|
Post by rational on Dec 23, 2013 8:34:11 GMT -5
One of the biggest complainers against the recent peace efforts in Syria came from the American arms manufacturers -- they're missing out on another windfall of cash because we're not going to bomb the be-jeezes out of someone. This sounds pretty simplistic.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 23, 2013 8:41:44 GMT -5
Fixit, You could go through the Old Testament & find just as many & actually a lot more of the same kind of statements and supposedly stated by the GOD of Israel. That's right. The difference is that no Western country has an equivalent of Sharia law for OT law. I am pretty certain that people on both sides of these religions can come up with atrocities. The question is, what is the point? Your god is worse than mine?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 12:55:07 GMT -5
That's right. The difference is that no Western country has an equivalent of Sharia law for OT law. I agree fixit. Religions have no place running a country. However, you need to keep that in mind in the US too. Just note that I don't agree with the bottom comment about her and her family, the top comment by her chills me to the bone. Your God is no less violent or brutal than Allah and there are those in your country that would instate his laws on your people, Christian or not. Yes, fundamentalist Christians would be a threat to the secular state if there was enough of them but the majority of Christians prefer the separation of church and state. Can that be said for the majority of Muslims? The following article explains why Islam is incompatible with our Western values of separation of church and state. Islam is more than a religion - its a political movement.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 13:06:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 14:40:47 GMT -5
Why do I end up having to explain to you the difference between Singapore and Hong Kong, and the Middle Eastern countries. The Middle East has all the resources, and WHO GETS TO USE MOST OF THEM? Places like Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. And who in the Middle East profited most? The dictators that western governments kept in office at the expense the whole country. It all happened in the last 100 years, and the Middle Easterners did NOT give it all away -- it was taken away from them. Then why do we actually pay for oil and make some Arabs very wealthy and run a huge deficit in America? Should we just grab it? You're asking ME why YOU pay for it? I'll tell you why YOU pay for it ... the oil companies are running your life too.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 14:42:59 GMT -5
I wonder if Muslims would like America any less if the foreign aid was cut? You're confusing "Muslims" with "foreign governments". You probably also confuse "Arabs" with "Muslims",
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 14:44:49 GMT -5
One of the biggest complainers against the recent peace efforts in Syria came from the American arms manufacturers -- they're missing out on another windfall of cash because we're not going to bomb the be-jeezes out of someone. This sounds pretty simplistic. How does one teach an economics course in this kind of forum?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 15:24:23 GMT -5
I wonder if Muslims would like America any less if the foreign aid was cut? You're confusing "Muslims" with "foreign governments". You probably also confuse "Arabs" with "Muslims", You're missing the point: Seven of the top 11 recipients of US foreign aid in 2009 can be described as Arab, Muslim or both.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 15:59:26 GMT -5
You're confusing "Muslims" with "foreign governments". You probably also confuse "Arabs" with "Muslims", You're missing the point: Seven of the top 11 recipients of US foreign aid in 2009 can be described as Arab, Muslim or both. So what? Now do I have to give you a lesson on what foreign aid is for? You wouldn't either believe me or appreciate it if I did.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 16:14:57 GMT -5
You're missing the point: Seven of the top 11 recipients of US foreign aid in 2009 can be described as Arab, Muslim or both. So what? Now do I have to give you a lesson on what foreign aid is for? You wouldn't either believe me or appreciate it if I did. You're probably right.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 18:44:07 GMT -5
So what? Now do I have to give you a lesson on what foreign aid is for? You wouldn't either believe me or appreciate it if I did. You're probably right. In any case, I'll tell you where the money called foreign trade goes -- directly to the US bank accounts of the US military manufacturers, for the most part. Or into the US bank accounts of American farmers. If you need some help with your income, convince Congress that you have something that some desperately poor country "needs" and they'll announce a foreign aid package for your benefit. Anyway, in this country less than 1 cent of each dollar of your tax dollar goes to foreign aid. They spend far more than that on bombs to blow up Muslim countries.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 20:11:34 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion Bob. Nothing I write is likely to change it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 20:23:28 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion Bob. Nothing I write is likely to change it. Probably nothing you write on this topic. I think I've had better teachers than you've had. That makes it NOT my opinion, but the opinion of a professional economist.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 23, 2013 20:52:29 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion Bob. Nothing I write is likely to change it. Probably nothing you write on this topic. I think I've had better teachers than you've had. That makes it NOT my opinion, but the opinion of a professional economist. Ah, that makes sense. If you changed your professional economist teacher you could get a more positive world view.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 23, 2013 21:04:15 GMT -5
Probably nothing you write on this topic. I think I've had better teachers than you've had. That makes it NOT my opinion, but the opinion of a professional economist. Ah, that makes sense. If you changed your professional economist teacher you could get a more positive world view. I actually have a positive outlook for the world -- and that includes the expectation that Christian religiosity will not become universal. I thought you had a negative view of the world. I guess Christians must glory in their persecutions. And I thought you were complaining about the abuse that Muslims were inflicting on all Christians. How was I to know you liked that kind of treatment?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 24, 2013 1:28:19 GMT -5
I have no problem with Muslims or their religion, just with their need to mix religion with politics. If they could separate church and state then they'd be compatible with the freedoms we enjoy in Western countries.
I would have the same problem with Christians or Jews or any other religion if they wanted to replace our secular way of life with Islamic government.
Your neighbors may well be delightful people, but what if they have large families and send their kids to Islamic schools and radicalised mosques instead of integrating into Western society?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 4:58:49 GMT -5
I slam the faith of Muslims!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 12:25:55 GMT -5
I slam the faith of Muslims! Why? They are following the rules of the OT more than Christians. It does say in the OT that you are to put homosexuals to death. Muslims follow that rule that God set out. Why don't Christians? Not that I want you to, just asking if you're souls are in jeopardy not following the rules of God to the letter. Sorry Snow. You fell for my deliberate typo! "Islam the faith of Muslims!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 13:04:18 GMT -5
Sorry Snow. You fell for my deliberate typo! "Islam the faith of Muslims!" LOL but it's still a great question. (and quit with the typos. they lead to questions like this one...) Snow, I apologise for my behaviour. However, I was just trying to prove to you that indeed the Devil does exist!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 13:17:02 GMT -5
Why? They are following the rules of the OT more than Christians. It does say in the OT that you are to put homosexuals to death. Muslims follow that rule that God set out. Why don't Christians? Not that I want you to, just asking if you're souls are in jeopardy not following the rules of God to the letter.
Snow, you must understand how the OT law was applied. Guy naughtiness was one of a number of capital offences, punishable by death. However, the death penalty could only be enforced in cases where there were two, or three witnesses to the actual offence. With capital offences, if there were not two or three witnesses to the actual crime, and the person was found guilty, an alternative form of punishment had to be given. I understand that in the case of homosexuals, they were forced to convert to Islam, even before Islam became a religion, then they were forced to commit acts of martyrdom whereby they entered "Heaven" and were presented with 72 virgin women. According to the Koran, for martyrs, the va----s are always ready and the p---- never softens. That was the fate of homosexuals who were not caught in the act!
Now you can understand the glee of the Pharisees when the woman who was taken in adultery was caught in the very act! Heh, heh, we've got a stoning!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2013 13:18:05 GMT -5
Snow, I apologise for my behaviour. However, I was just trying to prove to you that indeed the Devil does exist! I am still a non believer that the Devil does exist. So how was talking about Islam or I slam proving to me the devil does indeed exist? Now you have me curious! Do you not agree that it was the devil in me that was winding you up?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 28, 2013 14:38:18 GMT -5
Why? They are following the rules of the OT more than Christians. It does say in the OT that you are to put homosexuals to death. Muslims follow that rule that God set out. Why don't Christians? Not that I want you to, just asking if you're souls are in jeopardy not following the rules of God to the letter.Snow, you must understand how the OT law was applied. Guy naughtiness was one of a number of capital offences, punishable by death. However, the death penalty could only be enforced in cases where there were two, or three witnesses to the actual offence. With capital offences, if there were not two or three witnesses to the actual crime, and the person was found guilty, an alternative form of punishment had to be given. I understand that in the case of homosexuals, they were forced to convert to Islam, even before Islam became a religion, then they were forced to commit acts of martyrdom whereby they entered "Heaven" and were presented with 72 virgin women. According to the Koran, for martyrs, the va----s are always ready and the p---- never softens. That was the fate of homosexuals who were not caught in the act! Now you can understand the glee of the Pharisees when the woman who was taken in adultery was caught in the very act! Heh, heh, we've got a stoning! I think you understand a fair amount of hogwash too.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 28, 2013 15:10:44 GMT -5
I have no problem with Muslims or their religion, just with their need to mix religion with politics. If they could separate church and state then they'd be compatible with the freedoms we enjoy in Western countries. I would have the same problem with Christians or Jews or any other religion if they wanted to replace our secular way of life with Islamic government. Your neighbors may well be delightful people, but what if they have large families and send their kids to Islamic schools and radicalised mosques instead of integrating into Western society? I thought I would peek in on this thread and see how it all ended up. It seemed an unfruitful exercise from the start, and Bob Williston certainly has more patience for it than I do. There are 44 countries that are over 70% Muslim. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country ) Only one is a theocracy, and that is Iran. The Christian world also has only one theocracy, the Vatican State. Of these 44 countries only 7 have laws based on a sharia system: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Of the 10 countries that have the most Muslims, 9 have secular governments; the sole exception is Iran. So your objection wouldn't seem to be with Muslims in general, but with some Muslims. Personally, I don't see dysfunction in any group as a function or result of the religious system, per se. The ill effects that seem to accompany religious systems are the result of power and control of the many by a few, and almost any religious system is well suited to that kind of abuse, based on what I've read and seen. I don't think anyone in any religion can think they are immune to such effects, or that their system is superior in some way. The idea of separation of church and state can go too far in my view, to bar all public religious displays or observances, as an example. People should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 28, 2013 17:15:18 GMT -5
I have no problem with Muslims or their religion, just with their need to mix religion with politics. If they could separate church and state then they'd be compatible with the freedoms we enjoy in Western countries. I would have the same problem with Christians or Jews or any other religion if they wanted to replace our secular way of life with Islamic government. Your neighbors may well be delightful people, but what if they have large families and send their kids to Islamic schools and radicalised mosques instead of integrating into Western society? I thought I would peek in on this thread and see how it all ended up. It seemed an unfruitful exercise from the start, and Bob Williston certainly has more patience for it than I do. There are 44 countries that are over 70% Muslim. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country ) Only one is a theocracy, and that is Iran. The Christian world also has only one theocracy, the Vatican State. Of these 44 countries only 7 have laws based on a sharia system: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Of the 10 countries that have the most Muslims, 9 have secular governments; the sole exception is Iran. So your objection wouldn't seem to be with Muslims in general, but with some Muslims. Personally, I don't see dysfunction in any group as a function or result of the religious system, per se. The ill effects that seem to accompany religious systems are the result of power and control of the many by a few, and almost any religious system is well suited to that kind of abuse, based on what I've read and seen. I don't think anyone in any religion can think they are immune to such effects, or that their system is superior in some way. The idea of separation of church and state can go too far in my view, to bar all public religious displays or observances, as an example. People should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country. I agree, what hat, -that people should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country.
However, just one religious group hasn't a right to display their religious displays or observances on public property on which I pay taxes, -not unless other religious groups AND NON-religious can also be in the mix.
When Christians want to erect a cross on a mountain top that is public property on which I pay taxes to maintain that property, then I say NO, -they don't have any right to express their religious belief in that instance.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 29, 2013 0:58:43 GMT -5
I thought I would peek in on this thread and see how it all ended up. It seemed an unfruitful exercise from the start, and Bob Williston certainly has more patience for it than I do. There are 44 countries that are over 70% Muslim. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country ) Only one is a theocracy, and that is Iran. The Christian world also has only one theocracy, the Vatican State. Of these 44 countries only 7 have laws based on a sharia system: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Of the 10 countries that have the most Muslims, 9 have secular governments; the sole exception is Iran. So your objection wouldn't seem to be with Muslims in general, but with some Muslims. Personally, I don't see dysfunction in any group as a function or result of the religious system, per se. The ill effects that seem to accompany religious systems are the result of power and control of the many by a few, and almost any religious system is well suited to that kind of abuse, based on what I've read and seen. I don't think anyone in any religion can think they are immune to such effects, or that their system is superior in some way. The idea of separation of church and state can go too far in my view, to bar all public religious displays or observances, as an example. People should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country. I agree, what hat, -that people should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country.
However, just one religious group hasn't a right to display their religious displays or observances on public property on which I pay taxes, -not unless other religious groups AND NON-religious can also be in the mix.
When Christians want to erect a cross on a mountain top that is public property on which I pay taxes to maintain that property, then I say NO, -they don't have any right to express their religious belief in that instance.
This can be a bit of tightrope walk. But, as an example, at a public event, I would rather see or hear an all-faiths prayer, however that is accomplished, than no prayer at all. I think that Christian kids at a public school should be able to hold a Christmas concert and make reference to the birth of Jesus. Similarly Muslims should be able to pray at their place of work, if that is their belief. By the way, how are you on public displays of Christmas trees? I can see the problem with a cross or crucifix on government property, but Christmas trees, not so much. The only real concern arises when the religious practices of the majority crowd out other religions or non-religious modes of belief, and children reciting the Lord's Prayer in school would be an example of that. But sometimes I feel that "agnosticism" in the guise of secularism is the new mode of belief that is crowding out everything else. Secularists can be very 'in your face' even about things like Christmas trees.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 29, 2013 3:24:56 GMT -5
There were not these other religions in western countries until later years. Unless you talk of native religions. That aside Christians were the majority, they were not crowding these other religions out. It is these religions who are coming into our space and are trying to crowd us out.
We were the majority and the other religions came into our territory so to speak. The Lord's prayer in schools is not something new, it has been there since the colonisation of these countries. It was there before these other beliefs came in and tried to pushed it out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 29, 2013 10:51:30 GMT -5
What? A nation grounded in one heritage? That's against the law.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 29, 2013 14:18:53 GMT -5
People should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country. All people should be free to express their religious beliefs in a secular country. That includes the freedom of people to convert from the Muslim religion to something else. Can you put your hand on your heart and promise me that this is enshrined in law in all those "secular" Muslim-majority countries?
|
|