the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government(1833, 3:728, emp. added).
Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.
An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation
I tracked down the quotation provided in the original post.
It's from Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811,
and founder of the Harvard Law School.
It's in his book, Original Intent, published in 1833.
It appears that his view may be an outlier among early Americans.
At least three articles cite several sources that indicate this:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/16/bryan-fischer/fundamentalist-when-founders-said-religion-they-me/
http://www.vnews.com/news/10197060-95/jefferson-was-the-first-president-defamed-for-mentioning-islam
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
However, most of the sources cited by these articles are from before the two Barbary Wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars
It is quite possible that Americans' view of Islam was changed by that experience.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with
Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja).
When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon
nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
"It was written in their Koran, that
all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners,
whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave;
and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."
Considering this, and the fact that Muhammad himself practiced piracy,
(Muhammad led raids on caravans in the desert,
his followers even today raid ships on the ocean, mostly near Somalia.)
one can see how public opinion may have changed by the time of Justice Story's book.
Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay by putting strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.
1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.
2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.
3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan
4) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.
5) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language.
6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.
7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.
8) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.
9) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.
10) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.
11) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist, and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.
12) Muslims cannot even rent a house in Japan.
13) If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighborhood stays alert.
14) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrasa' in Japan.
15) There is no Sharia law in Japan.
16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she is considered an outcast forever.
17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it."
The Japanese might have lost the war, but they are in charge of their own country.There are no bombs going off in crowded business centers, "honor killings
(repost anon.)
Quote from: red_dirt on October 07, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay by putting strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.
1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.
2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.
3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan
4) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.
5) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language.
6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.
7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.
8) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.
9) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.
10) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.
11) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist, and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.
12) Muslims cannot even rent a house in Japan.
13) If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighborhood stays alert.
14) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrasa' in Japan.
15) There is no Sharia law in Japan.
16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she is considered an outcast forever.
17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it."
The Japanese might have lost the war, but they are in charge of their own country.There are no bombs going off in crowded business centers, "honor killings
(repost anon.)
The U.S. could do this also, but our
congressmen and lawyers do not have the ball.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
Quote from: red_dirt on October 07, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay by putting strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.
1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.
2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.
3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan
4) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.
5) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language.
6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.
7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.
8) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.
9) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.
10) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.
11) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist, and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.
12) Muslims cannot even rent a house in Japan.
13) If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighborhood stays alert.
14) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrasa' in Japan.
15) There is no Sharia law in Japan.
16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she is considered an outcast forever.
17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it."
The Japanese might have lost the war, but they are in charge of their own country.There are no bombs going off in crowded business centers, "honor killings
(repost anon.)
So the logical question is how many Muslims have chosen to live in Japan with these restrictions?
Quote from: red_dirt on October 07, 2015, 11:53:05 AM
Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay by putting strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims.
1) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.
2) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.
3) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan
4) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.
5) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language.
6) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.
7) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.
8) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.
9) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.
10) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.
11) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist, and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.
12) Muslims cannot even rent a house in Japan.
13) If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighborhood stays alert.
14) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrasa' in Japan.
15) There is no Sharia law in Japan.
16) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she is considered an outcast forever.
17) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it."
The Japanese might have lost the war, but they are in charge of their own country.There are no bombs going off in crowded business centers, "honor killings
(repost anon.)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/japan-muslim/
Too bad it's fiction.
Quote from: tac on October 07, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
Too bad it's fiction.
Yeah, too bad.
I wonder about this one. More fiction?
http://marthavanderpol.com/2015/01/25/the-truth-about-islam-which-the-left-wants-to-ignore-serkan-engin/
No, the rights enumerated in our Constitution do not apply to all nations of the Earth.
In fact they aren't even meant to apply to non-citizen's within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government either.
Let alone non-citizen's under the jurisdiction of say the English Queen/Parliament.
Also, while the Justice maybe correct. I tend to find that the simplest answer is usually the right one.
And the simplest answer for why the framers put a first amendment in the Constitution is this.
In the day of the framers, not only did they know, how a government that is not constrained as ours is by the first amendment.
Can lead to abuse of the citizenry by that government. They lived it, and saw it quite literally up close and personal.
In fact, speech, in this case it was political speech, IS one of the very reasons cited for fighting the Revolutionary war in the first place.
To me, it only makes sense then, that later on, after the war. When it was time to frame our own government.
The framers would frame our Constitution in such a way, as to try and prevent the fledgeling new U.S. government from engaging in the very same sort of abuse, as that perpetuated on the colonies by King George and the parliament of that day.
I'm probably beating a dead horse here - at least I hope so.
But when I grew up I was taught there is a being, a Supernatural Being, that hates humans.
Loves to deceive them, kill innocents, subjugate women, abuse children.
That being was SATAN.
And as far as I can see, Allah is that Being.
Oh, oh. Have I gone too far ?
BTW, I have enormous respect for Jews, who I feel are fellow Christians (whether they know it or not). After all, Jesus was a Jew.
I also admire Buddhists, Hindus, and many more. As long as they are willing to live peacefully with those of different beliefs, I am cool with them. I am also cool with Atheists who understand that some of us believe in God, yet do not persecute us.
Quote from: daidalos on October 17, 2015, 04:38:11 PM
No, the rights enumerated in our Constitution do not apply to all nations of the Earth.
In fact they aren't even meant to apply to non-citizen's within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government either.
Let alone non-citizen's under the jurisdiction of say the English Queen/Parliament.
Also, while the Justice maybe correct. I tend to find that the simplest answer is usually the right one.
And the simplest answer for why the framers put a first amendment in the Constitution is this.
In the day of the framers, not only did they know, how a government that is not constrained as ours is by the first amendment.
Can lead to abuse of the citizenry by that government. They lived it, and saw it quite literally up close and personal.
In fact, speech, in this case it was political speech, IS one of the very reasons cited for fighting the Revolutionary war in the first place.
To me, it only makes sense then, that later on, after the war. When it was time to frame our own government.
The framers would frame our Constitution in such a way, as to try and prevent the fledgeling new U.S. government from engaging in the very same sort of abuse, as that perpetuated on the colonies by King George and the parliament of that day.
The constitution is a blueprint for how our federal government is to be structured and ran. The constitution divides our federal government into three branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial.) The idea is to separate and divide up the powers so no one man or group of men can get to much power. Each branch had assigned powers and assigned functions. How is a right enumerated in the U.S. constitution whatsoever or am I missing something?
When one looks at the Bill of Rights meaning the 1st 10 amendments of our constitution what I see are prohibitions. To me, they should be called a Bill of Prohibitions because they disallow the federal government from doing certain things.
The U.S. constitution in essence is a blue print for what the different parts of the federal government can do and are required to do and the Bill of Rights is a blue print for what different parts of the federal government and the federal government can't do.
What rights are actually enumerated in either of these two documents?
For the Declaration of Independence, the rights enumerated are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Here is a quote from the Declaration of Independence which says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If these rights supposedly apply to a certain group of people than are you saying that our creator does not endow some people with unalienable rights? If this is truth then how is this logically consistent? Why doesn't this apply across the board? Why does the geographical boundaries determine whether a person has unalienable rights or not?
Quote from: cubedemon on November 11, 2015, 03:55:26 PM
The constitution is a blueprint for how our federal government is to be structured and ran. The constitution divides our federal government into three branches (Executive, Legislative and Judicial.) The idea is to separate and divide up the powers so no one man or group of men can get to much power. Each branch had assigned powers and assigned functions. How is a right enumerated in the U.S. constitution whatsoever or am I missing something?
When one looks at the Bill of Rights meaning the 1st 10 amendments of our constitution what I see are prohibitions. To me, they should be called a Bill of Prohibitions because they disallow the federal government from doing certain things.
The U.S. constitution in essence is a blue print for what the different parts of the federal government can do and are required to do and the Bill of Rights is a blue print for what different parts of the federal government and the federal government can't do.
What rights are actually enumerated in either of these two documents?
For the Declaration of Independence, the rights enumerated are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Here is a quote from the Declaration of Independence which says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If these rights supposedly apply to a certain group of people than are you saying that our creator does not endow some people with unalienable rights? If this is truth then how is this logically consistent? Why doesn't this apply across the board? Why does the geographical boundaries determine whether a person has unalienable rights or not?
The
Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of
citizenship and the rights of citizens. ...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2015, 05:18:07 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. ... All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
But not foreign nationals. As well, if it covered
ALL Americans then why did Congress wait until 1924 to make American Indians citizens? :wink:
Quote from: BPman on November 11, 2015, 10:22:47 PM
But not foreign nationals. As well, if it covered ALL Americans then why did Congress wait until 1924 to make American Indians citizens? :wink:
and this is where I do not understand. Why do only citizens of a certain geographical area only have rights? Why are American citizens the only ones to have unalienable rights? Why doesn't the concept of inalienable rights extend across the whole globe?
Why does the creator endow some people with these unalienable rights but not others? Why does citizenship matter of a particular country that lies within certain geographical boarders matter?
Quote from: BPman on November 11, 2015, 10:22:47 PM
But not foreign nationals. As well, if it covered ALL Americans then why did Congress wait until 1924 to make American Indians citizens? :wink:
Simply because natives had no interest in being further subjugated by a govt that had destroyed their way of life.
Quote from: cubedemon on November 12, 2015, 05:13:54 AM
and this is where I do not understand. Why do only citizens of a certain geographical area only have rights? Why are American citizens the only ones to have unalienable rights? Why doesn't the concept of inalienable rights extend across the whole globe?
Why does the creator endow some people with these unalienable rights but not others? Why does citizenship matter of a particular country that lies within certain geographical boarders matter?
"Why doesn't the concept of inalienable rights extend across the whole globe?"
Because most of the world is governed by dictators or despots in some form. That is the brilliance of our founding fathers and the Constitution. The result has been the most free and successful country in the history of the world. However, we have too many citizens who do not appreciate what we have. Many of these are all too willing to forfeit their freedom for false security.
Quote from: daidalos on October 17, 2015, 04:38:11 PM
No, the rights enumerated in our Constitution do not apply to all nations of the Earth.
In fact they aren't even meant to apply to non-citizen's within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government either.
Let alone non-citizen's under the jurisdiction of say the English Queen/Parliament.
Also, while the Justice maybe correct. I tend to find that the simplest answer is usually the right one.
And the simplest answer for why the framers put a first amendment in the Constitution is this.
In the day of the framers, not only did they know, how a government that is not constrained as ours is by the first amendment.
Can lead to abuse of the citizenry by that government. They lived it, and saw it quite literally up close and personal.
In fact, speech, in this case it was political speech, IS one of the very reasons cited for fighting the Revolutionary war in the first place.
To me, it only makes sense then, that later on, after the war. When it was time to frame our own government.
The framers would frame our Constitution in such a way, as to try and prevent the fledgeling new U.S. government from engaging in the very same sort of abuse, as that perpetuated on the colonies by King George and the parliament of that day.
Supsalemgr, I think you misunderstood my question. It is true that there are a number of dictators across this planet who do usurp other people's rights. Not what I was talking about.
Look at the first two sentences that daidalos says. Unless I'm misunderstanding what daidalos is saying it doesn't seem like he believe that any rights that are endowed to us by our creator in the USA is endowed to those in the rest of the world. Why? Why does one group of people have inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator while another group does not? What makes us worthy of these inalienable rights that others do not have? I don't follow this line of thinking because it's inconsistent. I am extremely confused.
Quote from: cubedemon on November 12, 2015, 10:08:48 AM
Supsalemgr, I think you misunderstood my question. It is true that there are a number of dictators across this planet who do usurp other people's rights. Not what I was talking about.
Look at the first two sentences that daidalos says. Unless I'm misunderstanding what daidalos is saying it doesn't seem like he believe that any rights that are endowed to us by our creator in the USA is endowed to those in the rest of the world. Why? Why does one group of people have inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator while another group does not? What makes us worthy of these inalienable rights that others do not have? I don't follow this line of thinking because it's inconsistent. I am extremely confused.
I think you are parsing words. I do not disagree that all men should have inalienable rights, however, only the US enumerates this as part of our laws. Now, our Constitution should apply only to citizens of the US and not to illegals, but that is a different subject.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 12, 2015, 10:18:30 AM
I think you are parsing words. I do not disagree that all men should have inalienable rights, however, only the US enumerates this as part of our laws. Now, our Constitution should apply only to citizens of the US and not to illegals, but that is a different subject.
Can you give some specific examples as to what you mean? What should apply to illegals and what should not? For example, does the right to life apply to an illegal? Is a citizen or the government of the US allowed to kill an illegal willy nilly? Are there any basic rights that should apply to them or no?
Quote from: Solar on November 12, 2015, 06:01:43 AM
Simply because natives had no interest in being further subjugated by a govt that had destroyed their way of life.
No, it had to do with attitudes towards the Indians at that time. Many veterans of the Indian wars and the citizenry did not approve of them, thinking them heathen savages. I can understand that and won't try to judge them by modern standards as that is patently unfair & subjective. People are products of the age which within they live.
The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.
Thanks "Honest Abe".
Quote from: SalemCat on November 12, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.
Thanks "Honest Abe".
You mean Southerners who chose treason to maintain slavery, right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: cubedemon on November 12, 2015, 04:15:25 PM
Can you give some specific examples as to what you mean? What should apply to illegals and what should not? For example, does the right to life apply to an illegal? Is a citizen or the government of the US allowed to kill an illegal willy nilly? Are there any basic rights that should apply to them or no?
If a person is not here legally they are "illegal" and not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. Pure and simple. Anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. we try to make this too complicated and it is not.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 13, 2015, 04:20:17 AM
If a person is not here legally they are "illegal" and not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. Pure and simple.
Anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. we try to make this too complicated and it is not.
You said that illegals are not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. That implies that they do have some rights but less rights than the citizen. Unless I misread and misunderstood the whole thing, I thought it was said that the illegals had no rights. Do illegals at least have 1 or greater rights or do they have 0 rights?
If illegals have 1 or greater amount of rights out of the total possible can you specifically state what rights illegals do have vs. what they do not have?
You said anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. I mostly agree but I do have some issues with this concept.
a. What if the laws conflict with each other. Example: The speed limit on the expressway says 55 MPH. The flow of traffic at a certain point in time is 70 MPH. It is illegal to impede the flow of traffic as well. To follow one law would be to break another at times. There would be no possible way to follow the law at times in this case. So, what is the correct thing to do?
b. There were laws that were broken during the civil rights movement because they unjust. Can one break a law that is unjust and is one obligated to break that particular law if the law is unjust.
c. What if one had to break the law to save someone's life? For example, let's say I'm driving along and I pass by a military base. Maybe I'm walking to get stuff from a gas station. Let's say I see a groundskeeper who was choking and/or having a seizure. I climb the fence to save this person's life. Yes, I broke the law by trespassing on a military base which is federal property. Why wouldn't I be right to break the law in this case?
To me, things are not so simple and are extremely complex.
Quote from: SalemCat on November 12, 2015, 07:42:53 PM
The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.
Thanks "Honest Abe".
Quote from: BPman on November 12, 2015, 11:35:30 PM
You mean Southerners who chose treason to maintain slavery, right? :rolleyes:
Take it to the History Board gentleman. As the war between the North and South will live on for ever. Depending on what side of the Mason Dixon Line you live.
Quote from: cubedemon on November 13, 2015, 05:21:31 AM
You said that illegals are not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. That implies that they do have some rights but less rights than the citizen. Unless I misread and misunderstood the whole thing, I thought it was said that the illegals had no rights. Do illegals at least have 1 or greater rights or do they have 0 rights?
They are here at their own risk. They should have no legal rights.
If illegals have 1 or greater amount of rights out of the total possible can you specifically state what rights illegals do have vs. what they do not have?
In my view, they have a right to life unless they place someone else in a life threatening situation.
You said anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. I mostly agree but I do have some issues with this concept.
a. What if the laws conflict with each other. Example: The speed limit on the expressway says 55 MPH. The flow of traffic at a certain point in time is 70 MPH. It is illegal to impede the flow of traffic as well. To follow one law would be to break another at times. There would be no possible way to follow the law at times in this case. So, what is the correct thing to do?
Common sense tells us they will not be stopped. Prime example: I-285 in Atlanta.
b. There were laws that were broken during the civil rights movement because they unjust. Can one break a law that is unjust and is one obligated to break that particular law if the law is unjust.
They are still breaking the law.
c. What if one had to break the law to save someone's life? For example, let's say I'm driving along and I pass by a military base. Maybe I'm walking to get stuff from a gas station. Let's say I see a groundskeeper who was choking and/or having a seizure. I climb the fence to save this person's life. Yes, I broke the law by trespassing on a military base which is federal property. Why wouldn't I be right to break the law in this case?
Like a citizen, they are doing the right thing. However, that would not prevent them from being deported if they are here illegal.
To me, things are not so simple and are extremely complex.
True, but once again you are parsing words.
Supsalemgr, I re-looked at some of the stuff I have said in this topic and I think I know what I may be doing wrong. When you mean that I'm parsing words do you mean that I'm looking at individual sentences and taking them out of the context of the topic being discussed and responding to them without the proper context?
Quote from: cubedemon on November 13, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
Supsalemgr, I re-looked at some of the stuff I have said in this topic and I think I know what I may be doing wrong. When you mean that I'm parsing words do you mean that I'm looking at individual sentences and taking them out of the context of the topic being discussed and responding to them without the proper context?
That is one way of putting it. I am inclined to think it is more of taking something that is fairly simple and over analyzing to the point the subject becomes very complex.
Quote from: supsalemgr on November 14, 2015, 04:03:20 AM
That is one way of putting it. I am inclined to think it is more of taking something that is fairly simple and over analyzing to the point the subject becomes very complex.
It is a real problem that I have. I can confirm it because I've had leftists and people from various backgrounds tell me the same thing.
Quote from: cubedemon on November 14, 2015, 06:03:24 AM
It is a real problem that I have. I can confirm it because I've had leftists and people from various backgrounds tell me the same thing.
Recognition and acknowledgement is the first step to overcoming your situation. Good luck.
Quote from: SalemCat on November 09, 2015, 08:46:06 PM
I'm probably beating a dead horse here - at least I hope so.
But when I grew up I was taught there is a being, a Supernatural Being, that hates humans.
Loves to deceive them, kill innocents, subjugate women, abuse children.
That being was SATAN.
And as far as I can see, Allah is that Being.
Oh, oh. Have I gone too far ?
BTW, I have enormous respect for Jews, who I feel are fellow Christians (whether they know it or not). After all, Jesus was a Jew.
I also admire Buddhists, Hindus, and many more. As long as they are willing to live peacefully with those of different beliefs, I am cool with them. I am also cool with Atheists who understand that some of us believe in God, yet do not persecute us.
Actually ya have that reversed. Jesus said his followers are Jews.
Quote from: SalemCat on November 09, 2015, 08:46:06 PM
I'm probably beating a dead horse here - at least I hope so.
But when I grew up I was taught there is a being, a Supernatural Being, that hates humans.
Loves to deceive them, kill innocents, subjugate women, abuse children.
That being was SATAN.
And as far as I can see, Allah is that Being.
Oh, oh. Have I gone too far ?
BTW, I have enormous respect for Jews, who I feel are fellow Christians (whether they know it or not). After all, Jesus was a Jew.
I also admire Buddhists, Hindus, and many more. As long as they are willing to live peacefully with those of different beliefs, I am cool with them. I am also cool with Atheists who understand that some of us believe in God, yet do not persecute us.
I would respectfully disagree with that comment.
Jews cannot be Christians unless their receive Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Savior. Most Jews do not do that. Just being the same ethnicity does not make them anything other than what they are.
I offer the Pharisee and Sadducees as my exhibit. Jesus firmly condemned them. "Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of these, you shall not enter the kingdom."
Quote from: kroz on November 15, 2015, 04:18:52 PM
I would respectfully disagree with that comment.
Jews cannot be Christians unless their receive Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Savior. Most Jews do not do that. Just being the same ethnicity does not make them anything other than what they are.
I offer the Pharisee and Sadducees as my exhibit. Jesus firmly condemned them. "Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of these, you shall not enter the kingdom."
Yeah for those who read for themselves, and know that there is more to the Bible than John 3:16.
Christ constantly held them up as examples of what NOT to do.
He exclusively used the religious leadership of his day, as examples of how NOT to live. And one of the very things, the Bible tells us clearly that they were doing, that he condemned them for.
Was teaching their communities, that they should be "tolerant" and accept what is/was idolatry.
The first commandment of the ten commandments isn't a joke. There's a reason why it's numero uno too.
And contrary to popular belief of many alive today, Christ clearly stated it is also something that is eternal.
It is still to this day a very serious warning from our creator not to commit idolatry.