The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
ml1 said:
I do feel like I'm on the losing side. This country is not particularly welcoming to an atheist perspective
Chin up, teammate. It's tolerable.
Just barely - atheists are about the most demonized group in the country. It's tolerable here in the godless northeast, but it might not be so easy in the Christian hinterlands
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I do feel like I'm on the losing side. This country is not particularly welcoming to an atheist perspective
Chin up, teammate. It's tolerable.
By the way - why do Judeo-Christians get away with proclaiming the genius and uniqueness of the Ten Commandments? Didn't people have similar laws or guidance before them? What about that Hammurabi guy?
When you think about it, most of the 10 C's are kinda obvious anyway. Don't steal? Don't kill? Duh. A regular brain trust this god is.
Don't worry about me. I'm fine.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless it's just a suggestion that I see the Christians' POV. I do. I get that they feel like their way of life is "under attack." But that doesn't justify responding by using religion as a basis for bigotry or discrimination, or passing laws that bring misery to people. I can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
Or do you believe that we shouldn't criticize or argue with anyone else, as long as we believe they have good intentions? Should we just let anti-Muslim bigotry pass if it's being expressed by a devoutly religious person?
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I do feel like I'm on the losing side. This country is not particularly welcoming to an atheist perspective
Chin up, teammate. It's tolerable.
ml1 said:
Don't worry about me. I'm fine.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless it's just a suggestion that I see the Christians' POV. I do. I get that they feel like their way of life is "under attack." But that doesn't justify responding by using religion as a basis for bigotry or discrimination, or passing laws that bring misery to people. I can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
Or do you believe that we shouldn't criticize or argue with anyone else, as long as we believe they have good intentions? Should we just let anti-Muslim bigotry pass if it's being expressed by a devoutly religious person?
I briefly argued three things: that mtierney's comment wasn't, on the face of it, hypocritical; that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; and, just at the end there, that atheists don't have it all that bad in America. The rest were questions.
My answer to both of yours is no, though I think an honest grasp of intentions and POVs on both sides matters when working toward a resolution.
Jesus said that the most important commandments boiled down to loving God and neighbor. Precious little attention to that these days, sadly.
I think given the subsequent responses, that mtierney wasn't making the distinction you're making.
DaveSchmidt said:
... that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; ...
From the standpoint of the "imposed upon" people, there is no practical difference between whether it was by democratic or non-democratic means.
South_Mountaineer said:DaveSchmidt said:From the standpoint of the "imposed upon" people, there is no practical difference between whether it was by democratic or non-democratic means.
... that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; ...
I'll stand by my earlier answer that there is an important practical difference in its fixedness.
All citizens, and lawful residents, of a constitutional republic are imposed upon. However, when fundamental rights are imposed upon then the US Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny (a very high standard). However, most believe abortion is no longer being treated as a fundamental right by the SCOTUS since Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In summary, if you feel imposed upon by laws which affect non-fundamental rights then join the club.
South_Mountaineer said:
DaveSchmidt said:
... that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; ...
From the standpoint of the "imposed upon" people, there is no practical difference between whether it was by democratic or non-democratic means.
I have been misunderstood, my comments dissected and spun around so frequently here, that I am surprised that a poster actually was kind enough to say, carefully, that he understood my view.
No need to throw bricks at him! 
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
Don't worry about me. I'm fine.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless it's just a suggestion that I see the Christians' POV. I do. I get that they feel like their way of life is "under attack." But that doesn't justify responding by using religion as a basis for bigotry or discrimination, or passing laws that bring misery to people. I can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
Or do you believe that we shouldn't criticize or argue with anyone else, as long as we believe they have good intentions? Should we just let anti-Muslim bigotry pass if it's being expressed by a devoutly religious person?
I briefly argued three things: that mtierney's comment wasn't, on the face of it, hypocritical; that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; and, just at the end there, that atheists don't have it all that bad in America. The rest were questions.
My answer to both of yours is no, though I think an honest grasp of intentions and POVs on both sides matters when working toward a resolution.
I completely understand your view. I just don't agree with it.
mtierney said:
I have been misunderstood, my comments dissected and spun around so frequently here, that I am surprised that a poster actually was kind enough to say, carefully, that he understood my view.
No need to throw bricks at him!
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
Don't worry about me. I'm fine.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, unless it's just a suggestion that I see the Christians' POV. I do. I get that they feel like their way of life is "under attack." But that doesn't justify responding by using religion as a basis for bigotry or discrimination, or passing laws that bring misery to people. I can't think of anything more un-Christian than that.
Or do you believe that we shouldn't criticize or argue with anyone else, as long as we believe they have good intentions? Should we just let anti-Muslim bigotry pass if it's being expressed by a devoutly religious person?
I briefly argued three things: that mtierney's comment wasn't, on the face of it, hypocritical; that there's a practical difference between people imposing their religious beliefs through theocratic means vs. democratic means; and, just at the end there, that atheists don't have it all that bad in America. The rest were questions.
My answer to both of yours is no, though I think an honest grasp of intentions and POVs on both sides matters when working toward a resolution.
sarahzm said:
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.
This reminded me of the first time I was in Paris. Walking around I was surprised to see Hebrew writing on a store window. I realized it was a kosher butcher shop when I saw the meat and was able to understand the French words which said: "Under the direction of the Grand Rabbi of Paris".
I think there were plenty of non-kosher butcher shops in Paris then as there probably are now. But even the French would probably appreciate a few of the "Halal Guys" food trucks.
Every time I try to engage mtierney I end up regretting it. You would think I would have learned my lesson, but I am like Charlie Brown to her Lucy.
mtierney,
Instead of reading the words of religious bigots how about reading the words of Francis:
http://www.catholic.org/news/h...
Terrorism begins when God is removed from the heart.
Reporters asked Pope Francis about Islam and terrorism during his flight home from World Youth Day.
Pope Francis: "Not All Muslims Are Violent, Just Like Not All Catholics Are Violent"
Inform
00:0000:55
Pope Francis takes questions from reporters on his flight home to Rome.
Highlights
By Marshall Connolly (CALIFORNIA NETWORK) Catholic Online (www.catholic.org) 8/3/2016 (9 months ago)
Published in Living Faith
Keywords: Pope Francis, war, religion, Islam, faith
LOS ANGELES, CA (California Network) - Antoine Marie Izoarde, from i.Media asked the following question: The question is a little difficult; Catholics are a bit in shock, and not only in France, after the barbarous assassination of Fr. Jacques Hamel - as you know well - in his church while celebrating the Holy Mass. Four days ago you here told us that all religions want peace. But this holy, 86-year-old priest was clearly killed in the name of Islam. So Holy Father, I have two brief questions: why do you, when you speak of these violent events, always speak of terrorists, but never of Islam, never use the word Islam? And then, aside from prayer and dialogue, which are obviously essential, what concrete initiatives can you advise or suggest in order to counteract Islamic violence?
Take the Prayer Trivia Quiz now!
Pope Francis made this reply:
I don't like to speak of Islamic violence, because every day, when I browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in Italy. this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law. and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics! If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence . . . and no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there's everything. There are violent persons of this religion. this is true: I believe that in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them. When fundamentalism comes to kill, it can kill with the language -- the Apostle James says this, not me -- and even with a knife, no? I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true. I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think . . . They seek peace, encounter . . . The nuncio to an African country told me that the capital where he is there is a trail of people, always full, at the Jubilee Holy Door. And some approach the confessionals -- Catholics -- others to the benches to pray, but the majority go forward, to pray at the altar of Our Lady... these are Muslims, who want to make the Jubilee. They are brothers, they live. When I was in Central Africa, I went to them, and even the imam came up on the Popemobile. We can coexist well. But there are fundamentalist groups, and even I ask. there is a question. How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work. they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups. One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast how they slit the Egyptians' throats or other things. But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS. but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist.
Izoarde: Your concrete initiatives to counteract terrorism, violence?
Pope Francis: Terrorism is everywhere. You think of the tribal terrorism of some African countries. It is terrorism and also . . . But I don't know if I say it because it is a little dangerous. Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person -- men and women -- this is already the first terrorism! You have cast out the wonder of creation -- man and woman -- and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!
Pope Francis has delivered an amazing statement on the true nature of terrorism, and the true nature of Islam.
Terrorism is not fueled by the religion if Islam itself. Terrorism is fueled in large part by a lack of work and opportunity for people. When the pursuit of money instead of the well-being of people is the aim of a society, we have the conditions for terrorism. In fact, this removal of God from the center of our lives, and His replacement with money is the first terrorism. This is the root from which all terrorism flows. Muslims and Catholics can coexist. There are many examples of Catholics and Muslims abiding together. Muslims have attended Catholic services and are even participating in the Extraordinary Jubilee. How can Islam be to blame? Indeed, as Pope Francis has pointed out, organizations such as the Islamic State are evil, but they are also not Islam. They are perversions of Islam. The presence of violent Muslims is no more an indictment of their religion than the existence of violent Catholics. There are violent people in every demographic. If we wish to fight terrorism, we must resist the temptation to become terrorists ourselves. One way to resist is to avoid violence. Another way is to carry a true understanding of the wonder of creation. When we understand creation, and the role of God at the center of all, we find it is impossible to do harm to anyone. We know that our mission is to care for and love one another. And we do not judge people by the lot. The media must not be allowed to speak for Pope Francis. The media would have you believe many things that are untrue about Pope Francis and the words he speaks. The Holy Father has issued no condemnation of Islam. Nor has he said the two faiths are on the same level. The ability to coexist does not mean that Islam is equal to Catholicism. As Catholics, we believe the only full and true revelation of the God is present in the infallible teaching of the Church. But despite this difference, we must not judge or terrorize our Muslim neighbors, or scapegoat them for what a misguided minority do. Instead, if we appreciate the primacy of the Catholic Church, then we will strive to coexist and appreciate one another, and we will do no harm no matter the depth of the divisions between us.
Subscribe Now - Catholic Online YouTube
---
'Help give every student and teacher Free resources for a world-class moral Catholic education'
Copyright 2017 - Distributed by THE CALIFORNIA NETWORK
Pope Francis Prayer Intentions for MAY 2017
Christians in Africa. That Christians in Africa, in imitation of the Merciful Jesus, may give prophetic witness to reconciliation, justice, and peace.
I opened your link, Lost, because the words of the Pope are the words Christians/ Catholics have heard often in our churches since 9/11.
The evil the world is suffering is from a perverted mindset which uses "religion" as cover to do the work of the devil.That is all the more reason we need to awaken true Muslim leaders to step up and condemn these purveyors of hate in the name of God.
This is obviously a false statement
mtierney said:
Terrorism begins when God is removed from the heart.
did you have this article on domestic & religious terrorism in your news? Concerns a US case.
Evil and mental illness surround us all.
joanne said:
did you have this article on domestic & religious terrorism in your news? Concerns a US case.
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
shuttling to and fro on my limited time out (health aide on duty) I enjoy listening to PBS on the car radio. Today's NYT has a forensic photo of the remains from the backpack believed to have the explosives used in the Manchester incident. This photo was not released to the public and the British investigators are quite upset that this was published. It had been leaked! The Times had no compunction using this leaked evidence -- being first with news, real or fake, is more important
mtierney said:
shuttling to and fro on my limited time out (health aide on duty) I enjoy listening to PBS on the car radio. Today's NYT has a forensic photo of the remains from the backpack believed to have the explosives used in the Manchester incident. This photo was not released to the public and the British investigators are quite upset that this was published. It had been leaked! The Times had no compunction using this leaked evidence -- being first with news, real or fake, is more important
My understanding is the pictures were released by US law enforcement sources to the Times. There was a lack of understanding by US officials on the security and confidentiality of the pictures.
When a law enforcement source releases information to a media outlet its expected the media, in this case the NYT, would use it.
The Brits understand that and are not blaming the NYT. They are blaming US officials for releasing info.
American journalists traditionally have a more open relationship with the police and intelligence services than their counterparts in the UK. The police in Manchester and the British government aimed their anger not at the journalists, who were just working their sources, but the US officials supplying the information, claiming the premature release of the name hampered the investigation.
Wow! You are a clueless.
mtierney said:
shuttling to and fro on my limited time out (health aide on duty) I enjoy listening to PBS on the car radio. Today's NYT has a forensic photo of the remains from the backpack believed to have the explosives used in the Manchester incident. This photo was not released to the public and the British investigators are quite upset that this was published. It had been leaked! The Times had no compunction using this leaked evidence -- being first with news, real or fake, is more important
And you are a Clinton/Sanders Supporter. Pathetic.
bettyd said:
A Republican voter and Trump supporter. Sad!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Times blames America and Trump but does not explain using documents clearly marked "restricted circulation - official use only".
mtierney said:
Times blames America and Trump but does not explain using documents clearly marked "restricted circulation - official use only".
From the article:
Those photographs bore a stamp saying “Restricted Circulation — Official Use Only,” a designation below “secret” and used in routine government business.
mtierney said:
And you are a Clinton/Sanders Supporter. Pathetic.
bettyd said:
A Republican voter and Trump supporter. Sad!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Times blames America and Trump but does not explain using documents clearly marked "restricted circulation - official use only".
Correction.
The Brits, the ones who were offended, do not blame the NY Times. They blame the US officials who released the pictures to the NY Times.
Also, note often restricted labeled documents are passed to media for dissemination. Such as homicide documents and photos that were restricted during the investigation where the labeling is not removed.
I heard the labeling was applied after the Brits complained. I don't know if that's true.
ps - loose lips sink ship (or the Ship of State).
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new...
Trump's loose lips drive allies to reassess U.S. access to intel
sac said:
Jesus said that the most important commandments boiled down to loving God and neighbor. Precious little attention to that these days, sadly.
Sadly, often the new Christianity is to demonize our neighbors to drive out their demons of abortion, homosexuality, secularism, etc. 
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
Rentals
Advertisement
The author of this was a Lt. Colonel who served 10 years active duty in the army with 3 tours in the middle east. Then he got a law degree from the University of South Carolina. This does not make him an expert in the geopolitical ambitions of the 2 billion Muslims in the world. And nothing in his education, experience or background qualifies him to assess the threat that supposed Sharia Law may be to our constitution or way of life. He may be qualified to see the effect of the Taliban's version of Sharia law in Afganistan. That has NOTHING to do with America, unless you think there is a chance the Taliban may invade the US, take over our government, and impose their laws on every American. But, it does sell books.
Are you aware that there is no single, set version of Sharia Law. Properly translated, Sharia means the rules that any Muslim follows in observing their faith. So when anyone tries to scare you by telling you that people are trying to force Sharia Law into the US, they are either lying to you or they don't know what they are talking about. Use your brain.