The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

OK, what portion of the Syrian  map is controlled by ISIS (30%, 40%, 45%)?  I don't know (and doubt anyone knows absolutely).  Half was merely an educated estimate.  Take it as such.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 As far as I can tell, a caliphate is a form of theocracy (maybe the ultimate form of theocracy).  Large portions of Syria have been controlled by ISIS.  See attached picture.  I am unsure whether ISIS has completed the process of setting up a caliphate in the ISIS controlled areas.  Thus, your position that Syria's [government] has never been a theocracy is technically correct but does not address the fact that half of Syria has been controlled by ISIS.  Thus, your position does not ring true in that a large portion of Syria has been controlled by ISIS (and its caliphate or caliphate in process).  Whereby large portions of the Syrian population have been subjected to rule by a theocracy.

As far as I can tell, sarahzm based her comment to mtierney on mtierney's response to your question, which asked about newcomers "who have been raised in theocracies, and believe a theocracy is a valid form of government." So there was no need for sarahzm's technically correct position to "address the fact that half of Syria has been controlled by ISIS."

ETA: Speaking of technical correctness, I'm not sure that if population distribution is taken into account I'd hang my hat on the accuracy of "half of Syria."

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

ml1 said:

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

mtierney was also complaining about the threat of people coming to this country to "create new laws in their own interest." That's what ridski and I are responding to.  So the question stands -- how is it acceptable for Christians to attempt to change the laws for all of us to conform to their beliefs, but it's not acceptable for Muslims to try to do the same?

RealityForAll said:

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

ml1 said:

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

AFAIK, Sharia works from a template of theocracy.  Thus, Sharia is wholly incompatible with democracy as we know it.  On the other hand, parishioners who do their politicking outside of church, and consistent with their beliefs, is what you would expect based on the Constiution's 1st amendment's freedom of religion in combination with protections on freedom of speech.

ml1 said:

mtierney was also complaining about the threat of people coming to this country to "change our laws." That's what ridski and I are responding to.  So the question stands -- how is it acceptable for Christians to attempt to change the laws for all of us to conform to their beliefs, but it's not acceptable for Muslims to try to do the same?

RealityForAll said:

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

ml1 said:

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

this is a distinction without a difference.  Not to mention inaccurate.  Christians aren't simply "politicking."  They are seeking to change the laws to force compliance with tenets of their faith.  Changing laws in order to force other people to comply with one's own religion is the same whether one is Christian or Muslim.

apparently a person has to be an atheist to be able to perceive the blatant hypocrisy among Christians who are in fear of Muslims changing our laws while they themselves try to force women to comply with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

RealityForAll said:

AFAIK, Sharia works from a template of theocracy.  Thus, Sharia is wholly incompatible with democracy as we know it.  On the other hand, parishioners who do their politicking outside of church, and consistent with their beliefs, is what you would expect based on the Constiution's 1st amendment's freedom of religion in combination with protections on freedom of speech.

ml1 said:

mtierney was also complaining about the threat of people coming to this country to "change our laws." That's what ridski and I are responding to.  So the question stands -- how is it acceptable for Christians to attempt to change the laws for all of us to conform to their beliefs, but it's not acceptable for Muslims to try to do the same?

RealityForAll said:

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

ml1 said:

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

As is probably obvious from previous posts, I'm not really on the reductionist/essentialist train of explaining human behavior. For instance, if one wants to argue that political violence by those identifying as Muslim stems from something inherent to Islam, distinct from other traditions (such as, say, American Christianity), citing ISIS is actually a poor example. Consider that the vast majority of those targeted by ISIS are muslims, and that those who are most strongly resisting, and who are most directly involved in the fight against ISIS, are muslims. If ISIS is a sign that there is a theocratic bent to Islam, then by the same logic doesn't the muslim-led fight against ISIS show that there is an anti-theocratic bent to Islam? On what basis can we cite ISIS as telling us something essential about Islam, but insist that the actual muslims fighting ISIS tell us nothing about Islam?

Also, this whole question of theocracy seems somewhat irrelevant if we're concerned about political violence. Whether the murderers kill in the name of Islam or a united Ireland or white supremacy or opposing abortion or maybe with no stated reason but just taking advantage of NRA 2nd-amendment extremism, dead is dead, and bullets and bombs don't discriminate based on belief.

Broad categories such as "Islam" or "American" don't have any predictive value in helping us tell who might commit violence. OTOH, I'd argue that people who regularly express the belief that certain groups of people are inferior, evil, or dangerous, and that "we" are under attack from "them," are people to keep a wary eye on.

PVW said:

Also, this whole question of theocracy seems somewhat irrelevant if we're concerned about political violence. Whether the murderers kill in the name of Islam or a united Ireland or white supremacy or opposing abortion or maybe with no stated reason but just taking advantage of NRA 2nd-amendment extremism, dead is dead, and bullets and bombs don't discriminate based on belief.

Broad categories such as "Islam" or "American" don't have any predictive value in helping us tell who might commit violence. OTOH, I'd argue that people who regularly express the belief that certain groups of people are inferior, evil, or dangerous, and that "we" are under attack from "them," are people to keep a wary eye on.

Good points.

RealityForAll said:

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

How is transforming Christian dogma into criminal law any different than Shariah?

If people don't like abortion they shouldn't have an abortion.  When you try to force your religious beliefs on me, you are crossing a line.

the fear of a caliphate and imposition of sharia generally come from the same people who believe that the "way of life" in the U.S. is being destroyed.  There is a generalized anxiety that the white Judeo-Christian traditions of this country are being eroded by immigration and threats of terrorism.  It may not be rational to believe that Muslims want to come to the U.S. to change our country, but it fits with the narrative among some quarters that they need to "take our country back."

ml1 said:

mtierney was also complaining about the threat of people coming to this country to "create new laws in their own interest." That's what ridski and I are responding to.  So the question stands -- how is it acceptable for Christians to attempt to change the laws for all of us to conform to their beliefs, but it's not acceptable for Muslims to try to do the same?

In fairness to mtierney, she predicated her comment on a fear that newcomers would "change our democracy," not just "create new laws." Christian "politicking" at least seeks to change laws (a.k.a. "transform dogma") through democratic means; Shariah does not. 

Whether or not mtierney also believes it's unacceptable for Muslims to try do the same through democratic means remains an open question.

let's be blunt -- the idea that Muslims can come here and "change our democracy" is outlandish.

RealityForAll said:

OK, what portion of the Syrian  map is controlled by ISIS (30%, 40%, 45%)?  I don't know (and doubt anyone knows absolutely).  Half was merely an educated estimate.  Take it as such.

I don't know, either. I'd need more educating before I'd hazard an estimate.

ml1 said:

let's be blunt -- the idea that Muslims can come here and "change our democracy" is outlandish.

OK. Outlandishness is not the same as hyprocrisy, though, is it?

Changing laws within the system is precisely what our system is set up for.  This is how change is supposed to work.  Politicking involves convincing, often those who are unaffiliated or atheist, of the rightness of their cause.  

Being anti-abortion is not equivalent to being a creationist (which appears to be what you are implying).  You need not be a church goer to be opposed to abortion.

ml1 said:

this is a distinction without a difference.  Not to mention inaccurate.  Christians aren't simply "politicking."  They are seeking to change the laws to force compliance with tenets of their faith.  Changing laws in order to force other people to comply with one's own religion is the same whether one is Christian or Muslim.

apparently a person has to be an atheist to be able to perceive the blatant hypocrisy among Christians who are in fear of Muslims changing our laws while they themselves try to force women to comply with their beliefs on contraception and abortion.

RealityForAll said:

AFAIK, Sharia works from a template of theocracy.  Thus, Sharia is wholly incompatible with democracy as we know it.  On the other hand, parishioners who do their politicking outside of church, and consistent with their beliefs, is what you would expect based on the Constiution's 1st amendment's freedom of religion in combination with protections on freedom of speech.

ml1 said:

mtierney was also complaining about the threat of people coming to this country to "change our laws." That's what ridski and I are responding to.  So the question stands -- how is it acceptable for Christians to attempt to change the laws for all of us to conform to their beliefs, but it's not acceptable for Muslims to try to do the same?

RealityForAll said:

Citizens being influenced by a particular religion is distinctly different from a government run by religious leaders or pursuant to religious texts.  Is not the purpose of religion to influence people to take action?

ml1 said:

Christians in several states are forcing their religion on everyone by trying to limit access to abortion and contraception.  They have women's health centers right in their sights. How is this more acceptable than the threat that Muslims would try to impose sharia in U.S.?

RealityForAll said:

Are you arguing that those who oppose Roe v. Wade are supporters of theocracy?

And, as such, such persons should be deported, removed or otherwise immobilized?

Is this an attempt at humor?

ridski said:

There's a legal precedent that has been set by Roe vs. Wade and across the country Christians are trying to change that legal precedent. Where should we send them all?




Laws are changed constantly. Here's an article about new and changed laws in NJ that took effect on Jan 1. https://patch.com/new-jersey/r...

that's not how it works with laws.  the laws apply to even those who don't believe.  you don't need to be convinced, but you do have to live under their dictates.  And the only reason people are seeking to change the laws on abortion and contraception are to have the laws conform to their religion.  It's perfectly legal for them to try to do so.  But in practice, it's not any different from someone of any religion imposing their beliefs. 

RealityForAll said:

Changing laws within the system is precisely what our system is how change is supposed to work.  Politicking involves convincing, often those who are unaffiliated or atheist, of the rightness of their cause.

are we just arguing semantics here?  what is the practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means?  as I wrote above, if democratically elected leaders, representing 51% of their constituents imposed an array of Christian laws -- banning sodomy, divorce, abortion, contraception, blasphemy, etc. on all their citizens, isn't that a distinction without a difference?

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

let's be blunt -- the idea that Muslims can come here and "change our democracy" is outlandish.

OK. Outlandishness is not the same as hyprocrisy, though, is it?

ml1 said:

are we just arguing semantics here?  what is the practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means?  as I wrote above, if democratically elected leaders, representing 51% of their constituents imposed an array of Christian laws -- banning sodomy, divorce, abortion, contraception, blasphemy, etc. on all their citizens, isn't that a distinction without a difference?

The 49 percent has a chance to tilt the majority back in its favor without armed revolt. I think that's a pretty significant difference.

I believe in laws against theft.  A prohibition against theft is one of the ten commandments.  Yet we are not enacting religious law when we criminalize theft.  You realize that not all persons believe that theft should be prohibited. 

For example, French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon declared that Property is theft! (French: La propriété, c'est le vol !).  "Property is Theft" is a slogan coined by Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property?    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

Thus, supporting criminal laws against theft does not mean we are obtaining our laws directly from the ten commandments (or other religious dogma).  Instead,  history and experience have shown that theft causes problems in society and, thus, should be prohibited. Similarly, some argue that abortion is a form of murder and causes problems in society (not my POV but I understand it).

PS I would be able to get to your side in an instance where a law stated that creationism needed to be taught in schools alongside evolution.  Because, creationism has no scientific basis.

ml1 said:

that's not how it works with laws.  the laws apply to even those who don't believe.  you don't need to be convinced, but you do have to live under their dictates.  And the only reason people are seeking to change the laws on abortion and contraception are to have the laws conform to their religion.  It's perfectly legal for them to try to do so.  But in practice, it's not any different from someone of any religion imposing their beliefs. 

RealityForAll said:

Changing laws within the system is precisely what our system is how change is supposed to work.  Politicking involves convincing, often those who are unaffiliated or atheist, of the rightness of their cause.

http://www.billionbibles.org/s...

Read the above and then talk about Christianity's Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments List

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

RealityForAll said:

PS I would be able to get to your side in instance where a law stated that creationism needed to be taught in schools alongside evolution.  Because, creationism has no scientific basis.

Happily for you, the specific examples that ml1 gave were closer to creationist instruction than they were to theft.

mtierney said:

http://www.billionbibles.org/s...

Read the above and then talk about Christianity's Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments List

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

It is a while back but commenting on Reality's post on ISIS control in Syria. Maps differ but this is broadly representative. And FAR less than half (on this map black is area of ISIS control)

It's not "Christianity's Ten Commandments".

Also, rest of the Tanakh, which also has religiously-based rules.

Not that I am endorsing the propaganda shared in the link to "billionbibles.org"

mtierney said:

http://www.billionbibles.org/s...

Read the above and then talk about Christianity's Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments List

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Actually what was listed is the Catholic Ten Commandments. The Jewish version places "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" as #1 and combines the Catholic 9 & 10 together as #10. Many Protestant groups add "You shall not make unto you any graven images." as #3 (a dig at Catholic veneration of icons) and combine the Catholic 9 & 10 into a catchall of not coveting anything.

Nope.  Hence the problem when people claim to be citing the "Ten Commandments".

Gilgul said:

Actually what was listed is the Catholic Ten Commandments. 

You can go a long way by getting information from neutral sources like Wikipedia.

Here's what they say about Sharia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And here's the Ten Commandments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And the fact that something that should be cut and dry like the Ten Commandments isn't should tell you something.

And to post something from the Judeo/Christian tradition that ignore Deuteronomy, which is a closer analogue to what gets included in Sharia law. Keep in mind that this passage is directly in the Bible itself:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

So yeah. If you try to attack a place and they surrender, you get to take them all as slaves. If not then when you take over the place kill all the men and rape all the women and keep the children as slaves.

Good times. As a non-religious person I would prefer that we not have any laws from any religions. Secular morality does a pretty good job of getting the good stuff without unnecessary baggage from the Stone Age.

Deuteronomy is of later origins and was the result of efforts by the monarchy and priesthood to centralize and consolidate power. It was literally a text "found" in a building during a renovation. I find the changes, theological and political by the "Reformation" fascinating on many levels. 

mtierney said:

http://www.billionbibles.org/s...

Read the above and then talk about Christianity's Ten Commandments.

Ten Commandments List

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

I think Trump adheres to to half of #5, but that's it.