DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:20 pm**

Herman Cain Says U.S. Communities 'Have the Right' to Ban Mosques

Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans "have the right" to ban mosques in their communities.

As much as I dislike the death cult of islam, I do not support what Herman Cain is proposing (even if it's just bluster to gain points as a candidate.) In the founding of the United States of America, free exercise of religion was and is a basic right.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:24 pm**

Well said. That's a ridiculous position.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:34 pm**

I wonder what else Cain thinks US communities have the right to ban.. Athiests? The Irish? Blacks? Or maybe people who aren't like him.

because that's all it boils down to. he just doesn't like muslims and is looking for an excuse to keep them away.

fkn idiot.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:52 pm**

I also cherish the right to be without religion- or not having to 'respect' religious law in my own affairs. Fern, I expect that you wouldn't like to have to observe a religious practice that has nothing to do with your belief system either (within your own day-to-day life.) I keep it at arm's length myself if possible.

Posted: **Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:15 pm**

ThunderBunny wrote:I also cherish the right to be without religion- or not having to 'respect' religious law in my own affairs. Fern, I expect that you wouldn't like to have to observe a religious practice that has nothing to do with your belief system either (within your own day-to-day life.) I keep it at arm's length myself if possible.

...

dude. I was commenting on how stupid it was for a congressman to propose banning a certain religion, and how it flies in the face of the US constitution.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:41 am**

or prohibit the free exercise thereof

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:26 am**

I don't think it is in harmony with the constitution to prevent them from building a mosque. I do think that Americans should recognize what they stand for, and realize that it is unAmerican. It seems to me that its a new challenge that this country faces, in dealing with Islam. There's no doubt that Islam is in disagreement with some of the basic principles of American society. And what of a Muslim holding public office? How can a Muslim swear to uphold our constitution when Islam is in such opposition to it?

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:04 pm**

The 'death cult' should build a mosque near ground zero just to tick people off. =P

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:56 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't think it is in harmony with the constitution to prevent them from building a mosque. I do think that Americans should recognize what they stand for, and realize that it is unAmerican. It seems to me that its a new challenge that this country faces, in dealing with Islam. There's no doubt that Islam is in disagreement with some of the basic principles of American society. And what of a Muslim holding public office? How can a Muslim swear to uphold our constitution when Islam is in such opposition to it?

You want to explain to us all how the mainstream, non-fundamentalist practice of Islam is incompatible with the basic principles of the Constitution?

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:29 pm**

If you're going to skew and narrow the criteria... Anyone who is as much of a Muslim as the President is a Christian can surely take any oath whether it jives with traditional Islam or not. I'm more concerned with Muslims who are actually Muslims, not their quaint, westernized, liberal counterparts.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:06 pm**

And what of a Muslim holding public office? How can a Muslim swear to uphold our constitution when Islam is in such opposition to it?

you're freaking kidding, right? you think someone in public office won't do a good job because of his RELIGION?

Then explain how the people in office NOW aren't doing a good job. is it because of their chosen religion?

How about Lawrence summers? is he doing a crap job because of his religion? How about Paul Sarbanes? Did he do a crap job because of his religion?

What if any of them were sikh? Would they do a crap job because of that?

If you're going to skew and narrow the criteria... Anyone who is as much of a Muslim as the President is a Christian can surely take any oath whether it jives with traditional Islam or not. I'm more concerned with Muslims who are actually Muslims, not their quaint, westernized, liberal counterparts.

yeah bull★■◆●. you just tried to tie a religious affiliation with not being able to do a decent job, got called on it, and you're trying to worm your way out of it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:14 pm**

Islam and our Constitution are completely at odds with each other, you can't serve 2 masters. You either have to believe in the right of the individual to believe and do as they wish, or that everyone has to submit to the will and authority of one god with certain "special" folks as his "authority" here on earth. I choose individual rights.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:23 pm**

No, a sikh would do a good job. A mormon would not. A catholic would be a natural because they want to rule the world, they're good at manipulation, and they're used to a steady stream of everyone else's money. I'd list even more bull★■◆● reasons, just to see if your head would actually explode, but I find myself unwilling to invest the time. Religion means more than you seem to think, and less than you seem to think I'm saying. [Mod edit]

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:15 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, a sikh would do a good job. A mormon would not. A catholic would be a natural because they want to rule the world, they're good at manipulation, and they're used to a steady stream of everyone else's money. I'd list even more bull★■◆● reasons, just to see if your head would actually explode, but I find myself unwilling to invest the time. Religion means more than you seem to think, and less than you seem to think I'm saying.

this is coming from the person who said 'islam bad'.

The fact is, if you look into both islam and christianity, you'd find them to be similar. They both have one god who say only worship me, they both say you can't cut your hair, they both say you can't have pork or bacon. And that's not even getting into the more brutal and gorier parts of the bible. This reminds me of how one senator told a court to place a monument with the ten commandments on the outside wall, and how there was an uproar that it was taken down. Yup, that sure was in line with the constitution.

and yet... you guys think one religion is bad and at odds with the US constitution.

or that everyone has to submit to the will and authority of one god with certain "special" folks as his "authority" here on earth.

Oh. you mean like how you should submit to the will and authority of God, and his "special" folks, the holy ghost and the disciples?

But please. humor me. List the reasons why islam and the US constitution are incompatible with each other. If you can't, i'll just scratch it off as another piece of bull★■◆● i've ripped apart.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:35 pm**

You not ripping ★■◆● apart, your using yet another diversion. Lol. Ok I concede, yes exactly like that. Now what? Has nothing to do with the facts.

List the reasons why islam and the US constitution are incompatible with each other.

They are 2 completely different types of Government. To belong to Islam you must denounce all other religions and government and recognize God as the supreme governer. The Constitution is devoid of religous constraints and asks only that you respect the choices of others. Big difference.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:37 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:No, a sikh would do a good job. A mormon would not. A catholic would be a natural because they want to rule the world, they're good at manipulation, and they're used to a steady stream of everyone else's money. I'd list even more bull★■◆● reasons, just to see if your head would actually explode, but I find myself unwilling to invest the time. Religion means more than you seem to think, and less than you seem to think I'm saying.

[Mod edit - this was over the line.]

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:59 pm**

I was purposefully trying to be outrageous...

The point at which Islam and Christianity are similar is the point just before you begin to actually understand them, Ferno.

Posted: **Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:03 pm**

Sure.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:04 am**

99.9% of people who don't like a particular religion don't understand it. I'd put Herman Cain in that category, too.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:32 am**

Moderator: Personal shots do not belong in Ethics & Commentary. Take your drama to the NHB; keep it professional here.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:16 pm**

True enough. I apologize. I was in a bad mood.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:11 pm**

99.9% of people who don't like a particular religion don't understand it.

I wish more people understood islam, yes- especially here in the west.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:52 pm**

flip wrote:They are 2 completely different types of Government. To belong to Islam you must denounce all other religions and government and recognize God as the supreme governer. The Constitution is devoid of religous constraints and asks only that you respect the choices of others. Big difference.

You're getting a religious belief mixed up with religious law.

Have you even talked to a single muslim and asked him if he ignores the constitution?

The problem here is, you're projecting what you've read and heard onto the entire group. What would your reaction be if someone told you all Presbyterians were baby-killing, backwards thinking savages? I'd be willing to bet you'd shoot right up out of your seat screaming 'no! that's not true!'

The point at which Islam and Christianity are similar is the point just before you begin to actually understand them, Ferno.

ooh, would you look at that. a thinly veiled personal attack. awesome!

How come you guys always resort to them in every discussion?

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:02 am**

Thinly veiled nothing. It was a statement of fact. People love to say that Islam and Christianity are similar, but it's a very misleading statement. They're not similar on any point that really matters, other than their assertion that there is one God (but then they use this to deny the Son of God, so there's a big difference there too).

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:52 am**

I love this "I'm not attacking you, I'm stating a fact" excuse that you have for ad hominem.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:40 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Thinly veiled nothing. It was a statement of fact. People love to say that Islam and Christianity are similar, but it's a very misleading statement. They're not similar on any point that really matters, other than their assertion that there is one God (but then they use this to deny the Son of God, so there's a big difference there too).

Islam and Christianity, like Judaism, do share the same god. Don't tell me that "Allah" is not your god, it's simply the Arabic word for "God." German speakers pray to "Gott" and Spanish speakers pray to "Dios," but it's exactly the same as the English and Dutch "God" or the Hebrew "Yawheh."

Second, while Islam may believe that some of the Old/New Testaments are corrupted, they believe in most of it, except that they do not believe that Jesus (called "Isa" in Arabic) was the Son of God, nor do they believe in the Trinity. They believe that he was simply a prophet, lesser than Mohammed.

Thirdly, Islam has a religious law, yes, but Christianity had similar as well. The Vatican used to not only be a church, but a government, who based their laws on Christianity, and did some cruel stuff under it, such as the often-cited Crusades and Inquisition. Christianity was responsible for witch-burning and mass-killings of gays and Jews (no, I'm not referring to the Holocaust). Luckily the secular enlightenment age came about, and we dropped most of those things (except in Spain under Franco).

Fourthly, I will concede that Judaism and Christianity are more similar to each other than Christianity is to Islam, but they all have core similarities, and all three have been used to justify both wonderful and horrible things. Support them for their wonderful aspects and despise them for their horrible aspects, but don't blanket one group as "evil" or "good" (this is general, not specific to anyone).

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:41 pm**

null0010 wrote:ad hominem

... I find it odd that you consider that an attack. He was repeating an ignorant conception, and I called it like it was.

Dakatsu wrote:Islam and Christianity, like Judaism, do share the same god. Don't tell me that "Allah" is not your god, it's simply the Arabic word for "God." German speakers pray to "Gott" and Spanish speakers pray to "Dios," but it's exactly the same as the English and Dutch "God" or the Hebrew "Yawheh."

When the attributes of God are changed, it is no longer God. Allah is different enough (and for a God that does not change), that he is not God. Allah is another "God".

As for Catholicism, it is, in many ways, contrary to the Bible. The church headed by the Vatican existed, and still exists in contradiction to the example for the church set forth in the scriptures. They may call themselves Christians, but the whole deceptive thing has always been about power and control. The prudent, informed onlooker must consider that Christianity that does not follow the example of Christ, and the word of God set forth in the Bible is not truly Christianity. All of that said, it is true that it was "Christianity" that perpetrated all of these things, but it should be quite obvious to anyone who does their research that these things happened as a departure from the Bible, and the example of Christ, not in fulfillment of them, which is something that must be recognized if it is going to be discussed at all.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:19 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:... I find it odd that you consider that an attack. He was repeating an ignorant conception, and I called it like it was.

It's flamebait, but it would have been better if everyone hadn't taken the bait. In a debate, you should spend less time stating that your opponent is ignorant and more time demonstrating it with evidence.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:33 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
null0010 wrote:ad hominem
... I find it odd that you consider that an attack. He was repeating an ignorant conception, and I called it like it was.

Right.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:21 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As for Catholicism, it is, in many ways, contrary to the Bible. The church headed by the Vatican existed, and still exists in contradiction to the example for the church set forth in the scriptures. They may call themselves Christians, but the whole deceptive thing has always been about power and control.

Uh-huh. You're not exactly making your case any better here.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:26 pm**

Look it up if you don't believe me. Read your New Testament (preferably one that translates the original language faithfully, like the the KJV or NKJV, rather than giving a vague, idea-by-idea interpretation). An example is that the Bible says that all believers are priests, and that believers are saints. Your church says that priests, whom you refer to as "father"--in direct violation of the scriptures--are a special class that act as an ultra-pious go-between for God and nonspiritual believers (a biblical contradiction in terms), and that saints are members of the church who have performed some exemplary work, and even then are only given the title after their death.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:50 pm**

Ferno, just the fact that you have no idea that Christianity, Islam, Judaism...etc are in fact systems of governments shows how well our Constitution has fared up to this point, and how little appreciation you actually have for the freedom of religious beliefs you enjoy in this country. Everyone of them are a law and as Dakatsu points out, from the same foundation. You do realize that when Moses received the " LAW"
that it became the official government of those people that very day. What is so hard about that concept? Oh yeah, it's because you have been told all your life that it's only "beliefs" and your thoughts didn't go much further than that.

Anywhere any of these religions become the official governing authority will be a sad and evil day unless God comes and does it Himself. Otherwise, I choose complete freedom from any religiously grounded type of authority that I don't willingly submit to myself.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:02 pm**

I don't think it could be said that Christianity is a system of government. Also I think Ferno joins us from Canada.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:08 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Look it up if you don't believe me. Read your New Testament (preferably one that translates the original language faithfully, like the the KJV or NKJV, rather than giving a vague, idea-by-idea interpretation). An example is that the Bible says that all believers are priests, and that believers are saints. Your church says that priests, whom you refer to as "father"--in direct violation of the scriptures--are a special class that act as an ultra-pious go-between for God and nonspiritual believers (a biblical contradiction in terms), and that saints are members of the church who have performed some exemplary work, and even then are only given the title after their death.

...you really think that a 400-year-old translation, created centuries before modern Biblical study and language analysis, translates the original language "faithfully"? I think it's amusing that so many evangelical denominations place so much stock in this one archaic translation. That doesn't even get into the fact that a strictly-literal interpretation of the Bible is a rather laughable concept.

And last time I checked, the Catholic Church is the only denomination of Christianity that can claim legitimate apostolic succession, unlike the hundreds of fly-by-night evangelical groups that pop up all over the place...but I'm not about to get into a dogmatic argument with you.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:30 pm**

Christianity is absolutely a system of government. Here's the difference I see from Christianity and Islam.
Islam is told to go out and conquer in the name of the God of Abraham and establish his kingdom on earth.
Christianity is told to go out and tell others that God will one day come and establish his kingdom on earth. Islam is told to do it now. Christianity says to wait for it. The promise of Christianity is that God will one day establish a world wide kingdom built on the laws laid forth in the gospel. Where we rule the natural world with Him as Sons and Daughters and not servants or employee's

. Nonetheless, still a way to govern= government. Christianity is not special in that way.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:01 pm**

I never asked you to have a dogmatic argument, I said if you don't believe me look it up. If you don't care enough to do that that's your affair.

400 years has no meaning as to whether the writing is translated "faithfully". It's entirely a matter of respect for the original work over wanting to make a name for yourself or working in your own limited understanding of what the author was trying to convey. It's an ugly sight when someone brings the word of God down to their level for all to "benefit" from. And progress is not so advanced where Biblical translation is concerned. A few manuscripts that for year were rejected by the church have since that time become the newest and greatest thing. There's a reason the originally used text is called the Majority text.

I don't see it, Flip. Jesus said in one place that if his kingdom were of this earth that his servants would fight, and in another place the Bible says that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth. It also talks about submitting to the governing authorities. How is that a system of government?

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:27 pm**

It's called the Kingdom of Heaven Thorne, an existing kingdom that will eventually be established on earth as the only and absolute rule. How is that not government?

EDITED: To more accurately reflect the text.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:00 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As for Catholicism, it is, in many ways, contrary to the Bible. The church headed by the Vatican existed, and still exists in contradiction to the example for the church set forth in the scriptures. They may call themselves Christians, but the whole deceptive thing has always been about power and control. The prudent, informed onlooker must consider that Christianity that does not follow the example of Christ, and the word of God set forth in the Bible is not truly Christianity. All of that said, it is true that it was "Christianity" that perpetrated all of these things, but it should be quite obvious to anyone who does their research that these things happened as a departure from the Bible, and the example of Christ, not in fulfillment of them, which is something that must be recognized if it is going to be discussed at all.

I'd argue that your view on Catholicism following the Bible is a matter of how you interpret it. The reason we have religious sects is from disagreement on what the Bible says. I remember that a difference between Lutherans and Baptists is that one baptises their infants, while the other only does baptisms once the person can actually "believe."

(Tiny nitpick, but don't Catholics have different books in their Bible, like they have a few more or drop a few? That could be considered different interpretation, and account for a few differences.)

Also, I'd say that religion is similar to language, in that they all have degrees of similarity and difference. Just like German and Dutch share more than Chinese and English, religion can be similar to degrees. I'd compare Baptists and Lutherans to dialects, Christians and Muslims to languages, and Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions to language families.

Most of us divide between Islam and Christianity, while you seem to divide at Catholicism and Protestantism. It's, continuing the language theme, similar to the debate about the Dutch language, in that the version spoken in Flanders is different from the version spoken in the Netherlands. Most would say it's the same language, but different dialects, while some actually say they are different languages. Where you draw the dividing line depends upon whom is doing the division.

Or...

[TL:DR] All religions have similarities and differences to a degree, so it depends on where you draw the dividing line. You tend to divide more, while I tend to divide less. [/TL:DR]

...And as someone pointed out, any religion can have a law. It just so happens that Islam is the main religion now that is pushing it's law, but 1000 years ago it would be Christianity, and in the BC times it would have been Judaism or Roman/Greek Polytheism. The difference is that there are LESS religions today pushing their laws, and less individuals doing so.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:55 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:I'd argue that your view on Catholicism following the Bible is a matter of how you interpret it.

Dakatsu wrote:The reason we have religious sects is from disagreement on what the Bible says.

That's a really weak argument.

Dakatsu wrote:I'd compare Baptists and Lutherans to dialects, Christians and Muslims to languages, and Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions to language families.

...

Dakatsu wrote:Most of us divide between Islam and Christianity, while you seem to divide at Catholicism and Protestantism.

I would accept that as an admission of ignorance, which is hardly a fitting follow-up to an argument that my opposition to Catholicism is based on a vague difference of interpretation rather than fact. However I don't think that's an accurate statement either. I "divide" on a much more complex plane, and while technically I would fall closer to "Protestantism" than "Catholicism", I am only strictly "Protestant" from a Catholic perspective.

Yes the catholic Bible has more "books" in it. The "Apocrypha" No this does not mean I need to entertain yet another assumption that this explains my disagreement without it being based in fact. There are various things wrong with the apocryphal books, which is why they were not added the the Bible that the rest of Christendom accepts. An example is that in one of the books an angel of God lies to someone. Books inspired by an unchanging, infinite God should be expected to have a necessary continuity of message, not just a cosmetically similar theme.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:05 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:I'd argue that your view on Catholicism following the Bible is a matter of how you interpret it.
Dakatsu wrote:The reason we have religious sects is from disagreement on what the Bible says.
That's a really weak argument.

How so? You just said that:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There are various things wrong with the apocryphal books, which is why they were not added the the Bible that the rest of Christendom accepts. An example is that in one of the books an angel of God lies to someone. Books inspired by an unchanging, infinite God should be expected to have a necessary continuity of message, not just a cosmetically similar theme.

This is an example of the difference in the sects. Your sect/belief/whatever does not feel that these are true, as they do not characterize the nature of God. Catholics, on the other hand, do feel that this is in the nature of God.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:I'd compare Baptists and Lutherans to dialects, Christians and Muslims to languages, and Abrahamic religions and Dharmic religions to language families.
...

The point is that there is a lot of grey area in religion. You said that the version of God followed by the Muslims is different from the version in Christianity, to where they're not the same. Would you consider Lutherans and Baptists praying to the same God, or is it a different version of God? We have multi-denominational churches where Christians pray to the same God, under the belief that they all pray to the same one. Some people even pray with Jews and Muslims to what they believe to be the common God. At what point does the version of God you believe in and the version that someone else believes in become totally different, to where you're praying to a totally different item. I get that you feel that Catholics are not "true" Christians, but do they pray to the same God that you do?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:Most of us divide between Islam and Christianity, while you seem to divide at Catholicism and Protestantism.
I would accept that as an admission of ignorance, which is hardly a fitting follow-up to an argument that my opposition to Catholicism is based on a vague difference of interpretation rather than fact. However I don't think that's an accurate statement either. I "divide" on a much more complex plane, and while technically I would fall closer to "Protestantism" than "Catholicism", I am only strictly "Protestant" from a Catholic perspective.

Yeah, I should have specified that I didn't mean you were a Protestant, but that you consider your beliefs and Catholicism as two separate religions, not as two separate sects of Christianity.

DescentBB

Banning mosques...

Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...

Re: Banning mosques...