DescentBB

Downright good question


Can a good Muslim be a good American?


Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god
of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah
except Islam (Koran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of
Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he
turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great
Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and
beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution
since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to
be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare \"one nation under God,\" the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent
names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be
very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be
both \"good\" Muslims and good Americans.

This is a joke, right?

My dad wrote a response to this here:

Recently I received an e-mail asking if Muslims can be good \"American patriots\". It made me think, and I looked at a few of the stated objections if they were applied in the same way with regards to Christians.

\"Have you ever thought - Can a devout Christian be an American patriot and a loyal citizen, placing America first in his heart and mind? Consider this:

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to YHWH, who has commanded us to have no other gods before him.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by YHWH manifest in Jesus Christ. \"There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.\"

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to Christ and Him crucified

Geographically, no. Because his citizenship is in heaven and God has called followers out of every tribe, kindred, and nation on Earth.

Socially, no. Because friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4), and we are not to be \"unequally yoked\" with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

They obviously cannot be both good Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth.\"

Interestingly, in the third century, there was a similar objection to Christianity. The pagan philosopher Celsus objected to Christianity because Christians refused to bear arms. He felt that this was a shirking of responsibility which required that someone else must then take the Christian's place. The Christian scholar Origen wrote a major work, \"Against Celsus\", to answer such attacks. He pointed out that Christians, by doing good and by praying for the nation and its leaders (1 Timothy 2:1,2), are of far more value to the nation and the nation's defense than are those who kill for the nation. So the notion above that you can't be a Christian and a good citizen of America, or any other country, falls apart.

If we search scripture, we see that believers throughout history have been good citizens or residents in many different countries, under many different forms of government. We are called to pray for the peace and well-being of whatever society we find ourselves in, and to pray for the rulers and those in authority. The conflict comes whenever the nation tries to usurp that to which it is not entitled. What we cannot do is to obey men rather than God when their commands are at odds.

Indeed. That goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, and most other people of most other faiths. That also goes for those who adhere to certain philosophies -- secular humanism, for example. By this logic, none of us can be \"good Americans\". What that says to me is we have a flawed definition of what it means to be a good American.

Good reply Lothar - your response is correct.

It's a non seqitur really, and the whole premise is basically trolling by any other name. Shame on you Vulcan.

Once again, religion screws you again, in any denomination.

edit:: Yep, missed a key line there somewhere. Early morning drive-by post.

You can't be religious and a good American. The two don't mix. You have to force your standards on other people, or give up your own. So you're screwed!

Testiculese wrote:Once again, religion screws you again, in any denomination.

If by "screws you" you mean "makes you not fit VV's definition of a good American"... yeah, religion screws you, as does secular humanism, and pretty much any philosophy other than pure Nationalism. By the definition implied in the first post, Martin Luther King wasn't a good American, and even Ghandi wouldn't have qualified if he'd lived here.

But, IMO, it's "not paying attention to the thread" that screwed you this time

Thank you Lothar's dad. I was already composing a step by step reply in my mind along the same lines as I read. Turned out not to be necessary.

Allow me to provide a very concrete example of how someone who's religion seems to place him in conflict with the state can still be a very good American.

Desmond Doss was a Seventh Day Adventist who enlisted to serve our country in World War II. But, because of his beliefs, he would not work on Sabbath (Saturday) other than to save lives, and he did not want to carry a gun and kill. Instead, he wanted to be a medic.

Needless to say, the army HATED him. He was different, and he wouldn't carry a gun at a time when not fighting made you the next best thing to a traitor in most peoples eyes. Despite this, he insisted on serving.

Once the unit went into action though, the men began to change their minds. Over and over Doss risked his own life to save theirs. Then, in 1945 on Okinawa, a Japanese counter attack left wounded men stranded at the top of a 400 foot cliff. Doss spent five hours lowering the wounded men down to safety with nothing more than a rope and a tree stump. Doss insisted he couldn't have saved more than 50 men, the army counted 100 men who would have died that day if Doss hadn't risked his life to save them. When they gave him the congressional medal of honor they split the difference and called it 75.

Doss continued serving, and continued saving lives, until he finally stepped on a grenade to save yet more lives. His leg was so badly damaged that they finally sent him home.

Everyone told Doss that he could NOT be a good citizen because of his religious beliefs. But he turned out to be the kind of citizen who earns a congressional medal of honor. If we attempt to filter citizenship to only those people who are not \"different\", we will end up depriving our country of some of it's BEST citizens.

A good american would not follow his religion where it would lead him to break the law as long as the law passes as constitutional.

Our laws are easy to define. The constitutionality of each of our laws, although sometimes debated, are eventually established by the courts and at that point easy to follow.

So if you break a constitutionally supported law you are not a good american no matter what your religion tells you.
The question may be presented as troll bait in some ways but it does illustrate the problem with fundamentalists who don't put the constitution before their religion whether they are muslims crashing planes into buildings or christians bombing abortion clinics.

Every time I hit 145 mph on my bike I'm one bad american....forgive me your honor for I have failed....what's that you say? An act of contrition and a small contribution and my license will be returned?!?

Will Robinson wrote:A good american would not follow his religion where it would lead him to break the law as long as the law passes as constitutional.

Then you'll have to count the vast majority of Christians out.

Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than men.

I put conscience above mans law. And, quite frankly, people who don't do the same make me very nervous. The constitution allowed slavery for quite some time.

[quote=""Will Robinson""]it does illustrate the problem with fundamentalists who don't put the constitution before their religion whether they are muslims crashing planes into buildings or christians bombing abortion clinics. [/quote]
Or Quakers running the underground railroad.

I would not define a "Good American" ONLY as one who follows constitutional laws.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:A good american would not follow his religion where it would lead him to break the law as long as the law passes as constitutional.

Then you'll have to count the vast majority of Christians out.

Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than men.

I put conscience above mans law. And, quite frankly, people who don't do the same make me very nervous. The constitution allowed slavery for quite some time.

[quote=""Will Robinson""]it does illustrate the problem with fundamentalists who don't put the constitution before their religion whether they are muslims crashing planes into buildings or christians bombing abortion clinics.

Or Quakers running the underground railroad.

I would not define a "Good American" ONLY as one who follows constitutional laws.[/quote]
I think being a good man is more important than being a good american. Muhammed Ali is one of my heros, he broke the law and was a bad american....same with many who fought for what they believe in.

A good american is someone who does what is good for america and america is largely defined by her laws. Being a good american by itself isn't much of an accomplishment. A good man might lead america to be better than it is by causing her to change her laws, often this is accomplished by being a bad american.

Hitler had lots of good germans doing his bidding.

The original question is not as bad as some of you first thought though because it makes you put things in perspective. Of course if you just want to hate muslims then you can close your mind and take the bait that the question was probably set up to be but if you examine the question you see nationalism for what it is, both the good and the bad.

Will Robinson wrote:Hitler had lots of good germans doing his bidding.

But those "good germans" were very BAD for Germany. A country is safest in the hands of people who do not think the country itself is the most important thing.

Will Robinson wrote:The original question is not as bad as some of you first thought though because it makes you put things in perspective.

Oh, I agree, I think its a very interesting question, although I seriously doubt the motives of the person who wrote it up.

AND, just to clarify, i'm also not assuming that just because VonVulcan posted this he agrees with it.

Kilarin wrote:A country is safest in the hands of people who do not think the country itself is the most important thing.

Close but not quite, a country is safest when they don't put it in Gods hands either because unless he comes down here himself and specifies what he wants we're left with competing interpreters dictating conflicting instructions.

So a good man will reject both, fascism and gods interpreters as the sole authority of the definition of good.

Will Robinson wrote:a country is safest when they don't put it in Gods hands either

Well, I don't care for the way you phrased it, but in principle I think I'll have to conceed.

Theocracies terrify me, since they inevitably end up, not following God, but following men who say they speak for God.

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate."
-Ulysses S. Grant, Speech at Des Moines, IA 1875,

Fern, no, it is not a joke.

As I have stated before, I am not that good a writer and when I find something that I agree with in principal, I usually post it. I should have made it clearer I guess, sorry. I will attempt to do so now. I am assuming the intent of this… piece? Is directed at the type of Muslim that would practice jihad. That is how I see it. I am sure there are plenty of good Muslims that do not believe in Jihad or take literally all the teachings of their book just as there are Christians that do likewise. However even the most hard line Christian, jew, you name the religion (non Muslim) have not attacked anyone or caused as much turmoil as the muslim extremist that practice jihad. My intent of this post was to bring attention to the point that I believe, that a good Muslim as defined by the spirit of this piece, a Jihadist, cannot be a good American. They cannot be a good earthling for lack of a better word. How do we separate the Jihadist Muslims from regular Muslims that are in this country right now?

Lothar,
I understand your post and why you wrote it. However I don’t agree with it in the aspect of how I understand Christianity.
(sorry, this might look sloppy, my difficulty in finding words to express my ideas.)

----------------------------------------------------

“Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to YHWH, who has commanded us to have no other gods before him.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by YHWH manifest in Jesus Christ. \"There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.\"

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to Christ and Him crucified

Geographically, no. Because his citizenship is in heaven and God has called followers out of every tribe, kindred, and nation on Earth.

Socially, no. Because friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4), and we are not to be \"unequally yoked\" with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14).

They obviously cannot be both good Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it's still the truth.\"”

-------------------------------------------------------

As I see America, it was founded on Christian principals and is not to be worshiped before God. It is however acceptable to support the country as long as it stays true to said Christian principals. I could very well be wrong, but I am under the impression that a good mans priorities are God, family and country, or country and family, I forget which of them comes first, I would think country for if the country remains strong in it’s founding principals, the family will be taken care of.

Now whether America is staying true to it's founding principals is another disscusion.


As I understand the literal teachings of the Koran, which the Jihadist Muslims are following, No other religion or country can be allowed to exist.

Mobius,

Shutup. j/k

Anyway, that was the intent of my post. And to generate a discussion. It seems so many people are trying to passify or get along with the Jihadist Muslims. I don’t see this as a possibility.

Again, sorry if my post is not structured well or my thoughts appear disjointed. Damnit Jim, I'm a truck driver, not a journalist!

VV

VonVulcan wrote:that a good Muslim as defined by the spirit of this piece, a Jihadist, cannot be a good American.

But it did NOT define them as specifically Jihadists. It stated that Any Muslim who believes Allah over the State can't be a good citizen. A statement which obviously disqualifies Christians MORE than Muslims, because Christians are more likely to believe in the separation of Church and State. Jihadist can Identify the state WITH the church, thereby giving it authority. The majority of the other complaints apply equally well to non-extremist Muslims and the vast majority of Christians as well.

Most tellingly, look at the ending:

perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

There can be no question here. It is painting with a VERY broad brush, and its brush is so broad it will paint Christians right out of citizenship as well.

VonVulcan wrote:However even the most hard line Christian, jew, you name the religion (non Muslim) have not attacked anyone or caused as much turmoil as the muslim extremist that practice jihad.

Ireland, both the Catholic and the Protestant groups.
The Basque separatist
Eric Robert Rudolph and the entire "Christian Identity" movement
I think Bosnia certainly would qualify.
Does Jim Jones Count? Hmmm, possibly not.

Now then, the Jihadist movement is bigger and more trouble at this moment, but you can't say that Christians don't have their terrorists. DEADLY terrorists. Every bit as evil as the Jihadists.

If you backed up in time a bit, you would find an age when Islam was the open and civilized society and the Christian countries barbecued anyone who didn't fit in to their view of religion. Christianity went forward and Islam went backwards, largely, I believe, because Christianity started moving towards the separation of Church and State, while Islam further cemented them together.

The danger is the unholy amalgamation of church and state. No matter WHICH church it is, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or any other. As soon as the church and state become mingled, atrocity and repression follow.

---

"[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and... that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produced an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli, 1797, Article XI
negotiated under George Washington and ratified by the Senate under John Adams:

Kilarin wrote:Ireland, both the Catholic and the Protestant groups.

I don't know about the others, but I can tell you that, contrary to popular beliefs, the Irish Troubles were not battles of Catholics versus Protestants. They were battles between the Unionists and the Replublicans, which were not religion-based groups; they were simply groups depending on whether you wanted Ireland to be a free state or not.

TIGERassault wrote:the Irish Troubles were not battles of Catholics versus Protestants. They were battles between the Unionists and the Replublicans, which were not religion-based groups; they were simply groups depending on whether you wanted Ireland to be a free state or not.

While acknowledging that the conflict is much more complicated than just Catholic vs. Protestant, and that there have been protestants who joined the independant side and vice versa, it's still obvious that religon is an important element in this conflict.
One of the reasons Ireland resisted Brittish rule was that Ireland was Catholic and Britain was not. And since the very begining, religion has been a vital point in the conflict.