Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

What, they aren't Christian in Haiti?

From what I've read, the Christians are trying to help, like Padre Miguel Jean-Baptiste who runs the Foyer Maurice Sixto school for restavek girls. There are many avenues where people in the US are trying to adopt Haitian orphans as well, and I know that the group Feed My Starving Children has been active there for many years.

Are the Haitians who take in restaveks Christian? I don't know that.

[Jester]

Trijicon is like that. The statements I'd read on their web site indicate their concern is for the safety of the soldier.

"We believe that America is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals."

That's a little further than concern for the safety of soldiers, no? It kind of sounds like Dominionism. The Good (explicitly religious Good) are the Great (militarily powerful). Strangely enough, this is exactly what Wahhabi nutcases are arguing back in the middle east, that the decline in Islamic power is due to their failure to sufficiently embrace Islam.

I didn't find anything indicating their blood lust for killing terrorists, however, I'm sure some of the people who work there would personally express their support for winning the current conflicts we are involved in. Are they zealots? No.

They manufacture rifle scopes with coded references to bible verses on them. That sounds like zeal to me. But I'm glad you know them better than I do, and can vouch for the fact that they aren't zealots.

When Christians begin strapping explosives to themselves and walking into crowds, I'll begin worrying about neo-crusaders.

It's often pointed out that the suicide bomb is a weapon of poverty. This obscures some nuances, but it is generally true. If the country/god/cause you support is backed by the world's largest military with a truly staggering quantity of war materiel (including scopes!) that does not require you to blow yourself up, why on earth would you bother with suicide bombing? If Al Qaeda could park an aircraft carrier off the coast of Los Angeles and launch cruise missiles, or invade with overwhelming air and ground superiority, do you think they'd be spending their days trying to stuff home-made explosives into some idiot's underwear?

But, this is not your position. You want to never see or hear anything religious be expressed at all.

Could you please cite me something I've written that implies I would prefer a total end to all religious expression? It certainly doesn't sound like my opinion. I believe strongly in peoples' right to practice their religion free from the interference of government. Depending on the form of that expression, I may appreciate it or not, but the right to free worship is fundamental.

If it is done in public in any way by anyone however loosely connected to any government entity you unleash the wrath of the ACLU upon it declaring that the wall of seperation has been violated. I believe often that violates the free exercise clause, when that speech has no sovereign authority.

I unleash the wrath of the ACLU? What do I have to do with this? I've never so much as said a word to anyone in the ACLU, for the obvious reason that I don't live in the US. Or have I just become a metonym for liberals generally?

The ACLU is a private entity, and entitled to bring suits as they see fit. They are not bound by the Free Exercise clause which restricts only the actions of the government. I also have no objection to public officials making *private* statements about religion. But if they're wearing the government hat, "however loosely," they're bound by the Constitution, and should act accordingly.

I don't see anything in the Constitution indicating a wall, it's more like a hedge where some things pass through both ways as long as there is not an expression of support or favoritism by the government.

James Madison is the "Framer of the Constitution" and the "Father of the Bill of Rights." He referred to it as a "wall of separation." Jefferson said the same. He made no mention of hedges, or shrubberies, or other semi-permeable plant barriers. If the United States has failed to live up to both the letter of the law and the intent of the framers, it is because the prejudices of the overwhelming majority are very strong, and *not* because the Establishment clause is (or should be) permeable.

If you look through the overview in the link you gave, you would come across the landmark case that is still the controlling one: Everson v. Board of Education. Merely not expressing a preference for any given religion does *not* clear the constitutional hurdle. The decision in Everson specifically references the "wall of separation."

So, there it is. Both the framers and the courts go with the "wall" interpretation. It might not be literally written into the constitution, but it might as well have been - it's the obvious meaning, the historical meaning, and intended meaning of Madison, and the current legally binding interpretation. Don't like it? Take it to the Supremes.

-Jester

[Jester]

From what I've read, the Christians are trying to help, like Padre Miguel Jean-Baptiste who runs the Foyer Maurice Sixto school for restavek girls. There are many avenues where people in the US are trying to adopt Haitian orphans as well, and I know that the group Feed My Starving Children has been active there for many years.

The statement "some Christians help slaves" does not contradict the statement that "some Christians own slaves." Indeed, in the history of slavery, it has often been the worst slaveowner nations that have the strongest intentions to help slaves.

Are the Haitians who take in restaveks Christian? I don't know that.

Haiti is 95% self-identified Christian - that's pretty much all of them. Got any evidence that Christian Haitians are different from non-Christian Haitians in this regard?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Haiti is 95% self-identified Christian - that's pretty much all of them. Got any evidence that Christian Haitians are different from non-Christian Haitians in this regard?

Read up on the restavek problem. It is a societal problem with customs and poverty, not a Christian one. You are judging Haitians behavior sitting in your posh London flat, go there and visit the starving family in the slum with ten kids and then maybe I'll consider your opinion on how moral or immoral the practice of restavek might be.

Christian beliefs in 2010 are clear on the topic of slavery. I could point out at least 10 other customs practiced by social groups of supposedly Christian people. It reflects their culture, not the religion.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why should I pay for your abortion, unless it is retroactive?

Chlorine in the gene pool?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Golf all year round, when I can get off of work. But I don't actually golf much.

Sad to hear that. I'm still hoping to golf next year. :)

The meat is good, the BBQ is good, and the Tequila is good. I have just gone on a diet that avoids breakfast tacos, and I miss them more than I miss cigarettes.

Been smoke free for sixteen months now. What this Rogue needs is a good cigar.

Good on you. I've been nicotine free for about twelve years now. Not a day goes by that I don't want a pipe, cigar, or cigarette. It can be done, so good luck with it.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I could point out at least 10 other customs practiced by social groups of supposedly Christian people. It reflects their culture, not the religion.

I thought that religion was supposed to be a moderating factor in society? Are you now saying it doesn't work? Or is this another no true Christian society argument?

I'm reminded of news stories I read during the 55mph period. One story claimed that most divers ignored the speed limit and drove at the old speeds. The other claimed a very large reduction of highway fatalities because of the reduced speed limit. So, a law that was not observed had an effect -- maybe the paranormal does exist.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I thought that religion was supposed to be a moderating factor in society? Are you now saying it doesn't work? Or is this another no true Christian society argument?

More like the practice of homeopathy. Sure, the patient will go to the doctor and get the prescription, but also do the folk remedy. Amazing, the folk remedy worked! Or, was it the doctors prescription, or just the bodies natural ability to heal? As you know, superstitions are hard to over come.

[Jester]

Read up on the restavek problem. It is a societal problem with customs and poverty, not a Christian one. You are judging Haitians behavior sitting in your posh London flat, go there and visit the starving family in the slum with ten kids and then maybe I'll consider your opinion on how moral or immoral the practice of restavek might be.

Christian beliefs in 2010 are clear on the topic of slavery. I could point out at least 10 other customs practiced by social groups of supposedly Christian people. It reflects their culture, not the religion.

First of all, you can take your ad hominem argument about my life and stick it in a dark and inconvenient place. I rent a room in a converted Council House. I am currently sharing with three other people. There was police tape outside when I walked in today. Posh it is not. And, even if it were, I try to extend you the privilege of attacking your arguments, and not your life. Could I ask the same?

Second, my statement was in reply to Occhi, who said the following:

Slavery is alive and well on this planet, but oddly enough, not among Christians.

You can talk about how the restavek problem is "not a Christian problem" all you like; your scotsmen are getting truer by the minute. But this example still contradicts Occhi's statement, which was its whole purpose.

-Jester

[eppie]

There are many avenues where people in the US are trying to adopt Haitian orphans as well,

Last thing I heard that the 'stealing of children' by rich westeners has started again in Haiti. A natural disaster and people are ready fulfill there child-wish again.
Wonder how many of those orphans are really orphans.

[kandrathe]

Last thing I heard that the 'stealing of children' by rich westeners has started again in Haiti. A natural disaster and people are ready fulfill there child-wish again. Wonder how many of those orphans are really orphans.

Beware the gobblers.

[Jester]

Goodbye Jesus Scopes. Score one for the military, and the establishment clause. And not just the Americans! Other armies are also getting rid of the markings. Small steps, but I'm glad they're doing it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Goodbye Jesus Scopes. Score one for the military, and the establishment clause. And not just the Americans! Other armies are also getting rid of the markings. Small steps, but I'm glad they're doing it.

Well, political correctness at least. Trijicon is interested in continuing to do business with one of its largest customers. Good business decision.

[eppie]

I could point out at least 10 other customs practiced by social groups of supposedly Christian people. It reflects their culture, not the religion.

Well this is absolutely true. Just like the many of the supposed bad things about Islam are actually more a cultural thing. People cheering after 9/11 don't do that because they are Muslims, but because they see the USA as enemy.
The discussion the last 9 years have especially focused on blaming Islam for everything that was wrong.

Of course another important thing is then also that, knowing this, we should absolutely stop with the religious influence on politics, because as you say, most things they want are cultural, but they use Christianity (religion in general) to obtain power and the votes necessary to influence politics.

I hope that after your 10s of tries to explain us what you think is a real christian the only answer is somebody that just reads the bible at home, and lives who he thinks he should according to that book. Somebody that is not a member of any community and does not go to church. A real christian will not be popular with christian leaders sadly.

[kandrathe]

Well this is absolutely true. Just like the many of the supposed bad things about Islam are actually more a cultural thing. People cheering after 9/11 don't do that because they are Muslims, but because they see the USA as enemy.

I have issues with Islam too. From historical writings, I think it is more of a contrived religion based on Mohamed's desire to use his cult of personality to shape his society. Much of the practice and customs of that time are written as "laws" of the religion and the fundamentalists want to take our modern society back to 600AD. Not that fundamentalists in any other religions are all that much better. The people cheering after 9/11 was certainly Palestinians believing that the US was getting their just desserts for their support of Israel. It's still extremely crass to cheer when innocents are killed, whether they be Palestinian, American, or Israeli.

The discussion the last 9 years have especially focused on blaming Islam for everything that was wrong.

I don't blame Islam so much as I blame Wahabists.

Of course another important thing is then also that, knowing this, we should absolutely stop with the religious influence on politics, because as you say, most things they want are cultural, but they use Christianity (religion in general) to obtain power and the votes necessary to influence politics.

It won't happen unless you can stamp out religion, and you won't do that through force, and probably not through coercion. This is why I speak of belief systems, rather than religion. Everyone has a slightly different stand on politics, religion, sexuality, family values, life priorities, etc. etc. And this constitutes their belief system. When you, I and the guy next door have similar belief systems we are less in conflict, and can live harmoniously. Even when we have slight differences, and those differences are protected by our government (freedom of religious expression, or speech), then we can live together harmoniously. But, when there is a subjugated or radicalized minority, we see injustice either as in slavery (or racism), or we have terrorism. Again, just because the Wahabists are a minority, does not mean they are on the right side.

I hope that after your 10s of tries to explain us what you think is a real christian the only answer is somebody that just reads the bible at home, and lives who he thinks he should according to that book. Somebody that is not a member of any community and does not go to church. A real christian will not be popular with christian leaders sadly.

Actually, a good Christian is faithful to their creed, 1) they love God and attempt to be worthy of grace, and 2) they love all people (even the ones that wrong them). If they can do those two things, then all the other things will naturally occur. I think real Christians wouldn't care what other people think.

[Zenda]

From historical writings, I think it is more of a contrived religion based on Mohamed's desire to use his cult of personality to shape his society.

Those historical writings are a bit outdated, and if they are of Christian origin not very impartial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

"The learned circles of Middle Ages Europe - primarily Latin-literate scholars - had fairly extensive, concrete biographical knowledge about the life of Mohammed, though they interpreted that information through a Christian religious lens that viewed Muhammad as a charlatan driven by ambition and eagerness for power, and who seduced the Saracens into his submission under a religious guise."

"It was not until the latter part of the 20th century that Western authors combined rigorous scholarship as understood in the modern West with empathy toward the subject at hand and, especially, awareness of the religious and spiritual realities involved in the study of the life of the founder of a major world religion. According to Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers have generally dismissed the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad 'was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith'."

And since you are so full of religion as a beneficial social structure, you might want to read the following.

"Historians generally agree that Islamic social reforms in areas such as social security, family structure, slavery and the rights of women and children improved on the status quo of Arab society. For example, according to Lewis, Islam 'from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents'. Muhammad's message transformed the society and moral order of life in the Arabian Peninsula through reorientation of society as regards to identity, world view, and the hierarchy of values. Economic reforms addressed the plight of the poor, which was becoming an issue in pre-Islamic Mecca. The Qur'an requires payment of an alms tax (zakat) for the benefit of the poor, and as Muhammad's position grew in power he demanded that those tribes who wanted to ally with him implement the zakat in particular."

Ofcourse, denouncing all prophets for which real historic material is available makes it a lot easier to stick to existing stories about older, and possibly imaginairy, prophets like Jesus;)

Edit: Did you know that...

... Islam considers Jesus a true Messenger of God, who will return to earth 'before the last Judgement'?
... Judaism has over a million prophets (although most are considered important for their own generation or community only), but denounces Jesus as a false one?

[kandrathe]

Those historical writings are a bit outdated, and if they are of Christian origin not very impartial.

No. They are the Koran, and the preponderance of secular historical studies.

[Zenda]

No. They are the Koran, and the preponderance of secular historical studies.

You don't think the Koran is outdated? The Islam might the most modern of the 3 large Abrahamic religions, but a 1400 year old book is bound to lack some updates, imo. And while there might be modern secular historic studies that gave you the idea that Islam is a 'contrived religion', according to Wiki that view is not the generally accepted one. Ofcourse, there is also the possibility that you simply misinterpreted these studies.

[kandrathe]

You don't think the Koran is outdated? The Islam might the most modern of the 3 large Abrahamic religions, but a 1400 year old book is bound to lack some updates, imo. And while there might be modern secular historic studies that gave you the idea that Islam is a 'contrived religion', according to Wiki that view is not the generally accepted one. Of course, there is also the possibility that you simply misinterpreted these studies.

Wiki is your authoritative source? It says, "According to Watt and Richard Bell[/url],"... Bell died in 1952, Watt died in 2006. They were two well known scholars who happened to be sympathetic to the "Mohammad is a true prophet" point of view.

So, the sum total of "the generally accepted point of view" is that Watt and Bell said it was so in their 40 year old book?

I've read the Quran (Koran), and it is clear that this guy Mohamed was a vicious war lord. Prove me wrong.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I've read the Quran (Koran), and it is clear that this guy Mohamed was a vicious war lord.

In support of your position, may I point you to Islam: What the West Needs to Know. This film is very much both a documentary and a propaganda piece, but for those unafraid to think about controversial ideas it may be an eye opener. It is available for instant viewing on NetFlix, but I gave the link I did so all can check out, at least, the overview.

--Pete