»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Quran Quontroversy
| The Alley |
|
The Quran Quontroversy |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Townhall.com: November 28, 2006 I thought I'd start a discussion thread on the recent Quran Oath controversy, which escalated about newly elected Minnesota representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S Congress, asked to place his hand on a Quran rather than the Bible in his ceremonial swear-in, was criticized by pundit Dennis Prager in an editorial column published November 28th of last year, suggesting that his decision "undermines American civilization" and that: "When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.", adding that the Bible is the only book America is interested in. Townhall.com: December 5, 2006 After the editorial received wide publicity and generated many e-mails from both Ellison and Prager supporters on the debate, Dennis Prager released another editorial the following week, responding to critics who accused Prager of religious intolerance and bigotry, and suggesting a possible solution to the debate, adding the following statement in the article: * "You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did. America derives its laws from its Constitution. It derives its values from the Bible. We don't get inalienable rights from the Constitution; we get them from God. Which is exactly what the signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote: We are endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator, not by government and not by any man-made document. And that Creator and those inalienable rights emanate from the Bible. Keith Ellison's freedom to openly believe and practice Islam and to run for elective office as a Muslim is a direct result of a society molded by the Bible and the people who believed in it, a fact he should be willing to honor as he is sworn in." * Star Tribune: December 20, 2006: Full Text Of Virgil Goode Letter The controversy reached a climatic peak when fifth-term Virginia representative Virgil Goode issued a letter to constituents in his district two weeks later. The text went as follows: * Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped. The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts. Sincerely yours, Virgil H. Goode, Jr. 70 E. Court St., Suite 215 Rocky Mount, Va. 24151 * Following Goode's letter, as well as several statements suggesting he wouldn't apologize to Ellison following calls for apology, other representatives openly expressed their thoughts regarding the matter. Here's a few of them: * He wants to take his oath on the Quran, that's fine. I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me." - Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) "I do not believe that the law or rules should be changed to require one official holy book for use in administering our oath of office. As a Member of Congress and as an ordained minister, I believe America's founders erected a wall between church and state – not to keep religion or faith out of public discourse – but instead, to keep the government out of an individual's faith and out of churches or other places of worship. I recall that our founders prohibited any religious test to qualify for public office and our Constitution already protects public prayer and other public observances of an individual's religious expressions. Imposing one holy book for the administration of a federal oath of office will diminish the religious liberties of all Americans, including my colleagues in Congress who do not share my Christian faith but may be Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or some other belief." - Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Missouri) "As we continue to seek new strategies to protect our nation, I feel strongly that America must continue its outreach to the majority of moderate, peaceful members of the Islamic faith, as partners in combating terrorism. I respect the Constitutional right of Members of Congress, indeed, of every U.S. citizen, freely to exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Koran in accordance with the tenets of their religion." - Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) "Each of us has every right to lay our hand on the Bible that we were raised with; that's what America is all about, diversity, understanding and tolerance. It doesn't appear that Dennis Prager has learned anything from his time on the Holocaust commission." - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (D-Florida) * The Washington Post: January 3, 2007 Finally, last Wednesday (January 3rd) it was reported by the Washington Post that Keith Ellison was to make his ceremonial swear-in using a Quran owned by former President Thomas Jefferson, who officially swore in yesterday with it. * * So what are your thoughts on this whole matter in general, including the debate of religious freedom vs. preservation of traditional ideals, Muslims in Congress, etc.? In final thoughts here, I want to add these final facts in support of Ellison's argument: * 1) Contrary to what Virgil Goode was arguing in that unless we get tougher on immigration that we'll see more Muslims elected to Congress and demanding use of Qurans, immigration truly has NOTHING to do with this matter, in that Keith Ellison was in fact born in Detroit. 2) Two Buddhists were also elected to the 110th Congress (Representatives Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia, the latter of who defeated Cynthia McKinney in a special election) and yet you don't see it being argued: "If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Buddhists elected to office and demanding the use of the Mahayana Sutras, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead!" 3) Contrary to what Prager claims in his initial editorial on this matter, this ISN'T the first time an elected representative declined to make their official swear-in on the Bible. In fact, former Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams and Herbert Hoover are among those who also demanded NOT to use the Bible, and President Franklin Pierce alternatively made his oath on a law book. * However, there is a happier ending to this controversy, as reflected in this article from late last week:  * Winston-Salem Journal: January 5, 2007 "On a day of new beginnings in Congress, Rep. Virgil Goode shook hands yesterday with the first Muslim House member, who used the Quran during a swearing -in ceremony. Goode, R-Va., said that during a brief conversation on the House floor, he congratulated freshman Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., on his election to Congress, and the two agreed to talk at length later. "He said, 'I'd like to have coffee with you sometime.' I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'd be glad to talk with him," Goode said in an interview." * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
How do you deal with a book which in fact says fight the Jews and don't trust Christians? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I believe that claim falls victim to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization and is grossly oversimplistic, especially since most Americans have admitted they feel they don't have a real knowledge of the Islamic faith, and despite polling trends revealing a polarizing divide between those favorable and unfavorable of Islam, they also reveal that those who go about studying Islam more grow more favorable and positive toward the faith the more they study it. Therefore, especially since we're currently fighting a war on terrorism in the Middle East, many have grown overly sensitive that if many militants happen to be Islamic, then somehow it means anyone who practices Islam is likely to be acquainted or a participant of these violent militia groups and terrorist organizations. I happen to find that most unfortunate, and believe that verses in the Quran have deliberately been taken out of context, and most importantly that when reading the verses in any holy scripture, the whole must also be considered, and moreover be open-minded about the various things happening during the time this was written like with other sacred texts. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
THe Quaran does not say that Huan YI. It has been interpeted that way by the fanical muslims though. The bible if interpeted literally prohibits gay marriage. Too many people interpet these books literal in sense of their life. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "It has been interpeted that way by the fanical muslims though." My apologies; I read it as a simple man as does the majority. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Quran is very good at speaking for itself and its followers. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam "They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (matter); but to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in Allah's Cause have the hope of Allah's mercy." Qur'an:2:217 "Wherever you are, death will find you, even if you are in towers strong and high! So what is wrong with these people, that they fail to understand these simple words?" Qur'an:4:78 "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter." Qur'an 5:33 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'" Bukhari: V4B52N220 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle." Qur'an 8:12 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned." Qur'an 8:57 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land." Qur'an 8:67 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur'an 9:5 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." Qur'an 8:39 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding." Qur'an 8:65 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam." Qur'an:47:4 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, I think if you look at it objectively you'll realize the Bible includes very similar passages and more than its share of horror stories. The Jews in the OT kicked some serious butt under the guidance and auspices of their God, slaughtering men, women, and children seemingly without conscience. Christians have been no better, from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the New World (and, personally, I'd include some few 21st Century human rights violations, too), justifying anything and everything vile by texts not greatly different from what you just detailed in the Quran. Do you really want to talk about isolated passages cited with no real study or understanding? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I think there is a difference however between something offered as principle (ie, killing unbelievers in the Koran), and something commanded under time-specific orders (ie, Old Testament war under YHWH's command). The difference is, one defines the whole moral tone, while the other a dispensation. While the Bible could correct it's own human response to evil by the advent of a newer dispensation of grace rather than justice without mercy, I am not aware that the Koran makes any moral advancement in it's own context. Jihad in the Koran, as far as I can tell, is the whole solution to unrepentance and unbelief. There is no post-Jihadism in the Koran, though there is an antithesis between law and grace in the Bible. The difference with the Crusades, is that any warmongering was done in contrast to the teachings of Jesus, making it a deviation rather than a confirmation. I don't think the argument that Jihad is a deviation from the Koran, is a very strong one. But I would be willing to listen. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Okay then, Stephen. Explain to me how killing unbelievers is different than killing witches, either in the past or in current times. Oh, and please do so, not from the perspective of a knowledgable Christian, but rather from someone who has only as much experience with the Bible as you and Denise do with the Quran. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, then I assume that you assume that I have done no real study and have no understanding of the topic?  These are not isolated passages, but rather the main theme running through the books of the so-called "religion of peace". Stephen is correct. You can read all of the Quran, and for that matter all the associated Islamic books, the Sira, the Tarikh and the Hadith and you are overwhelmed with the principle of violence, subjugation and murder of the "infidel" or "unbeliever" (anyone not a muslim) and even of muslims who do not participate in such violence for Allah. There is a decided lack of mercy, respect and tolerance for beliefs other than their own, through and through, start to finish. Very depressing. I feel sorry for those caught up in this madness, who actually believe in such a vengeful, hateful diety. They must have such miserable lives. The kindest thing I have ever read was the allowing of some Jews and Christians to actually live after their lands were conquered : "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low." [Another translation says:] "pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection." Qur'an 9:29. Although Muhammad used and incorporated some of the Old Testament and spoke of Jesus and Mary, going so far as to ficticously "quote" them validating Muhammad, Islam and Allah, the difference between the writings of Muhammad and the Bible couldn't be further apart, as would be evident even to the casual reader. The predominate theme of one is death, destruction, conquest, suppression and justice without mercy, while the predominate theme of the other is hope, love, redemption and justice tempered with mercy. The one breeds death, the other, life. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Ron, "in the past", I'll give you. Hopefully, we have become more civilized and more informed over the last 200 plus years. As for "in current times", I have to agree that there are nut cases probably in all religions. The difference is, it was not the Landover Baptist Church that committed 9-11 and all those many other acts of terrorism against the U.S. over the last decade. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: If you don't allow the Koran, what do you do here? What do you do with free thinkers? What God should Buddhists and atheists pledge an oath to? A God they don't believe in? How much of a joke do you really want to turn all this stuff into? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: As a principle, it's not. I never said it was. quote: I don't think a teaching or ideology should be held responsible for its abuses, even those out of ignorance. However, my argument is that the Koran may be itself fundamentally violent. You say that I'm unaquainted with the Koran (and admittedly, I don't study it as I do the Bible). But using that kind of argument requires you to be familiar with it as well. At least familiar enough with it to say that the Koran is not fundamentally jihadistic. And that kind of argument requires hermeneutics, not the tit for tat that I'm afraid you and I are bound to get into.  But thus far I've read enough verses in the Koran to know that it differs significantly from the Bible, even considering the Bible's most bellicose texts. When the OT dealt in such things, the command was a very specific "Kill all the Amalekites". The Koran says very generally "kill unbelievers". In this much we agree Ron, it's wrong to take isolated scriptures, and use them to justify violence ... Muslim, Christian, or otherwise. I guess I'm gonna have to dust the old Koran off here shortly. Interesting discussion. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think one coming into the office should respect such a tradition. The tradition was there first, and it doesn't harm anyone or enforce the book on anyone's life. If the Koran instead had such historical importance and connection to the country, and was the traditional book, then I would say the Koran ought to be used instead of the bible. But it doesn't. I think it is somewhat disrespctful to demand one's own book instead of honouring the importance of the one that influenced America most. That would be like me demanding that the Iliad should be used because it is closer to my bosom than the Bible and the Koran. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, Denise, and I think that's a safe assumption, too. After some fifty years of study, my understanding of the Bible is still, at best, rudimentary. And that's a walk I've actually been walking. Simply putting on another man's shoes for a short time doesn't reveal much about his life. Especially if you keep looking back over your shoulder at where you would rather be. quote: But you don't say which one is which, Denise?  I honestly haven't read the Quran. But the Bible I've read is one that is filled with more than its fair share of death and destruction. And, heck, the suppression continues right into the 21st Century. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not arguing that's what the Bible is about. I'm simply saying that's what it appears to be about if you don't look pretty closely. quote: Good idea, Essorant. Anyone got a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations? quote: But that's the whole point, Pete. Why would you call them nut cases? From all outward appearances, the Landover Baptist Church seems to be trying to do exactly what the Bible tells them to do. What is it that makes them nut cases? quote: Stephen, I think if you can answer the question I just put to Pete we won't have to do any tit for tats. Look guys, I don't know crap about the Quran and, as I already said, my understanding of the Bible is sorely limited. I've also never been a Boy Scout. Or a cop. I never went to med school, didn't pass the bar, and have never sat on the bench. I'm pretty much clueless about the standards a whole lot people apply to their lives. What I do know, though, is that you don't judge a statistical population by only examining the outliers like Landover Baptist Church. I've never read, let alone lived or studied, the Boy Scout creed or the Hippocratic Oath. But I don't think I have to either. I think I can look at all the Scouts and doctors in the world and get a pretty good feel for the standards they've applied to their lives. And if you come to me with an interpretation of the Boy Scout creed that directly contradicts what I've been seeing my whole life? Sorry, guys, but if the Quran is predominantly murder and mayhem, I'm afraid there's a whole lot of Muslims out there who never got the word. Do you think we should tell them they've got it all wrong? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Well I guess even you can be wrong sometimes. Nobody's perfect. quote: That's something you can only determine after you personally check it out for yourself. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It doesn't seem like Ron was saying the same thing as your question. Perhaps he misread your words a bit. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Great ! I don't think that you're wrong Stephen -- I just don't think you're fully informed of jihad: quote: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is interesting. It seems very similar to the origins of our English word win: Win (From Etymology on-line) "fusion of O.E. winnan "struggle for, work at, strive, fight," and gewinnan "to gain or succeed by struggling, to win," both from P.Gmc. *wenwanan (cf. O.S. winnan, O.N. vinna, O.Fris. winna, Du. winnen "to gain, win," Dan. vinde "to win," O.H.G. winnan "to strive, struggle, fight," Ger. gewinnen "to gain, win," Goth. gawinnen "to suffer, toil"). Perhaps related to wish, or from PIE *van- "overcome, conquer." Sense of "to be victorious" is recorded from c.1300. The noun in O.E. meant "labor, strife, conflict;" modern sense of "a victory in a game or contest" is first attested 1862, from the verb. Breadwinner (see bread) preserves the sense of "toil" in O.E. winnan. Phrase you can't win them all (1954) first attested in Raymond Chandler." There is also Old English handgewinn "manual work, struggle with the hands" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: No, I am aware of the other "kinds" of Jihad, through interpretation. But I have my doubts as to whether that kind of interpretation is truest to the text (not as to whether that interpretation is the most moral, because it obviously IS). About the best I can muster in your direction, is to concede that both kinds of Jihad are taught in the Koran, in which case we still have the problem of the violent kind being a fundamental principle, as it were, of Islam. I have no problem in saying that Muslims (as a religious designation) who denounce violence in the name of religion are more morally correct than their crazed cousins. But I also have no problem in saying that their peaceful interpretation is heretical to the Koranic religion of Mohammed. I never said all heresy was bad, did I? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Killed any witches lately, Stephen? Or are you, too, a heretic? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
If you can show me where Jesus prescribes killing witches, I'll admit to being a heretic I suppose. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Exodus 22:18 " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. There are many other examples, of course, Stephen, as I'm quite sure you know. Or, perhaps you're suggesting that Jesus is not God? Should we now read only the words written in red? Let's assume the latter for just a moment, then, and see where that takes us. Did Jesus say NOT to kill witches? Did Jesus say to disobey the Father? I don't think it's necessarily fair for you to apply a literal interpretation of the Koran, Stephen, unless you agree we should do the same thing with the Bible. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Tsk, tsk, tsk ... I already mentioned a refining of our moral prescriptions, in the moving from a dispensation of extreme justice (is it unjust that sinners die?) to one of extreme mercy. If you want to say that God changes, that's fine. I would rather say that he reveals a fullness of who he is over time ... that we needed to see the severity of the Law before we could even understand grace. If you want to say that Jesus is God, I will certainly not disagree. I only think that God's revelation of himself must be incomplete and lacking until / without the incarnation. So the question is not whether Jesus is God ... the question is whether or not stern commands of law against sinners is a manifestation of Jesus, or merely a damning truth which underscored our need of him. Either way, your willy nilly identification of Jesus with Old Testament Commands at least should cause you to question why Jesus ever needed to come in the first place ... why there is such an antithesis between the Old and New, as is described in the New Testament. But, regardless of your interpretation of scripture, or how arbitrary you think mine is, the fact is that we have this stark change inside the pages of the Bible. It was not uncommon for Paul, or Jesus to say things like "You have heard it said ... But I say to you ...". I don't think, as a Christian yourself, you'd be willing to think that this a purely arbitary change, or even a correction of what is purely wrong. Though that's what it seems like you're implying at times, when you're not denying the change altogether. The whole point I'm making is that I don't think such a change is reflected in the Koran. The Koran seems to be a return to strict hyper-Mosaic-Monotheism, with a strong intent to stay there. Show me in the Koran itself where it even walks in the same neighborhood of Jesus' ethic of "love your enemies", "do not resist an evil man", and "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". You keep skirting this difference. I may be wrong, but you certainly can't show that I am by quoting Old Testament expressions of the Law. Over and against the New Testament ethic of Loving one's enemies, you will have to refer to the Koran for your argument to have weight. So I don't think its fair that you demand an exoneration of the Koran, until you show that its moral progress toward sinners, unbelievers, and enemies, is anything like the Bible's. Oh, and by the way, The distincction made in the Christian's interpretation of the Bible is not Literal versus non-literal, but Law versus Grace, and secondarily, Then versus Now. The question is: Does such a distinction exist in the Koran, or are peaceful Muslims forced to make the "literal / non-literal" compromise with their texts in order to make them peaceful? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're preaching to the choir, Stephen. I, uh, mean almost literally. The OT says to kill witches. The NT doesn't say to NOT kill witches. My whole point is that your interpretation of what to actually do is the result of a much deeper understanding of God's will than is possibly available from a first read of the Bible. You've studied the book, lived the book, and unless I'm greatly mistaken have been guided in your understanding both by forces of this Earth and not of this Earth. Even were you less diligent, if absolutely nothing else, you had good Christian role models that undoubtedly influenced your beliefs. Should I then take a quick look at the Bible and decide the role of Christianity is to seek out and destroy witches? Or should I look at you and the vast bulk of practicing Christians and accept that the way you live your lives, even though it appears to be in direct conflict with something I read, is probably a better representation of the Bible's deeper meaning? You're essentially asking me to believe that your understanding of the Quran surpasses that of people who have lived it all their lives. You know better than they do. Me, I know absolutely nothing at all about the Quran, but if there's one thing I've learned about the Bible, it's that it's FAR from simple and anything but shallow. I've about concluded there's not a single passage that doesn't have two, three, or more levels of meaning. I haven't begun to understand its depths. And frankly, Stephen? I think I'd be a bit irritated if someone with relatively little experience tried to explain my religion to me. Honestly, I don't know. You might well be right. But I'm going to continue to judge, be it religions or politics or personal relationships, not just by words that can so easily be twisted and misunderstood, but rather by actions. What people do has meaning. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I thought we were questioning the doctrine of the Koran, not merely what people do. Do I commend Muslims who supercede the sternness of the Koran, in order to be loving and peaceful? Certainly. I'm just not so sure that's a Koranic prescription at all, unlike the contrast we have in the Bible. You're chiding me for judging people ... but I'm not judging anything but what I percieve as unmitigated prescriptions to violence. You say that Muslims have a right, perhaps even a duty to see a "deeper" meaning. I'm just arguing that it's not unreasonable to believe that that "deeper" meaning is extra-Koranic ... coming from somewhere else. We agree on everything else, perhaps we should just leave it at that, until we're willing to examine the Koran in some detail? But I would like to point out that in the spirit of your present complaint against my doubts of the Koran, I could likewise say that no one should criticize the Satanic Verses as long as Satanists play nice. You might reply that these two are obviously different. But nothing is obvious until we discuss texts is it? That's my point. The impossibility of textual superiority is the only thing that you seem to be saying, which I am denying. We're pretty much in agreement otherwise. Though with a 600 year late-entry text that states Jesus never even died, I don't understand how you can avoid at least saying "that's wrong" every once and a while. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: One is a reflection of the other, Stephen. In my opinion, how people live their lives is a better reflection of their beliefs than a cursory examination of their texts. That's my whole point. quote: I guess I'm not being clear. No, I'm not chiding you for judging people, Stephen. My argument is that it's much more reasonable to assume that you are wrong than to assume they are. Just as I think they would be wrong if a Muslim suggested a Divine Trinity was clearly derived from something extra-Biblical. Paddling a boat on the surface reveals only what is floating near that surface and the Trinity, like much else in the Bible, is found only in deeper waters. quote: If the way people live is at odds with my interpretation of their texts, then clearly one of us has misinterpreted. Is it me, with maybe twenty hours of study? Or them with some twenty years? Hindu, Muslim, or Satanist, Stephen, I don't pretend to know their religion better than they. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Neither do I Ron. It's no small number of Muslims who recognize the Koranic prescriptions to literal Jihad as a path of virtue. I'm just more confident that one doesn't have to be a 20 year loyalist to correctly discern what the text says. And the very fact that many long standing muslims and myself have the very same of view of the Koran (that it does indeed prescribe violence) proves my point. To the text, to the text. Denise has already layed out scriptures which (on the surface) appear to sanction violence in the name of Allah. Now it's your turn to show the other side, textually. If you can't, you can't assume that someone else is misunderstanding the Koran. An Anti-trinitarian can be shown the verses in the Bible which teach the triunity of God in a matter of hours or minutes. That's not to say that his mind will be changed. It's just to say that there is presentable data which doesn't take 20 years to set forth. I for one, am asking to see the counter argument from the Koran. And your too-general argument for egalitarian texts doesn't get me there. To me, it all sounds like just another expression of the popular philosophical truism "you can't be right, and still be right". The fact that you're willing to suggest that the Satanic verses might be upstanding if we only had time to understand them, proves my point. Let's hear textual discussion here, or nothing. I'm not interested in that kind of philosophy. We already agree that violence in the name of religion is wrong. I just happen to doubt that the nature of a text is unknowable, while you hold to a certain agnosticism. I guess as long as we disagree on that, the discussion of texts is moot anyway? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And there are no small number of Christians out there ready to kill witches, Stephen. The outliers prove nothing. quote: Really? Then why did the First Council of Nicaea wait over 300 years to meet? Why is it, nearly two thousand years later, we still have Binitariansim, Unitarianism, and the Church of Latter Day Saints? Maybe, Stephen, it only seems simple to you because it's the way you've lived your entire life? Maybe the references seem so easily presentable because you know right where to look, having studied under a very long chain of Christian teachers, one dating back thousands of years? Have you approached Islam with the same dedication and open mind? quote: I didn't say that, and you're still missing my point if you think I did. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to treat it like a duck. If someone points out a few birds on the fringes who are trying to climb trees, I'm not going to assume that all ducks have opposing thumbs and prehensile tails. Sometimes, the few are right and the many are wrong. But I still think that's the exception, not the rule. quote: Not at all, Stephen. Many a time over the years, we've compared Scripture and, I hope, learned from each other in the process. Text is knowable, if not always absolutely then absolutely always. But you aren't going to learn how to quack by trying to climb trees, either. Would you be willing to post your opinions on the Quran at a predominately Muslim forum? What do you think their reactions would be to your conclusions? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Wow. How many doctrines, non/denominations, sects, and cults have come from the three main groups of Christianity? Non of them follow or base their beliefs on the same exact things. Just in my lifetime: Jim Jones led plenty to their death. David Koresh of the Branch Davidians is questionable. Several bombings and shootings from religious fanatics upon abortion clinics. Portions of the Catholic church are still trying to recover from shame. I'm more afraid of what people try to Make UP in the Bible, than what stands as clear text. Clearly, not all text is followed in today's age, same as what's in the Quran. Rationale is terribly clouded, I agree, if people are "recruited" into things, but that doesn't make every believer a threat, or else we'd all be put to the stakes. As far as threats within their text? Well, text for text, Psalms 23 still gives me great comfort. Books don't kill people, the same as guns don't kill people, which there are apprx 15,000+ homicides per year in America, and many of them have yet to crack their first book of any kind of scripture. P.S. When I was traveling in Europe this past May, I had a lady walk up and sit down in her seat on our flight. She seemed sane and altogether harmless on 1st impressions. She saw me reading the bible, asked where I was headed, she was American from Indiana, small talk, then she began to tell me how I needed to be careful traveling in Europe, because "The end of time is near and the yellow people are taking over the world. Don't trust any of them. Says so in the bible!" Not that she scared me, but the look I gave her scared her. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: You're right. This does prove nothing. That's my point, the text sets forth the prescriptive element of a religion, in spite of misinterpretation and examples of deviance. And that text still has influence for good or ill, apart from those who twist it ... which makes a discussion of a religious text itself a valid one. quote: Because that's when the heresy of Arianism reared it's head. The Council of Nicea did not establish the deity of Christ, but defended it. I'm not saying it was simple, but that's no reason to doubt that we can reasonably know whether a text prescribes violence or not. quote: Why do we have any wrong system of belief Ron? You can't forever point to mistakes to show that no one can be correct. You know that I'm ready to discuss any of these Christian heresies and why they are heresies. But doubtless we would have to discuss the text again, rather than just debate our personal philosophies of behavior. quote: I've studied the Koran more than you might think, and have already seen glaring examples of historical reconstruction. It almost seems like you're telling me I would have to be converted to Islam before I could explain to someone else why I wouldn't want to convert to Islam. By your standards Biographers should be disqualified because they don't happen to be the person they write about. And autobiography isn't always a more accurate picture than biography, by the way. quote: Then you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the ducks as much as some book I've seen which seems to give them climbing lessons. A commentary on a text's moral prescription is valid. You could quit what you're doing here and argue "You're wrong Stephen. The Koran does not teach that. See here ...". But thus far, only your personal philosophy of behavior I am hearing. The thing is Denise began a textual discussion, which you've declined. If we're making mistakes with the Koran, then we would like to hear counter-arguments, not be scolded for actually thinking a text can be understood. quote: Are you so sure that Muslims who believe in literal Jihad are few? Remember that there are probably many more who see terrorists as their leaders and representatives, who shy from the "martyrdom" themselves. There may be many admirers and much silent approval. I'm not saying all Muslims are this way. But the question of what constitutes the majority is one which you seem pretty sure of. Are you? My only observation is that the Koran seems to prescribe this kind of violence, and doesn't seem to offer much to counter that prescription. I'm still open to be persuaded, but not by philosophy. quote: Interesting question isn't it, considering the subject matter of our discussion. It would depend on the temperment of those to whom I was writing. I can honestly say that, if asked, I would tell the truth of what I saw and give an invitation to further discussion. Look, haven't we gone around enough on this one? Let's agree to disagree and move on. But just to satisfy me and Denise (and others perhaps), let's someday start a thread on the Koran and invite Muslims to participate. It's not about religion-bashing, but about arriving at the truth. You might view such a thread (or even the desire for one) as frivolous or unproductive, but I disagree. I haven't stated that I can learn nothing more, only my impressions up until now. I've never said I wasn't willing to hear. I haven't heard anything yet, that's all. And Ron, as much as I appreciate you (really) and respect your personal views on how we should conduct ourselves, I've already heard that a few times. So go ahead and dust off your Koran, or else let's move on to something else? Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Why on earth would anyone want to force someone to make an oath on something that is meaningless to them? This confuses me. You might as well ask them to swear on a copy of "Alice in Wonderland". As for all of this literalist interpretation of The Bible, (and that very annoying quote) if yer gonna go literalist, go all the way. Some nuance has been lost in translation. fixed link  And interesting, that bit about the Hippocratic Oath-- quote: whoa. "all the gods, all the goddesses"? Talk about covering yer arse! Hippocrates must have foreseen the current aspect of our litigious society, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath And btw? Witch burners? Y'can call off the barbecue. Rumor has it this witch is already burnt.  My Goddess gave birth to your God. Oh calm down, it's a bumper sticker I have on my desk. But if that smacked of disrespect, imagine how I feel. I have received that witch burning quote a kzillion times in my inbox, always from some temporary address, too. And shame on me, I really bought into that whole "freedom of religion" thing.  *shaking my head* and thanks Ron, for fixing the link for me. Maybe one day Pete can teach me that too. *grin* [This message has been edited by serenity blaze (01-21-2007 02:36 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Karen, I was trying to say that a few posts back. Is the point is so obvious that it's not even worth considering? Yes, he should use the Quran, but what seems to turn people on is whether that book is as good as 'our' book. At the same time, it seems we all have copies of the Quran in our homes. How many Muslims living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt can say they own a Bible? It's difficult to square my personal experience with Muslims and the violent things said by extremists and the interpretations presented here. Suffice to say, I've never met a Muslim that didn't come off as open and friendly. And yet, the difference, perhaps, isn't in the difference between texts but between our respective degrees of secularization: quote: Adeadlycertitude So, perhaps it's our commitment to classic liberalism and the Open Society that keeps us sane? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
quote: Um, yeah, sure, why not?  Yeah...Here, here! What Brad said! (once I figger out what Brad said...) I should go back to bleep.  Love you guys!  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Why should we assume science and reason are wholly "secular" or equate violent extremism with a failure to live as if there were no God? Especially when destroying one's own enemies seem more like a confession of a lack of faith, and especially when we have so many examples of peaceful piety in the world. The choice doesn't need to be forced along those lines at all. Sanity = Secularism isn't a logical conclusion at all, considering the data we have. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oh, I don't know, how about the 30 years war? Honestly, I don't think I'm forcing anything, I take it to be the common sense position. By the way, did you read the article and Dawkins's description of the OT God? Secularism creates the groundwork for religious tolerance. Everything else (Including Soviet style atheism.) does not. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I'm curious, is this the same kind of religious tolerance that doesn't allow nativity scenes in public schools, and wants to take the word "God" off of currency? A leveling, taming, and emasculating of religion is a poor definition of "religious tolerance" which is such a lofty sounding ideal. Soviet-style atheism is only a different face of secularism. Secularism by definition is a freedom from religious ideas, not a freedom of religious ideas. If you say I shouldn't lump all secular expression into one lump, then neither should you lump all of religious devotion into one batch. To say that sanity is equal to secularization basically places a peace-loving devoted Christianity on the same par with radical Islam, and paints your view of the world as the only sane one. In a way that's as fundamentalist as the fundamentalists get. That doesn't surprise me, seeing that metaphysical (or in your terms, meta-social) beliefs are very religious-like, both in the areas of commitment and exclusivity. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I have only read small portions of Dawkins, except for a few articles. But what I have read seems little more than autobiography to me (certainly not good philosophy). Dawkins doesn't like God. Okay. Point noted. But I do find it (on many levels) interesting that he won't attack the Koran the way he does the Bible. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You bet it is. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
New definitions of tolerance and freedom? I'm kind of like the kid who didn't believe when the parent said "this is going to hurt me a lot more than it hurts you". See, I get to be a skeptic too.Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm confused, Brad. How can Secularism which denounces all belief systems other than its own, create the groundwork for religious tolerance? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Maybe 'pluralism' would be the better word Brad -- secularism becomes the common space in a pluralist society -- but doesn't forego everyone having their own room. Stephen -- your contintued use of the term "literal jihad" tells me that you're applying your own interpretation to what jihad is. Jihad literally applies to every single type of Jihad that was listed. Most Muslims interpret the greater Jihad as the struggle against self. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
What a coincidence! My Logic 101 course this week is titled: "Definitions" and quote of the week? Russell on Meaning and Definitions: Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.  I thought it was appropriate. Now. Football. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: LR, Not at all. "Literal" actually differentiates what I am speaking of from other kinds which are taken from a more figurative approach in interpretation. When I use the term, I am referring to a specific kind of Jihad. I'm just pointing out that the Violent prescriptions in the Koran are real, and they are there. And while some Muslims have rejected those prescriptions, this rejection is extra-Koranic ... not derived from the Koran itself. Again, if you know otherwise, use the Koran and correct me. It's not like I've never been wrong before. I just haven't seen or heard them. Otherwise I have no reason to think that a Muslim couldn't "struggle against self", and yet still practice literal Jihad against infidels. Are these different types of Jihad set forth antithetically in the Koran, or rather as a varied set of equally valid approaches? Karen, many many texts are vague until they are read. While there is truth to what you (and Russell) are saying, there is also the truth that we are good at denying clarity when it is there.Again, that the Koran has literal prescriptions to violence (for Muslims) is not in question by anyone here. The question I am asking is whether these are superceded by anything in the Koran, as a principle of Mercy or "let Allah judge", or "be kind to your enemies"? ... Those kinds of things. Or does the prescription to Violence stand as a legitimate choice among peers, (in the Text of the Koran)? Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok... we can quote the Koran; quote: And we can find that it is as vague and inconsistent to the reader as is the Bible. Not to mention that we read it in English and understand only from our own perspective -- much as those reading the Septuagint influenced the understanding of the 'Old' Testament among early Christians. I don't see where posting excerpts from the Koran to prove points gets anyone further to winning an argument than the same thing would accomplish with the Bible. It is, rather, incumbent on us to view the fruit and listen to the many interpretations or think all Christians are Witch burners. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Thank you. Finally. At least we're not hearing the urge to assume that all texts are equally true or equally gracious. I will read these carefully and respond. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
While part of me wants to get out of the way and I will concerning the Quran discussion, I have to say that I'm the one a bit confused. I was trying to use Popper's 'The Open Society', Classical Liberalism (Mill), and secularism more or less interchangably. I don't have any problems with pluralism, but I don't see how a pluralistic society can be any different from a secular one except perhaps in name (England's Anglicanism for example). Secular, of course, is paired/opposed with sacred. The idea being, I think, a practicing "Render what is Caesar's unto Caesar . . . ." Or if you want, the affairs of civil society are too important to be placed in the hands of God. I wasn't shooting for the equivalence of different religions, I was saying or trying to say that religion and government should be separate entities. The irony is that the link and quote that I posted weren't trying to show equivalence, they were showing the opposite. To me, the fact that Baghdad was the center of rationality and science a thousand years ago and their subsequent rejection of that path is an example that we Westerners (as loosely defined as I can make it) should not follow. The fact that we argue and debate over "In God we Trust" on money and school prayer and not whether we should murder someone who converts from Christianity to Islam or vice versa is a telling sign that our society is not equivalent to some Middle Eastern ones. The fact that we do not try to mark Muslims as Muslims with a sign or symbol as they did to Christians under the Taliban is a telling sign. The fact that we debate the Quran itself and not whether Ellison should be allowed to use the Quran is telling. Now, if you want, you can tell me that Christianity helped set up this current state of affairs, I won't argue that. But, at the same time, let's not fall into the trap of religious equivalence by arguing that their are two societies, one Christian and one Islamic, and then argue that one is morally superior because of that. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Personally I think Deism may have had as much to do with setting up the current state as anything... but, I digress... I know what your intent was Brad and I'm not disagreeing -- but, a secular society doesn't necessarily have to have any religions at all -- to Stephen's point re: the Soviet Union. My only intention is that if the word 'secular' is getting in the way, certainly it is easily sacrificed for a more western specific term like 'Pluralism'. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Geeze, Brad. I could almost mistaken you for an Augustinian or a Lutheran! I would agree with your position with a few minor modifications. First, and generally, the affairs of civil society differ from the affairs of the church. Both the state and the church serve specific purposes that, in most cases, fall neatly within their respective "jurisdictions," if you will. Because both exist in this world, however, there are times when the two institutions find themselves in conflict. This observation reflects the Founding Fathers' wisdom in balancing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Second, if you accept the possibility that there is a sovereign God, then both civic and ecclesiastical matters are never out of His hands. Even if you don't believe there is a God, I think you would find yourself in agreement with the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin insomuch as certain matters belong in the hands secular institutions and others in the hands of the sacred. To be fair, if you want to be sensitive to the encroachments of the sacred onto secular domains, you must also be sensitive to the encroachments of the secular on the sacred. Marriage, for example, was not in the jurisdiction of secular government until the late 1800's (I believe a Montana court started a trend that became commonplace across the nation). And look at the mess that has caused! Jim |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Sorry for the second post. Forgot to mention something. As to the so-called "Quran Controversy," I think the importance is in the oath, rather than the book on which the elected official lays his/her hand. It doesn't really matter to me whether an oath is sworn with one's hand on the Bible, the Quran, or Black's Law Dictionary. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I can sacrifice 'secularism' for 'pluralism'. I can keep my hands off the sacred. But where you draw the line is exactly what we should be discussing. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, what happens when neither the irreligious or the religious are satisfied with the line? I think we're bound to always have that tension in this age. Tagging on the name "pluralism", which really only amounts to one philosophy among the diverse crowd, doesn't solve anything. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Having read all that you posted, I'll share with you my impression. First of all, I am genuinely glad that there are some mollifying passages in the Koran, which hint at limitations for prescribed violence. It does seem to me that these limiters are somewhat more vague than the war-rallying scriptures seem to be. You may disagree. As to the Bible being "equally vague" as you put it, I have to disagree. While one may certainly take the Old Testament and parade examples of divinely sanctioned violence, the New Testament contains no such prescriptions but rather a host of scriptures which counsel us in the opposite direction. It also gives a Theological explanation (in the writings of Paul) of a dramatic shift which shows an advancement on our part from an age of law and justice, to an age of grace (whose advent was the person of Jesus Christ). And despite what Ron said about the New Testament NOT telling us not to kill witches, that isn't exactly true. The persuasions to peace in the New Testament are many and unequivocal, such as: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) “You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39) “"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45) "But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."(Matthew 26:52) “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Luke 6:27-29) “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.” (Romans 12:17) So in summary, I guess I can go as far as saying that I am glad to find whatever degree of inhibiting teaching is actually in the Koran. I still think there is a significant difference between the New Testament which supercedes all such prescriptions, and the Koran which places bellicosity and its too-moderate moderation, side by side. People throughout history have been able to accuse particular groups of Christians as warmongers ... but have typically called their founder and his teachings as pacificstic to the point of imbalance and impracticality. Given that people have an ability to disregard prescriptive teaching of their own religion, can we conclude that these texts have nothing to do with the outcome? I don’t think so. But I do thank you, LR, for you taking the time to share that information with me. It gives me more to think about. Brad: quote: interesting way to misinterpret a biblical text. If the widow's mite teaches us anything, it's that Caesar should not be the head of all civic function. Funny that it wasn't Caesar alone that was inscribed on our own coins so long ago. quote: But religious ideas and Government has never been completely separated in our nation. The basic human rights which are spoken of are even based upon a very definite and particular religious statement. It can be reasonably argued that the kind of separation you usually opt for never was intended by the "establishment of religion" clause. quote: No kidding. Does Christianity have the same negative view of reason and science as Islam does? What is the religious climate from which Western Science sprang? Though Christianity refuses to deify science, it doesn't deny its value. quote: I think you're glossing over the influence of Judaism and Christianity on Western Culture. But since you put it in those terms, what's your explanation of moral superiority? Secularist philosophy? Stephen |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Where to start? Chief Justice Berger developed a test that would come to be known as the Lemon Test to determine whether a law violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. (1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion and (3) it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The key measures in this test are "primary" and "excessive" (difficult to delineate at times). This is why Judeo-Christian symbols and practices that might have encroached into public life, but are primarily of historic significance, have been found to not violate the establishment clause. While I'm not crazy about the Lemon Test, I think it is a reasonable compromise. I believe the Supreme Court recognized that, while the establishment clause fixes a wall between the sacred and secular when it comes to government, that wall can be a moving target at times. I think it is also worth mentioning that a forced syncretism violates the establishment clause as well. Second, I think it is important to distinguish Muslims from Islamists (I do not believe the latter are true Muslims) and then ask whether either of the two are capable of making a true oath to uphold the Constitution of a representative republic. I grew up with several Muslims and spoke often with them regarding their faith. I believe whole-heartedly that any of my friends could truely swear to uphold the Constitution. The latter, however, is iconoclastic, and the Islamiste sharia is incompatible with our most basic sense of liberty. In an Islamist state, for example, women are often regarded as property or have the legal status of minors (thus, having few, if any, rights). I think the real danger is that we, as Americans in general, seem to get so caught up in symbols that we forget the salient points. The French actually do a much better job of differentiating Muslims from Islamists, and have been doing so for a long time, while Americans are only now beginning to recognize the Muslim/Islamic people are not the same as Islamist people. So I don't think the issue is so much whether the legislator swears on the Bible or the Koran, but rather whether the legislator is capable of swearing a true oath to uphold our Constitution. It is true that legislators are elected to represent the people who elected them, but they have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. An Islamist might be able to accomplish the first, but could certainly not accomplish the second. Given their way, all women would be veiled, non-citizens, and non-Islamists would have few or no legal protections. Stephen: While I agree with you that one can argue that, in many ways, the United States was founded on Christian principles, I think the argument is less convincing than some might lead you to believe. Granted, intellectual heavy weights like Dr. D. James Kennedy ascribe to this view, it is difficult to read the writings of Paine, Franklin, and Jefferson, and then read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, without recognizing that the language therein is, at best, a Deistic compromise. True enough, many early government leaders didn't share such Deistic views of separation (the establishment of a Congressional chaplain is an indication of this, for example). If you read enough of Madison (a Christian), you will find that he agreed with the Deists on this point more than he disagreed. And, Stephen, again I would point out that all of Islam is not anti-reason in the same way that all Christianity is not anti-reason. Remember, it was Islam that preserved Aristotle, science, and philosophy during the Western Dark Age. There is a rich tradition in Islam, and, sadly, this tradition is at a dire risk of being lost as the Islamists gain in influence and seek to purge those influences from the Muslim world. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: Of course Jim. I recognize that. I only insist that Deism is watered down Christianity ... a very distant view of a very definite religious expression. My point wasn't that our nation was built upon pure Christian dogma, but rather that there never was a total separation of religious ideas and government. How different is the aim of secularists today. quote: Hey Brad brought it up, not me. I'm still not sure how much of this tradition arose out of Islam's theology, rather than in spite of it. Of course there is the possibility that Islamic religious leaders have gone awry of the Koran itself, in their negative views of science. It was just amazing to me that Christendom has been criticized with the rest of Western culture for embracing modernism and the false security of "control", and yet Brad can still, with a straight face, compare it to Islamic anti-reason. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, quote: Isn't one of the few things we've (Jim, Ron, you, me and many others) have agreed on over the years is that a moral choice must be freely made in order for it to be moral? A society is morally superior to another insofar as it maximizes that maxim and the other does not. Jim, I can accept your Islamist/Muslim distinction. I don't like the word 'Islamist', it has always seemed an attempt to muddy the very distinction you want to make, but Sullivan makes the Christian/Christianist distinction. If you can accept that one, I guess we're stuck with both of them -- two ugly words if you ask me but the distinctions are necessary. back to Stephan, quote: I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But, if anything, I'll give Christianity the nod. You can argue that I'm deemphasizing Christianity to prop up the Enlightenment, but the only reason I'm doing that is to counter your deemphasis of the enlightenment in order to contrast Christianity to Islam. If we look at the societies, things of course are a little bit more muddy. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Maybe a better answer to the muddying of the rhetorical waters is to abstain from shortening terms before the general public understands the distinction. Instead of "Islamist," we might refer to such people as Islamo-Fascists or, as Alek Toumi (an Algerian Berber dissident) refers to them in his play, "Madah-Sartre" (University of Nebraska Press), Fascislamists. And I don't have a problem with the "Christianist" term as long as it is used to refer to "Christian" fascists, and not merely Christians advocating to preserve the same freedom of religion all religious-minded people have. The place to argue theological and philosophical position is Mars Hill, not the Senate. I think you'll be far more effective in presenting your Enlightenment position with Evangelicals if you take a few steps back to the Reformation Period where much of the Enlightenment political philosophy has its roots (it was Luther who first advocated for separation of sacred and secular powers). In his "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" (32ff), Luther contends that: quote: http://www.bookofconcord.org/treatise.html I share Luther's view that church's claim to political authority over civic powers leads to the confusion of the church's primary mission (i.e., the preaching of the Gospel) with the mission of civil government (i.e., to maintain public order and care for its citizens). This, in turn, invalidates the authority of the church and makes it a false church when measured against Biblical standards. I think this would be more readily received by Evangelicals and secularists alike. It would be just as much a mistake to ignore the historic abuses of Christendom as it would be to group all Christian opinion into one flawed position. Ironically, I think secularists can find some common ground with Christians on some of these issues. As long as neither treads too far on the other's turf by interfering with the civil liberties of the other, I think it is a workable alliance. It certainly was in 1776 and 1789. It is when one side or another regards the other as an "Other" that should be exterminated that we have a problem. Jim |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
First off, what about in the golden ages when The muslims were tolerant of jews and christians and let them live within society. The medieval christians.. lets see not only burned, mutilated,tortured, and killed and drowned other cultures but they did it also to their own kind. So you don't exactly have a clean slate. The crusades were STUPID!!!!! And there were so many massacres in that. STephan, denise, do you read arabic? I sincerly doubt it but I am very curious. A good friend of mine, is islamic and can read arabic and speak it fluently. She studys and reads the Quaran probaly on a weekly basis. According to her and most arabic scholars that aren't so fanatically the Quaran doesn't state about killing unbelievers. Apparently you and the fanatical believers are one of the same mind, you both interpet the Quaran to say that its o.k to kill unbelievers. Do you know what the Quaran is? It is the words recorded and the laws of islam as told by the Last prohpet of Islam Mohammed. Mohammed preached that it was wrong to kill. At all If the rules that have to be abided by are thus The Muslims say that it is wrong to kill.That to kill even in war anyone other than the one is is currently confronting you is WRONG. Then how can you claim that is violent |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Rhia: I'll be the first to admit that I have not studied Muhammad as thoroughly as I've studied Luther (or Camus, for that matter), but I have read much of the Qur'an - which is a difficult read - and I do think I know something about the origins of Islam. Further, I have studied anti-colonialist writings, which posited that fighting the the only means one had at his or her disposal to relaim one's national identity. These writings helped ignite the Islamo-fascists I might be able to accept that passages in the Qur'an that justify violence can be interpreted as being limited to their original context, but I think that either your friend is wrong or you are misunderstanding her point. And I don't dispute that there were aspects of Medieval Islam that were nobel and cultured. But I don't think you read the distinctions I made earlier between Islam and Islamo-fascism. If any part of your criticism was directed at me, I think it was misguided. So what do I know about Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the beginnings of Islam? After Muhammad was rejected in his hometown of Mecca, and subsequently fled to Medina with his followers, he was well received in Medina. Medina was, at that time, involved in bloody feuds between competing Arab clans. Muhammad seized this opportunity to exhort his audience with his Qur’anic revelations, and succeeded in consolidating the various Arab clans under one constitution. In this legal document, Muhammad was acknowledged as “prophet” and final authority in settling civil disputes (in essense, he was a theocratic dictator). Subsequent Qur’anic revelations endorsed his policy of raiding Meccan trade caravans, granting permission “[to fight] because they are wronged … [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right … except that they say ‘Our Lord is God’” (Sura 22:39-40). Later revelations would command, “Then fight in the cause of God, and know that God heareth and knoweth all things” (Sura 2:244). Supposedly because some were reluctant to take up arms, later revelations offered incentives to those who fight (vs. “those who sit at home and receive no hurt”) such as “special rewards” and entrance to Paradise (Suras 4:95-96; 3:194-195). Muhammad’s military power quickly increased, and within a few years, he had succeeded in winning several battles and conquering Mecca. After Mecca’s fall to Muhammad, numerous Arabian tribes swore allegiance to him, while others were defeated by the Muslim armies. Heathen tribes were required to renounce paganism and profess Islam, while Jews and Christians could practice their own faiths, but were required to pay taxes and tributes. As you mentioned, the Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the full and final revelation of God to mankind, conveyed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over a twenty-three-year period and corresponding perfectly to the eternal original in heaven. The Qur’an is divided into two periods: (1) the Meccan Period – Muhammad is primarily a “warner” calling men to moral reform in recognition of their accountability to God and (2) the Medinan Period – Muhammad’s role shifts from preacher to prince, and these suras would eventually become the foundation for Islam ethics and law. Granted, fundamentalism tends to find whatever it wants to find in its scriptures, suras, or manifestos. But I think you are wrong to suggest that the blood of the Jews and Arabs slain by Crusaders is on the hands of every Christian living today. To suggest such a thing, and in order to be consistent, you would have to acknowledge that the blood shed by the victims of Muhammad Atta and his clan is on the hands of every Muslim. Both positions are simply ridiculous. Jim |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
I'll be the first to admit that I have not studied Muhammad as thoroughly as I've studied Luther (or Camus, for that matter), but I have read much of the Qur'an - which is a difficult read - and I do think I know something about the origins of Islam. Do you read ARabic? And I never said that the blood is on all the hands. I said that the religon of Christianity isn't all that saintly either and that they don't have a clean slate. The religon not the people would have the blood on their hands if i had said\meant that |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
My copy of the Qur'an was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. You can Google him if you'd like. I suppose I cannot truly know anything about Islam because I don't speak or read Arabic. So then everthing I know about the Roman Empire is rubbish because I cannot read Latin, all I've read of Camus and Sartre is worthless because I do not reach French well. Plato ... Aristotle ... can't read much classical Greek either. Are you suggesting that one cannot know anything about another culture before you are fluent in that culture's language? I doubt you speak Arabic either, so technically, by your standard, you cannot speak any more authoritatively on the subject than I can. But then I think there is a problem with both your standard and your line of argumentation. Did you ignore the suras I quoted concerning the justification of violence in the Qur'an? Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Authority? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: In the sense of the level of one's mastery of a subject. Did I misuse the phrase "any more authoritatively?" Jim |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
My copy of the Qur'an was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. You can Google him if you'd like. (I believe you) I suppose I cannot truly know anything about Islam because I don't speak or read Arabic. (I didnt say that. But cannot truly understand what is meant without reading some arabic. The Arabic doesnt translate directly to english I don't ignore it either, I read them. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, Jim. I was reading this at work, yesterday, and just thought that many of the points in this thread seemed more interested in declaring one's own authority at the expense of someone else's than in trying to give any insight into the Quran itself. The Quran was written, what, sixteen hundred years ago? I'm not sure learning Arabic will give you the magic key anymore than learning modern English will unlock Beowulf. It looks to me like we're just stuck having to make up our own minds. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But that's a given. It was doubtless true that people had to "make up their minds" about whether the sun revolved around earth or not, also. And yet there was an objectivity to the study of the earth, and still is. And there are still geocentrists around. (check the WWW if you don't believe me) Certainly there are qualities which would make some more "authoritative", on the issue of whether or not the Koran teaches violence. Having actually read the verses that might apply to such questions is the first step. (And I'm not buying that language doesn't translate adequately enough for an accurate understanding. I have a different theory for all the "diversity" of interpretation) To seriously state that Mohammed taught that it is wrong to kill (simple as that), even in the context of war, makes me think that the text hasn't been really read thoroughly ... which would lessen "authority" considerably. There's still a textual and practical objectivity to be reckoned with, whether or not it can be known with precision. Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: As opposed to having others tell us what we absolutely must believe about it? What a novel idea, Brad! quote: As you can see, I provided the bait, but no one bit. I've never been one to easily accept that I cannot do something or know something. Seems self defeating to accept such a notion without trying.Jim |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't read fully whåt is written. I did. When please enlighten me did I say that mohammad said straight that it was wrong to kill at all even in war? I would love to know, I just reread what I did wrote and it didnt appear to say so. Please tell me if I read wrong though. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Here is free Arabic grammar I found from Google Book Search: A Practical Arabic Grammar, by Duncan Stewart I am thinking of taking a closer look at it myself. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rhia: quote: "Mohammed preached that it was wrong to kill. At all If the rules that have to be abided by are thus The Muslims say that it is wrong to kill.That to kill even in war anyone other than the one is is currently confronting you is WRONG. Then how can you claim that is violent" If I misread you, then your writing is more opaque than the Koran's. Of course, to be fair, you did make a distinction between the Muslims and Mohammed, in their teaching. But it is not apparant from your text. Does it say that Mohammed preached that "killing is wrong at all"? What did you mean by that? It is much more likely in a rant forum like our own, that our brief texts will involve grammatical mistakes that obscure what is said. (which may be the case betwee us) It's much less likely when one thinks God is speaking, and makes hundreds of pages of it, including repetition. But I would ask you to clarify your view, if you think I've misunderstood. Stephen |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Sorry i will try to fix now. But what I meant to say that he preached that it was wrong to kil innocents. He preached that it was wrong to kill even in war anyone who wasn't directly confronting you. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think we need Muhammad's and his followers' definition of "innocents" who shouldn't be killed since that seems to be a qualifier. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Is Islam incompatible with democracy as those willing to die say? , |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
any exorcisists or speaker to the dead people here? going once, going twice..gone.. No takers? fascinating |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You could probably get a pretty good understanding of their definition of those considered by them to be innocents not deserving of death by reading what they have written. Simple as that. No supernatural abilities required. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I disagree. Get a "pretty good understanding" of what they wrote by reading what they have written? That's just circular floundering. Muslim or Christian, the only way to determine what a person believes is to look at their actions. What they do is a reflection of who they are and what they believe. And, in my opinion, it's the only reliable reflection. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: Hold on a minute ... Could you be imagining a circle where there isn't one? The discussion with denise (at that precise moment) wasn't concerning interpretation, as much as it was asking what was written (a pre-requisite for interpretation). Rhia was the one who pretty much assumed that a Muslim's idea of innocence is similar to ours, and expected us to follow. I agree that actions are even more important than words, but words often lead to action as well. What if Mohammed believes that those who refuse to convert to Islam are "infidels" and that they are not innocent? Your watertight separation of doctrine and action seems arbitrary, and one which most Muslims themselves would find incomprehensible. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thank you, Stephen. You've expressed my point much better than I did. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Then every good Muslim would be a murderer. Is that what we see, though? We can play what-if all night long, Stephen and Denise, but the fact remains that millions of people with presumably a lifetime of understanding seem to interpret the text differently than you do. I see no good reason to think this is greatly different than the millions of Christians who interpret the Bible non-literally and within the context of the whole. I understand why Christians do that. I don't understand fully why Muslims do much the same, but I'd like to think they have equally compelling reason. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's not what it would mean if Muhammad said that, Ron. It would simply give us and understanding of his definitions of innocence and guilt. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and wh*remongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV) I'm not sure I see much difference between infidels and dogs, and if we take things literally, I'm sure there are many who think they will have a heavenly tree house some day. Oops. The bible got censored by PIP system. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rwood: quote: The difference is, who is doing the separation? God or us? Saying that there are wicked people, and saying that we should kill them, are two different things. God, being God, has the prerogative to say who is worthy of Heaven and Hell. This verse cannot be compared with Koranic prescriptions to violence, simply because it isn't a prescription to violence ... but merely a picture of final destiny at the Judgement of God. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: What you fail to mention is that there are texts which were meant to be figurative, and meant to be literal. Ignorance and sin often make us ill equipped (or unwilling) to rightly divide the word of truth. But if such a personal / moral phenomenon is at work in the interpretation of texts with Christians, I have no doubt the same is true of Muslims. But there is no use denying what is plainly written at times ... Nor is there any use denying that people may veer from their religion for moral (or immoral) reasons. I'm only noting that this is what seems to be going on with Muslims who do not recognize Koranic prescriptions to violence. We're going in circles now. Let's agree to disagree? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-26-2007 06:09 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I was addressing Denise's terms of innocence and guilt. I agree, on the nature of violence, there isn't any prescribed in that verse. But one's prescription for violence or fanaticism depends entirely on how seriously and literally one takes the scripture. People can somehow turn it into their own prescription and see it as a way to condemn others whether it's spelled out for them or not. I take it very seriously when people tell me I'm going to die and burn in hell. They've prescribed a death to me and use scripture to back it up, fully believing I'm lost already, so how hard is it for them think that killing me is just putting me out of my misery and they're doing God a favor? Many psychopaths use this scripture to make people pay: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 KJV." To many, anyone who does not accept God's gift, they're walking dead, and won't simply NOT go to heaven, they will be tortured in a fiery hell. That's pretty violent. So if it's God prescribing the death and torture, or Mohammad, or hell-bent weirdos, I don't like it but They and It exist in scripture. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rwood: quote: No one knows if you are actually going to die and burn in Hell. What the Bible teaches is that Hell is a possibility for any of us. We're all "lost already" and in need of God's forgiveness and grace. Can these scriptures be used in such a way, as to hurt others? Sure. But the Bible warns about that too. And that's my point. quote: But still, this is not prescriptive, but a statement of fact. If anyone uses it as prescriptive, it can be shown from the text of the Bible that they are in error. quote: Tortured by whom? God, or Satan, or their own conscience? You have to understand that being shut out from the presence of God, becomes a fiery pit by it's very nature. It doesn't have to be maliciously imposed from without. As C.S. Lewis once noted about Hell, the doors are locked from within. From a Christian perspective, there is no worse fate than denying Heaven. For what is goodness, and life, and beauty, is God. And hell is simply the residue of what is "outside". And I'm really not interested in defending God in this thread (Though the cross of Jesus is pretty good sign that God isn't malicious, but willing to go to extremes to save from Hell) My only argument is that the Bible places such judgement in his hand, not ours. And that's enough to say that the Bible places eternal judgement out of our reach, and gives us no part in the determination ... other than helping others to enter at the narrow gate, or making them stumble by our words and actions. Stephen. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
From Noah's initial post: quote: Since the moment done came and went without the estimated bruhaha, there were some interesting things learned. First off, there's a general Swearing-In ceremony with all the freshmen in a group. Then, if the incoming legislators so desire they can have a second 'ceremony' with just them, the house leader and a large tome...oh, and a camera and professional photographer paid for by our taxes. But the second ceremony is not mandatory, though historically traditional and an all-around unique gift idea for the home or office. Of course, now I'm curious how many pseudo religious wars have been fought in those hallowed halls during Swearing In ceremonies regarding the version, printing and revision of the Bible. KJV, NIV, RSV 3rd ed 253rd printing? With red ink to emphasize the lines attributed to Christ, or all black ink? What type of cover? Might be silly, but churches have had evil nasty we-don't-consort-with-them-there schisms over less, such as pew cushions or hardwood bench and if so, what color. With all that said, I didn't have a problem with the Koran being used for the photo shoot any more than I would have a problem with the Book of Mormon or the New Revised King James Children's Version Pop-up Bible. Didn't then and don't now. [This message has been edited by Alicat (02-26-2007 09:10 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Stephen, Thanks. You and I have an understanding of the bible that removes the power or wrath from individuals to do harm to others through the same scripture that others empower themselves with to hurt people or scare people into submission, in God's name. Followers of Christ can and do try to promote love and peace. We're not always very good at it. We are human, after all. And with that I pray any person of any faith will take it upon themselves to promote love and peace, over and above anything else they may find in scripture, especially that which they believe will make them close to their God. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
