Religion and governtment

[KempoGuy06]

Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.

Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?

Ideas...

Opinions....

Again big topic, lets keep it as civil as possible, i realize this could become heated

B

 

[terryl965]

I do not see any harm just people views and opinions. In school there are to many factors for a prayer except it is a general one that can cover all religions. Our government is not strong enough to take one side or the other and people will jump on one bandwagon and then switch.

 

[KempoGuy06]

In school there are to many factors for a prayer except it is a general one that can cover all religions.

This isnt hard to do, as long as you dont use JC in the prayer it can cover all religions (for the most part).

Our government is not strong enough to take one side or the other and people will jump on one bandwagon and then switch.

This is sad. The government should stand up and say "look this is why we are here and it is going to stay that way". Another sad thing is, is that its going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better

B

 

[michaeledward]

Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.

Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?

Ideas...

Opinions....

Again big topic, lets keep it as civil as possible, i realize this could become heated

B

It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate.

The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.

As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.

 

[rustyself]

It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate.

The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.

As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.

MOST of the men that founded our country were christians, hence the reference to God in so many of their documents... the seperation of state was meant to keep the state out of the church's business, not the church out of the state's business. ask yourself how it could be any other way, when everything down to the Pledge of Alliegance references God.

also, it is interesting how you point toward the crucifixtion of Christ as to how the "harms" of religion were started. how about the MILLIONS of people the socialist hitler killed, and the MILLIONS of people islam has killed?

so the question becomes, do you support socialism, or democracy? you cant have it both ways.

 

[KempoGuy06]

It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate.

The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.

As far as I understood it, people settled here to escape political and religous tyranny.

As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.

I know that harm can be caused obviously also you have to do is pick up a history book and see that the pages of history are splattered with the blood of people who fought for or against religion.

No they havent gone away, obviously Sept 11 was cause by a group of religious fanaticals. There is no concection between this and prayers in school. I never talk about it again if a prayer in a school was the direct cause of the death of thousands of Americans

But what harm can honestly come from keeping those words in the pledge, or allowing kids to say prayers in school?

B

 

[michaeledward]

You are aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written not with the founding of our nation, but in 1892, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the Western Hemisphere.

Upon its first publishing, the Pledge read

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

The reference to a supreme being was added President Eisenhower in 1954.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 'founding' of our country, and the beliefs of those founders.

 

[michaeledward]

But what harm can honestly come from keeping those words in the pledge, or allowing kids to say prayers in school?

B

Allow me to ask the question in another manner. What harm can come from making all students in a school to recite:

I testify that there is no god, but Allah, and I testify that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.

 

[rustyself]

By The Honorable Judge Robert Ulrich
Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District

We as Christian Americans are confronted with many issues reflecting that Christian principles are not standard in America today. Violent crime has risen 560% since 1960. Less than 1% of all Americans had used illegal drugs before 1960. By 1967, that number had risen to 17%. Today, 5000 Americans will use an illegal drug for the first time. As a Judge, I'm alarmed at the number of cases involving children who are sexually abused. I read recently that one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually assaulted before their 18th birthday. The teen suicide rate has tripled since 1960. Nationally, numerous allegations are asserted that the Chief Executive has engaged in a pattern of illicit sexual conduct, and what is particularly disturbing is that many pundits claim that, if it's true, it doesn't matter because the economy is doing well and it's a personal matter.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Allow me to ask the question in another manner. What harm can come from making all students in a school to recite:

Aboslutely nothing. Christianity does not recognize any other God but its own. Are you saying that believing there is only one God is the problem.

if the kids are not taught that Americans are inferior and should be slaughtered in the name of Allah then it becomes a problem and can cause harm.

Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.

Also on a side note, your comment came across as borderline prejudice. I believe that you dont not feel this way but I just wanted to tell you. It appears that you are saying by you believe in Allah you will cause harm to other people. I understand the basis of the comment given the recent events in the past couple years but to say that all the people who believe in Allah are going to cause harm to other people is a prejudicial remark. agian that is the way your comment appears

B

 

[rustyself]

ahh, but that is the crux of the problem: that IS what they teach. openly.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

 

[michaeledward]

Aboslutely nothing. if the kids are not taught that Americans are inferior and should be slaughtered in the name of Allah then it becomes a problem and can cause harm.

Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.

B

I suggest you approach acquaintances of the Christain faith, and ask them what they would think if their children were required to recite the First Pillar of Islam in their school classroom.

I think you may find a conflict with the First of their Ten Commandments.

 

[rustyself]

Question: Is Islam compatible with democracy?


Summary Answer: Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.


The Qur'an:
Sura (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.
Sura (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief.
Sura (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" ie. not to anyone else.
Sura (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."
Sura (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.
Sura (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." Sura (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Obedience is strictly limited to the government drawn only from the pool of believers, not from the broader community.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Non-Muslims are intended to be subordinate to Muslims.

Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Bukhari (89:251) - Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." The ruler referred to here is the Caliph, who is appointed by Allah, not by popular election. Democratic rule has no legitimacy against the will of the Caliph who, as we see by chain of reference, has the authority of Allah.


Additional Notes:
To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."
Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed. There is no need for addition or correction. Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims). Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating).
The law of one man, one vote is heretical to Islam. The testimony of a Muslim woman is worth only half that of a man. Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims), and atheists are to be killed outright.
Reform-minded Muslims (who prefer to ignore all of this) instead point to Sura (42:38), where the phrase "[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation" is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy. Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error." On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "ijma" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law.
But ijma, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam. Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large. Even when its legitimacy is recognized, ijma is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils. Also, it bears pointing out that ijma and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males).
Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people. Even if the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law.

 

[Andrew Green]

I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?

Why not pray in Hebrew? Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan? Buhhdist? Sikhism?

If any of those seem harmful, that is why other people find the idea of teaching Christian practices in school harmful.

It's also my understanding that many of the references to God in things like the pledge, money and other national symbols where added in the 1950's, essentially as propaganda to turn public opinion against the evil communists.

 

[rustyself]

michael, i know you are a commited liberal, but here is one you didnt know from their hadith:

Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

now, that kind of ruins it for the left's obvious choice, dont you think?

 

[rustyself]

I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?

Why not pray in Hebrew? Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan? Buhhdist? Sikhism?

If any of those seem harmful, that is why other people find the idea of teaching Christian practices in school harmful.

It's also my understanding that many of the references to God in things like the pledge, money and other national symbols where added in the 1950's, essentially as propaganda to turn public opinion against the evil communists.

read my post above about the founder's beliefs. kinda long, but very informative about the christian beginnings of our nation.

 

[KempoGuy06]

I suggest you approach acquaintances of the Christain faith, and ask them what they would think if their children were required to recite the First Pillar of Islam in their school classroom.

I think you may find a conflict with the First of their Ten Commandments.

They would have a problem and rightfully so if their kids were required to recite it, but if they were only given the opportunity to say a prayer aloud or to themselves then the parents would have no argument.

The answer is there is no harm cause by having "one nation under God" in the pledge and there is now harm in allowing kids to pray in school. People think that introducing kids to other religions is bad and its not. The reason people have problems with religion is because they dont understand it well enough.

B

 

[KempoGuy06]

I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?

Why not pray in Hebrew? Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan? Buhhdist? Sikhism?

If any of those seem harmful, that is why other people find the idea of teaching Christian practices in school harmful.

It's also my understanding that many of the references to God in things like the pledge, money and other national symbols where added in the 1950's, essentially as propaganda to turn public opinion against the evil communists.

Thats a good point. Im not saying that it should only be the Christian religion. Include other religions. Information is always good.

B

 

[michaeledward]

There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.


I am the reason our forefathers founded the nation as they did. I am an athiest. I wonder why a "pledge of allegiance" to my nation (something I do believe in), would require me to also recite an acceptance of subservience to a supreme being (something I do not believe in).

Is it possible to show fidelity to the State and its principles and ideals, without requiring a demonstration of fealty and subordination to a god?

 

[Andrew Green]

They would have a problem and rightfully so if their kids were required to recite it, but if they were only given the opportunity to say a prayer aloud or to themselves then the parents would have no argument.

I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of parents would object if during this time some prayed to a Christian God, some prayed to the Jewish version, others to the Islamic, some did some Wiccan rituals, others some scientology ones, and a few passed on the opportunity saying that there is no God and just for fun, some dressed up as pirates and prayed to the flying spaghetti monster.

The answer is there is no harm cause by having "one nation under God" in the pledge and there is now harm in allowing kids to pray in school. People think that introducing kids to other religions is bad and its not. The reason people have problems with religion is because they dont understand it well enough.

B

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Yahweh, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Waheguru indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Anything seem wrong with that? "god" may be a generic term, but "God" is pretty much a Christian way of referring to there god