TitanTiger 20,499 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's nice but this isn't really a legal issue. Nor is it a traditional issue. It's one of principle and values. Again, something that we've managed quite well to navigate for 200+ years of our history. You're creating a conflict where there isn't one. How would you react toward a candidate that announced "For me, Allah is #1 followed by America at #2"? A. I wouldn't be surprised. B. The current state of the Muslim universe is quite a bit different than pretty much any other religion on the planet. So it might cause my antenna to go up a bit more. But then I'd look and see what was meant by that comment. Enforcing sharia law on the population of the US would be a much different thing than allowing one's faith to inform the way your approach your duties. C. I think the Muslim thing is a unique scenario because of the last 15-20 years of radical Islamic terrorism stuff. If a Jew or a Buddhist or Hindu said the same thing, it likely doesn't elicit that much concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It has already begun. Carolyn Walker, a Muslim woman hand picked by Obama, was sworn in as judge of the 7th District in Brooklyn holding the Quran on Dec. 10, 2015. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=judge+carolyn+walker&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 C. I think the Muslim thing is a unique scenario because of the last 15-20 years of radical Islamic terrorism stuff. If a Jew or a Buddhist or Hindu said the same thing, it likely doesn't elicit that much concern. The funny thing Islam and America is their radicalism hasn't just manifested during the last 15 - 20 years. In fact, we were having similar terror problems with Tripoli Pirates(Islamic radicals) in the late 18th century. Thomas Jefferson wrote about them essentially saying it was hard to believe civilized people actually believed what their faith professes to and because of it they cannot be dealt with. He denounced Islam in the 1790s yet we're still having the same problems is 2016 which tells me we may always have the same problems with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,953 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It has already begun. Carolyn Walker, a Muslim woman hand picked by Obama, was sworn in as judge of the 7th District in Brooklyn holding the Quran on Dec. 10, 2015. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=judge+carolyn+walker&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= So? What would a Jewish person take the oath on? Perhaps we do away with swearing on religious texts and just use the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It has already begun. Carolyn Walker, a Muslim woman hand picked by Obama, was sworn in as judge of the 7th District in Brooklyn holding the Quran on Dec. 10, 2015. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=judge+carolyn+walker&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= So? What would a Jewish person take the oath on? Perhaps we do away with swearing on religious texts and just use the Constitution. best idea thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It has already begun. Carolyn Walker, a Muslim woman hand picked by Obama, was sworn in as judge of the 7th District in Brooklyn holding the Quran on Dec. 10, 2015. https://www.google.c...ype=&as_rights= So? What would a Jewish person take the oath on?----as far as I'm concerned nothing at all or anything that doesn't require a new law system like the Quran and Sharia Law, Perhaps we do away with swearing on religious texts and just use the Constitution.-----then I guess we would abolish use of the Bible in swearing in witnesses, etc., in many other places. Comments in red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnNTexas 7,154 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It's one thing to say you live your life guided by your Christian faith, but for a presidential candidate to specifically subordinate America's interest to those of his God is disturbing, considering the political activism of the religious right. What in the Christian faith subordinates America's interests. Whether you like it or not this Country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values. Throughout the Bible there are references telling Christians to follow the rule of the Land. Not exact words but Jesus says give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and give unto God what is God's. The only time you would not do something that the law said to do is if the law was morally offensive. Many of the Jim Crowe laws were overturned because people both Black and White believed those laws were not moral and fought to change them. Including using Civil Disobedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,953 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It's one thing to say you live your life guided by your Christian faith, but for a presidential candidate to specifically subordinate America's interest to those of his God is disturbing, considering the political activism of the religious right. What in the Christian faith subordinates America's interests. Whether you like it or not this Country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values. Throughout the Bible there are references telling Christians to follow the rule of the Land. Not exact words but Jesus says give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and give unto God what is God's. The only time you would not do something that the law said to do is if the law was morally offensive. Many of the Jim Crowe laws were overturned because people both Black and White believed those laws were not moral and fought to change them. Including using Civil Disobedience. And earlier, others used the Bible to justify slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuburnNTexas 7,154 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It's one thing to say you live your life guided by your Christian faith, but for a presidential candidate to specifically subordinate America's interest to those of his God is disturbing, considering the political activism of the religious right. What in the Christian faith subordinates America's interests. Whether you like it or not this Country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values. Throughout the Bible there are references telling Christians to follow the rule of the Land. Not exact words but Jesus says give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and give unto God what is God's. The only time you would not do something that the law said to do is if the law was morally offensive. Many of the Jim Crowe laws were overturned because people both Black and White believed those laws were not moral and fought to change them. Including using Civil Disobedience. And earlier, others used the Bible to justify slavery. Whether somebody incorrectly used the Bible to approve slavery or not. Give me one example where by choosing to be Christian first and an American second would force somebody to subordinate America's interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 There may be some semantics here-- one need not check their religion at the door when he or she assumes the Presidency. One must distinguish between the duties of the office to represent all fairly in non-theocracy. For example, if someone refuses to work on the Sabbath, they shouldn't take the job. If one sees their religion as commanding them to outlaw behavior they see as sinful for that reason, that's a problem. IMHO that's not what the Bible says and, as we know, religions like Islam are also political in their goals. Double irony! Ignorance on your part. You want me to explain it? Yes, I would love for you to explain your ignorance How about I explain the "double irony" since you didn't get it? Why don't you just stay on topic if you can contribute anything? Here's the way it works: If you make a statement, it becomes fair game for a response. Claiming that such a response is "off-topic" is evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 That's nice but this isn't really a legal issue. Nor is it a traditional issue. It's one of principle and values. Again, something that we've managed quite well to navigate for 200+ years of our history. You're creating a conflict where there isn't one. What do you mean by "something"? And what do you mean by "conflict"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 My deal with it is that if you are the President of the United States, a country that involves many different religions and nonreligious, then you have to be an American first. In that position country should trump your religion. Doesn't mean you stop being a Christian. Just like if you are the NCAA Director of Enforcement and an Alabama graduate. Then your position trumps your alma mater and religion. Well, like we've pointed out, that would be a new notion to the American political process that has never been in place in 200+ years of existence. Separation of religion and politics is a "new" notion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Positive views can be distilled down to 2 words...We won and had we not won the world would have been subject to the murderous whims of the Axis Powers led by Adolf Hitler world wide. None of the Allied Powers went into WW2 with the intent of bombing and/or killing civilians but Hitler went full throttle on that very idea in England, France and Russia from the outset. The Allied Powers questioned their decisions about bombing cities and wondered if they had become beasts but, in the heat and fog of war, they did what they thought would end the war the quickest and Im not about to second guess their decisions over 70 years later. Its over, it was awful, it was tragic and Gold help us we never go there again. If you don't question it and war decisions like it, then you will have learned nothing that will help you make the right choices going forward. Plenty was learned because each mission was questioned and vetted by all interests involved. Churchill and Roosevelt had many late night gut wrenching debates about when and how to act and react militarily. You act as if these decisions were lighted made, there were not. I remember one episode distinctly, when in a late night planning session one of Roosevelt's war aides stood up and said, "Its later, Im going to bed" According to the writer, Churchill was scandalized and said, "My God man,. we're at war here!" He reportedly sat back down and the talks continue til 3 AM. Churchill was known for his preference for working all night and sleeping late the next day. There's no bravery or dedication in causing others to work all night because that's your personal style. Planning is thinking, not marching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 hat do you mean by "something"? And what do you mean by "conflict"? "Something" = dealing with the "principles and values" issue with regard to people of religious faith occupying the highest roles in our government. "Creating a conflict" = You guys are behaving as if this is some intrinsically, inherent clash where a Christian can't put God first and still lead the country. But it's been done for a long time, and quite well in many cases. It's basically a non-issue except in hypotheticals that haven't happened. Separation of religion and politics is a "new" notion? Well first, it's separation of church and state. And the 1st Amendment makes is clear what that means. We don't have a state religion ala The Church of England. But that doesn't mean that one leaves their faith at the door once they occupy the office of President, Senator, Representative or Federal Judge. That would be a new notion of how one is supposed to govern in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 It has already begun. Carolyn Walker, a Muslim woman hand picked by Obama, was sworn in as judge of the 7th District in Brooklyn holding the Quran on Dec. 10, 2015. https://www.google.c...ype=&as_rights= But it can't be "official" unless it's the bible, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,390 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 hat do you mean by "something"? And what do you mean by "conflict"? "Something" = dealing with the "principles and values" issue with regard to people of religious faith occupying the highest roles in our government. "Creating a conflict" = You guys are behaving as if this is some intrinsically, inherent clash where a Christian can't put God first and still lead the country. But it's been done for a long time, and quite well in many cases. It's basically a non-issue except in hypotheticals that haven't happened. Separation of religion and politics is a "new" notion? Well first, it's separation of church and state. And the 1st Amendment makes is clear what that means. We don't have a state religion ala The Church of England. But that doesn't mean that one leaves their faith at the door once they occupy the office of President, Senator, Representative or Federal Judge. That would be a new notion of how one is supposed to govern in the US. You act as if the concept of dominionism doesn't exist. Simply because no one has successfully instituted a dominionist government doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of it. And there's plenty of reason to be wary of Cruz considering his background. There are plenty of people who insist we live in a "Christian Nation" and I suspect he is one of them. As far as our history of Christian presidents and how they handled the country, that assumes every president who is a self-identified Christian really is. I highly doubt that. Running as a Christian is pretty much a political necessity in this country, which is part of the point. And the first amendment doesn't mention a state religion. It refers to legislation respecting the establishment of religion. Formulating law directly on the basis of a religious belief does exactly that, as does incorporating religious expression as part of civic (government) activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like? Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. i actually prefer Trump. Over Rubio and especially Cruz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. Yes, why yes he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. i actually prefer Trump. Over Rubio and especially Cruz. You are in good company. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-would-we-want-more-muslims-white-supremacist-appears-on-cnn-to-talk-up-trump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,429 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like? Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee. Seriously Cruz could be the anti-Christ...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. Hello! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Sorry but Cruz is scary. And Hillary and Bernie aren't? Who do you like? Sorry, there's no way either Dem candidate can compare on the scary scale with Cruz. Quite honestly, I'm undecided, but I can tell you that I won't be voting for the Republican nominee. That's surprising I guess we will be cancelling each others vote. Cruz may be scary but Hillary and Bernie are nightmares. If the FBI recommends to the DOJ that she be indicted on criminal charges will you still vote for her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.