[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But to vilify them all is just stupid. [/quote]
Agreed. There is no collective responsibility.
We need to focus on the offenders, and ignore the other billion or so that haven’t done, and won’t do anything other than live their lives until they die.
This includes Muslims too. [/quote]
I agree. Unfortunately however, the lines are blurred because man is fundamentally a political animal and having a certain faith - say, Islam. There’s a 99% chance that the practitioner wants some form of sharia law for example. Muslims are fundamentally committed to change society into an Islamic theocracy(eventually…although al Baghdadi thinks now). This commitment to theocratic change manifests itself in so many different ways I couldn’t list them all. But if you’ve seen how local politics works in places with a tribal Arab population and how the largest left-wing party deals with and absorbs some of them into public institutions. And in every institution they left their mark. What people call “Islamisation”. For now, “Islamisation” means that amongst the Muslim population there is passionate support for many Islamic “causes”, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict. So oftentimes the ones who are just trying to “live their lives” also have some side interest in political agitation or some sort of support for radical political movements and organisations. At the very least they’re often the sort who stand by and do nothing and say nothing when influential members of their own community are doing and saying horrendous things. There’s a climate of acceptance and repetition of a narrative that’s part of a worldview in which they see the United States as an enemy or for many who live there at the least an entity that must be radically transformed in ways to make it acceptable to Islamic sensibilities. And Islamic sensibilities can be extremely difficult to appease and assuage as we know.
So even with the “good” Muslims there’s always agitation. That’s what their religion entails. And part of their religion also entails alignment with a theocratic power structure. It entails taking certain positions on things that amounts to what most would call “anti-Americanism”.
And then there’s a small number who are not politically active in any way. The apolitical types. They’re good folk but the problem is they’re such a small group and being apolitical also entails standing by and saying and doing nothing when influential members of their own community do and say terrible things.
And there’s an even smaller number who speak out against terrorism and Islamic supremacism. They’re the real heroes risking their lives to speak the truth.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
…These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.[/quote]
Was there actually a time before language and writing?[/quote]
I think likely so, yes. But my understanding is the science on the origins of language is pretty incomplete and there isn’t much, if any, consensus on the origin of language or evidence to track how it developed that far back in the past.
I have never really understood why, if god gave men inalienable rights, men have to fight over what those rights are (and even go to war over them), vote on them (at least through representatives), write them down on paper, and then enforce them without any divine assistance in earthly courts of law (and a military or police force). These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.[/quote]
I don’t know that anyone ever said life was easy, god made sense to us or that we wouldn’t have to figure some shit out on our own here…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.
[/quote]
Those are bad examples, simply not wanting to be the victim of those crimes is enough to want it illegal. [/quote]
But, secularly, your want is just the expression of chemical reactions in your brain. There is no reason what you want is any more right than what you don’t want. You are expressing laws as the natural outcome of physical parameters, NOT the result of moral judgments about what should or shouldn’t be. And there are plenty of counter examples anyway. Suicide by cop for example. And even whole societies that don’t agree with you. Why is your want the good one and other people and societies wants the bad ones?
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
…These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.[/quote]
Was there actually a time before language and writing?[/quote]
I think likely so, yes. But my understanding is the science on the origins of language is pretty incomplete and there isn’t much, if any, consensus on the origin of language or evidence to track how it developed that far back in the past. [/quote]
My point, howbeit a bit off track (kinda), is that one’s fundamental views on origins are directly and indirectly fundamental to practically every other worldview he has.[/quote]
I agree 100%. Every single one of us views the world through his or her individual prism or paradigm.
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I don’t know how I forgot about him, considering I own a Jefferson bible. The number of Americans who are aware of his deism is small indeed. I doubt that 1 in 20 Americans even know what deism is.
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I actually find Christian deism very intellectually appealing.
Only a radically obsessed anti-Christian – to the point of sheer rabidness – would sum up his contributions to this thread with this statement.
And yes, it is your summary. You have nothing whatsoever of value to add here. You’re dismissed from class.
You can’t even punctuate your pathetic sentence correctly.
[/quote]
Not sure if you’re aware, but the poster whose English you are insulting is French.[/quote]
Was unaware of his nationality. I will cut him some slack in that regard.
His arguments get none, however.[/quote]
No, I’m from Canada. I’m in the office so I’m multitasking. My writing abilities are not that good anyway.
[/quote]
And the virtual epileptic fit you’re throwing about 11th century Catholic Church transgressions ain’t all that good either when it comes to explaining beastly thuggery in 2015 Paris.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. I’m not in support of these terrorists. And I will not vilify all Muslim people. There are a lot of bad people today who use Islam as a means to brainwash and do evil. The same happened with Christianity. So when Christians come on here saying ‘look how evil their religion is’ they seem to forget the evil past of their religion. Islam is young compared to Christianity and Judaism. Both Christianity and Judaism had there dark times and as the religion aged the people found a different meaning in the texts. These texts are all open to interpretation.
Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]
In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]
Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]
An overt non-Christian. [/quote]
Even though he’s on record saying nice Christian-like things, Thomas Jefferson was known to be a deist and accused of being anti-Christian by his contemporary detractors.[/quote]
I actually find Christian deism very intellectually appealing.[/quote]
Deism is antithetical to the tenets of Christianity.
