Who's Funding the Mosque?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Godâ??s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.

As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justiceâ?¦ And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

202

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. [/quote]

Point to Christ. I’d like to meet him.

203

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. [/quote]

Point to Christ. I’d like to meet him.
[/quote]

Straw-man, serious if you are going to argue. Come up with something better than this.

204

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. [/quote]

Point to Christ. I’d like to meet him.
[/quote]

Straw-man, serious if you are going to argue. Come up with something better than this.[/quote]

To be fair, it had more substance than Christ is all around us but yet invisible.

205

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Do we forget that most of the slave traders on the west coast of Africa were Muslims, I’m sure that would hinder business if we wouldn’t let them come here and live here.[/quote]

Why do you only mention the west coast slave trade? The west coast slave trade was a minor side show compared to the east coast slave trade. Over a hundred million Africans died in the east coast slave trade. Many of them died from being marched across the Sahara desert without water.

Much like how millions of Hindu slaves died being marched across the Hindu Kush. Kush by the way comes from the Persian word Kushtar which means slaughter so in Persian Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter.

A major difference between the east and west coast slave trade is that in the Americas the slaves were allowed to have children that is why they have descendants in the Americas. But in the Arabian countries where the east coast slaves were sent to you can’t find their descendants because any children were killed as soon as they were born.

In islam the history of slavery goes all the way back to muhamad. Part of the muslim faith is the belief that muhammad was the perfect man who led the perfect life. That is why I cannot see how islam could ever be rehabilitated into something good. [/quote]

And slavery is condoned in the Bible. Your point is?[/quote]

Cock you are so predictable. When I wrote that I knew that you or someone else would come back with a reply like that. Grow up! You are bringing the reasoning abilities of a six year old to this discussion. You are doing exactly what a young child does when an adult points out that they have done something wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions they start pointing out all the other kids who are doing the same thing in order to weasel out of taking responsibility for their actions.

In life the way to deal with problems as an adult is to identify, then accept that you have a problem, take responsibility for the problem and then personally deal with it. The way to not deal with a problem is to start making comparisons to everyone else who more or less has similar issues and then rationalize that you don’t need to deal with your problem when they have or have had the same problem.

It is because of people like you who want to play Jewish mother to the muslims by making comparisons to turn this into a childish pissing match that these discussions end up going nowhere.[/quote]

Close. It’s more like comparing a problem child to a child that used to have behavior problems, but has since altered his behavior for the better. Though I totally agree with you on the personal responsibility front.

Hagar, mother of Ishmael? Jesus venerated Abraham who purchased human life as a wedding gift for his wife.

Agree with this part.

206

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know the scripture but as I recall it goes Judge not lest thee be judged . To say McVey is not a Christian is what I believe to be out of your Realm

I also know there is a scripture that says judge a man by his works.

I think Mc Vey might have been a hero if that building were vacant. That was in the Clinton administration and we had just about as many right wing kooks as we have today
[/quote]

1st Epistle Of Saint John Chapter 3, 6-10. I’m not going to speak on McVey because I hold certain opinions on the subject that are not held as popular.

However, scripture says…

Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother. [/quote]

This may not be the thread for this, but you do realize there is some definite exegetical clarity required for this passage as translated above. Which is not inaccurate, but it’s VERY literal. Incidentally I just quoted this exact passage to somebody who asked me something in a PM today.
[/quote]

I imagine this passage requires some interpretation. Otherwise, imagine my surprise to learn that no Christian has ever sinned.

207

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

[/quote]

We have no right to stop someone building a temple to Bael, if they are planning to kill people without their consent in that temple we have a right to step in.

Personally, I think that if the virgins are consenting and of an age where they can make their own decisions then we should let them (though there should be careful investigation that it truly is free will) in practice the current laws of the US would block this.

[/quote]

Who in the right mind kills themselves? That’s right, No one, so free will doesn’t even play in here.[/quote]

I would disagree with that.[/quote]

Well so did the Catholic Church until the Psychologists made a convincing argument that someone that kills themselves would not be the right mindset.[/quote]

The freely chosen embrace of death in the cause of God is common to martyrs of all faiths. To suggest otherwise is to deny all validity to all religion.

208

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. [/quote]

Point to Christ. I’d like to meet him.
[/quote]

Straw-man, serious if you are going to argue. Come up with something better than this.[/quote]

To suggest the spirit of Christ is alive and well, in some unmeasurable, mysterious way, is an article of faith. To believe that Jesus is alive and among us… is very measurable. I have no problem with the crux of KJammers statement. I nitpick his wording because it irritates me when Christians assume everyone takes articles of their faith as axiom.

209

[quote]Otep wrote:
<<< I imagine this passage requires some interpretation. Otherwise, imagine my surprise to learn that no Christian has ever sinned.[/quote]LOL! Quote so. LOL! I’m no Greek scholar, but suffice it to say the construction here is a bit more accessible in something like the ESV (English Standard Version)

1st John 3:1-10 (ESV)
1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

The Apostle in the 8th verse of the first chapter of this very same book says:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

In ch.3 He’s talking about people for whom sin is their “practice”, their way of life. What they’re comfortable with. In the 7th of Romans Paul discusses in detail the Christian war with sin. Anyway, I only bring this up because my ol buddy Brother Chris there left this literal translation (I haven’t checked to see which one, I assume catholic)) of the passage kinda hanging out there and you mentioned it so there it is. The point he was making and quite rightly so is that in most cases who the children of God are is “manifest” in his translation, the ESV translate it “evident” in my opinion the NASB is even better with “obvious”.

210

[quote]Makavali wrote:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, Godâ??s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.

As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justiceâ?¦ And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.[/quote]This was a much better attempt than your usual prating gibberish, but alas we have been treated to prating gibberish nonetheless. I shall await with bated breath your next soaring contribution to these forums.

211

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Did he say he is not ?[/quote]
He doesn’t have to, there is clear signs if he was a Christian or not…he was not.[/quote]Look at that. Chris n I agree on something. I keep trying to tell him this, but it doesn’t do any good. Even by the very broadest and most generous definitions of orthodoxy, definitions agreed on even by you and I who are on opposite ends of the Christian universe, Koresh was closer to being a bean burrito than a Christian.
[/quote]

I know, we agree on most stuff, just not everything. I don’t think we are necessarily on the opposite sides of the spectrum either, however if anyone is a “Christian” and on a the Christian spectrum, then McVey and Koresh are on the opposite sides, and yet still clearly wrong.

I’m a radical when it comes to my faith, however my radicalism isn’t about false prophecies, it is not even about debate, it’s about following Jesus’ commandments and charity to widows and orphans and the poor and sick.[/quote]

You being a Christian or Koresh not being a Christian is a subjective argument , it is all a matter of opinion . And Koresh could have been close to a bean burrito, I do not know what his diet was like :slight_smile:

212

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent. >>>[/quote]That’s correct. However, I’d like to believe He would find the mortally essential truths of His gospel under all that as I do. (Or at least hope I do, it can be tough) [quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Koresh practiced a form of Christianity. It might be different to yours but so is a large chunk of the worlds.[/quote] That is incorrect. I don’t have a form of Christianity. There is just Christianity and as I and others have said there is no historic definition of Christianity any where from any time that would recognize Koresh as one of their own. YOU can go ahead. You can also call people who worship Porky Pig Muslims if you want to, but NO Muslim of any variety will accept that nor should they.
[/quote]

He recognised Christ as his saviour. As I understand it that is the one base requirement.

213

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. So why the “if”? And Christ is surely capable of understanding “what the pictures and statues [are] supposed to represent.”

[/quote]
No seriously, he would be like ‘who is that white dude on the Cross? Who is the pretty white woman in the blue dress? Why are they handing out crackers?’

214

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Do we forget that most of the slave traders on the west coast of Africa were Muslims, I’m sure that would hinder business if we wouldn’t let them come here and live here.[/quote]

Why do you only mention the west coast slave trade? The west coast slave trade was a minor side show compared to the east coast slave trade. Over a hundred million Africans died in the east coast slave trade. Many of them died from being marched across the Sahara desert without water.

Much like how millions of Hindu slaves died being marched across the Hindu Kush. Kush by the way comes from the Persian word Kushtar which means slaughter so in Persian Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter.

A major difference between the east and west coast slave trade is that in the Americas the slaves were allowed to have children that is why they have descendants in the Americas. But in the Arabian countries where the east coast slaves were sent to you can’t find their descendants because any children were killed as soon as they were born.

In islam the history of slavery goes all the way back to muhamad. Part of the muslim faith is the belief that muhammad was the perfect man who led the perfect life. That is why I cannot see how islam could ever be rehabilitated into something good. [/quote]

And slavery is condoned in the Bible. Your point is?[/quote]

Cock you are so predictable. When I wrote that I knew that you or someone else would come back with a reply like that. Grow up! You are bringing the reasoning abilities of a six year old to this discussion. You are doing exactly what a young child does when an adult points out that they have done something wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions they start pointing out all the other kids who are doing the same thing in order to weasel out of taking responsibility for their actions.

In life the way to deal with problems as an adult is to identify, then accept that you have a problem, take responsibility for the problem and then personally deal with it. The way to not deal with a problem is to start making comparisons to everyone else who more or less has similar issues and then rationalize that you don’t need to deal with your problem when they have or have had the same problem.

It is because of people like you who want to play Jewish mother to the muslims by making comparisons to turn this into a childish pissing match that these discussions end up going nowhere.

Now that I have dealt with your childishness, I’ll reply to your childish retort. I am not aware of any references in the new testament of Jesus owning slaves or forming and participating in raiding parties that went out and kidnapped slaves. Also while I am not as familiar with Buddhism (so I could be wrong)I don’t think any of the holy men known as Buddha did either. Enslaving another human being is something that a truly spiritual person would not do.

As the ahadith tell us, when muhammad attacked the quayrashi Jews he killed all the men and boys, then took 300 women and girls as slaves. The Nuremberg principles classify such an act as crimes against humanity. You cannot sugar coat, white wash or minimize such a history. Especially when you are telling everyone that you are Gods final messenger and generations later your followers are going around saying you were the perfect man who lived the perfect life.

Despite what you liberals want to force upon everyone else it is not racism or hatred for non muslims to confront muslims with their history and ask difficult questions that force them to think about what they are perpetuating. In fact it is quite the opposite. For if we cannot challenge them to think about what they are doing so that they can face up to what they are doing and change themselves then there will be no resolution until eventually something will happen where it is going to come to a fight.

When that time comes it will be the fault of people like you.[/quote]

And there are multiple accounts of slaughter and slave taking in the bible. You cannot act all morally superior based on your religious texts. My point was that your comments had no relevance. I am not a supporter of Islam, I personally disagree with a lot of the tenets of the faith.

What I want to know however is why does the mention of slave taking in the Koran have any relevance to whether a Mosque should be built near to ground zero?

215

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Huh?

I don’t recall ANYONE saying “there is no space for Islam” in America.

Sorry, but I think it’s you who’s suffering from cephalocaudal inversion.[/quote]

So there is space, but you get to pick it. Maybe they should wear some sort of identifier in public as well a yellow crescent sewn onto their clothes should work…[/quote]

Oh, heaven forbid that we should expect Muslims to follow our laws and respect our customs and values!

That we react negatively to being bullied and threatened.

Because THAT’S the kind of “restriction” that some of us here are advocating.

As for your “some sort of identifier in public as well a yellow crescent,” WTF is wrong with you? Such hyperbole and histrionics are less than I’d expect from you.

And again, Americans and the US have a LONG history of accepting people of all races, creeds and religions.

But it gets kind of difficult when you’re dealing with Surah 9:29 believers, pal.[/quote]

If they own the land and there are no zoning laws that they are going to break, why can’t they build a mosque? That is all I want to know.

You are suggesting that they should only be able to build their Mosque in an area that US Christians deem appropriate. That to me is in breach of the laws around freedom of religious expression. It is also setting the US up as a Christian nation which it shouldn’t be.

216

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< You will have to point out where the Bible says David Koresh is not a Christian, I know it would make your argument easier if it did .

There are Radicals practicing Islam and there are Radicals practicing Christianity. Do you see the difference :)?[/quote]Galatians 1:8-9 '“8-But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9-As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” I could bury you in biblical evidence if you really cared along with mountains of documentation on Koresh demonstrating to any non brain damaged individual that whatever else that abomination he was running down there was, it was not Christian in any way that even a community college comparative religions professor would recognize.

He did not practice Christianity. He practiced Koresh-ianity and pasted disastrously tortured bible passages and concepts on top of it. Do YOU see the difference.

[/quote]

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent. Koresh practiced a form of Christianity. It might be different to yours but so is a large chunk of the worlds.[/quote]

Oy Vey, this argument. It holds not substance but I’ll refute it quickly. Jesus is omnipresent, of course he would know what was going on and know exactly what the pictures and statues were supposed to present. Jesus was Jewish, he was a Rabbi. Talk to Jewish people that have been in a Catholic Mass and they’ll tell you it reminds them of their rituals. That’s because it comes from their rituals.[/quote]

He would turn up at Christmas and have no clue what was going on. Same with Easter.

217

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. [/quote]

Point to Christ. I’d like to meet him.
[/quote]

Straw-man, serious if you are going to argue. Come up with something better than this.[/quote]

To be fair, it had more substance than Christ is all around us but yet invisible.
[/quote]

To be fair, if we are going to discuss theology, address theology not a something you make up.

218

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

[/quote]

We have no right to stop someone building a temple to Bael, if they are planning to kill people without their consent in that temple we have a right to step in.

Personally, I think that if the virgins are consenting and of an age where they can make their own decisions then we should let them (though there should be careful investigation that it truly is free will) in practice the current laws of the US would block this.

[/quote]

Who in the right mind kills themselves? That’s right, No one, so free will doesn’t even play in here.[/quote]

I would disagree with that.[/quote]

Well so did the Catholic Church until the Psychologists made a convincing argument that someone that kills themselves would not be the right mindset.[/quote]

The freely chosen embrace of death in the cause of God is common to martyrs of all faiths. To suggest otherwise is to deny all validity to all religion.[/quote]

There is a difference between Martyrs and people that choose to kill themselves.

219

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

This is equivalent of saying the government can’t reject a religion just because we do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed. We can and have.[/quote]

No it isn’t[/quote]

Yes it is.[/quote]

By the way, the US 9th circuit court has ruled exactly that you can’t reject a religion just because you do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed.

220

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know the scripture but as I recall it goes Judge not lest thee be judged . To say McVey is not a Christian is what I believe to be out of your Realm

I also know there is a scripture that says judge a man by his works.

I think Mc Vey might have been a hero if that building were vacant. That was in the Clinton administration and we had just about as many right wing kooks as we have today
[/quote]

1st Epistle Of Saint John Chapter 3, 6-10. I’m not going to speak on McVey because I hold certain opinions on the subject that are not held as popular.

However, scripture says…

Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother. [/quote]This may not be the thread for this, but you do realize there is some definite exegetical clarity required for this passage as translated above. Which is not inaccurate, but it’s VERY literal. Incidentally I just quoted this exact passage to somebody who asked me something in a PM today.

[/quote]

Yes, I know but I’m sure people can get the message pretty clearly.