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
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Church and StatePage 3 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
I know you didn't read the posts. It shows. Let me repeat from the same post of mine you quoted but didn't manage to get through.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html

I totally love this line of double talking liberal BS




In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes I`slam into the religious tapestry of American life


Author is a Yale professor of religion. And just in case you weren't aware under which liberal agenda this falls under. It is multiculturalism. It makes us a better people.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 52
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 10:35:04 AM
"you should at least have garnered that ALL forms of government go bad eventually."

Yes, this is true, well not so much true, as results oriented. In progress, no matter which progress, liberal, conservative or just human progress, things do not remain stagnant they always change it's the very nature of progress itself.

Now, think before responding to the next statement. Aren't many churches, just another form of government?

I'm not talking about the morals you learn, the beliefs you have, the objects or symbols you worship. I'm talking about the organizational aspect itself. Of course the prime example is Catholicism, a little under 2,000 years and look at some of the things they have wrought.

More people have been killed in the name of religion and "right", than all the wars mankind fought. In fact it has been religion that started some of these wars.

For something that's meant to bring comfort and peace to so many, in times of trouble or strife. It seems to at times, extract a terrible cost. Case in point the worshippers of Islam, and the strife they have lived, not only through the crusades, the fighting and killing among their own tribes and groups, the conflict with the jewish faith, and finally with many western cultures, primarily us.

Onto other things...

"the unions(a long and proud history of volience and mayhem)"

Yes absolutely, in my mind capitalism, works best when in balance. Since I worship nature, when things are in balance, all goes well, when it gets out of balance, an opposite and sometimes disasterous reaction occurs to put things back in balance as nature decrees.

When a business is formed to meet a need, capital acquired, organization set in place, the product designed or mineral to be gotten found, workers hired. It's like a fancy dance with all the parts moving to their own rhythm.

Out of balance to me was asking people to work 12 or 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, sometimes having to purchase their living supplies from a company store at twice the price. Or women locked in a factory to make piece goods, like the Manhattan Shirtwaist company. I could go on why bother, everyone will pick their favorite side and fail to see, if balance is achieved everyone wins.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 53
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 11:17:57 AM
I challenged you to find a single liberal who advocates for Sharia law.


He still hasen't...a passage that incorrectly says we embraced Jews in the 20th century...we did not until the late 20th century...Jews were denied access to all sorts of public venues till the later part of the 20th century...at my golf course they were routinely black-balled for membership till the late 70's.

Yet, the premise of the passage below makes society a better polace to live...by letting all people chose to follow their faith...we become better...heck, if someone who practices Islam wants to practice sharia law inside their own church God Bless em...just don't bring it out into society, at large, and impose your religious beliefs on me.

But, I still fail to see where the quoted passage promotes or supports sharia law...it quite pointedly never mentions sharia law....




In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes I`slam into the religious tapestry of American life


Oh what a crock of shyte...your contention is that a quote like this "proves" liberals embrace sharia law into society and government...those evangelical wingnut conservatives are hearing voices again.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 11:59:13 AM
What you are is an enable to those who dislike sex for what it is. You yourself may not, but you do your damndest to make sure that do have advocates that will push their cause.


What does it matter what a religion teaches about extramarital sex to anyone who is not a follower of that religion? Since Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, access to medical advice about contraception and to contraceptives themselves has been part of a general constitutionally protected right to privacy. Access to abortion is another part of that general right.

The notion that all through this country, sexually repressed religious scolds are trying mightily to make their backward views law, is laughable. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't. Mr. Obama's faithful saw his support among women falter in the 2010 elections, so they have cooked up this canard to try to scare women into voting for him as their protector. They must think women are pretty dumb and irrational to fall for such a transparently phony maneuver.

As to leftists and shariah, Andy McCarthy has gone into the subject in depth in "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." McCarthy led the federal prosecution of the "Blind Sheikh" and the jihadists who conspired with him to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. There are strong connections between this attack and the one on 9/11. Islamists and leftists share a strong dislike for this country, which makes them allies of convenience.

Maybe the most notorious example of their cooperation has been the "lawfare" waged by radical lawyers on behalf of Muslim jihadists. Some of these people abused their visits with clients in Guantanamo to do things which directly endangered U.S. servicemen and in some cases came very close to treason.

Edit below:

There you go again insinuating women are dumb.


Quite the contrary. I've known too many intelligent women to think that. It is the "liberals" who are making this cynical ploy who do. I'm confident it will backfire.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 55
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 12:08:47 PM
so they have cooked up this canard to try to scare women into voting for him as their protector


Gosh yes...liberals conspired to have the GOP electorate propose or pass the 1000+ laws to remove/restrict women's right to chose, and to limit or remove women's reproductive healthcare.


They must think women are pretty dumb and irrational to fall for such a transparently phony maneuver.


There you go again insinuating women are dumb if they don't agree with you.
 Welsh474
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 56
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 12:43:11 PM
Hey Paul

I thought my original post was relatively clear. Other smart folks figured out the question and why I asked it. I'm sure it's not a stretch for you to go back and re-read the original post and figure it out yourself.

And yup, I'm an atheist. Does that somehow have bearing on the questions I asked? I understand that religion brings some folks clarity, understanding and comfort - I'm okay with that...until they try and ram it down my throat or preach to me. I leave them alone, even the fanatics and I expect to be left alone - we all believe what we believe.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 57
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 1:09:52 PM
The US has not entered its "post Christian era" as most other developed, historically Christian countries have. Why is that? I bet a book could be written on that subject-- there are probably several already, actually. The US has not suffered under theocracy; it has not had anything like the Inquisition or the Crusades. The Salem witch trials are the only thing that come to my mind as far as parallels in the US go. In other words, the US has not been heavily tarnished by religion (thanks in large part to the establishment clause), and religion is still seen as an important source for one's moral compass.

In contrast, it took getting nuked and losing WWII for Japan to turn away from its deeply religious culture to become the atheistic culture that it is today.
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 1:55:17 PM
So one can not ask the question the OP asked, without being an atheist
America was NOT founded on the values of any religion
It was founded on rule of law
out of all the 'founding fathers', only one was religious, the rest did not believe in any religion
it was the UNITED STATES that began the post Christian world!
so yes it is a really great question, and the whole world is wondering, why the US, with all its might,is so religious!
any fanatics are dangerous
especially ones like Americans, who could get access to WOMD's!
after all, it was not the NAZIs, the Communists, or muslims that has unleashed the horror of nuclear war on the world
it was the USA
do americans not feel any collective guilt for what they did???
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 2:26:02 PM
In contrast, it took getting nuked and losing WWII for Japan to turn away from its deeply religious culture to become the atheistic culture that it is today.


I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I have a hard time considering the militaristic, supremacist Japan of WWII a "deeply religious" culture. Deeply evil is more like it. Unlike even Nazi Germany, Japan did not have a policy of honoring the laws of war.

With some exceptions--such as the naval aviators of Pearl Harbor and Midway, who were high-type officers, and the Imperial Navy generally--the Japanese military tolerated or even encouraged barbarism and sadistic war crimes. Weeks after Japan officially surrendered, camp guards were still murdering allied prisoners. Most of the tens of thousands who should have hanged for these crimes after the war escaped justice.

Bayoneting and eviscerating people for fun, including young children, or raping and murdering pregnant women, or torturing or working prisoners to death, or burning them alive, or having contests to see who could decapitate the most civilians--and murdering many hundreds of thousands of innocent people in these and even worse
ways--does not strike me as what deeply religious people do, unless they worship evil.

I'm sure the fact all Americans have always been free to exercise their religion has helped religion continue to prosper in the U.S.


America was NOT founded on the values of any religion
It was founded on rule of law
out of all the 'founding fathers', only one was religious, the rest did not believe in any religion


Those claims are false. America was founded by English Protestants. Many states had official religions before the United States was created. And the Founding Fathers all agreed that a public morality grounded in religious beliefs was necessary for a free, self-governing people. It was because they assumed a moral citizenry that would largely control itself that they dared to give the United States such strictly limited powers in the Constitution.

Religion has been an integral part of American life from the start--including Sunday prayer services in the Capitol, invocations to open sessions of state legislatures, oaths for witnesses in court and for officials, public prayers, public aid to religious institutions, manger scenes in thousands of town squares, presidential speeches invoking God's help, Sunday closing laws for businesses, Christmas plays in elementary schools, and so on.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 60
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 2:51:09 PM

So one can not ask the question the OP asked, without being an atheist
America was NOT founded on the values of any religion
It was founded on rule of law


Really all but two of the signers of the Deceleration of Independence were Christian.

The laws that were established were fashioned out of Christian values. Also notice the phrase is "Freedom OF religion" NOT freedom from religion.


after all, it was not the NAZIs, the Communists, or muslims that has unleashed the horror of nuclear war on the world
it was the USA
do americans not feel any collective guilt for what they did???


Guilty? Why would we?

The two Atomic bombs dropped saved many thousands of lives on both sides compared to an ground invasion.

War is a horrid thing and if you go back and check the US was not involved directly in the war until Japan awoke a sleeping giant and filled it with resolve.

So no I don't feel guilt at all had we never been attacked we would have never had to drop the bombs.

When I was in high school I was very small that cause many bullies to think I was a easy target for picking on. I always walked away anytime I could.

One day one cornered me up he took his best swing I ducked and came out fighting after I broke his nose and cracked three of his ribs......I never had the problem of bullies picking on me again.

Kinda like the US has never had to use nukes again.
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 61
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 2:52:08 PM
Msg 65 - Does Japan feel horrified at what they did to China "before" WWII?

JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF CHINA -http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=59

Of the estimated 20 million people that died as a result of the Japanese hostilities during World War II, about half of them were in China. China claims that 35 million Chinese were killed or wounded during the Japanese occupation from 1931 to 1945.

An estimated 2.7 million Chinese were killed in a Japanese "pacification" program that targeted "all males between 15 and 60 who were suspected to be enemies" along with other "enemies pretending to be local people." Out of the thousands of Chinese prisoners captured during the war only 56 were found alive in 1946.

Plenty of atrocities occurred, and for what it's worth, Yes, we ended it.

R
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 62
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 3:08:12 PM
As to leftists and shariah, Andy McCarthy has gone into the subject in depth in "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."

And yet, you STILL haven't explained how it is that the constitution makes a Christian theocracy "impossible" while still leaving the 'grand existential threat' of a Muslim theocracy... How is it that this document makes one theocracy "impossible" and leaves another a 'grand existential threat'... I've read the document and I don't see anything that restricts this "impossibility" solely to Christian theocracy... From what you assert, it should make any theocracy equally as "impossible" as a Christian one... So which is it...? Is a Muslim theocracy made equally as "impossible" as a Christian theocracy or were the Founding Fathers SO "christophobic"that they only made Christian theocracy "impossible"...?

Msg 65 - Does Japan feel horrified at what they did to China "before" WWII?

I would think that, overall, the answer to that is a resounding "yes"... that is if ALL the apologies they have issued is anything to go by... Next time, perhaps you should actually look into the questions you ask rather than assuming you already know the answer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 5:26:02 PM

while still leaving the 'grand existential threat' of a Muslim theocracy


You are the one characterizing it as that. I did not. But Islamists don't need to go so far as to make this country a Muslim theocracy to cause serious damage. As an alien, supremacist system that Islamists are determined to promote and establish in the non-Muslim world, shariah is poisonous to our culture.


Is a Muslim theocracy made equally as "impossible" as a Christian theocracy


Of course. I never even suggested otherwise. Shariah is not just a set of theological beliefs, but a complete social and legal system meant to regulate all facets of life. It is fundamentally incompatible with Western concepts of individual liberties and self-government. That is much less true of Christianity.

In the American states under the Articles of Confederation, as in England well before that, having an official state church did not prevent people from enjoying most of the civil liberties we enjoy today. The U.S. can accommodate a certain amount of intermixing of Christian influence in public life far better than it can tolerate the same amount of shariah.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 5:27:40 PM

And yet, you STILL haven't explained how it is that the constitution makes a Christian theocracy "impossible" while still leaving the 'grand existential threat' of a Muslim theocracy...


It isn't in the same way. It is the hypocrisy that it only applies to Christians from liberals. You don't hear complaints about kosher either. Only the evil Christians.

There is one thing though.... the reason why it says, "in god we trust" on the money. It was a big middle finger to a very real threat at the time and it still pisses off people that lean that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto with "In God we Trust". The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies,


Religion was a better defense against communism than anything the government had... so guess what. They became friends. And that big middle finger is still there.

hahaha
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 65
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 5:38:53 PM
Really? There's a segment of the population that has no problem with Sharia law being installed in the US? Can you name someone who isn't a far right Muslim who advocates that position?

I would say that the only people who "have no problem" with this are a very small fringe that wouldn't be mainstream left or right. Their positions on other things - gender equality, gun laws, gay rights, tax policies, disliking Hollywood's influence, etc - would put them firmly on the right.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 66
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:11:43 PM

You really honestly think that the far right in the US are the side of the political spectrum that would "have no problem" with shariah law? Would that be the same far right that is constantly being excoriated for being islamophobic? It would have to be, because how many far rights do we have? Just out of curiousity, have you ever referred to the far right as "islamophobic"? And now you say that these "islamophobes are the ones who would have no problem with shariah law? Either they are "islamophobic" or they are not...................

You asked which side of the political divide someone who advocates for Sharia law would sit.

On gay marriage, abortion, Rosie O'Donnell, the right to bear arms, pretty much every hot button issue, someone like that would be viewed as on the right.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 67
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:12:29 PM
"As far as the term "far right muslim"........Nice try"

Hmmmmmm, seems one cannot see the tree for the forest! Conservative muslims would be far right, correct? I mean conservative has always been viewed as the right, correct? Now wouldn't they have been ones to want this "shariah law"?

Now extremists can be of either persuasion, liberal or conservative, but when considering they the extreme in their view of wanting the most severe religious rules followed(not unlike the extremist christians we have here) women covered head to toe, strict interpretation of the Koran(even if their interpretation is a little twisted from what mainstream Imam's say). Gee, isn't that something like the extreme christians again, WOW! never thought there were sooo many similarities, or parellels to be discovered!

Let's not forget though, the right side can have divides as well. I mean some on the right see a fair and balanced approach to race relations, or guns, or at least that is what they say. Then again they have the KKK on the right, as well as the Militia militants.

So yes I can see the right, hating another of it's own and being Islamophobic!

I mean on the right as we have seen, they have shades, there are poor, then OK, then regular, then special and ultimately white, WASP and SUPER RICH!!

Almost sounds like grades of gasoline!!! Hahahahahaha!!



 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:12:57 PM

Either they are "islamophobic" or they are not.......................


Hahahahaha Want to bet that gets denied now. Oh noooss we never sez such thingz

hahaha... Say hi to Goliath.
 NonamousDog
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 69
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:15:44 PM
Hey OyVay,

When the Soviet Union was still up and running, the hard-core communists were always referred to in the US media as 'conservatives'. Were they 'far right'? Or was that just the tendency of the left-leaners in the US media to try to lump everybody that they didn't like as 'conservatives'?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 70
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:24:50 PM

So now it is the side that is almost always referred to by the left as "ISLAMOPHOBIC" that would be the one that would welcome shariah law................ Unless it is not the far right that the far left is always referring to as islamophobic.....

You're trying to change the terms half way through.

You asked which side of the divide a Sharia fan would sit - right or left. I didn't ask the question; you did. I have never seen anyone advocating for Sharia law in the US, and I try to read a fairly wide range of stuff. You claim it's a threat, and asked whether that would be a right wing or left wing thing. Looking at it, I simply pointed out that they would be right wing on pretty much every issue that divides right and left in America.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 71
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:35:08 PM
There guys...Paul gets it!....He even made a good analogy with my KKK reference..."the "OTHER" white meat"..so you all of you understand right?

As for the soviet hardliners..depends, here you called them conservative...there you called them commrade or sir.. or it was off to the gulag in siberia for you!!

To me the accepted form we are discussing is one of tradition. The left is always seen as progressive and liberal in a discussion...the right is always seen as conservative with a leaning toward nothing changing.

Hence why all the really bad groups are on the right. Because once we on the left change something for the better, all of you on the right, try and change it back. So you are always stuck trying to regress progress and people, and we are trying to make things better.

Clear yet?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:37:16 PM
Cafeteria Constitutionalistas pick and choose, interpret like the winds of change and dominance of the 5/4 "balance" against true rights. A guy like Saintorum, seeks a theocracy, like the one he hates in Iran, but is embraced by his lunatics, while opposing the same lunacy/theorcracy in a similar rich nation, is embraced by people who think of reality as an enemy of the people...at the same time attacking women and non-white-male-vaginally affected americans...and then wonder why thinking humas think they are ...what they are! Glad that April fools dayas keep on keepin on.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 6:38:52 PM
Looking at it, I simply pointed out that they would be right wing on pretty much every issue that divides right and left in America.


Ok, let me see if we get the double speak correct here. If you are American and concerned about Sharia you are islamaphobic. However, if you are an American and are not liking the socialist direction all we have to do is look to the UK because of how wonderful it works out for them... So, if we look over there and see that Sharia IS a problem and is getting worse and we look here and see that it is already being called for in the early stages we shouldn't use Europe as an example. And you never once acknowled that Canada already banned it.

Well hell... you want to paint any other fantasy places on earth that we should look to but not too closely?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 74
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 7:11:22 PM
I'm really having a hard time understanding the outrage here.

Paul posted a question - frankly I figured it was just rhetorical and didn't much care. Then he asked again. So I thought about it and answered.

I don't care about Sharia law. I know very little about it. I didn't bring it up. Actually it was Aries who posted some made up shit that prompted me to express my disgust.

Again, I didn't bring it up. I didn't pose the question, nor set the terms. I just answered honestly. Tell me, what positions would a fan of Sharia law take that would be considered "liberal" or left wing? I honestly don't know that much, so maybe they believe in a welfare state. Probably not, since they seem to adhere to a 5th century moral code, but I could be wrong. I do know they don't like abortion, women's rights, gay marriage, pernicious Hollywood influence, evolution, or any of the other things that outrage the right in America. I also know they're big advocates of gun rights, traditional gender roles, religious devotion, wouldn't vote for an atheist,.....

I'm not addressing Islamophobia because that wasn't the question. And why on earth would I talk about whether Canada has Sharia law or not. I have said I don't see a threat of Sharia law being introduced. It's a fringe religion. There's more chance of Scientology meters being used in hospitals.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 75
Church and State
Posted: 4/2/2012 8:22:28 PM

Well, I am glad that is settled. At least now the far right is not islamophobic, because how could the be islamophobic, and agree with shariah law..........

Well, if THAT isn't a 'strawman and a half'... It wasn't stated that the US right likes Sharia, that was YOUR delusion...

What was stated was that Islamic fundamentalists are right-wing conservatives on virtually every issue that US right-wing conservatives are... well... conservative on...

right-wing Islamic nutjobs - opposed to abortion
right-wing US nutjobs - opposed to abortion

right-wing Islamic nutjobs - opposed to gay marriage
right-wing US nutjobs - opposed to gay marriage

right-wing Islamic nutjobs - opposed to gender equality
right-wing US nutjobs - opposed to gender equality

right-wing Islamic nutjobs - opposed to secular education
right-wing US nutjobs - opposed to secular education

etc. and so forth...

The only difference is how you want to achieve that... The right-wing Islamic nutjobs want to do it with Sharia law... the right-wing US nutjobs want to do it by "bringing God-centered principles back to US law"... Not only does that NOT prevent the right-wing nutjobs in the US from being Islamophobic, it virtually guarantees that they will be...

I'm not really seeing much of a difference between the two... Either way it's government-by-religion and theocratic even if it isn't the priests/pastors/imams making the laws...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State