Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The beginning of the jihad in Europe?
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 121 of 301 (258194)
11-09-2005 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
11-09-2005 4:27 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Yaro, are you stating it is OK to be religiously motivated if some non-religious people agree with you?
No, not at all. It's not religious vs. non-religious. It's weighing whats good for a population. In other words, what the population desires in conformity with the constititution.
Clearly, both Ghandi and MLK applied their theology to politics. Under the concept of separation you stated earlier, they were mixing religion and politics and thus would be wrong.
Incorrect. Ghandi and MLK, may have had strong religious beliefs which they used as inspiration, but their struggle was not religiously motivated. It was a struggle against opression. As I said before many other people in the civil rights movement had little at all to do with religion, does that make their contibution any less vital?
MLK's struggle dealt with equality. His argument was based on the constitution and the goal of a pluralistic society. Not weather or not Jesus was the king godman.
Now, you are saying because non-religious people agreed with them that it was OK.
No, I am saying that their religious inclination was a moot point on the issue because religion had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.
So let's apply that, say, to gay marriage. Polls indicate over 80% of America disagrees with gay marriage. So since a large number of people agree with the Christian right, they are not actually trying to do anything wrong? They are not trying to force their religious beliefs into law?
I would pick a different example, because I'm willing to conseed there shouldn't be gay marriage or any other marriage. I think civil unions should be a legal contract any pair of adults can enter into and let the churches decide who is married. I don't think the Gov. should be in the marriage buissness beyond that.
Lets talk about civil rights agin since thats more clear cut. At the time Im sure a sizable amount of the white majority was against civil rights. MLK was still right because his issue was a constitutional one and relvant to the goal of maintaining a pluralistic society.
Civil rights was not a religious movement.
What we see now adays with the christian right is that they want to legislate purely religious things. Like the 10 commandments.
Equal rights applys to everyone in a pluralistic society, the 10 commandments dont. They advocate, and are part if, one distinct religion. As such, they should not be a part of our govt.
Or is just that it's OK for religious people to be motivated to enact legislation and policy when you agree with it, but it's wrong if they want to enact stuff you disagree with?
I think the above answerd this question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 4:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 5:31 PM Yaro has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 122 of 301 (258196)
11-09-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Philip
11-09-2005 2:46 PM


Re: CS's Anti-Tolerationalistic Stance
It appears we've come to the point where tolerating intolerance is a virtue. Of course, that is rationalized in various ways, such as:
* we're responsible for the violence committed against us;
* it's only a few criminals, so what's the big deal?;
* let's understand the root causes (which is a variation of we're responsible and favourite leftist explanations about poverty being the source of all social ills and criminality).
You might find this essay interesting. I did.
Terrorism: the Root Cause
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Philip, posted 11-09-2005 2:46 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Philip, posted 11-09-2005 7:25 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 123 of 301 (258197)
11-09-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Jazzns
11-09-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
Those are good points, as are those in your post above.
Steve
PS We can agree on some things, I'm glad to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Jazzns, posted 11-09-2005 2:38 PM Jazzns has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 124 of 301 (258199)
11-09-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by randman
11-09-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Why the Islamic world, and not the Christian one
I think you and Yaro are both making good points and, as Jazzns says, talking past one another a fair bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 3:26 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 125 of 301 (258207)
11-09-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Yaro
11-09-2005 4:40 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
It's weighing whats good for a population.
OK, let's do a test. What's good for a population in the areas of gay marriage, abortion and school prayer?
Some say one is good and another says it's not. I can hardly see how being pro-life is trying to force one's religion on others, but that seems to be what you think.
Let's take gay marriage. For various reasons, most Americans don't want it. It is not forcing religion on people either, regardless of what stance one has on it.
Let's take school prayer. Now, this one is interesting because I am not sure having a teacher lead prayer is a good thing, but this at least is a religious issue. My point on this is 2-fold, one that letting kids pray is a good thing, but making them pray is not, and secondly, if this is the real infraction of trying to ram one's beliefs down one's throat then it's a heck of lot less than the liberals ramming down government programs, high taxes, excessive regulations, etc,....down everyone's throat.
Who is the real boogeyman here?
Also, MLK and Ghandi were religiously motivated. It's such an obviously indebatable point as to be absurd on your part for making it. MLK, for instance, was a gospel preacher, not a Constitutional lawyer, and he preached and worked for the kingdom of God.
As far as the civil rights movement, it was often led by Christian ministers and for them, it was religiously motivated.
The fact it was not exclusively religious though is the whole point. Religion should be involved with politics in non-ecclesiastical affairs, such as issues of morality and justice, which the civil rights movement was part of.
Civil rights was not a religious movement.
What we see now adays with the christian right is that they want to legislate purely religious things. Like the 10 commandments.
How is the 10 Commandments being posted forcing religion on people? It's part of our cultural heritage and having a statue of it no more forces religion on people than having a statue of Ben Franklin.
How are any issues of the Christian right exclusively religious?
But here is the thing you refuse to answer. You earlier claimed it was wrong for religious values to be used to influence legislation, even listing an example with Carter and abortion, and now claim that it's OK for ministers of the gospel like MLK to preach in churches and use their ministry and religious values to influence legislation as long as the issue is not exclusively religious.
So which is it?
Can churches, pulpits, church busses, ministers of the gospel and religious values and sermons all be acceptable things to be injected into the political arena or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 4:40 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 6:40 PM randman has replied
 Message 130 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 7:14 PM randman has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 126 of 301 (258233)
11-09-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
11-09-2005 5:31 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
OK, let's do a test. What's good for a population in the areas of gay marriage, abortion and school prayer?
Some say one is good and another says it's not. I can hardly see how being pro-life is trying to force one's religion on others, but that seems to be what you think.
Many "pro-life" people have little argument in their favor other than emotional appeal. I have yet heard a persuasive "pro-life" argument, but if a factual argument that apeals to evidence rather than emotion or religious dictates were presented, Im more than willing to change my mind.
I will grant you abortion as an issue that is ripe for debate. I think arguments can be made. Unfortunetly the "pro-life" movement seems to be saturated with "picketing" nutjobs who harass women at the clinic etc.
Let's take gay marriage. For various reasons, most Americans don't want it. It is not forcing religion on people either, regardless of what stance one has on it.
I already said that Im against marrige in general. I think the govt. should call them all civil unions and let the churches decide who is married.
In any case, if you are going to have marrige, in the legal/contractual sense, there is no reason not to allow gay folks to get married. It's a matter of equal rights and as of now it seems marrige descriminates between men and women.
It wasn't too long ago that we had laws banning interacial marriges and a majority of the population oposed it. But, it was a matter of equal rights. Plain and simple.
Can you give me a good reason, aside from religious convictions, why gay people shouldn't be married?
Let's take school prayer. Now, this one is interesting because I am not sure having a teacher lead prayer is a good thing, but this at least is a religious issue.
Agreed.
My point on this is 2-fold, one that letting kids pray is a good thing, but making them pray is not, and secondly, if this is the real infraction of trying to ram one's beliefs down one's throat then it's a heck of lot less than the liberals ramming down government programs, high taxes, excessive regulations, etc,....down everyone's throat.
Left field.... Im not talking about any of those issues. Many conservatives have a very secular philosphy toward govt. your beef is not with liberals in this case. Come back to the conversation. What's your point here exactly?
Also, MLK and Ghandi were religiously motivated. It's such an obviously indebatable point as to be absurd on your part for making it. MLK, for instance, was a gospel preacher, not a Constitutional lawyer, and he preached and worked for the kingdom of God.
I said it before, and I will say it again, the basis for their struggle was the injustice in their society. Their struggle was not religiously based, though they may have taken strength in their religion, or drawn inspiration.
Civil Rights was not religiously motivated. It was a matter of equal rights. Same thing with Gandih who didn't belive in a kingdom of god.
As far as the civil rights movement, it was often led by Christian ministers and for them, it was religiously motivated.
The fact it was not exclusively religious though is the whole point. Religion should be involved with politics in non-ecclesiastical affairs, such as issues of morality and justice, which the civil rights movement was part of.
Yes, I am not against this, as long as RELIGION IS NOT THE POLATICS. Get it? The people can be religious, the polatics must not be so.
Again, if we had a muslem majority, they can belive women should wear headscarves all they want, but they cannot legislate that point. That point is simply a religious matter and not applicable to society as a whole.
So when people freak out about Janet Jacksons boob, or try to ban Tom Sawyer, its religious BS that's clouding their judgement.
How is the 10 Commandments being posted forcing religion on people? It's part of our cultural heritage and having a statue of it no more forces religion on people than having a statue of Ben Franklin.
Wrong. It's not part of cultural heritage. Our cultural heritige came over on ships full of starving imagrants from all over the world. A melting pot, tons of different beliefs.
Showing the 10 commandments excludes all the other beliefs that are also part of our heritage. If you want to show those, then you gotta show everyone elses. I want a statue of budah, an enshrined koran, and an alter to Vodon.
How are any issues of the Christian right exclusively religious?
I dunno. Maybe something in their name.
But here is the thing you refuse to answer. You earlier claimed it was wrong for religious values to be used to influence legislation, even listing an example with Carter and abortion, and now claim that it's OK for ministers of the gospel like MLK to preach in churches and use their ministry and religious values to influence legislation as long as the issue is not exclusively religious.
Maybe I was unclear. I ment that the legislation must not be religious values. i.e. You cant make a law saying that Jesus is god. or something. You can't exclude people, period. I don't care if you think a flying saucer came down and told you what right and wrong is, I don't care if they told you people have to wear tootsy-pops in their ears, you can't make a law forcing people to wear tootsy-pops in their ears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 5:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 6:55 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 129 by Philip, posted 11-09-2005 7:06 PM Yaro has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 127 of 301 (258239)
11-09-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
11-09-2005 2:56 PM


Re: CS's Anti-Tolerationalistic Stance
Sorry jar ... my surmising is surmising, even questionings of which I myself stated (above) “I don’t know”. My highly reactionary conjectures to CS’s bloody French-Islamic articles (did you read them?) seem to defy “why”, “how”, etc. responses. I view them as on topic.
As for establishing the most excellent law(s) to exterminate France’s *poor* terrorists (whether Mose’s law, God’s, Christ’s, Ishtar’s, men’s, yours, mine, John Bunion’s, or whosoever’s), perhaps you yourself might suggest more coherently.
Note: Are you proposing that children be taught Moslem/Ishtar hate-religion *at school*; that this might help protect those children from Moslem jihad?
Does it (still) sound silly that France's people have *seen* enough terrorist-Islamic religion to eschew children studying it in their schools!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 2:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 11-09-2005 9:00 PM Philip has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 128 of 301 (258241)
11-09-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Yaro
11-09-2005 6:40 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Maybe I was unclear. I ment that the legislation must not be religious values. i.e. You cant make a law saying that Jesus is god. or something. You can't exclude people, period.
Well, since no one I know of is proposing that anywhere, or at least no major camp, certainly not the religious right, what's you beef?
Btw, if you have not read arguments based on science concerning abortion, then you just haven't listened to what people have to say. One of the main ways the pro-life movement has presented it's case is through facts, videos, etc,...that deal with the baby's development in the womb, hardly strictly emotional stuff as you claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 6:40 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 8:29 PM randman has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 129 of 301 (258245)
11-09-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Yaro
11-09-2005 6:40 PM


Re: How about more coherent law against pre-terrorists
Yaro,
Might you (or Randman) suggest any real legislation (specific or general) for France's situation that might help avert France's *pre-jihad* terrorism?
I'd appreciate your patient feedback.
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 6:40 PM Yaro has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 130 of 301 (258251)
11-09-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
11-09-2005 5:31 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
I largely agree with you:
Gay marriage is not strictly a religious issue. Children for innate psycho-developmental reasons need both a mom and dad. Gay marriage will inevitably mean legal and social sanction for gay families to be seen as any other. This is acase of children's rights, the right to a mom and dad (aside from when tragedy strikes). Bear in mind that couples can divorce, but both parents remain involved with the children.
I oppose school prayer, because that is faith being obligaed of kids. Excusing kids from prayer marks them out. Perhaps, instead, there can be religion classes for kids whose parents request them.
Yes, the left does ram its agenda doen our conservative throats. But it does that, usually, through elected officials. If we want that chAnged, we'll just have to keep electing more and more conservative electors. However, and as you are likely thinking, what about activist courts pushing a left wing agenda? That is a problem. The solution: elect enough conservatives who will appoint non activist judges.
I have mixed feelings about the Ten Commandments being posted at court houses. They are, as yiou say, part of our cultural heritage. And more, they are the root of our legal sensibilities, even, perhaps, laws. And yet, there are also religious, and, specifically, of judaism and Christianity. Can the courts be seen as neutral and representative of all if a major Judeo=Christian religious statement is posted at court houses, where justice is to be blind, where non religious and those of all faiths are subject to our secualr laws? Put differently, what if Iraq arises a true democracy...Would Christians and non religious Muslims trust in the impartiality of the courts if the Koran is prominently displayed at the courthouses? (Yes, the Koran has many serious flaws with respect to justice, but the point remains in principle regardless.)
As for this excellent question: "Can churches, pulpits, church busses, ministers of the gospel and religious values and sermons all be acceptable things to be injected into the political arena or not?"...Yes. But only because they are consistent with the popular will as expressed through elected reps, not because they are religious per se. For example, evangelicals may object to gay marriage and lax standards for public sexuality for religious reasons. I support them, but for secular and psychological reasons. No matter our motivation, the key is that the public agree in the majority to these objections and pass whatever laws and regulations are consistent with these contrary views and values.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 5:31 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 7:43 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 131 of 301 (258256)
11-09-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by CanadianSteve
11-09-2005 4:53 PM


Re: Terrorism: The Root Causes
Thanks for that 4th article (Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz) which I quote:
“Muslim bellicosity and violence are late 20th century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny,” ... worse in the early 21st century. Even Saudi and Pakistani commentators have pointed out that while not all Moslems are terrorists, almost all terrorists are Moslems . and most of these are Arabs.
These Arabs lead the charge against Israel, the Jews, the USA, Western civilization, Christians, other non-Moslems, and even against fellow Moslems who are deemed not “Moslem enough.” This global terrorist movement has been termed “Islamist” or “Jihadist,” as distinct from the vast majority of Moslems who are peaceful people and do not seek to subjugate the world to Islam. Some have come up with the term “Islamofascist” to demonstrate the similarities between the Islamist movement and that of the Nazis (inter alia, commitment to genocide of Jews, world domination, belief in superiority of their own religion/culture, belief in their right to rule). In short, the Islamofascist replaces “Deutschland uber alles” with “Islam uber alles.”
...The most frequently mentioned “root cause” of Arab hatred and pursuant terrorist assaults is poverty. This Marxist explanation is very seductive. Waging a war against poverty is far more appealing than waging a war against extremist Moslems.
...It should be obvious that the riots are staged by totalitarian Moslem governments"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 4:53 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 132 of 301 (258258)
11-09-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by CanadianSteve
11-09-2005 7:14 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Good post.
As an aside, I am not sure why the Left objects to religious people being involved on the conservative side when the majority of religious activity being involved in politics, at least here in America, stems from liberal democrats coopting minority churches during election time.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 07:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 7:14 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 8:27 PM randman has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 301 (258260)
11-09-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by CanadianSteve
11-08-2005 9:47 AM


Re: A prominent psychiatrist explains why Muslims assimilate less
It's like you're imprisoned to equivalence arguments, so trapped by this conventional cultural reflex that you can't escape it for even one bit of light and truth.
Yeah, that sure was convincing. I do not equivocate between fundamentalists of any religion and my culture. And there differences between the threats faced between Islamic and the other Abrahamic fundies. I have already discussed this.
Given the amount of time I have spent describing the differences, and stating that I believe Islamic militancy is a serious problem, and supported the Afghan war, its pretty ridiculous to see a claim of equivalency thrown at me.
It all depends on WHO we are talking about.
Israel was reborn after less than 2,000 years, not 3,000, and it was not reborn a biblical era nation, but a modern day liberal democracy.
When did the Kingdom of Israel fall, and when was the nation of Israel established? I was only rounding and maybe I it is closer to 2000 years rather than 3000. That's fine. What's the difference? It's only 1300 years back to the time period you fundies are critizing muslims for wanting to go back to, that is less than the time you guys want to turn the clock back for Israel. Right?
And it is not a liberal democracy. If it had been then it would not exist. The vast majority population in the region did not want it. They did not get a vote. A dictate was imposed upon them. The majority population was then divided up so that portions were forced to live in a new nation which by law restricts their movements and keeps them a voting minority.
Both of those prevent the nation of Israel from being considered a modern liberal democracy.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-08-2005 9:47 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by CanadianSteve, posted 11-09-2005 8:55 PM Silent H has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 134 of 301 (258293)
11-09-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by randman
11-09-2005 7:43 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Yes! In fact, it's not as if many churches have not gone left wing, even far left wing. Ever hear the left object to their participation in the political process? Not I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 7:43 PM randman has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 135 of 301 (258295)
11-09-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by randman
11-09-2005 6:55 PM


Re: How about MLK,jr?
Btw, if you have not read arguments based on science concerning abortion, then you just haven't listened to what people have to say. One of the main ways the pro-life movement has presented it's case is through facts, videos, etc,...that deal with the baby's development in the womb, hardly strictly emotional stuff as you claim.
As I said, I think there are arguments to be made. But using a religion to make your point is not gonna help your case. There is a question as to when a person gains his autonamy and it's a valid one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 6:55 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 9:09 PM Yaro has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024