Separation of Church and State

[Figleaf]

Trying to draw moral equivalency between fundamentalist Christians blowing up an abortion clinic very occasionally and fundamentalist Muslims committing wholesale slaughter around the globe on a daily basis is trite at best.

RIGHT! I'd much rather have a family member killed by a Christian bomb than by a Muslim bomb.

[gc1765]

It is the only religion I could think of that preaches slaughtering ALL NON-BELIEVERS.

You haven't read the bible?

"12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:12-16

...and that's just ONE example.

[ScottSA]

It is the only religion I could think of that preaches slaughtering ALL NON-BELIEVERS.

You haven't read the bible?

"12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:12-16

...and that's just ONE example.

Apply Occam's Razor here. Who is killing people in the name of their religion on every continent around the globe every single day in 2007? It doesn't matter what happened in the 11th century or the 17th century; what matters is 2007. Are Christians slaughtering infidels wholesale in huge numbers any day? Are Jews rioting in the streets in the name of Yahweh? Are Hindus beheading infidels Iraq or blowing up trains in India? What about Buddhists? Jains?

All the ridiculous attempts to reach some kind of moral equivalence are meaningless really. Islam is not a religion of peace in 2007. There may be peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not peaceful.

[gc1765]

Apply Occam's Razor here. Who is killing people in the name of their religion on every continent around the globe every single day in 2007? It doesn't matter what happened in the 11th century or the 17th century; what matters is 2007. Are Christians slaughtering infidels wholesale in huge numbers any day? Are Jews rioting in the streets in the name of Yahweh? Are Hindus beheading infidels Iraq or blowing up trains in India? What about Buddhists? Jains?

All the ridiculous attempts to reach some kind of moral equivalence are meaningless really. Islam is not a religion of peace in 2007. There may be peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not peaceful.

Some people believe that Muslims are guilty by association, that just because other muslims are killing people, the moderate muslims should be lumped in with, and judged alongside, the extremists. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a Christian kills an abortion doctor, I do not blame all Christians, and I do not blame Christianity, I blame the person responsible. Same goes with Islam.

[Drea]

Scott

The only reason that Christians today are not burning witches is that OUR SECULAR society will not allow it. Secular societies keep religions in check.

Many *Muslim nations do not have a secular populations to "rein in" the religious fanatics.

I say thank god for the sanity of the non-believers.

*IMO there should be no such thing as a "muslim nation" or a "christian nation" or a "jewish nation". These labels only cause strife with other "religious nations".

I don't believe we should ban religion, but it should play absolutely no part in public affairs or foreign affairs.

[ScottSA]

Apply Occam's Razor here. Who is killing people in the name of their religion on every continent around the globe every single day in 2007? It doesn't matter what happened in the 11th century or the 17th century; what matters is 2007. Are Christians slaughtering infidels wholesale in huge numbers any day? Are Jews rioting in the streets in the name of Yahweh? Are Hindus beheading infidels Iraq or blowing up trains in India? What about Buddhists? Jains?

All the ridiculous attempts to reach some kind of moral equivalence are meaningless really. Islam is not a religion of peace in 2007. There may be peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not peaceful.

Some people believe that Muslims are guilty by association, that just because other muslims are killing people, the moderate muslims should be lumped in with, and judged alongside, the extremists. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a Christian kills an abortion doctor, I do not blame all Christians, and I do not blame Christianity, I blame the person responsible. Same goes with Islam.

Well, I think it's a matter of degree. If thousands of Christians were killing abortion doctors on every continent every day, it would become harder and harder to argue that Christianity were a religion of peace, don't you think? If Christians were rioting in the streets and killing people because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus, would that make a difference to your parsing out of violent vs peaceful religions?

The fact is that Wahabbism is growing in strength, not coasting or declining. And it's not poverty or ignorance or Bush who is causing that. It's Islam.

[gc1765]

Well, I think it's a matter of degree. If thousands of Christians were killing abortion doctors on every continent every day, it would become harder and harder to argue that Christianity were a religion of peace, don't you think? If Christians were rioting in the streets and killing people because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus, would that make a difference to your parsing out of violent vs peaceful religions?

No, it wouldn't. I would judge the extremists as extremists and judge the moderates as moderates. Two very different religions, just happen to have the same name. The beliefs of a moderate Muslim are as far removed from the extremist Muslims as the beliefs of moderate Christians are removed from those same extremist Muslims. If you are going to lump moderate and extremist Muslims together, why not lump all religion together? Why not say that religion in general is violent and blame all religious people for that violence? You would probably aruge that it's ridiculous to compare a Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist etc. with an extremist Muslim and I would argue that it's just as ridiculous to compare a moderate Muslim with an extremist Muslim.

The fact is that Wahabbism is growing in strength, not coasting or declining. And it's not poverty or ignorance or Bush who is causing that. It's Islam.

He certainly didn't help the situation by invading Iraq. See my signature. ...but that's a whole different issue.

[ScottSA]

Well, I think it's a matter of degree. If thousands of Christians were killing abortion doctors on every continent every day, it would become harder and harder to argue that Christianity were a religion of peace, don't you think? If Christians were rioting in the streets and killing people because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus, would that make a difference to your parsing out of violent vs peaceful religions?

No, it wouldn't. I would judge the extremists as extremists and judge the moderates as moderates. Two very different religions, just happen to have the same name. The beliefs of a moderate Muslim are as far removed from the extremist Muslims as the beliefs of moderate Christians are removed from those same extremist Muslims.

Excellent. Then we shouldn't have attacked Japan for Pearl Harbour, we should have attacked only Japanese pilots attached to aircraft carriers, right? And why did we ever waste all those bombs on germany when we could have simply waited until the Panzer IIIs involved in the attack on Poland went out of service?

[kimmy]

Many Canadian Muslims are open-minded about living in a secular, multicultural society where they live and work peacefully amongst people who don't share their beliefs and where the law of the land is different from what their faith tells them is the order of things. The group that received the threats is an example of this.

But, this incident is also another in a growing number of cases showing that there are also Muslims in Canada who can't or won't accept it. As Scott points out, the Wahhabi brand of Islam is growing worldwide, thanks to avid financial support from Saudi Arabia.

-k

[gc1765]

Excellent. Then we shouldn't have attacked Japan for Pearl Harbour, we should have attacked only Japanese pilots attached to aircraft carriers, right? And why did we ever waste all those bombs on germany when we could have simply waited until the Panzer IIIs involved in the attack on Poland went out of service?

You are quite right, instead of attacking the Japanese and German military, and the government that supported it, we should have attacked as many innocent civilians as possible, even if they were opposed to the war. While we are at it, let's attack Germany tomorrow, I mean clearly the Germans living today are guilty by association as well. A lot of Germans were nazis, therefore Germany is not a "peaceful" country, therefore we should blame all Germans for the mistakes of the past. Same goes with Japan.

[Figleaf]

It is the only religion I could think of that preaches slaughtering ALL NON-BELIEVERS.

You haven't read the bible?

"12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God."

Deuteronomy 13:12-16

...and that's just ONE example.

Apply Occam's Razor here. Who is killing people in the name of their religion on every continent around the globe every single day in 2007? It doesn't matter what happened in the 11th century or the 17th century; what matters is 2007. Are Christians slaughtering infidels wholesale in huge numbers any day? Are Jews rioting in the streets in the name of Yahweh? Are Hindus beheading infidels Iraq or blowing up trains in India? What about Buddhists? Jains?

All the ridiculous attempts to reach some kind of moral equivalence are meaningless really. Islam is not a religion of peace in 2007. There may be peaceful Muslims, but Islam is not peaceful.

He wasn't making a moral equivalence, he was responding to the specific notion promulgated by Betsy that Islam is the only religion that advocates slaughter of non-believers. Clearly, Betsy's contention in this regard was mistaken. And equally clearly, your post was a strawman effort to shift the grounds of the discussion.

[ScottSA]

He wasn't making a moral equivalence, he was responding to the specific notion promulgated by Betsy that Islam is the only religion that advocates slaughter of non-believers. Clearly, Betsy's contention in this regard was mistaken. And equally clearly, your post was a strawman effort to shift the grounds of the discussion.

Well, ok then, lets address that head on. It's conventional for apologists of Islam to cite the old testament as evidence that Christians are a bloodthirsty lot, entirely forgetting that according to Christianity, the new testament supercedes it with a 'new way'. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, but that seems pretty out front and clear. Nowhere in the new testament is there a call to slay, maim, or otherwise impede unbelievers. Quite the contrary, as I'm sure you'll agree. Yet nary a page of the Koran goes by without some incitement to gory blandishments of the unbeliever. And unlike Christianity, which can use the excuse that it's written by men, the Koran claims the unique distinction of being the word of Allah verbatim...dictated word for word to the ear of Mohammed. So it's hard to simply claim it's been manipulated by men. Dangerous too, since saying so can lead to the seperation of your head from your shoulders in fairly short order.

[Canadian Blue]

Quite the contrary, as I'm sure you'll agree. Yet nary a page of the Koran goes by without some incitement to gory blandishments of the unbeliever.

Can you name the books and verses along with the Muslim scholars who support your claim?

And unlike Christianity, which can use the excuse that it's written by men, the Koran claims the unique distinction of being the word of Allah verbatim.

Many Christian's believe the bible was written by god. They view it as without error, so how is that any different.

So it's hard to simply claim it's been manipulated by men.

Not really, have you ever read about the Crusades or Inquisition?

Dangerous too, since saying so can lead to the seperation of your head from your shoulders in fairly short order.

Saying anything critical of Christianity way back in the day could lead to getting burned on a stake.

[gc1765]

Well, ok then, lets address that head on. It's conventional for apologists of Islam to cite the old testament as evidence that Christians are a bloodthirsty lot, entirely forgetting that according to Christianity, the new testament supercedes it with a 'new way'. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, but that seems pretty out front and clear. Nowhere in the new testament is there a call to slay, maim, or otherwise impede unbelievers. Quite the contrary, as I'm sure you'll agree. Yet nary a page of the Koran goes by without some incitement to gory blandishments of the unbeliever. And unlike Christianity, which can use the excuse that it's written by men, the Koran claims the unique distinction of being the word of Allah verbatim...dictated word for word to the ear of Mohammed. So it's hard to simply claim it's been manipulated by men. Dangerous too, since saying so can lead to the seperation of your head from your shoulders in fairly short order.

Who said anything about Christianity? I'm not a biblical scholar either, but I'm pretty sure there's another religion that believes in the old testament as well.

[Figleaf]

He wasn't making a moral equivalence, he was responding to the specific notion promulgated by Betsy that Islam is the only religion that advocates slaughter of non-believers. Clearly, Betsy's contention in this regard was mistaken. And equally clearly, your post was a strawman effort to shift the grounds of the discussion.

Well, ok then, lets address that head on. It's conventional for apologists of Islam to cite the old testament as evidence that Christians are a bloodthirsty lot, entirely forgetting that according to Christianity, the new testament supercedes it with a 'new way'.

Conventional? I didn't realize that "apoligists of Islam" had been busy enough, consistent enough, or long-acting enough to establish any conventions.

In any event, you seem to be continuing down the path of your earlier strawman fallacy. Betsy asserted that only Islam advocated killing unbelievers. Facts have now been provided to the contrary.

If you wish to argue that there arer MORE Muslims likely to adhere to the worst of the Koran than there are Christians who adhere to the worst of the Bible, such an line might be available depending on factual support, but in regard to Betsy's contention, there's no scope for debate.

[ScottSA]

Canadian Blue, can I suggest something? Why don't we try to avoid each other in debate? I have very little patience for arguing with folks who don't do their homework and just like to argue for the sake of it.

Sure I can do even better than that. I can supply literal translations from the 5 major translators of the Koran, or "Q'ran", or "Qu'ran", whichever you prefer. But its all in the realm of public knowledge, as is the contention that the Koran is billed by ALL schools of Islam as the verbatim word of Allah. You're in effect asking me to prove through citation that the new testament is about Jesus, and in the process displaying the lack of knowledge you have on the subject. Let's just go our seperate ways, ok?

[ScottSA]

Scott

The only reason that Christians today are not burning witches is that OUR SECULAR society will not allow it. Secular societies keep religions in check.

Many *Muslim nations do not have a secular populations to "rein in" the religious fanatics.

I say thank god for the sanity of the non-believers.

*IMO there should be no such thing as a "muslim nation" or a "christian nation" or a "jewish nation". These labels only cause strife with other "religious nations".

I don't believe we should ban religion, but it should play absolutely no part in public affairs or foreign affairs.

Well, that's another issue entirely. Islam makes no distinction between church and state. Hence "Islamic Law", or Sharia. Islam is a comprehensive religion embracing both politics and state. There is no "render unto Caesar..." in Islam.

And remember, this is 2007, not the middle ages.

[Drea]

Well, that's another issue entirely. Islam makes no distinction between church and state. Hence "Islamic Law", or Sharia. Islam is a comprehensive religion embracing both politics and state. There is no "render unto Caesar..." in Islam.

And remember, this is 2007, not the middle ages.

It is not "another issue".

The fact that we are (largely) a secular society means that the religious nutbars have someone to answer to.

For one example -- gays are no longer banned from the military. Did the christian church make this very liberal decision or did the secular (no religious affiliation) part of our society decide this?

Christianity would be exactly as brutal as Islam is today if not for us non-believers -- who have been influencing (reducing) the level of religious involvement in our day to day lives for hundreds of years now.

And this is a GOOD thing!

One can only hope that a secular uprising will happen in ALL religious-run countries.

[Posit]

Canada is a non-secular society.

"Constitution Act, 1982(1)

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

It is entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Maybe we should revolt against ourselves?

[Canadian Blue]

Canadian Blue, can I suggest something? Why don't we try to avoid each other in debate? I have very little patience for arguing with folks who don't do their homework and just like to argue for the sake of it.

What, do you even know what your talking about?

Well, that's another issue entirely. Islam makes no distinction between church and state. Hence "Islamic Law", or Sharia. Islam is a comprehensive religion embracing both politics and state. There is no "render unto Caesar..." in Islam.

Ever hear of Constantine?

Sure I can do even better than that. I can supply literal translations from the 5 major translators of the Koran, or "Q'ran", or "Qu'ran", whichever you prefer. But its all in the realm of public knowledge, as is the contention that the Koran is billed by ALL schools of Islam as the verbatim word of Allah. You're in effect asking me to prove through citation that the new testament is about Jesus, and in the process displaying the lack of knowledge you have on the subject. Let's just go our seperate ways, ok?

No, I'm asking you to back up what your saying with what people who study Islam say. You can't do that, it's just like the climate change debate, your simply wimpering and whining now that you can't back up your own argument or do your own homework.

ScottSA I'm sorry to hear that you are too ignorant to actually be able to answer any question's forwarded to you on your knowledge of muslim's.

Once again many Christian denomination's believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Much similar to many muslim's beliefs.

[Figleaf]

Canadian Blue, can I suggest something? Why don't we try to avoid each other in debate? I have very little patience for arguing with folks who don't do their homework and just like to argue for the sake of it.

The forum has an 'ignore' feature. I believe you can access it thru the member's profile.

[Canadian Blue]

Yeah, if ScottSA doesn't want to hear from me, he doesn't have too.

I'll continue to feel free to disparage his posts for what they are.

[Figleaf]

Canada is a non-secular society.

"Constitution Act, 1982(1)

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

It is entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Maybe we should revolt against ourselves?

All the theocrats who like to trot this out as demonstrating Canada's non-secular nature have made the unsurprising error of failing to read it. It is constructed (quite deliberately) to have no operational meaning.

[ScottSA]

All the theocrats who like to trot this out as demonstrating Canada's non-secular nature have made the unsurprising error of failing to read it. It is constructed (quite deliberately) to have no operational meaning.

Which is supposed to have no operational meaning..."Supremacy of God" or "Rule of Law"? One need not be a theocrat to recognize the supremacy of God...at least in the Christian paradigm; although in the Muslim paradigm it's quite another story.

[Figleaf]

All the theocrats who like to trot this out as demonstrating Canada's non-secular nature have made the unsurprising error of failing to read it. It is constructed (quite deliberately) to have no operational meaning.

Which is supposed to have no operational meaning..."Supremacy of God" or "Rule of Law"?

The whole clause has no operational meaning. In particular, "founded on principles that recognize" has no directiveness to it.

One need not be a theocrat to recognize the supremacy of God...

It is theocratic to seek to bring 'God' (whatever that is) into government.