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

I'm going to avoid any complicated scholarly theories and I'm happy lumping the whole Pentateuch together. Even if some of the books and parts of books had differing origins they all ended up evolving together and that's the most convenient 'core' to Jewish holy texts.

Gilgul said:

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. 

if you are saying that American Christians who are worried about Muslim immigrants are concerned that the new arrivals will literally abolish elections and install clerics as rulers for life in U.S. cities and towns, then you are correct and my analogy is false.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

I believe they are.  For example, I don't know that there is any reason outside of one's faith to pass laws that make it more difficult to acquire contraception. 

qrysdonnell said:

I'm going to avoid any complicated scholarly theories and I'm happy lumping the whole Pentateuch together. Even if some of the books and parts of books had differing origins they all ended up evolving together and that's the most convenient 'core' to Jewish holy texts.

Gilgul said:

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. 

You are missing out on some fascinating history and societal development and transformation. HOW they all evolved to come together (and in Jewish terms that did not happen until after 140 CE, Christian terms even later) is what is so interesting. 

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 really do not like engaging you anymore but this really gave me pause.

Moses was not a Christian.

Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, ignore #2

Christians, except for Seventh Day Adventists, have changed #4  

Christians, Jews and Muslims have violated #6 IN THE NAME OF RELIGION!

Gilgul said:

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.

I thought that "what is written in stone" cannot be changed. 

ml1 said:

if you are saying that American Christians who are worried about Muslim immigrants are concerned that the new arrivals will literally abolish elections and install clerics as rulers for life in U.S. cities and towns, then you are correct and my analogy is false.

What I was saying applied to the words that mtierney used to express her own position, which she is free to clarify if she wishes. What worries American Christians in general, and whether they are being hypocritical, is a discussion I can sit out for now.

the only commandments that have become laws across our country are the prohibitions against murder, theft and bearing false witness.  We didn't need religion to pass laws against murder and manslaughter, robbery, fraud, libel, and perjury.

ml1 said:

if you are saying that American Christians who are worried about Muslim immigrants are concerned that the new arrivals will literally abolish elections and install clerics as rulers for life in U.S. cities and towns, then you are correct and my analogy is false.

America was a Protestant country and when the Catholics, mainly Irish, arrived in the middle of the 19th Century there were certainly Protestants who thought that the Catholics would impose their religious beliefs and attempt to impose their Priests as rulers. Heck in 1960 there were people who voted for Nixon because they believed Kennedy would put the pope in charge.

Now the Catholics did set up their own schools and did agitate for certain favorable laws. They are still pushing for laws that would fund their schools with taxpayer money.

Do Christians have the right to push for laws prohibiting women from going topless on a beach?

Do Muslims have the right to push for a law prohibiting women from appearing in public without their hair being covered?

would it help if I abandoned the word "hypocrisy"? Because I think it would be beneficial for the many conservative Christians who are nervous that Muslims would impose their religion on Christians to put themselves in the shoes of non-Christians in this country. Those are people who are just as upset at attempts by Christians to impose their will on women and LGBT people, among others.

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

if you are saying that American Christians who are worried about Muslim immigrants are concerned that the new arrivals will literally abolish elections and install clerics as rulers for life in U.S. cities and towns, then you are correct and my analogy is false.

What I was saying applied to the words that mtierney used to express her own position, which she is free to clarify if she wishes. What worries American Christians in general, and whether they are being hypocritical, is a discussion I can sit out for now.

LOST said:

Do Christians have the right to push for laws prohibiting women from going topless on a beach?

Do Muslims have the right to push for a law prohibiting women from appearing in public without their hair being covered?

Absolutely they have that right.

But they also should both understand that non-believers are going to object to being forced to follow the tenets of someone else's religion.  

ml1 said:

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

In the long, long run, how confident are you that -- regardless of intentions -- secular humanism is not an existential threat to their religion?

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

In the long, long run, how confident are you that -- regardless of intentions -- secular humanism is not an existential threat to their religion?

It is an existential threat in that the adherents of a religion may be converted to secular humanism just as believers of "pagan" religions were converted to Christianity. 

Does Mormonism pose an existential threat to Roman Catholicism? The Mormons surely hope so.

The thing about the 10 commandments, is they're not even really that useful as some form of law. 4 of them are about what sort of God you can worship and how. 3 of them are largely advice as opposed to crimes (honoring father/mother, don't covet, don't bang other people's spouses). 

You end up with three that deal with crimes. Don't kill people and don't steal. Those are the big ones.

Also, don't commit perjury. Sensible, but perhaps not really up there on iconic laws as killing and thieving.

If I was going to come up with a top 4 laws based on a secular moral code I'd include rape and slavery along with killing and stealing. Of course, the Bible wasn't really against either of those. And to be honest, it's not that light on what we'd call killing and stealing these days either.

LOST said:

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 really do not like engaging you anymore but this really gave me pause.

Moses was not a Christian.

Christians, particularly Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, ignore #2

Christians, except for Seventh Day Adventists, have changed #4  

Christians, Jews and Muslims have violated #6 IN THE NAME OF RELIGION!

Did any of you read the link on Sharia?

 Judeo-Christian religions are companions in so many areas and open to interpretation.

However, not too long ago, a Muslim community in an American city wanted to be able to practice Sharia law here.

If you cut off the hand of someone accused of theft and is later found to be innocent, that is a quick and barbaric act. (Yes, people here have been executed here and later found to have been innocent.)

Does a parent/father have the right to murder his own child?

Let's talk about giving freedom of religion to those  who murder and cripple sinners.

That is the "changes in law" that I referred to and someone asked about. Cultural changes in neighborhoods are not involved here. More Mexican, Middle East and Chinese restaurants are great. Allowing women to cover their face to have a driver license photo taken is not acceptable - for greater good. There are many concessions of similar nature that are changing laws here.

mtierney said:

Let's talk about giving freedom of religion to those  who murder and cripple sinners.

The man you voted for commended the president of the Philippines for murdering sinners.

I did. It is anti-Muslim propaganda, and while it is based on some truths, it is formulated to deceive and does not paint a complete or accurate picture of sharia.

mtierney said:

Did any of you read the link on Sharia?

 Judeo-Christian religions are companions in so many areas and open to interpretation.

However, not too long ago, a Muslim community in an American city wanted to be able to practice Sharia law here.

If you cut off the hand of someone accused of theft and is later found to be innocent, that is a quick and barbaric act. (Yes, people here have been executed here and later found to have been innocent.)

Does a parent/father have the right to murder his own child?

Let's talk about giving freedom of religion to those  who murder and cripple sinners.

That is the "changes in law" that I referred to and someone asked about. Cultural changes in neighborhoods are not involved here. More Mexican, Middle East and Chinese restaurants are great. Allowing women to cover their face to have a driver license photo taken is not acceptable - for greater good. There are many concessions of similar nature that are changing laws here.

Even it that were true, how does it justify trying to use the law to compel people to adhere to their religious beliefs? The U.S. is not a theocracy after all.  

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

In the long, long run, how confident are you that -- regardless of intentions -- secular humanism is not an existential threat to their religion?

I understand Sharia to be Muslim religious law, like Halacha is Jewish Religious law. I am not sure about Catholic Canon Law.

mtierney said:


However, not too long ago, a Muslim community in an American city wanted to be able to practice Sharia law here.

Where was that community and what exactly did they want?

Some time ago the Orthodox Jewish Community in Maplewood asked the Town to allow an Eruv. ( I think I spelled it correctly). Some people were opposed. I saw no problem.

The penal codes in the U.S. are not going to be amended to allow parents to kill their children or to punish thieves by chopping off their hands.  Full stop. 

Mtierney,

Mtierney, I read your link carefully.  I also read the links within.   It is mostly lies.  Among other things, it claims that due to sharia law all meat now sold in Paris must be Halal, or sacrificed to Allah, the moon god.  Other claims are equally ridiculous.   This website is perpetrating lies to SCARE you, and thus control you. To get you to vote for who they want you to out of fear.  PLEASE use your brain and look a little deeper.

I have been privileged to know a variety of Muslims, some deeply devout , others not so much.

I can tell you that most of the claims regarding Sharia law are ludicrous.  Do you realize that Sharia means simply "the law" . There many many different interpretations of "Sharia" or the rules of Muslim, just as Christians also have many many interpretations of the bible. Some of the  "Sharia" laws described in your link apply to only the most ultra-radical Muslims. Others are just made up.   Tainting all Muslims with this would be like blaming all Catholics for the Inquisition, or for burning women as witches, or equating all Mormons with Warren Jeffs, or all Christians with the Westboro Baptist Church.  

Believing this claptrap would be the same as claiming that Christians believe that a woman should be stoned for adultery ( the bible says this), that a man can have many wives and concubines, and that slavery is OK.  All of this is in the bible.  

Do a little genuine research.  It's easy with google.  There are many neighborhoods in America that have Muslim populations.  I challenge you to find one example in America, JUST ONE, where any aspect of Sharia law has been codified into any local, municipal, state or federal law, rule or regulation.   Find just one and show us that the link you cite isn't a load of baloney.

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.

There were 15 Commandments originally:

really? Ok to use mockery in this discussion? In another venue, it might be funny.

this info -- gleaned from google -- clarifies the Sharia place in Islamic thinking...

"That said, freedom of religion is an enduring American value. Though the Constitution allows Congress to limit or restrict immigration of any group, many of us do not want to take the step of singling out Muslims due to their personal understanding of God. We must have an honest dialogue about the true political threat to America, Shariah Law, if we are to have religious freedom.

First, too many Americans have not taken the time to learn about Sharia Law, and distinguish political ideology of Sharia Law from a personal belief in God. This is surprising, considering we have been at war with those seeking to further Sharia Law for decades. We've had plenty of time to learn in the decade and a half since the attacks of 9-11.

Unfortunately, Americans have listened to Muslim apologists and even American political leaders claiming that Sharia Law is no different than U.S. law. The refusal to understand the distinction between a competing political ideology and religion has become dangerous. For those who can handle the truth: Shariah Law is a political threat that could spell the doom of our constitutional republic and the end of western civilization.

More

"The war against radical Islam is worldwide and the goal of our enemy is establishment of Sharia Law throughout the world. Americans need not give into discrimination against those who believe in their understanding of God as a personal matter. Let's keep our religious freedom, but let's also determine to keep Sharia Law out of America.

-----

Orangeburg attorney Bill Connor was the senior U.S. adviser to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where he received the Bronze Star. He is the author of the book “Articles From War.” Among his multiple tours of duty in the Mideast, Connor served in a six-month peacekeeping mission between Egypt and Israel.

Mockery?  No.  Humor courtesy of Mel Brooks?  Yes.

so you used google, and all you found was one article that confirmed your POV?

mtierney said:

this info -- gleaned from google -- clarifies the Sharia place in Islamic thinking...

"That said, freedom of religion is an enduring American value. Though the Constitution allows Congress to limit or restrict immigration of any group, many of us do not want to take the step of singling out Muslims due to their personal understanding of God. We must have an honest dialogue about the true political threat to America, Shariah Law, if we are to have religious freedom.

First, too many Americans have not taken the time to learn about Sharia Law, and distinguish political ideology of Sharia Law from a personal belief in God. This is surprising, considering we have been at war with those seeking to further Sharia Law for decades. We've had plenty of time to learn in the decade and a half since the attacks of 9-11.

Unfortunately, Americans have listened to Muslim apologists and even American political leaders claiming that Sharia Law is no different than U.S. law. The refusal to understand the distinction between a competing political ideology and religion has become dangerous. For those who can handle the truth: Shariah Law is a political threat that could spell the doom of our constitutional republic and the end of western civilization.

More

"The war against radical Islam is worldwide and the goal of our enemy is establishment of Sharia Law throughout the world. Americans need not give into discrimination against those who believe in their understanding of God as a personal matter. Let's keep our religious freedom, but let's also determine to keep Sharia Law out of America.

-----

Orangeburg attorney Bill Connor was the senior U.S. adviser to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where he received the Bronze Star. He is the author of the book “Articles From War.” Among his multiple tours of duty in the Mideast, Connor served in a six-month peacekeeping mission between Egypt and Israel.

ml1 said:

Even it that were true, how does it justify trying to use the law to compel people to adhere to their religious beliefs? The U.S. is not a theocracy after all.
 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

In the long, long run, how confident are you that -- regardless of intentions -- secular humanism is not an existential threat to their religion?

Justification wasn't on my mind. I was thinking about your advice to put ourselves in others' shoes. Maybe you really are on the winning side. Maybe it's not unreasonable for Christians, in at least some ways, to feel like victims of secular humanists like you. Ever wonder how you'd act if you feared that you were on the losing side?

I'm pretty sure the act of purposely highlighting the most provocative and extreme interpretations of sharia and ignoring all the innocuous and non-threatening ones falls squarely under the commandment of "bearing false witness against one's neighbor."

And if you're unsure as to whether or not muslims are your neighbor, I might suggest you page forward a bit from the Pentateuch and check out this parable from the Gospel of Luke.

I do feel like I'm on the losing side. This country is not particularly welcoming to an atheist perspective 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Even it that were true, how does it justify trying to use the law to compel people to adhere to their religious beliefs? The U.S. is not a theocracy after all.
 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

Instead of feeling like victims of secular humanists, perhaps Christians can see the parallels.  And realize that virtually no one wants to destroy their religion, but just wants to be left alone to live their lives.

In the long, long run, how confident are you that -- regardless of intentions -- secular humanism is not an existential threat to their religion?

Justification wasn't on my mind. I was thinking about your advice to put ourselves in others' shoes. Maybe you really are on the winning side. Maybe it's not unreasonable for Christians, in at least some ways, to feel like victims of secular humanists like you. Ever wonder how you'd act if you feared that you were on the losing side?