context, etc. that would be a gift.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So Rotar Mode, what do you think about the cartoon riots? It's hard to take the "offend and sadden us" stuff seriously when we heard so few voices of even partial moderation during that business.
What do you think of "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" (Sahih Bukhari 4:52.177)?
To the first part: I hate to respond to a question with another question, but the analogy fits, I believe. If the gay pride festival in Jerusalem had caused a violent confrontation, and Orthodox Jews had killed people expressing gay pride, what would you think? And yes, there were plenty of moderate Muslim voices to be heard speaking out against the violence, but most if not all of the airtime was given to the violent ones.
To your second part, Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (to whom the Sahih Bukhari is attributed) was an enlightened scholar, but he was human. One of his more prominent faults was anti-semitism. The Sahih Bukhari is not the Kor'an. While Sunnis believe that it is a religious text of great importance, it is also not accepted as the word of God, but one of man. Accepting every single word as doctrine would be parallel to what was done by Christians during the Inquisition.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
The Qu'ran itself is very explicit over and over in separating Islam from Christianity, Muslims are absolutely forbidden from deifying Christ, "Joining God's with God is certain damnation."
If you believe in the Trinity, the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that these three are one, you are damned too a Muslim, so no, the God of Islam is not all of my God, my God includes Christ the Lord.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Great link, ElJay.
Isn't it? I wish I had posted it first . . .
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Didn't you? I thought you had. . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
We do not deify Christ(peace be upon him). We do not worship God in the same way you do, Sax. That does not mean that God is not God, God of Christians and Muslims alike.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Great link, ElJay.
Isn't it? I wish I had posted it first . . .
Urgh... my bad. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rotar Mode:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So Rotar Mode, what do you think about the cartoon riots? It's hard to take the "offend and sadden us" stuff seriously when we heard so few voices of even partial moderation during that business.
What do you think of "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'" (Sahih Bukhari 4:52.177)?
To the first part: I hate to respond to a question with another question, but the analogy fits, I believe. If the gay pride festival in Jerusalem had caused a violent confrontation, and Orthodox Jews had killed people expressing gay pride, what would you think? And yes, there were plenty of moderate Muslim voices to be heard speaking out against the violence, but most if not all of the airtime was given to the violent ones.
To your second part, Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (to whom the Sahih Bukhari is attributed) was an enlightened scholar, but he was human. One of his more prominent faults was anti-semitism. The Sahih Bukhari is not the Kor'an. While Sunnis believe that it is a religious text of great importance, it is also not accepted as the word of God, but one of man. Accepting every single word as doctrine would be parallel to what was done by Christians during the Inquisition.
Thank you for your answers. May your numbers increase in Islam.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Christ is unique as part of the God of Christians, not that of Muslims or Jews
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: The Qu'ran itself is very explicit over and over in separating Islam from Christianity, Muslims are absolutely forbidden from deifying Christ, "Joining God's with God is certain damnation."
If you believe in the Trinity, the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that these three are one, you are damned too a Muslim, so no, the God of Islam is not all of my God, my God includes Christ the Lord.
Sax, Jews and Muslims are monotheists. We don't buy your Certs-style theology ("It's three! Three! Three gods in one!). Personally, I don't believe that the god you worship is the same one that I worship. I worship the One God, Creator of everything, who is indivisible and One in the most absolute sense. I don't worship a deity modeled after a hundred other gods who walked the earth, were killed, rose after three days, etc.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't believe that the god you worship is the same one that I worship.
So do you then believe that there is some other God than the one you worship?
When God answers my prayers, is that evidence that there is a God besides your God or is your God doing the answering even though I do not fully understand him?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
That is what I said, any group that added the concept of Hell after meeting the Greeks and promoted Lucifer from angel to adversary of God after putting all the bad on God went out of style needs to be a little careful about cracking wise about borrowed concepts, Noah did not experience the first flood, just because the Jews are old does not make them original.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Qu'ran itself is very explicit over and over in separating Islam from Christianity, Muslims are absolutely forbidden from deifying Christ
And yet they believe it's the same GOD. They just don't think Christ WAS that God.
I understand why some people might consider that a dealbreaker, but then again there are more than a few Christian sects who don't consider Christ to be God Himself, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rotar Mode: Thank you for that response, it certainly makes me wonder how much of what I thought, "was in the Koran," actually is. Could you help me understand the scriptural foundation that if a Muslim wishes to marry an unbeliever that they MUST convert, and that conversion to other religions is not allowed. I've always wished to understand those principles better.
General Sax: Knock it off please, nobody is suggesting that Christians, Jews, and Muslims can all be completely correct, but we can all at least agree that we are trying to all find God and live in a manner he wants us to. Throwing out, "Three Gods in ONE!" would be akin to Lisa screaming, "Christ was not the messiah!" and Rotar screaming, "There is one God Allah and Mohamed is his prophet!" BTW Peace be upon them both.
Such incoherent and for all practical purposes, worthless babble serves NO useful purpose. I have not seen a Muslim on this board for quite some time and I would like to avail myself of his/her knowledge without you chasing him/her away.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
God - Christ is not = to God of Christians
If you claim you cannot follow that then I believe you are being... what is the word... disingenuous. You understand it perfectly, so do all Christians, Jews and Muslims, it is just not PC to point to differences, it is all the rage to be inclusive and pretend we all are standing on common ground.
Fine, but it is just a pretty lie that liberals are happy to throw out because they really have no faith, but those with faith are not quite so quick to call Allah the same entity as the Trinity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. We do understand that JHVH is the Father portion of the Trinity however making the Jews our poor cousins...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I am suggesting the Christians are correct...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
suggest is not = shouting, ranting, insisting or proclaiming
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I am suggesting the Christians are correct...
What you are doing is making an ass of yourself.
Again.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
THIS IS SHOUTING, I have not done it
As for the rest all I have done is state the case of the Christian point of view, I find it interesting that such is called Ranting (as in the result of madness) Insisting (as in demanding that everyone follow what I believe) or Proclaiming (not allowing anyone else to state their opinion.)
I am doing none of these things, believe as you wish, state your POV as it suits you, but I would be a coward if I believed a thing and did not say that I believed it, I would be a fool to believe a thing and then allow that I was uncertain about it, if I where uncertain, why would I believe? I would be agnostic as I was in the years of my youth.
However I am tired of the public face of Islam and the way we all pretend to believe it, echoing the placating platitudes that are put forth by face men who in private worship, pray teach and believe that when they have purged the world and established one religion Christ will be torn down to the stature of a failed Prophet who's premature death at the hands of the Jews kept him from delivering the Qur'an and necessitated the hand delivery of the book to a more successful prophet Mohammad.
I will not pretend to believe the lie, I will point it out when I see it, sorry, the Muslims should have the courage to be up front about it, the sad thing is that the dumb but honest Muslims are the terrorists, the dangerous ones are the ones who tell us they are our brothers and we have nothing to fear while they play the long con. They might win, because we are not paying attention to the man behind the curtain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) Not all Christians are Trinitarians. 2) By your standards, the God of the Mormons isn't the same God as the God of the "Christians."
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Yes and that means what?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, for one thing, it means your definition of "the same God" is clearly too narrow for the discussion, at least to suit most people.
But I suspect you know that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: We do understand that JHVH is the Father portion of the Trinity however making the Jews our poor cousins...
How can we be your cousins, Sax, if you're our illegitimate children?
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Most people are Mormons or non Trinity Christians?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I don't believe that the god you worship is the same one that I worship.
So do you then believe that there is some other God than the one you worship?
No. And when God said "You shall have no other gods before Me", that doesn't indicate that other gods exist either.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: How can we be your cousins, Sax, if you're our illegitimate children?
By your rules that would make us Jews, of course that was how you ended up creating the Muslims so you might want to be careful with that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are we talking about "most people," or are we saying that Mormons and non-Trinitarian Christians don't worship the same God as Trinitarian Christians?
That one's God doesn't possess all the same attributes as the other's God is obvious. But there's enough overlap that I think we can generously grant "sameness," unless the conversation is going to deal with the specifics of doctrine.
Otherwise, the logical conclusion here is that each major doctrinal difference results in the development of a new "God," rather than just a different perspective on the same one.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
You are the one who brought 'most people' into it so only you can say what that refers too.
I think that the technical term for calling two different things the same is "wrong" or "false" or mistaken if you are in the mood to be kind.
So the logical conclusion is that you use logic in the hope that nobody else will notice you palming that card.
As for God being new, I believe that the position we take is that Christ was God revealed to us, the word made flesh, knowing Christ is knowing God better then he was known before. I think of it as the shift from Newton to Einstein, one worked fine in its day but the other is more true and needful for the real precise stuff.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
CAN I SCREAM TOO? IT LOOKS LIKE SO MUCH FUN.
Ahem...
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rotar Mode: Thank you for that response, it certainly makes me wonder how much of what I thought, "was in the Koran," actually is. Could you help me understand the scriptural foundation that if a Muslim wishes to marry an unbeliever that they MUST convert, and that conversion to other religions is not allowed. I've always wished to understand those principles better.
You're very welcome.
If you ever wanted to know exactly what was in the Kor'an, there's an easier way than asking any Muslim that pops up. You could read it yourself.
Most religions have as tenant the idea that they are 100% right. Therefore, the idea of preservation is very central to Islam. I believe, however, that a lot of the violent imagery used in some texts is metaphorical. If you would like more details, ask away.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You know General Sax, I think you'd do the Christian cause a lot more good by behaving like a Christian, then by behaving horribly and telling everyone you're a Christian.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you ever wanted to know exactly what was in the Kor'an, there's an easier way than asking any Muslim that pops up. You could read it yourself.
As a former Baha'i and someone not unsympathetic to liberal Islam, I would recommend that someone only read the Qu'ran in conjunction with some commentary. The text by itself is rather jarring in places, and -- like the Torah -- really benefits from hundreds of years of scriptural lawyers filing down the rough edges.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I have read it, and most of the violent imagery is 'news reel footage' of an ongoing war that is being fought to take Mecca. Not a bit of metaphor and in fact the book itself repeats over and over that it is a simple easy to understand text not meant to be hard to comprehend. I would start citing it but it is a theme that is harped on over and over from the beginning, impossible to miss if you start reading it.
"A simple warning from which nothing can be taken away and too which nothing need be added."
As for the lurid descriptions of Heaven and the cruel torments of Hell they are meant to be taken as literal truth, Muslims look forward to jeering at the damned when they are not lounging in luxurious decadence in the garden that waits.
By contrast Mormon's believe they will be allowed to minister to those in Hell (which is just not being in Heaven) and plan to do so... Who do you want for a neighbor?
If Mohammad couldn't keep his hands off his nieces (And God gave him special permission in the Qua'ran, against all custom to 'have at them')then how will those who revere him treat your daughters? How they treat there own is a pretty good clue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: By contrast Mormon's believe they will be allowed to minister to those in Hell (which is just not being in Heaven) and plan to do so... Who do you want for a neighbor?
Out of interest, do you believe that Mormons worship the same God you do?
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Ah yes, Tom. Perhaps I should have mentioned it.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: You know General Sax, I think you'd do the Christian cause a lot more good by behaving like a Christian, then by behaving horribly and telling everyone you're a Christian
The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that 'behaving horribly' is disagreeing with you or anyone else, a rather shallow deffinition. I cannot see a single point where I have left the rules of civilized discorse behind.
Bob has not even showed up and claimed that I am out of control so I have to dismiss your opinion, I am sorry.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: Out of interest, do you believe that Mormons worship the same God you do?
I think that what the Mormons do is better described as striving to be like (and eventually become) Chists and therefore God. I am not sure 'worship' is the correct word.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by kmbboots: Have you not heard of the Crusades?
Oh, such a grand generalization. The Crusades weren't all evil. Had the Crusades never happened, Europe might have been overrun by Muslims, who certainly weren't the victims during that war.
If I had to try and come up with a victim of religious fervor during the Crusades, the only group that really comes to mind are the Jews, and those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Well the Eastern Orthodox Church got mistreated a bit. Constantinople got sacked...
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
However if the Crusades were wrong does that mean that Islam now gets a turn? By that logic we should let the Shia have at the Sunnis in Iraq because it is their turn to wield the whip, fair is fair huh?
No, wrong is wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay you definetely got me on the Fourth Crusade, that pisses me off more than most things in history.
But it also helps frame why it's really important to talk about the Crusades using specifics, and not generalities. The Crusades are comprised of separate efforts spanning hundreds of years, not all of them were bad, and grouping them together as an example of ultimate Christian evils is silly and isn't truthful.
The aim of the Crusades weren't wrong, and the prosecution wasn't always wrong. Don't blame all of Christianity when some men during those wars were true heroes, and some were wicked despots. It can't be clearly brushed with one title. Specifics, for a complex historical series of events, are necessary. And I'm going to snipe at anyone who fails to do so, from now until the day I stop posting at Hatrack.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Good post, Lyrhawn, but I fail to see to whom it was directed. Clarification, please?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If he asked that, then it would be showing that he doesn't understand the point. That's fine, lots of people don't. The point is to show honor to the country by respecting the values that allowed it to flourish.
By that standard, 'e should swear on a copy of the Constitution.
Perhaps with an index finger around yea subject hereabouts:
quote:THE CONSTITUTION SAYETH:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rotar Mode: Good post, Lyrhawn, but I fail to see to whom it was directed. Clarification, please?
Loosely to kmbboots, and to General Sax, but more so just an in general post. In this thread, and others involving Christianity I've seen far to often people merely toss out "the Crusades" as an example of Christian atrocity and aggression, and it needs fixing.
Blaming the Crusades as a whole for some of the atrocities that yes, did occur, is like saying World War II is evil as well, because of the holocaust, but totally ignoring the good that took place in that war. Actually a better comparison would probably be to villify the entire war because of the bombing of Dresden or the nukes, ignoring everything that lead up to it.
I guess that post was less directed at any one person, and more a general catharsis of my frustration with a long line of general comments made about the Crusades, with seemingly little understanding of the their complexity.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Most people are Mormons or non Trinity Christians?
No. Most people are not Christians at all.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Just so, and so long as efforts are made to enforce PC dogma in discussions then the result is a hopelessly thin gruel unfit for anyone.
quote: That one's God doesn't possess all the same attributes as the other's God is obvious. But there's enough overlap that I think we can generously grant "sameness," unless the conversation is going to deal with the specifics of doctrine.
Back to this logical gem, my point is well made at the heart of this statement in another word, 'doctrine', in general the doctrine of a faith is the Provence of clerics, the spiritual leaders of the religion.
So the fact that the God in question is different is obvious to the leadership in authority and the 'feeling' that He is different is the Provence of the congregation.
So who is it that is telling the congregation that we all have the same God? Not those that know (Priests Rabbis, Imans), except when they are willing to fudge the doctrine to achieve political goals. That is to say, it is the goal to take away a feeling based on correct assumptions and manipulate the faithful with a lie. The underlying assumption by the PC crowd is that the ignorant congregation member can be manipulated with lies for his own good because 'we' know what is best. It is simple elitism, it shows contempt for religious beliefs. The contempt goes a long way toward explaining the ignorance of true doctrine since it is clear that to them the subject merits little attention.
[ December 08, 2006, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: General Sax ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
quote: How can we be your cousins, Sax, if you're our illegitimate children?
By your rules that would make us Jews, of course that was how you ended up creating the Muslims so you might want to be careful with that.
First of all, your ignorance is stunning. No, it would not make you Jews. But certainly, your heresy (and I'm using the word "you" to apply to you and those who think like you) did start off as a Jewish one, before you paganized it.
And... we created the Muslims? That's a joke.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If I had to try and come up with a victim of religious fervor during the Crusades, the only group that really comes to mind are the Jews, and those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
It's one of the problems I have with the Robin Hood stories, and their painting the butcher Richard as some sort of wonderful hero. Granted, compared to John, he may have been, but it wasn't John who was practicing his butchery skills on Jewish villages on the way to the holy land.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I suspect that General Sax is an anti-Christian provocateur, actually. For all my objections to Christianity as a religion, I kind of doubt that most Christians are anything like the hateful and bigoted caricature General Sax is portraying here.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Wishful thinking, I think. It's totally untrue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, you are right. I should have been more specific. Using the Crusades without giving more detail as an example was lazy. Still, my point that no one religion has a monopoly on using religion to justify atrocities stands, I think.
General Sax, I don't know what particular branch of Christianity you practice, but your concept of the Trinity is different from mine. It is not a case of God splitting in parts. And you would need to include Catholics in those groups you don't consider as "worshipping the same God" as you do as our doctrine clearly states that we worship the same God as the Muslims:
quote: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
From Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions - Nostra Aetate Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965 Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: And... we created the Muslims? That's a joke.
Ishmael came from the loins of your Patriarch not mine.
As for anti-Christian provocatour... that ranks with the Muslim league claiming Americans threw shoes at Muslim children, we do not care to do that kind of thing here, you need to get out of the Middle East more.
Hate? I do not hate anyone here, I do not hate Muslims or Jews or anybody else, I do not approve of those who believe that Christ has no part in God claiming they share my God or the God of my faith. It is a false claim.
I point out error out of love not hate.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I never implied that the Trinity is three seperate parts, These three are one... However if you think the Pope does not take exception to the lack of Christ in the Muslim and Jewish faiths then your CCD classes need to be improved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
GS, you read the official statement. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ is God - one in being with the Father. Your claim that not believing in Christ means not believing in God, though, is quite clearly not shared by Catholics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Hate? I do not hate anyone here, I do not hate Muslims or Jews or anybody else, I do not approve of those who believe that Christ has no part in God claiming they share my God or the God of my faith. It is a false claim.
You are a hate-filled demogogue, Sax, or at least you're trying your best to portray one. But it's not for saying that Jews don't worship the god you do. That's absolutely true. We worship the One God, while you're a pagan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: I never implied that the Trinity is three seperate parts, These three are one...
Its like the Three Musketeers (The French story, not the chocolate bar)
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Thanks for the clarification Lyrhawn. And now I want chocolate...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So who is it that is telling the congregation that we all have the same God? Not those that know (Priests Rabbis, Imans), except when they are willing to fudge the doctrine to achieve political goals.
Ironically, I've heard the "one God" bit more often from clerics than from laity. But, then, I actually LISTEN when people talk, so I have substantially different experiences with them than you do, I suspect.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That's what I hear from my priests. And every minister I know - and I know a lot of them.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If I wasn't listening when you talk Tom I would not be so able to point out when you pull a fast one.
(Oh yes a smiley face to make it all better I almost forgot)
quote: You are a hate-filled demogogue, Sax, or at least you're trying your best to portray one. But it's not for saying that Jews don't worship the god you do. That's absolutely true. We worship the One God, while you're a pagan.
I'm not a real Hate Filled Demagogue but I do play one on TV, and I am here to talk to you about Jesus...
I promise you that I am not operating from a position of hate, but I have a secret to tell you that will change your life. The Gas Chambers were not kept running on hatred. Hatred and passion and hand waving is a Middle East kind of thing, (and a French thing) it makes for good news bites but it really never gets the job done and it leaves the person who gets so worked up in a state of emotional exhaustion.
What allowed the Holocaust to happen was the attitude that "It is just a dirty job that needs doing, I do not like it but at least my Grandkids will not have to do it, I can protect them from that..."
This is why the way I make my point make you so upset, my point of view is without self pity or pity for the opposition, without hate or rancor or loathing. I told you once that animal sacrifice is Icky, and for that mild distaste I will stand against any Jewish military attempt to impose Judaism on America(as your hoped for Messiah must) and I will stack enemy bodies like cord wood a whistle Disney songs and crack jokes as I do it.
The Muslims are the tragic progeny of a lie that (unlike the book of Mormon) was not even made out of a desire for a better life for others, it is merely a lie meant to entitle the elite who financed a war for political power and wealth, and perpetuate that lifestyle even into Heaven itself.
Like the Roman's before us the American soldiers see war as dirty difficult job and we take grim satisfaction in doing it well, better then anybody else, better then anybody ever. So when the fanatics come at us armored in faith we kill them and stack the dead, then we go play the PS 2 and joke about the way the guy's head came apart when the 50 cal round drilled him. We complain about chow or the marines dirtying the shower but we do not jump up and down and chant and rant and rave.
So when you are spent and exhausted from name calling and emotional upheaval, I am steady looking out and waiting to keep the line. Forget hate, my feelings do not even get up to irritation on this subject. I am mildly interested. I don't even hate the men I have shot let alone you.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
quote: That's what I hear from my priests. And every minister I know - and I know a lot of them.
Yet my Priest and our resident Jesuit have both said that the policy is to show compassion and understanding until the Jews and Muslims come to Christ, in other words we are waiting for them to catch up. By no means does that mean we need to slow down and run alongside and pretend they are keeping pace.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Wishful thinking, I think. It's totally untrue.
Depends on your definition of punished. Hundreds were excommunicated for pillaging Jews along the route to the Levant. But it depends on which Crusade, which nation, which Jews were pillaged, and who was Pope at the time, considering Pope Innocent III decided to enact anti-Jewish legislation.
I shouldn't have said that they were ALL punished, that was a mistake on my part, but punishments were issued, though not to the majority by any means. The fact that Lisa doesn't include excommunication as a valuable punishment doesn't make untrue the fact that they (many) were in fact punished, and that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Could've and should've been better. But there you go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Still different from saying we don't worship the same God.
And really, what do they say about the lives (you claim) you take while whistling Disney songs? And about how you define "enemy". I would be hard pressed to find a priest who approved of joking about how a man's head "came apart". I am certain that would not fall under any description of loving your enemies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:those that attacked the innocent Jews during the Crusades were heavily punished by the Pope.
Where are you getting that from?
Wishful thinking, I think. It's totally untrue.
Depends on your definition of punished. Hundreds were excommunicated for pillaging Jews along the route to the Levant. But it depends on which Crusade, which nation, which Jews were pillaged, and who was Pope at the time, considering Pope Innocent III decided to enact anti-Jewish legislation.
I shouldn't have said that they were ALL punished, that was a mistake on my part, but punishments were issued, though not to the majority by any means. The fact that Lisa doesn't include excommunication as a valuable punishment doesn't make untrue the fact that they (many) were in fact punished, and that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Could've and should've been better. But there you go.
If you cite actually evidence that such excommunication happened, I'll accept it as punishment. But I don't believe there is any such evidence. Show me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll grab my books on the subject later and quote them. Don't have the time at the moment, but maybe by tomorrow.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Where are you getting that from?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm curious, too. I haven't heard anything like that - quite the opposite it fact. Massacres at York, Worms, Cologne...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And in most cases, directly preceded by an inflammatory Sunday morning speech from the local pulpit.
Now, there certainly were some clergy (and laypeople as well, of course) who protected Jews during the Crusades. But to claim that the massacres were "considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general" is in direct contradiction to all research I have read on the time period. Historical revisionism, I suspect.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not very successful revision - as indicated by not precisely accurate - use of the Crusades as shorthand for "Christians committing atrocities". My understanding (and I think this is a common understanding) is that, in general, it was hardly our finest hour.
I also used the Inquisition as an example. The same arguments Lryhawn made against my use of Crusades could be against using the Inquisition as "shorthand". The Inquisition started (by some accounts) as an attempt by the clergy to control/stop mob violence against Jews by insisting on trials with evidence etc. Not terribly successful in that goal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was suggesting fairly recent historical revisionism (i.e. a book or two with an agenda).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...quite possibly.
Have a good Sabbath.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Nobody makes you better then a good enemy, how can you not love your enemies?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:that Bishops all across the lands of Europe spoke out against the massacres, tried to protect them, and though they failed on all counts, the massacres were considered by the majority to be against the aims of the Crusades, and against Christianity in general.
Where are you getting that from?
Well, if you want a source NOW, go to Wikipedia, if you want book sources, you have to wait until I have time, which isn't until after finals probably.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I promise you that I am not operating from a position of hate, but I have a secret to tell you that will change your life. The Gas Chambers were not kept running on hatred. Hatred and passion and hand waving is a Middle East kind of thing...it makes for good news bites but it really never gets the job done.... Like the Roman's before us the American soldiers see war as dirty difficult job and we take grim satisfaction in doing it well, better then anybody else, better then anybody ever. So when the fanatics come at us armored in faith we kill them and stack the dead, then we go play the PS 2 and joke about the way the guy's head came apart when the 50 cal round drilled him.... So when you are spent and exhausted from name calling and emotional upheaval, I am steady looking out and waiting to keep the line. Forget hate, my feelings do not even get up to irritation on this subject.
Dude, if you aren't a troll, you're the most incompetent debater ev-ar. You just unapologetically compared yourself to the Nazis. You're welcome to that comparison. *grin*
quote:Nobody makes you better then a good enemy...
Ah. So you picked Bob out of a desire for self-improvement, then. I was wondering. Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
If it helps Lisa know that hate is not as much to be feared as ruthless competence then it is a lesson taught well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think she said she feared you. The implication is that she finds your hatefulness distasteful, and your "competence" irrelevant.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I do not own any hatefullness and my competence was not the point, but it was a nice try Tom, you'll get there...
Lisa certainly does not need to fear me, I am certainly more likely to be called to protect her then to be called to defend America against her Religion/Nation, I do not see any candidates for Jewish Messiah on the world stage to lead the charge.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
wow. making light of someone's head exploding isn't exactly up jesus's alley. regardless of their status as an enemy. in fact he taught to pray for such people - and not after mocking g-d's creation. (which a body invariably is, to most faiths.) something tells me he wouldn't exactly be happy to stack up bodies of those who have "gone astray."
you're a muffed up dude. i'm leaving this thread for good, for the same reasons i would stay inside during a kkk parade. y'all don't need any more attention.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Ok, I'll bite, if for nothing more than to see what the response is: General Sax, if the gas chambers at Auschwitz weren't run on hate, what were they run on?
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
*Gives porcelain girl a high five*
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Good Maintenance men, solid construction, well maintained gas lines, meticulous record keepers, diligent guards, disgusted grave diggers...
The hatred was in the hearts of a handful of leaders, and in the common people who turned on neighbors. Hatred never got a complex job done. The haters just pointed the way, it was the doers that got it done.
Soldiers are used to doing hard and dirty jobs, including shooting people, if you do not think we joke around about it then you are the bent one, I am sure doctors crack jokes about things that happen in operating rooms just like sailors once bet on the number of maggots in a biscuit, people that do not understand this have just never been there.
Good contractors leveled and built, well constructed rail systems transported the people, it goes on and on. It took powerful emotion to rush into a walled city and butcher the people by hand, but execution is just a matter of systematic efficiency.
Recall the Book of Numbers when the captives were slaughtered, line em up, check for intact hymen, slaughter those too old or used, split them up into lots and divide them up and use the same swords to slaughter the unlucky, bury the swords...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think she said she feared you. The implication is that she finds your hatefulness distasteful, and your "competence" irrelevant.
Contemptible, actually. Distasteful means I wrinkle my nose and walk away. In the case of hatemongers like General Sax... well, I don't recommend that he ever try and meet me in person, or if he does, I highly suggest that it'd be to his benefit to conceal who he is until it's too late for me to do anything about it.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
I am already married Lisa...Sorry!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa, you just can't stand to have the high ground, can you?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax:
I am already married Lisa...Sorry!
May God have mercy on her.....
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
General Sax, I've come to the conclusion that the most eloquent and persuasive argument you could possibly make would be to stop talking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, if you want a source NOW, go to Wikipedia, if you want book sources, you have to wait until I have time, which isn't until after finals probably.
Actually interested by this (even though I'm a little puzzled why we're focusing on Jews when there are so many people of other religions that were attacked), tried checking in Wikipedia as suggested.
The closest I've got is the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds'_Crusade]Shepard's Crusade[/url] in which:
quote: In any case, the crowd of shepherds split up after leaving the city. Some of them went to Rouen, where they expelled the archbishop and threw some priests into the Seine river. In Tours they attacked monasteries. The others under the Master arrived in Orléans on June 11. Here they were denounced by the bishop, whom they also attacked, along with other clerics, including Franciscans and Dominicans. They fought with the university students in the city as well, as Blanche might have feared would happen in Paris. Moving on to Amiens, and then Bourges, they also began to attack Jews.
Blanche responded by ordering the crowds to be rounded up and excommunicated. This was done rather easily as they were simply wandering, directionless, around northern France, but the group led by the Master resisted outside Bourges, and the Master himself was killed in the ensuing skirmish.
So yeah, maybe some Christian's were excommunicated (albeit by the French regent and not the pope?) for killing Jews, although it is not clear whether expelling the archbishop and tossing priests into a river may have been a strong contributing factor.
However, I would assert that this is far from a majority and hardly representative considering that the Shepard's Crusade is hardly a "big" crusade and largely unrecognized.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wikipedia has a section specifically on Jews and the Crusades. Many of those committing the atrocities against European Jews were doing so against the word of the local bishops, the only specific cases come to mind in Germany.
I was only "focusing" on Jews because I don't think Muslims had anything to complain about. And the Christians shot themselves in the foot so many times, I can't believe they actually came out alive, let alone on top. And of the world's three major religions involved in the conflict...well, those are it.
And I never said the majority (well I did, then I corrected myself). I just said "a lot." I don't have specific numbers off the top of my head, but it happened. Besides, lots of Crusades were smaller, and less well recognized, like the Albigensian Crusade, or the reconquista, but that doesn't make them less important. Everyone knows of the Children's Crusade, even though it had zero effect on the Crusading effort, except as a boon to the slave trade.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<--Hes swearing in
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)