Freedom of religion?

[Jenos Ridan]

Yes, Jenos, we all get the point. You hate Islam with a burning passion. You're become Jay-like about it.
Obviously any and all Muslims are terrorists, completely different to and obviously far worse than the Army of God, God's Army, (damn those Christians are great at naming things) Nagaland Rebels and all the other assorted Christian and pseudo-Christian terrorist groups.

They all also use Jihad as a common passtime. Christians also do this, but since they have a different name for it, it's ok.

Ok, prove it. Show me where in the Koran it says not to take the wife of a Christian or Jew for your own. Show where Dhirmititude isn't written. Show me how Zakat can't be used for the funding of terrorism. Show me where in the Bible that Jesus or any of the Apostles said to go out and kill unbelievers. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, bucko.

If you've read the Bible, you'll see why the groups you list aren't even really Christians.

Further, Why do the Muslim countries reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Feel free to look it up, but last I did it boiled down to "It's not compatible with what we believe".

Instead of complaining and whining, how's about you either try to debate this or simple shut it! Saavy?

[Neutrino]

Ok, prove it. Show me where in the Koran it says not to take the wife of a Christian or Jew for your own. Show where Dhirmititude isn't written. Show me how Zakat can't be used for the funding of terrorism. Show me where in the Bible that Jesus or any of the Apostles said to go out and kill unbelievers. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, bucko.

Quite a few of the Christians on this site have interpreted that particular passage to mean war in general is ok.

If you've read the Bible, you'll see why the groups you list aren't even really Christians.

And I'm sure the average Johnny Klatchian viewed terrorist groups as un-Islamic before the US really started screwing around in their politics.

Further, Why do the Muslim countries reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Feel free to look it up, but last I did it boiled down to "It's not compatible with what we believe".

Christian nations did the same thing for quite a few centuries, if I recall correctly...

[comic boy]

Freedom of religion = A polite way of saying, "We're not going to listen to God amymore but instead make up our own rules and claim it to be God's word."

Am I right or am I way out in left field on this one?

It's this kind of nonsense that makes the Huckabee campaign frighten me so much.

GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT AROUND TO PROMOTE GOD'S WORD.

Unless you're into theocracy, in which case you can check out the Middle East and see how they like it over there.

Government exists to protect people's rights and lives. You have rights. Let's list them:

A right to life. A right to property. A right to vote. A right to bear arms.

But guess what? You do NOT have the right to determine your neighbor's sexuality. You do NOT have a right to demand fidelity to the Bible or face imprisonment. You do NOT have a right to threaten people because of their religious affiliation.

/rant.

Sorry about that. I'm just getting real frustrated about this topic...

Very well said Sir

[mybike_yourface]

The only thing I don't get is how there are so many different religions all stemming from the same book,(Bible). Are there versions of the Bible out there that I'm not aware of.

If we're all reading the same version, how can there be so many translations?

PS: Writing a book might just make me feel better. That's good advice. It wouldn't be for the reasons you've suggested though.

well there have been many translations of the bible and pleanty of errors and changes made along the way. couple that with the fact that the very oldest bibles aren't the very first. there's also certian texts that were left out when the bible was cannonized and texts certain branches of christianity include that others don't.

[mybike_yourface]

Freedom of religion = A polite way of saying, "We're not going to listen to God amymore but instead make up our own rules and claim it to be God's word."

Am I right or am I way out in left field on this one?

It's this kind of nonsense that makes the Huckabee campaign frighten me so much.

GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT AROUND TO PROMOTE GOD'S WORD.

Unless you're into theocracy, in which case you can check out the Middle East and see how they like it over there.

Government exists to protect people's rights and lives. You have rights. Let's list them:

A right to life. A right to property. A right to vote. A right to bear arms.

But guess what? You do NOT have the right to determine your neighbor's sexuality. You do NOT have a right to demand fidelity to the Bible or face imprisonment. You do NOT have a right to threaten people because of their religious affiliation.

/rant.

Sorry about that. I'm just getting real frustrated about this topic...

It's this kind of nonsense that frightens me so much.

do you really think that's what government is for or does?

[Napoleon Ier]

Freedom of religion = A polite way of saying, "We're not going to listen to God amymore but instead make up our own rules and claim it to be God's word."

Am I right or am I way out in left field on this one?

You can potentially argue it is twisted to justify auto-deification of mankind, yes.
This of course takes us back to the Space Trilogy of Lewis and the dictatorship of moral relativism mentioned in the jf forum.

[unriggable]

The only thing I don't get is how there are so many different religions all stemming from the same book,(Bible). Are there versions of the Bible out there that I'm not aware of.

If we're all reading the same version, how can there be so many translations?

PS: Writing a book might just make me feel better. That's good advice. It wouldn't be for the reasons you've suggested though.

well there have been many translations of the bible and pleanty of errors and changes made along the way. couple that with the fact that the very oldest bibles aren't the very first. there's also certian texts that were left out when the bible was cannonized and texts certain branches of christianity include that others don't.

Not to mention the fact that much of the old testament was 'stolen' from places, like genesis from sumer and exodus from egypt; and before that it was all oral.

[mybike_yourface]

The only thing I don't get is how there are so many different religions all stemming from the same book,(Bible). Are there versions of the Bible out there that I'm not aware of.

If we're all reading the same version, how can there be so many translations?

PS: Writing a book might just make me feel better. That's good advice. It wouldn't be for the reasons you've suggested though.

well there have been many translations of the bible and pleanty of errors and changes made along the way. couple that with the fact that the very oldest bibles aren't the very first. there's also certian texts that were left out when the bible was cannonized and texts certain branches of christianity include that others don't.

Not to mention the fact that much of the old testament was 'stolen' from places, like genesis from sumer and exodus from egypt; and before that it was all oral.

well yeah but that's a whole nother story.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Freedom of religion = A polite way of saying, "We're not going to listen to God amymore but instead make up our own rules and claim it to be God's word."

Am I right or am I way out in left field on this one?

It's this kind of nonsense that makes the Huckabee campaign frighten me so much.

GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT AROUND TO PROMOTE GOD'S WORD.

Unless you're into theocracy, in which case you can check out the Middle East and see how they like it over there.

Government exists to protect people's rights and lives. You have rights. Let's list them:

A right to life. A right to property. A right to vote. A right to bear arms.

But guess what? You do NOT have the right to determine your neighbor's sexuality. You do NOT have a right to demand fidelity to the Bible or face imprisonment. You do NOT have a right to threaten people because of their religious affiliation.

/rant.

Sorry about that. I'm just getting real frustrated about this topic...

It's this kind of nonsense that frightens me so much.

do you really think that's what government is for or does?

Do I think that's what government does? No government is perfect, but if Huckabee gets elected it's going to be less perfect than it already is.

Is that what government is FOR? I'd say yes. What do YOU think government is for? To be used as a pulpit to preach a particular religion? To be used to force people into a particular religious practice?

[got tonkaed]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

[OnlyAmbrose]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

[got tonkaed]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

yeah im with on there, its just as best as i remember said poster, he wasnt advocating a theocracy, but could possible take umbridge with some of those rights as i dont for instance (im iffy on the need to have a gun).

[muy_thaiguy]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

yeah im with on there, its just as best as i remember said poster, he wasnt advocating a theocracy, but could possible take umbridge with some of those rights as i dont for instance (im iffy on the need to have a gun).

It's not saying you have to own a gun, it just gives you the right to.

[got tonkaed]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

yeah im with on there, its just as best as i remember said poster, he wasnt advocating a theocracy, but could possible take umbridge with some of those rights as i dont for instance (im iffy on the need to have a gun).

It's not saying you have to own a gun, it just gives you the right to.

which is why i dont really have a big problem. On a personal level i think its a bit silly, but i can understand why it has a place in our system, and wouldnt ever advocate for repealing it.

[muy_thaiguy]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

yeah im with on there, its just as best as i remember said poster, he wasnt advocating a theocracy, but could possible take umbridge with some of those rights as i dont for instance (im iffy on the need to have a gun).

It's not saying you have to own a gun, it just gives you the right to.

which is why i dont really have a big problem. On a personal level i think its a bit silly, but i can understand why it has a place in our system, and wouldnt ever advocate for repealing it.

Good to know.

[unriggable]

tbh i think his gripe was with 2 out of the 4 of the things you claimed govs were for, but ive been wrong in the past.

Oh, well the four things I listed were from American government. I'm fairly certain we have established rights to property, liberty, arms bearing, and life.

(and those were just examples of secular rights we have...)

yeah im with on there, its just as best as i remember said poster, he wasnt advocating a theocracy, but could possible take umbridge with some of those rights as i dont for instance (im iffy on the need to have a gun).

It's not saying you have to own a gun, it just gives you the right to.

The argument really boils down to which guns, and who they can be given to. Personally I think only hunting rifles should be allowed but this shit needs to be put down in a case by case basis.

Anyways. Back to religion.

[luns101]

This of course takes us back to the Space Trilogy of Lewis and the dictatorship of moral relativism mentioned in the jf forum.

Hey, I haven't begun THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH yet...you're going to ruin it for me!

[Jenos Ridan]

Ok, prove it. Show me where in the Koran it says not to take the wife of a Christian or Jew for your own. Show where Dhirmititude isn't written. Show me how Zakat can't be used for the funding of terrorism. Show me where in the Bible that Jesus or any of the Apostles said to go out and kill unbelievers. And this is only the tip of the iceberg, bucko.

Quite a few of the Christians on this site have interpreted that particular passage to mean war in general is ok.

Which passage? Which Book? WHERE?!?! Show me where! Please be more specific.

If you've read the Bible, you'll see why the groups you list aren't even really Christians.

And I'm sure the average Johnny Klatchian viewed terrorist groups as un-Islamic before the US really started screwing around in their politics.

First you go from "Christian" terrorists to this? Are you even thinking before you type, at all?

Further, Why do the Muslim countries reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Feel free to look it up, but last I did it boiled down to "It's not compatible with what we believe".

Christian nations did the same thing for quite a few centuries, if I recall correctly...

What kind of red-herring non-sequiter is this? Did you even bother to research any of the points I brought up or are you just blabbermouthing?

Heck, do you even know what the UDHR is or when it was put forth as a proposal to the UN?

[Neutrino]

Which passage? Which Book? WHERE?!?! Show me where! Please be more specific.

I don't know. Blame Luns. Or muythaiguy. Maybe even nate. One of the Christian debaters at any rate.

As best I can understand it, the phrase "thou shalt not kill" could actually be translated as "thou shalt not murder" thereby leaving the door open to all sorts of politically modivated shenanigans.

First you go from "Christian" terrorists to this? Are you even thinking before you type, at all?

I was, in fact, pointing out how your average person generally doesn't approve of random murder unless something gets them really pissed off. Pre-Israel, terrorist groups would have been marginal at best. Unless you can supply me with proof of significant terrorist activities Pre-Israel, I will continue to seriously doubt your claims. (a very intimidating threat, no?)
It is a safe claim that the majority of US citizens oppose terrorism. You will be suprised, however, at how quickly the average person can discard one set of beliefs and implement an entirely new set should some foreign power give half of the US away to be colonised agressively.

What kind of red-herring non-sequiter is this? Did you even bother to research any of the points I brought up or are you just blabbermouthing?

Heck, do you even know what the UDHR is or when it was put forth as a proposal to the UN?

I was merely pointing out, to the extent of my apparently megre ability, that if you'd tried to introduce the Universal Declaration to Europe during much of the middle ages, you would have beel laughed out of town.

[Jenos Ridan]

Which passage? Which Book? WHERE?!?! Show me where! Please be more specific.

I don't know. Blame Luns. Or muythaiguy. Maybe even nate. One of the Christian debaters at any rate.

As best I can understand it, the phrase "thou shalt not kill" could actually be translated as "thou shalt not murder" thereby leaving the door open to all sorts of politically modivated shenanigans.

Quit changing the topic: Prove that Islam doesn't not have over 100 "slay the infidel" verses, Prove Dhirmitude isn't in the Koran, Prove that Muhammad didn't have dissenters off'ed in their sleep (or off'ed anyother time or place). You're refusal to actually argue is begining to give me a magrine headacke! Disprove what is written in the Koran, that's all I ask.

First you go from "Christian" terrorists to this? Are you even thinking before you type, at all?

I was, in fact, pointing out how your average person generally doesn't approve of random murder unless something gets them really pissed off. Pre-Israel, terrorist groups would have been marginal at best. Unless you can supply me with proof of significant terrorist activities Pre-Israel, I will continue to seriously doubt your claims. (a very intimidating threat, no?)
It is a safe claim that the majority of US citizens oppose terrorism. You will be suprised, however, at how quickly the average person can discard one set of beliefs and implement an entirely new set should some foreign power give half of the US away to be colonised agressively.

The Ottoman invasion of 15th century Romania comes to mind. As does the Indian Mughals, the Caliphates of Egypt and Syria, the Barbary Pirates, the Moors in Spain, Muslim invasions of Sicily and Greece, the massacre of tens of thousands of Armenians by the turks in the 1920's (to say nothing of those slain by muslim hands in Armenia before then). In fact, most wars and acts of ethnic cleansing in the region since the 7th century on to 1948 were the result of Islamic imperialism.

And none of those strike you as being remotely terroristic? I think you like blabbering like a drunken baffoon.

What kind of red-herring non-sequiter is this? Did you even bother to research any of the points I brought up or are you just blabbermouthing?

Heck, do you even know what the UDHR is or when it was put forth as a proposal to the UN?

I was merely pointing out, to the extent of my apparently meagre ability, that if you'd tried to introduce the Universal Declaration to Europe during much of the middle ages, you would have beel laughed out of town.

That doesn't entire into it (hence, non-sequiter)! What does is the muslim attitude to the UDHR and why they have that attitude! Period! WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAIND!?!?!?

*taking a minute to take an asprine*

Please come back tomarrow with a real agruement for a change, I'm tried of sorting through lines of idiocy.

[Neutrino]

Quit changing the topic: Prove that Islam doesn't not have over 100 "slay the infidel" verses, Prove Dhirmitude isn't in the Koran, Prove that Muhammad didn't have dissenters off'ed in their sleep (or off'ed anyother time or place). You're refusal to actually argue is begining to give me a magrine headacke! Disprove what is written in the Koran, that's all I ask.

Question: how many times, per week, do you sacrifice and burn a bull on the altar? How many daughters do you have and how many of them have you sold into slavery? Have you ever worked on Sunday? Have you ever eaten shellfish or wear glasses? Ever cut your hair or eaten bacon?

Yeah, I can quote stupid commandments too.

If you don't obey these stupid commandments, what makes you think anyone else will obey those stupid commandments? If Islam endorses the killing of the infidel, then Christianity endorses slavery.

The Ottoman invasion of 15th century Romania comes to mind. As does the Indian Mughals, the Caliphates of Egypt and Syria, the Barbary Pirates, the Moors in Spain, Muslim invasions of Sicily and Greece, the massacre of tens of thousands of Armenians by the turks in the 1920's (to say nothing of those slain by muslim hands in Armenia before then). In fact, most wars and acts of ethnic cleansing in the region since the 7th century on to 1948 were the result of Islamic imperialism.

And none of those strike you as being remotely terroristic? I think you like blabbering like a drunken baffoon.

No, they strike me as the normal goings on of Middle Age countries (with the exception of the Armenia one, obviously). During the periods where these events were occuring, European countries were doing the exact same damn thing. Burn down Eastern Europe. Burn down The Holy Lands. Burn down eachother. Enslave and occupy Africa. Enslave and occupy Australia. And then Europeans got their grubby little hands of the Americas. Isn't that a great example of typical European anti-Imperialism?

I'm sure you'll be able to counter all of these with examples of your own, but then you will miss the point. Those were violent times. Christians butchered people. Muslims butchered people. Hindu's butchered people. Buddhists probably butchered people when no-one else was watching. Everyone butchered everyone else. Christianity was just as involved as Islam was.

That doesn't entire into it (hence, non-sequiter)! What does is the muslim attitude to the UDHR and why they have that attitude! Period! WHAT PART OF THAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAIND!?!?!?

*taking a minute to take an asprine*

Please come back tomarrow with a real agruement for a change, I'm tried of sorting through lines of idiocy.

The reason they hold that attitude towards the UDHR, O Great Lord Capslock, is their social system, which seems to have stagnated in the Middle Ages. Four or five hundred years ago, European views of the same matter would have been virtually identical. Only Western civilization has progressed significantly past Feudalism, so Islam's social stagnation isn't even a trait particular to them which you can blame them for.

[Napoleon Ier]

Arab social stagnation and arrested cultural development is directly attributable to Islamic principles.

[Snorri1234]

Arab social stagnation and arrested cultural development is directly attributable to Islamic principles.

Yay for random unsupported claims!

[Napoleon Ier]

Namely the lack of temporal/spiritual divide and therefore political institutionalization of Islamo-fascistic principles.

[Snorri1234]

Namely the lack of temporal/spiritual divide and therefore political institutionalization of Islamo-fascistic principles.

But you can potentially argue that that is not due to the principles themselves but the interpretation by imams.

I mean, Europe had the same thing in the middle ages. There wasn't any division between church and state either.

I think it has more to do with the increase of wellfare. People got richer in Europe and got more free time. The increase of nobility for example had a good effect on science, as people had time to dedicate themselves to it. With that science comes innovation and an increase in wellfare for the common people.
I mean, if you look at Turkey for example, it's gets wealthier by the minute and is also secular recognising freedom of religion as a right. This despite 99% of them being muslim.