[quote=AllREIT] [quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'd say a Muslim can do it the same way an observant Jew can do it (remember the Old Testament verses quoted in the other thread which stand contrary to our democratic values)

[/quote]

The core difference being that Judaism has a set of oral traditions that modifiy/interpret/recast the base text into an inoffensive religious system. Thus I have no problem with Joe Liberman for example.

Islam commands its followers to kill non-believers, and they do that; early and often. Islam is wholly incompatible with western civilization vs Judaism being part of it, and Mormonism as a mostly harmless new religious movement. [/quote]

I just don’t understand how you can, in the same paragraph essentially say that the OT verses that strike us as incompatible with Western democracy can be ignored, but that similar verses of the Koran have to be read literally, assumed to be held by all Muslims as written, and stand as proof Islam is incompatible with democracy.

It seems to me the only differences are that we’re familiar and comfortable with Christianity and Judaism and feel comfortable ignoring the “inconvenient” verses (and even the radical elements and see them as an aberration)  and we won’t extend that same standard to Muslims.

BTW, I'm used to being pretty much alone on this (welcome, whomit). <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

When Ellison was elected and said he wanted to use the Koran to be sworn in I was amazed to find myself virtually alone among friends and co-workers to not be horrified/scandalized by it.

Whomit, for the record, I'm not debating Mike...just asking for his views and giving an unsolicited opinion.  I have no intention of getting drawn into a debate where you call Christians retarded.  I'm comfortable with my beliefs and you won't shake me from them...not with the opinions of a thousand Nobel Laureates.  I know what you are...your kind was forseen many years before either of us walked this earth.

...and after viewing the election thread, I doubt if Mike is interested in having you "on his side"...

Mike, thanks for your response...and I stand corrected on the whomit comment...politics (and religion) makes strange bedfellows...

[quote=Indyone]

Mike, thanks for your response...and I stand corrected on the whomit comment...politics (and religion) makes strange bedfellows...

[/quote]

I have to admit I didn't read beyond whomit's first line, so don't hold me responsible for everything he might say. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Indyone] I, on the other hand, would have a very difficult time voting for a Muslim since I share little with the Muslim ideology, but frankly, lunatics on any fringe make me nervous.[/quote]<O:P></O:P>

If I thought it was fair or accurate to assume all of Islam was a monolith believing in the same things the fundamentalists do, I’d be with you 100%.[/quote]

I thought I'd better clarify this...I'm not labeling all Muslims as lunatics on the fringe.  I was simply stating that most likely, there would be enough policy differences between a Muslim politician and myself that I would select candidiate B if, as expected, that candidate shared more common values with me.

I'll say it again, lunatics on ANY fringe make me nervous, be they Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or whatever.

[quote=Indyone]

Whomit, for the record, I'm not debating Mike...just asking for his views and giving an unsolicited opinion.  I have no intention of getting drawn into a debate where you call Christians retarded.  I'm comfortable with my beliefs and you won't shake me from them...not with the opinions of a thousand Nobel Laureates.  I know what you are...your kind was forseen many years before either of us walked this earth.

...and after viewing the election thread, I doubt if Mike is interested in having you "on his side"...

[/quote]

Ha ha... That's rich Indyone. My "kind" was foreseen. Does that mean that we evolved to this point? I mean, if we weren't here before, for us to have been "foreseen" we must not have been here, does that mean we grew out of the "foreseers?"

I don't call Xtians "retarded" any more than I would adherants to any other religion retarded. But... That's not to say I think of them as possibly less so either.

Quite to the contrary, I give the Holy Catholic Church a tremendous amount of credit for the advancement of science throughout the ages (talk about being one of the few). After all, if you made a claim that went against the Vatican you had BETTER have done your homework! Chances are that you won't get to defend your position to a group of peers, so your work had better be completely independently provable.

This lead to a rigor in the sciences that has held it well in stood.(huh?)

But what do we have today? The Kansas School Board banning the teaching of Evolution. I guess that has been overturned but the very idea that people whoes religion comes first before all else is a danger to this country. I don't care which religion it is, they are all approximately equal in the damage they could do.

BTW I'd also object to a PETA first candidate, or an Earth First candidate, or a KKK andidate. So it's not really religion, per se that is the problem. 

"I'll say it again, lunatics on ANY fringe make me nervous, be they Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or whatever."

Indyone, we're basicaly on the same page, but I'd like you to explain how and what an agnostic "Fringe" is.

There MAY be an  Atheistic fringe. But A-Theist means No God, agnostic doesn't really come close to meaning that. An Agnostic knows that he doesn't know.

An Atheist believes that he Knows that there is no God.

Wow - a few words, a little research, and now this…



My two cents and you’ll see me no more on this topic.



Religions are terrific. All of them. Each one of them at some point or another has provided peace & a sense of worth to someone.



Starka, I love that you are a religious guy. I trust that your religion guides you in your practice, and gives you grace.



I hope it’s not the same grace, though, bestowed on Tom DeLay.



Washington Post 9/29/05

"A Texas grand jury indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) yesterday on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party reorder the congressional map in Texas and cement its control of the House in Washington."



Too bad it’s people that practice religions. People who focus on certain aspects of the text that tell them to make war instead of peace. Sometimes these people believe that all means justify the ends - even if the means have us break the covenant made with our Maker.



This, unfortunately, happens often when people feel unheard, misunderstood, or taken out of context. People then feel like they need to force a result.



For me, being a Muslim is the rituals and the text - sometimes. For the most part, though, the text scares me as much as it scares all of you. It was written in the 7th century! Times were a bit different then. Did you know that Islam was created to make an alliance between several warring tribes? Yeah, there wasn’t enough food. People were starving. A larger group of people allows for certain individuals to specialize in agriculture while others can do math and others can turn iron into tools. Islam was used as a tool to solve the day’s most pressing social issues. It provided a uniform language & a high level of rigor for its followers so that they didn’t regress into their prior habits. It’s one of the reasons that Islam is amongst the fastest growing religions in the world today. What social problem was Christianity the answer for? What social problem is it still the answer for? You want to make a difference? Give people a clear pathway to achieve what it is that they want out of life. Isn’t that what we do? Isn’t that what our religions do?



What I am most inspired by, though, is the mystism. In my religion Allah is ‘A’ and I am ‘a’. I learned that in 2nd grade, and I still remember it. It gives me meaning. You see, if I have something - anything - to do with my God, then I must strive towards being more like… well, at least better every day. This is my role in my practice, as a citizen of the United States, and as a human.



I’m not running for election. I’m gunning for your business. And I’m getting it because people in my practice don’t ask me about my religion. They ask me if I can get them from here to there. I build them a path & light it along the way. Isn’t that all that matters anyway?

but the very idea that people who's religion comes first before all else is a danger to this country. I don't care which religion it is, they are all approximately equal in the damage they could do.

I agree with this thought.

An Agnostic knows that he doesn't know.

Agnostics are hedging their bets.  They don't know if there is God, but they aren't denying it either.  Who knows, they might come face to face with Her.... or not, and it is best not to be surprised.  I don't know if there is a purpose to life but I'm willing to believe that there is.  That is called faith.  Agnostics just don't know that they have it (faith) because they can't recognize, name or categorize it.  But, they can be convinced. 

Atheists deny the existence of God or any other Supreme Being. They also want everyone else to deny God and want to force their own disbelief onto others.

ooops, excuse me.  This must be another topic “for, from and about reps”.  Funny, call me stupid or a pathetic idiot, but it doesn’t seem to “relate” to reps, that I can tell. 

[quote=FreedomAdvocate]ooops, excuse me.  This must be another topic "for, from and about reps".  Funny, call me stupid or a pathetic idiot, but it doesn't seem to "relate" to reps, that I can tell. [/quote]

"Pathetic" seems to fit. I hope you get the help you so obviously need....

Babbling Bunny,

Why dinja just ask for your password? We have it. (JK)

" I don't know if there is a purpose to life but I'm willing to believe that there is. "

Cool. A deep idea (is there a meaning to life). I toss back and forth on this one all the time. Personally, I do not see the purpose of life being to glorify some uber being. The idea that there is a God who is so insecure that It (I mean no disrespect by being gender neutral) needs us to live and die in It's glorification just tends to discredit the entire notion of God Itself.

The only logical purpose of live is survival of the species (so far as I can see). Logical given that this is the primary directive of all living things on the planet. To that end there is a need for us to live a moral life (at least ever since Adam and Eve got tossed from the garden of Eden.

There is a book titled Ishmael which is a pretty dumb book but it talks about what the Adam And Eve myth is relating to. The explanation given by the author is that Cain represented argiculture and Abel represented hunter gatherer/ gazer shepard societies. When Cain decided that he needed the land that the HG/GS societies were using, they gave those societies three choices, join, move or die. In any case, Cain killed his brother. This theory is expanded on in Jared Diamond's Guns Germs And Steel which is another silly book, by my estimation, but he makes the same basic claims that the rise of agriculture is the rise of civilization as we know it and so the mores that we have today are assumed to be the "only" way and I'm willing to have this discussion within those parameters. I still keep my hippie cred of believing that their is another way, but I don't expect us to revert to it until after the rapture; which BTW reverts the world to an existence where God provides all and the need for agricultural labor is abolished, which means we're hunter gatherer/shepard grazers all over again.)

Ok so we exist within a society and for that society to survive there are certain "rules" that ought to be adhered to. These are pretty much spelled out in the Ten Commandments (I admit, that I am looking at this from a eurocentric POV). Jesus shows up and then there is the Eleventh Commandment. Love thy Brother as you woud love Me.

I think that these are mostly good rules. But I don't think there needs to be a God to have codified them. The reason there needs to be a God is to have someone enforce them. No laws are worth the stone tables they are etched by lightening on if there is no way to enforce them.

What is it? 30% of the first 10  that are self referential? I am the Lord. Remember to keep Holy the sabbath, and Ixnay on the Graven Images. Everything else is pretty much how to get along (and setup for the story of David who breaks pretty much each of them in turn doesn't he.

So what is my purpose in life? To create children who will carry on the job of creating life that will carry on the job of carrying on the job. I really don't need a capital G God to do that. I have several sisters who will have no children, and yet their lives served a purpose in that they helped continue a society wherein my children can go forth. Not every Bee procreates, but each one is helpful to the survival of the hive.

I am really much more of a Gnostic, than an agnostic. I believe that there is a consequence for a life badly lived. But I'm also (by virtue of this belief) A theist. I don't believe in a centralized power being. I make my moral choices as a result of my duty to the hive to raise children who chose to follow the rules of society but at the same time, challenge the "mob thought" of societies.

Up until recently, atheists were content to let churchgones be churchgones. Now, however they have come out swinging. I can't deny that today there are atheist that want to abolish religion. Not all atheists, mind you, but some. I can't say I blame them either. But I wouldn't vote for someone whose first description on them self was Atheist. Down the list (of things important to him) sure, I do think we could use more avowed atheists in the decision making process.

[quote=BankFC]

In the thread "Zero Capital Gains" the conversations veered off into a religious debate over voting for Muslims.  Let me put my position out there right now.  I would not ever vote for a practicing Muslim. 

Ashland quoted some Old Testament scripture, but failed to realize the New Testament is the covenant Christians live by.  Feel free to quote ANYTHING from our scripture you want.

While we're at it, I think I'll quote some from your Koran:

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

The call for the destruction of Christians.

[3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.

The Koran depicts Christianity as POLYTHEISM????

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

How clearly do you need it spelled out?

This is just a sample of text I found in 20 minutes or so of browsing last night.  I have no doubt there is more.

Please tell me, with all sincerity, how a FAITHFUL, PRACTICING MUSLIM could have America's (a predominately Christian country) best at heart.  It goes against what they believe!!!

I am honestly open to hearing a real answer to the contrary.

[/quote]

Wow, 20 minutes of research on google and you know every intention and motivation of every muslim on the planet much less the religion itself. That's about as credible as my judging 30 years of someone's life and his/her intellegence based off of what cartoons or TV shows they watch.

That is awesome. Maybe you should use these new found mind reading skills to run for office yourself and save our planet.

To revive an old topic. Check out this article:



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/business/yourmoney/08khan. html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BankFC]

Please tell me, with all sincerity, how a FAITHFUL, PRACTICING MUSLIM could have America's (a predominately Christian country) best at heart.  It goes against what they believe!!!

I am honestly open to hearing a real answer to the contrary.

[/quote]

Thanks for moving this question to a new thread where it belongs. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I'd say a Muslim can do it the same way an observant Jew can do it (remember the Old Testament verses quoted in the other thread which stand contrary to our democratic values) or a Christian can do it when we're talking about verses from the New Testament where there are questions related to universal application to today’s values.

<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Jefferson didn’t see a conflict, btw.

I think the real danger is what Ashland mentioned in the other thread;

1) Deconstructing old religious texts

2) Claiming every adherent of the religion adheres to every element of the text AND they all read it the same way

3) From the above two points asserting that every believer of said religion holds values antithetical to liberal democracy. 

For the record I’m not attempting to insult anyone’s religion nor am I anti-religious. I’m simply asking for an even application of evaluation methods  to all faiths.  You can’t allow for a “cafeteria” approach by members of one religion and claim that rounds off the sharp edges of their religion’s source text and then claim Muslims are monolithic and use every line of their ancient text to show they hold anti-democratic views that make them unsuitable as political office holders.

[/quote]

All of them are a sham.  Hucksters.  Now even the pope has denounced all other forms of Christianity besides roman catholic. Bah.

As a planet, we are in deep sh*t. Thats my philosophical contribution to this thread.

[quote=ManagedMoney] [quote=BankFC]
I am not Jewish, and do not live by Old Testament laws or sentiments.  Ashland tried to use Old Testament scripture to depict Christian beliefs, which just doesn't fly.
[/quote]

This is Christianity's problem.  It uses a Bible made up of two parts, where the second part (the New Testament) is mutually exclusive with the first part (the Old Testament)  Not only that, but the second part (the New Testament) is even mutually exclusive with itself...not to mention the fact that it is mutally exclusive with history, Jewish laws, and Jewish culture.

It always amazes when, on one hand, Christians pull out and quote verses from Leviticus in order to condemn things like homosexuality, but then on the other hand, they proceed to tell us that they are no longer under these laws, because all of the Old Testamenet laws are abolished and obsolete!!!! (never mind that the text of the Old Testament states in no uncertain terms that these laws are Eternal and shall never be added to or subtracted from.)

...isn't religion fun?




[/quote]

Well said.  .  It has become a joke frankly.  If the OT is/was the supposed "Word of god" then why is it that most of it is no longer to be followed?  Who decided this?  Pick and choose; pick and choose. 

It's like showing a prospect the annual returns w/o dividends for their current fund, and showing annaul returns w/ dividends for proposed fund--Bad Ethics.  And that coming from those who are supposed to be so "ethical" 

Thou shalt not judge.  Lot of finger pointing here bubs.

Doesn't god love all of "his" creatures that "he" created? (a mere 5000 or so years ago)  My two pesos...

While I agree with some components of your post… We have to remember that all writings(including the OT, NT, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.) are tracks of what was occuring during those times. Therefore, they need to be taken in the context of the time.



The OT took place during the resettlement of the Israelites into Canaan & the afterwards. There were wars, etc. The NT is a record of a much more peaceful period. The Koran was written at a time of war & famine, and it needed to appeal to the ruling class, the warrior, the merchant, the mother, and the peasant.



Whether we agree with them or not, this is why we have a clergy. To interpret ancient rituals & scripture and apply them to the current day.



Religious extremists the world around use original scripture to justify the most evil of acts. I believe religous pluralists ought to ‘correct’ for context.



An interesting new book just hit the shelves. I know the author pretty well and he’s good guy and has a terrific message:



Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel.

Here’s the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Acts-Faith-American-Struggle-aGenerati on/dp/0807077267/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-6932873-6514060?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1184618482&sr=8-2

I'm sure glad we all have one thing in common...Money!!!!

Call it a common "religion" if you will, but it sure brings people together...right?