The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

His ideas were based on Jesus' teachings. It is true Ghandi inspired him, but he considered Ghandi to be following Jesus' teachings on non-violence. Ghandi also said he was following Jesus' teachings but said other religious traditions such as his own also had non-violent teachings.The fact Ghandi felt the Hindus taught non-violence in some traditions does not negate the fact he thought Jesus taught non-violence. Just because A advocated something does not mean B cannpt advocate it. The idea they are mutually exclusive is completely wrong.Moreover, the fact MLK mentioned Ghandi in no way means he did not think he was following Jesus Christ. The man was an ordained minister of the gospel for heaven's sake. He was preaching in churches. His political activism and methods were borne straight out of, and were identified with his religion.Lastly, the fact Ghandi's faith expanded to embrace more than one religious tradition does not make his beliefs any less faith-based.Jesus, MLK, Ghandi were all faith-based people, and both Ghandi and MLK applied their faith to the political arena with considerable impact.

Women's rights initially came out of faith-based political action. Religion is a driving force in soceity. The Constitution does not seek to stop religion from being an influence. The Constitution merely forbids the State from coercing or limiting religious expression and legislating ecclesiastical affairs.Faith-based by the way does not necessarily mean "good" but most of the areas of overlap where faith-based ideals and values can affect civil policy and legislation are "good" since they tend to relate to fairly universal values, at least in my opinion.

Yaro, are you stating it is OK to be religiously motivated if some non-religious people agree with you?What's your position?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.Now, you are saying because non-religious people agreed with them that it was OK.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?Is that what you are saying?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 don't think any of those things are "religious" in nature. Gay marriage, ID in the class-room, abortion, etc,...are things I would argue are not religious issues.Conversely, I would say MLK's agenda and concepts of racial equality, love for all men, forgiveness even for one's enemies and non-violence were all very religious in nature and perhaps more exclusively religious than some of the issues you raised in the sense of thinking that civil rights are granted by God, not mere privileges granted by the State.So I am not sure on the principle here.On gay marriage, I'll admit that religious beliefs affect one's views on the subject, but that doesn't make it exclusively religious, nor a religious agenda. Same with abortion, and contrary to what many claim, I think ID is valid science but we won't go there for now.You just cannot say to people, well, you have a belief on this subject because you are religious, and we have a belief because we are not religious, and so only the opinion of the non-religious people is valid. It's just incorrect.Each issue should be treated separately and on it's own. I think, for example, there is a big difference between abortion and gay marriage. Abortion is a violation of the rights of a human being, specifically it is killing an innocent person. That's how it is viewed at least by pro-lifers, and so it has little to do with religion per se, except back again to the concept that our rights and laws should reflect God's granting rights to us as individuals and God's law or justice.Gay marriage is a completely different issue, and plenty of people that are not religious conservatives oppose it for some reason, something like 80%.Exactly why they oppose it if they don't all accept traditional religious beliefs, I am not sure, but that's where things stand.This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 04:42 PM

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. 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?

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.

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

Since when have pro-lifers used religion to argue for banning abortion. The majority of the arguments consist that it is killing of another human being.It is the liberals insisting that it's OK even to take a half-born child and murder it, and then trying to demonize anyone that disagrees with them as trying to impose their religious beliefs on people.just sicko if you ask me,...but that's the Left for ya!

Good point about it's leftist beginnings.

Holmes, Steve is right that the area was not as populated until Zionists began to return and develop it. His dates may or may not be off, but it is true that a lot of "Palestinians" such as Arafat are not even from Palestine originally. Arafat is Tunisian I believe.Anyway, Israeli Arabs do quite well in Israel, and they are not all fond of the Palestinians. The real enemy of the Palestinians, if you ask me, are the surrounding Arab nations. They asked them to leave so they could invade, and when the war was over, they wouldn't let them come into their nations and rebuild, but kept them confined to camps where they have little prospects for a decent life.Israel doesn't want them back because so many have sworn to Israel's destruction.Imo, the only solution for the Palestianians is an alliance with Israel, but they don't see it that way.

Jar, "Arabs" is way too broad a term here to describe all the different tribes that have lived in the area, but certainly Palestine had Jews there last century. If the Palestinians want to advance ahead, they have to recognize Israel as legitimate and make peace.

very good point

Hmmm....maybe he feels the same way?

I disagree. I've read plenty of first-hand accounts dating back to the 1880s, and it was pretty much as Steve describes. As returning Jews brought prosperity, and there were Jews there at that time as well, non-Jews moved to the area.I don't see Israel as formed by imposing on a majority at all. The Palestinians sided, for the most part, with the losing side in several wars. They lost and so lost their land. They picked the losing side, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and now they don't want to own up to that.Let me ask you this. My wife's family line includes the Lee family in VA. The Yankees took their farm and made it into a national cemetary, you know, Arlington National Cemetary, and never gave it back. Well, it's wrong to a degree to take the Lee family property, but we lost and the North won, and that's how it goes.What would you have thought if southerners started making terrorist attacks on DC to get their land back?Would that be OK?The Palestinians lost the war. That's how it goes sometime.This message has been edited by randman, 11-10-2005 12:40 PM

What are you claiming? The truth is Christianity has always primarily spread through voluntary conversion, not the point of a gun, as you claim. That's how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, and that's how it spread to India, Ireland, Africa and how it spreading today.It is true Catholicism resorted to persecution and force, but at the same time, Catholic persecution was primarily directed at other Christians already converted to Christianity but labelled heretics by the Catholics.I guess you could say some of Latin America was converted at the point of a gun, but even there, it's not altogether true as much missionary work was done to create converts via volunteer conversions, and the slave traders didn't always like that.