Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 226
view profile
History
Church and StatePage 10 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
As for your "majority in any state" bogus part of your reply. Then why are you guys against the healthcare law? The majority has spoken, voted the law legitimately into being enacted. Oh I get it, it's only the laws you like, not the ones you don't. Hahahaha!!!


What I said about the majority in any state is an accurate statement, and I stand by it. What you're saying makes clear you don't understand the difference between state and federal authority.

States have inherent, sovereign authority to make laws and policies. Supreme Court decisions since the 1800's have referred to that as the "police power," "police" being used in the sense of "policy." This power is more or less what the Tenth Amendment preserves. A state may use it very broadly to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Protecting public morals used to be considered a distinct interest of government too, but these days that's usually considered part of the public welfare.

A majority of the residents of any state can make a policy it favors the law, and that law will be valid as long as it meets several conditions. The law has to be duly enacted (i.e. through fair, regular procedures and by a majority vote); it must not conflict with the state's constitution, or with anything in the U.S. Constitution, or with any federal law or treaty; and it must be at least reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.

The federal government, in contrast, does not have any general police power. To use the Supreme Court's terms, it has only the "limited and enumerated powers" the states agreed to give each of its three branches in the Constitution. So even if, as you put it, "the majority has spoken, voted the law legitimately into being enacted," that by itself doesn't make the Obamacare law valid. Congress must also have enacted it under some power granted to it in the Constitution.

This administration is claiming the individual mandate, which is the heart of this law, is an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court will decide whether that power justifies making all of us buy a government-approved medical insurance policy. Anyone who heard the government's lawyers fumbling to explain to several skeptical justices why it does must have some doubt that five or more of them will buy the argument.

So it's not hard to see why people who favor this monstrosity are feeling the need to laugh.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 227
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/9/2012 2:27:25 PM
YOU'd like to see it, and obviously have an agenda based on your god.


That's far from obvious to me. I'd like to see it because I think it would contribute to a higher moral tone that would help this country a lot. The Commandments are cut into the walls and columns of the Supreme Court building, including right above the Chief Justice's chair. That wasn't considered improper when it was built in the early 1930's. Should all traces of them be removed now?


When you display that, what does "Thou Shalt have no other gods before me" mean?


Anyone who doesn't like that part is free to ignore it, or it might be left off completely. Apparently there is some historical authority for treating it as a separate document.


Almost half of those commandments deal with god and not crimes against society.


I think those are very good standards for a free society to live by, and I suspect most Americans do. I don't usually cite Wikipedia articles, but here I think the author, citing authorities, makes a good point:

"The Ten Commandments concern only matters of fundamental importance: the greatest obligation (to worship only God), the greatest injury to a person (murder), the greatest injury to family bonds (adultery), the greatest injury to commerce and law (bearing false witness), the greatest intergenerational obligation (honor to parents), the greatest obligation to community (truthfulness), the greatest injury to moveable property (theft).[19]"

What's wrong with encouraging basic social goods and discouraging actions that tend to damage them? The author makes another important point:

"Because they are fundamental, the Ten Commandments are written with room for varying interpretation.[19] They are not as explicit[19] or detailed as rules and regulations[20] or many other biblical laws and commandments, because they provide guiding principles that apply universally, across changing circumstances."

I agree--the Commandments are general, non-binding, time-tested guiding principles that apply to us all even as times change. I don't see them as coercive or oppressive in the least--and very few Americans had either, before the 1950's.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 228
Church and State
Posted: 4/9/2012 5:42:09 PM
"Anyone who doesn't like that part is free to ignore it"

Well there are like 3 more that deal with what god likes or not alone. The graven images, the sabbath and one other. If we are free to ignore them, why put them up to begin with? Put up, they represent a standard, that would render other religions second rate, or lesser than christianity.

As for "honor thy mother and father", well we see that it has no bearing on society in the view of conservatives. They wish to eliminate social security or and medicare. That seems to somehow negate the concept of 'honor' to me, since we paid in and expected these benefits for over 40 years, now the bill comes due and the republicans want a do over.

Principals are great, and it would be wonderful to boil down law to some of these tenants. Funny though, there is a vast swathe of conservatives supporting opposite standards on the concept of stealing. The lawyers making deals with corporations(people doncha know) allowing them to steal and break the same law over and over. So what you are saying is stealing needs to be punished with one set of rules for part of our population and with another for the rest.

"the greatest obligation(to worship only God)"

And who defines who or what god is? You? The Supreme court? Congress?

No you cannot use a defintion of something or someone so vague, or a partial list for it to be valid. I think if we could agree(something that will never happen) or univeral rules applicable to all, with NO exceptions, it might be a different story. The way it is, it would basically be an empty promise, made to SEEM fair, and nothing more.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 229
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/9/2012 7:33:29 PM
Here, as food for thought, are a few questions about laws with both secular and religious purposes that the Supreme Court has decided in its Establishment Clause cases:


Is a state law requiring stores to close on Sunday constitutional? The Court said yes, because having one uniform day of rest each week also served a legitimate secular purpose: Allowing community activities to be scheduled free of work conflicts.

Can a state legislature begin each day with a non-denominational prayer? Yes. The First Congress, which proposed the Bill of Rights, voted to do the same thing itself--so it can't have meant to prohibit it in the First Amendment.

Can a state law give churches authority to veto licenses for bars and liquor stores within 500 feet of their buildings? No, because that would entwine religious groups too much in government--and because churches might abuse the veto power by letting only their own members have licenses.

Are the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance constitutional? Yes. The Court decided the question on procedural grounds, but several justices said that if they had considered whether the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause, they would have said it did not.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 230
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/9/2012 9:41:51 PM
"Actually it was elected into law by CONGRESS"

Yes, that's right, by a CONGRESS THE MAJORITY PUT IN OFFICE! Everyone who voted, voted for that particular congressman or woman to represent them, they won the election over who was opposed to them, ergo they speak for the majority.

It's the exact same thing as match is saying, only he is applying it to these abortion laws, and I am applying it to healthcare. Then again, you guys can't accept the majority unless it comes out your way, right?

As for the "10% being militant", where did you get that figure? Who has these stats? Please cite some authority who knows this, or better still some authority who knows they will act against us?

Like I said earlier, at even 150 million, that's half the population of our country, and more than enough to overwhelm any indivdual military engagement. Why don't they attack? If so many were militant, why was Bin Laden hiding in some house in Pakistan. Surely enough of them(militants)are in the middle east to take over their own country and provide safe haven to Bin Laden?

Sorry we both know that is a "crier" number, the old glen beckster sobbing on stage to scare the people to death!

Sad really...


What is sad is the inability to see your own bs. So now it is the majority that voted for the congress that voted for healthcare but then that majority that voted for those ones that are implementing your theocracy is against the will of the people.

There is a history of the country that involves religion. Sorry if it offends you. You can always close your eyes and cover year ears at sing Yankee Doodle through that part of history. You don’t have to like the congressmen that are creating these laws you don’t like but you don’t get to be two faced and claim that only those that vote for laws you like are legitimate. Pointing that out is ok right. Just like I have said many times. I do think universal healthcare would be fantastic. But the bill that they didn’t even read and passed is a POS. I hope it gets struck down because it is a POS. Fix the costs first.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57409395-504083/honor-killing-under-growing-scrutiny-in-the-u.s/


Although many Americans may think that phenomena such as forced marriages and so-called "honor killings" exist only overseas, social service agencies, educators, and a growing number of law enforcement personnel know differently. According to a survey the Tahirih Justice Center conducted of more than 500 social services, religious, legal, educational and medical agencies last year, 67 percent responded that they believed there were cases of forced marriage occurring among the populations they serve, but only 16 percent felt their agency was equipped to deal with the situation.

"We don't have the mechanisms in place here in the U.S. to take care of these girls," says Det. Chris Boughey of Arizona's Peoria Police Department. "What do we do with a teenager runaway? Ninety-nine percent of the time, we take her home. But some of these girls end up getting killed."


Why aren't these women deserving of you’re wanting to protect them? Where is the outrage of the real problem of deep ties to religion and law. This is the perfect example to point out the problem with using directly religious derived laws to create public policy. Instead it is dismissed as an aberration…

It is happening because established law is secondary to religious law by a group of people. Multiculturalism requires that they not be required to abandon those parts of their 'faith and culture'. It is a bad ideal to follow.


A biblical referenced law such as, do not steal, is fine to have. It can be supported by evidence of harm and why things go bad if it isn’t illegal. Throw in the punishment to cut off the hands because some bible said so and …no, that is ignorant. Every law can have that same logical test and it doesn’t require banning religious people from government to do it. Social acceptance of homosexuality is slowly changing through western world. The bible may say to go to hell but that doesn’t create a basis for making it a crime in the eyes of the law. Child custody in a divorce is default 50/50 a basis can be found in King Solomon does that make it wrong? Cutting the kid in two would be a really dumb idea.

There is no reason to excise religion out of American the way it looks like liberals want to. It is causing a religious backlash and it is only temporary. However, wake the hell up and stop supporting sharia just because Christians are against it. That is as stupid as basing a law on religion.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 231
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/9/2012 10:00:54 PM
So what % of these forced marriages are from good, Christian, Mormons?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 232
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 12:28:15 AM
So what % of these forced marriages are from good, Christian, Mormons?


Why does that matter? Isn't it supposed to be about giving a crap about women’s rights... Aren't they in jeopardy from those evil Christians because a church may not want to pay for birth control? Isn't it about freedom from the theocracy?

Or should polygamy now be legal because doing things that law doesn't permit is ok if the law doesn't make them legal but allows it for multi-cultural purposes...

Have to be consistent now...

Let’s see... forced marriages, honor killings... ok because some people may have been adhering to Islamic traditions... paying for birth control is the worst thing for women’s rights because catholic churches do not want to promote promiscuity as an acceptable moral stance. And a women’s voice in court to be counted as only half the weight of a mans in Sharia is ok because that hasn't been documented here yet.

Talk about backwards... Liberal... where up is down and progress is backwards at all costs.

Another thing is really obnoxious...
There is no one that says honor killing or murder is a 'good christian' act. I understand it is very difficult to comprehend the difference between doing an act of evil and being justified in doing the same act by a religion.

Read Sam Harris the end of faith and stop justifying it.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 233
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 7:14:47 AM
Are you still doing the whole "The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!" thing?

Honour killings are terrible. But they're not religious. Here in Canada the biggest threat with that comes from the non-Muslim South Asian community.

You keep trying to hold in your head that "liberals" are trying to impose Sharia law in your country. Despite the fact that there is no threat and you haven't produced a single shred of evidence that liberals support Sharia. Give it up. The religious threats in your country come from the Christian right - an oxymoron if there ever was one.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 234
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 8:41:38 AM
"Inability to see your own bs"

I see just fine, and merely have a different POV, than the religious.

"implementing your theocracy"

NOT MINE, I assure you, I have no theocracy. I again since you can't seem to get it, represent a different POV, than that of the religious.

"But the bill that they didn't even read and passed is a POS."

Well then change it, take out parts, put in new parts, reduce the language, but DON'T kill it. Most major western nations have some form of universal healthcare, why can't we have one as well? The only ones beating the drum and stirring things up on this are the medical industry, big pharma and the insurance companies. They are churning out millions of dollars trying to get this thing sunk. WHY? Because it will force a reform to an industry that has gone crazy with cost increases.

Do you for one second believe insurance companies want to cover pre-existing conditions? Or have a caps on costs? You're the one who needs to wake up! This has been debated for 50 years, in one form or another, and it's only those lobbyists for those I named who have brought pressure to bear on Congress to thwart it.

Forced marriages? Honor killings? Please show me where in America this is allowed and sanctioned? Wasn't that idiot in Texas, the mormon guy who was marrying 14 year olds put in prison? Aren't all killers prosecuted? This is a straw man, if ever I saw one.

We do not have the right to intercede in another soverign nations laws. That doesn't mean we LIKE IT. It means we have no power to change it.

"Throw in the punishment to cut off the hands"

While I would be OK with it for the most part. The only thing we would have are a bunch of poor people walking around without hands because they can't feed their families. The real bad guys in corporate greed, would waltz away scott free, saying it was the evil orporation who did it, and cut "it's" hands off if you can find them!

There are a hundred examples of moral stories in the bible. They are meant to try and teach morality, not to be interpreted as laws.

"There is no reason to excise religion out of American"

I will assume you meant to say "law" after that. If that is so, what if Muslims become the majority here, then we should be OK with those same honor killings you are against, because it is founded in their belief of religion?

Your POV WOULD support sharia much more than mine would. No religion and I mean NO RELIGION has a right to impose it's beliefs on the whole population. I get morals, I get breaking the codes of normal social interactions. When we embrace a religious view towards actions they don't like, or run counter to their belief system, we will have opened the flood gates, to them imposing other rules, that would inhibit others from living their lives under freedom of religion.

"talk about backwards...Liberal..."

Perhaps it was said best by JFK on 9/14/60 in accepting the NY Liberal Party nomination.

"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who welcomes nw ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties. Someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a liberal."

Now you may not agree with all of that, a lot of it rings true today as it did then. For the last 3 years, the republican/conservative movement(pun intended) has certainly showed us they don't care about more than half of that. Teachers fired, trying to tear down healthcare legislation without offering an alternative, no actions on promoting jobs, not forcing banks to fix the mortgage crisis, and now their assualt on womens rights with regard to their soverign right to choose what they do with their bodies.

You can post and whine till your hearts content, will not, cannot, does not, change the stark facts of the conservative agenda.

Oh and PS...lest you forget, that quote was from a good catholic who attended mass every sunday.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 235
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 9:37:35 AM
Oh and PS...lest you forget, that quote was from a good catholic who attended mass every sunday.


Have read enough comments to know that being a liberal means supporting the underdog and opposing the big guy regardless of perception, logic, or what is best or what is right.

 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 236
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 10:15:54 AM
[quot]Have read enough comments to know that being a liberal means supporting the underdog and opposing the big guy regardless of perception, logic, or what is best or what is right.
If you really do believe that, then you should have a word with Mr Kruger and Mr. Dunning.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 237
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 10:48:50 AM

If you really do believe that, then you should have a word with Mr Kruger and Mr. Dunning.

That is one of your favorite response.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2015776?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56018684023

Liberalism is like a religion. Faith in intelligence. The only problem is the objectivity is lost and now just convinced of its own righteousness.

Strict adherence to government funded programs for everything. Doesn't matter if it’s best or not... GovernemetCanDoIt is the slogan. Then the best part is now there is someone to blame and it is always those that say stop having the government do it that are getting blamed for the failures of the government programs. Those that say stop having the government do it have a tendency to also have a belief in religion. So, defense... THEOCRACY! It is predictable, immature, childish and selfish and not anything to do with doing what is best, what is right, or of choosing the most reasoned and thoughtful approach.

Look in your own Kruger Dunning mirror for a change.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 238
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 10:59:49 AM

Liberalism is like a religion. Faith in intelligence.


If you mean "liberals" have faith in each other's intelligence, that really IS a matter of faith.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 239
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 12:24:22 PM
OP..Welsh..I would guess by now, hearing from the informed and the faithful, you would have a better sense of why the church and state thing is such a big deal in this country. The most "christian" and incarcerated nation in the western world has been divided to help the theocracy prevail. You may also have noticed that the theocrats tend to be in often fierce denial, resorting to bullying, projection, misdirection and just making sh*t up about those who support seperation of church and state.

This is a pretty comprehensive site of recent theocracy history up to the mid OhOhs.
http://theocracywatch.org/govern.htm
http://theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm
"Our problem is with ... the religious extremists ... who want to destroy everybody who doesn't agree with them. I see them as betrayers of the fundamental principles of conservatism. A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means. " Barry Goldwater (1994)
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
.....
"The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.

Despite Goldwater's warning and efforts, the theocrats did indeed take over the republican party and conservatism in general to the point of having a bumper crop of theocrat contenders in the republican primary blowing their dog whistles. They were the most anti-constitutional bunch ever seen as well.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2011/11/christian_theocracy_how_newt_gingrich_and_the_gop_would_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

The last and worst of them, Santorum, finally bowed out but the threat remains that he could garner the number 2 spot and be a heartbeat away from the theocracy.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 240
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 12:59:50 PM
The last and worst of them, Santorum, finally bowed out but the threat remains that he could garner the number 2 spot and be a heartbeat away from the theocracy.


I think I said this would happen earlier in this thread... It wasn't a heartbeat away. It is very very very far away. and the problem I have with Sharia is not that it will be proclaimed law in US. It is that it will be permitted just as it is in Britain as an 'alternative'. It is 1000x a greater threat then Santorum. Santorum may have tried to wipe out porn and maybe cause changes in abortion but in no way would the intention to be similar in intentions as sharia. Santorum is an annoyance on a historical level.

http://sheikyermami.com/2012/04/10/uk-theresa-may-wants-to-be-seen-doing-something-like-deporting-islamic-terrorists-al-qaeda-says-no-you-cant/

It is a much bigger deal and a world problem that doesn't make sense to pretend that 'it's just a small group of crazy people'. It has to be acknowledged that they are not crazy. They are not fanatical. They are just doing their duty to their religion. The video I found earlier of some rand0om young adult praising cutting the heads off of the kafir is not extremism. He is not crazy. He is not the same as a nutter born again Christian that now feels the love.

Al-Qaeda has warned Britain against handing over a radical Islamic cleric to Jordan after his release from prison, saying such a move will open the “door of evil” for the British government and its people, according to an Islamist website. (Al Reuters)


Who gets to make the rules of the country?

Britain will be the early window into how this will play out.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 241
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 1:12:26 PM

That is one of your favorite response.

When the shoe fits.




http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2015776?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56018684023

Liberalism is like a religion. Faith in intelligence. The only problem is the objectivity is lost and now just convinced of its own righteousness.

As written in a book in 1935, thus only someones opinion and at a time that the word liberal may have meant something different that it does today.




It is a much bigger deal and a world problem that doesn't make sense to pretend that 'it's just a small group of crazy people'. It has to be acknowledged that they are not crazy. They are not fanatical. They are just doing their duty to their religion.

If their duty is to their religion and religion is commonly accepted as fake, then by default they are crazy.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 1:25:59 PM

If their duty is to their religion and religion is commonly accepted as fake, then by default they are crazy


By your world view definition. Not theirs. It's cultural difference. The liberalism ideal of multiculturalism permits their beliefs and ideals to be held while in western cultures. That ideal is not held in reverse and is not mutual.

Who gets to decide the rules? The liberal ideal has no expectation of requiring them to drop components of their faith and they can bring their culture with them. The American ideal is that everyone becomes American while they are here. That is an expectation that certain traditional cultural ideals be dropped while here. That is the idea of 'from many one' from many cultures to one ideal of living free. That sentiment is not shared in reverse and multiculturalism does not support it.

So, for Britain, should they not deport him because that will bring 'evil' to Britain? Or should they deport him because that is their law. Who gets to make the rules? Who will suffer the consequences?

Seems to be such an easy answer outside of Britain that its all hyperbole and crazy republicans making things up to scare children into behaving. So, what is the proper response. If it isn't a threat than there is only one response. Deportation. If it is a threat and he is not deported than who just decided their law?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 243
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 1:32:36 PM

...and the problem I have with Sharia is not that it will be proclaimed law in US. It is that it will be permitted just as it is in Britain as an 'alternative'....

So if Sharia law is a threat to the country, then does that mean that all religious arbitration courts are or just the Muslim ones?

Because what about Canon Law and Halakha Arbitration Courts?


http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamic_sharia_and_jewish_halakha_arbitration_courts
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 2:20:04 PM
I think those should be seriously considered for blocking as well. The more freedom given to Sharia the more likely it will be that catholic and Jewish courts will also be expecting expansions as well and it just turns into a mess.

I agree with banning faith based arbitration.

I think most US Christians wouldn't flip out if separations of church and state were used to block faith based arbitration. The ACLU will freak, the Jewish community may get upset. It will not make everyone happy but it is necessary to maintain uniform structure and clarity. Could also use the requirements that only one law be followed. There are a bunch of ways to support it and the only thing that allows it is multiculturalism tenant that it to be maintained under 'freedom of expression’ which conflicts with law that the only valid law is established law. Not the laws of other countries or faiths.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf

Ecclesiastical law has long been accepted as a form of civil arbitration in Western
Democracies. The result of ecclesiastical trials is legally binding and enforceable.
Nevertheless, the dangers associated with legal ecclesiastical rulings became manifest
when Islamic groups pushed for the recognition of Sharia as a doctrine of arbitration.
After a trial in Canada, fears with regard to the safeguarding of human rights under
Sharia surfaced among Ontarians. Premier Dalton responded with a ban on all
ecclesiastical arbitration in the province of Ontario. In England, fears of genderbiased
discrimination and female coercion ignited a similar controversy concerning
Sharia’s legitimacy. Here, we examine the root causes of such concerns in England,
argue that Sharia is a dangerous doctrine of civil arbitration, and advocate for its
rejection from binding arbitration.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 245
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 2:56:06 PM
Christian beliefs scare me: some quotes from their Bible, obviously meaning it represents their beliefs!
but of course "Xians" will claim these are only "allegory" & not to be taken literally, but of course every passage in the Koran, IS ! entirely literal...

(according to them)

quotes from the Xian Bible:

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)"

-any man who makes predictions is to be killed -would it be seers such as Nostradamus, or include weather & economic forecasters ? ( I would think, all of the above)

" The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)"

-any who oppose god are to be killed

" "You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist. (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)"

-god wipes out entire countries in a jealous temper tantrum for not being worshiped as the 'one true god' -why not? .

" Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15 ASV)"

-do not seek medical help, it is evil, anointing with oil & faith will cure the sick.

" "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)"

-kill all whom god tells you to kill. (god will use the medium of your government to convey his messages) e.g. we all know that god spoke to George Bush ordering him to invade Iraq & Afghanistan
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 246
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 2:57:21 PM

So, in the "World according to Aristot.............," we get to vote on whether or not a persons religious belief is fake? How would you know if it was "commonly accepted as fake", after all, some believe that ALL religions are fake, some believe that only some are fake, some believe that only their religion is not fake? Then if comonly accepted as "fake", then that person is crazy?

No need to vote, it is all made up bullshit and if anyone can not see that, that is their problem not mine and I will defend their right to think so, but if they feel like they want to impose their ideas on me, then I have the right to question the reasoning and validity behind their claims of which not a single one can be proven.




So now you are also the arbiter of mental dementia?

Nope, just calling a spade a spade.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 247
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 3:10:54 PM
Aris

http://sheikyermami.com/2012/04/10/uk-theresa-may-wants-to-be-seen-doing-something-like-deporting-islamic-terrorists-al-qaeda-says-no-you-cant/

So which is the proper response.

The rule of law... deportation or
the rule of religion don't deport.

Who gets to make the rules and who will pay the consequences.

Calling them nuts doesn't answer the question. If the Government gives in then the terrorists decide the laws. If the government doesn't give in than people are in legitamate danger.

If you had the power to decide. Which answer would you choose. I know the conservative republican answer. I think the liberal answer is to bend the rules. But it is a real situation and it is obvious that liberals do not think Sharia is a threat. So, here is a real example. What is the proper liberal response.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 248
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 3:13:10 PM
Santorum could still be a viable VP contender, so we are not out of the woods yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/was-santorum-running-for-theologian-in-chief/2012/04/10/gIQARZYp8S_blog.html



Was Santorum running for theologian-in-chief?
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary
Former president of Chicago Theological Seminary (1998-2008


Rick Santorum has ended his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. This is an historic moment. Santorum’s was possibly the most religiously-based presidential campaign, not only in this election cycle, but perhaps in American history.

Santorum’s vision of the presidency, as gleaned from his many statements on faith and policy, was more of a Christian “theologian-in-chief” than a political leader of the most religiously diverse nation in the world.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaks to supporters at Savre Lanes in Menasha, Wisconsin in this April 2, 2012 file photograph. Santorum will announce that he is going to drop out of the presidential race, two sources familiar with the decision told Reuters on April 10, 2012.

The Santorum run was an historic candidacy because his often off-the-cuff remarks would reveal what is at stake for American democracy when ‘faith in the public square’ shifts and becomes more like ‘one faith should dominate the public square.’

The best framing for this analysis is, of course, Santorum’s comment that he “almost threw up” after reading John F. Kennedy’s historic 1960 address on separation of church and state. The very visceral quality of Santorum’s reaction, its literal ‘from the gut’ reaction, is most revealing. The idea that his conservative Catholic faith could remain private, and not dictate what he would do as President in running the government of a religiously and non-religiously pluralistic society, was literally anathema to Santorum.

Kennedy’s famous statement showed exactly how he thought his Catholic faith should neither dictate, or he as a Catholic be dictated to by Catholic religious authorities, and how his presidency of the whole nation meant religious and non-religious neutrality. He so famously said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Santorum introduced not only revulsion for the separation of church and state into this presidential campaign, but within the church arena, theological differences. Santorum strikingly attacked the “theology” that he presumed undergirded the president’s views and described them as one “not based on the Bible.” Obama’s agenda, Santorum told tea party supporters, is “about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” But later Santorum affirmed that he thought President Obama was a Christian. Thus, Santorum brought up a Christian theological difference as a campaign issue. Theological differences between one faith and another are indeed divisive, but perhaps even more divisive is criticizing the theology of a member of one’s own faith in the political square. Neither is appropriate.

Santorum’s popularity with the Protestant evangelical “base,” mostly accounted for his success during the primaries. Santorum’s attraction for this group illustrates that there is a segment of the conservative American religious public who believe that separation of church and state is wrong as codified in the first amendment. Many in this group seem to believe that a particular type of Christianity should “be established,” that is, not just have a voice in our public debates, but be decisive in our political administration. That’s establishment by any name.

There is enormous risk to our democracy if someone elected to the presidency of the United States thinks the job is to be “theologian-in-chief,” not “commander-in-chief” and political leader of a religiously pluralistic America. In the United States, our freedom of religion depends, without question, on freedom from tyranny of one religion over another.

Santorum’s candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination has ended, but I do not believe this is the last we have seen of someone running to be “theologian-in-chief.”
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 249
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 3:17:56 PM

The rule of law... deportation or
the rule of religion don't deport.

Religion has nothing to do with him, if he is a terrorist and you can prove it, deport him, if not leave him alone.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 250
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 3:44:00 PM
Aries, I obviously do not support forced marriages and 'honor killings', the fact that you are implying that I do, is deeply offensive.
My country already has laws that adress 'honor killings'. The criminal code is pretty thourough on the 'murder' front. These crimes are murder, nothing more, nothing less. Domestic violence and child abuse are widely discussed, and police are able to press charges agaist offenders. Why do we need to speak out against Sharia, something that is a non issue?

My point about the forced marriages was that I would like to know the numbers. You presented it as a Muslim issue, whereas, I know that certain Christian sects also participate in this act.

BTW, I don't find your points " dificult to comprehend" I just don't agree with you. But if it makes you feel better by being rude and condecending- go for it!

PS, nice to know that you think that women who use contraception are promiscuous.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State