Originally Posted by ilovetv;***022

In the end, this is a nation founded on Christianity and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

That the Congress has a chaplain means nothing more than the fact that there's a chaplain on the air base where I work.

Here's a few quotes for you:

Starting with the Constitution

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion

The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Now, if you were to say that many of our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature, I could agree with that.

Originally Posted by djplong;***177

That the Congress has a chaplain means nothing more than the fact that there's a chaplain on the air base where I work.

Here's a few quotes for you:

Starting with the Constitution



The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:


Now, if you were to say that many of our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature, I could agree with that.

Yes, our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature.....which is why I mentioned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....and not Ishmael or others.

And as for the chaplaincy of the House, it's not just that there is one. It's that God has always been acknowledged from the beginning in the formation of our nation and its lawmaking, while today, more and more people insist that there be no mention of Him at all "because of separation of church and state". The earliest prayers (and current ones) by the chaplains at the opening of the House and Senate sessions indicate no such separation.

"During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian.
Duties of the Senate Chaplain
In addition to opening the Senate each day in prayer,......"

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

Originally Posted by ilovetv;***172

View the actual cases here. They speak for themselves.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305

So now I am even more confused....in the first case I looked at in Florida the court clearly stated the marriage agreement entered into by both parties in Iran would have no bearing in the US. From your link:

“Q. And what were the terms of this marriage contract?

“The Court: That is wholly without my consideration, this antenuptial agreement that was entered into under the laws of another country. That is not going to have one bit of bearing whatever on what I intend to do.

In the second case, again in Florida, the laws of Virginia were applied as the couple never obtained a marriage license before being married.

Virginia statutory and case law is contrary to Betemariam’s position. Section 20-13 of the Code of Virginia, entitled “License and solemnization required,” provides as follows: “Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided.” (emphasis supplied). Additionally, Virginia’s statutory scheme provides that the validity of a marriage is not affected by certain defects:

Did you even take the time to look any of these cases over?

Originally Posted by buggyone;***156

..."You do not see any ignorance or bigotry mentioned in the posts? The phrase used by one of the posters of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country" sure seems to be religious and cultural ignorance and bigotry - if not downright dangerously close to a threat to the lives of Muslims. I have repeated this posting by one of the regular posters and it has drawn not a single reply. Are you agreeing with the idea of this?

Yes, there is ignorance by those that fail to show intent to protect their loved ones and this country. Might even classify as treason. Try not to take posts out of context and twist them for your own desires. This thread has large majority that see the future threat so it just may be possible the majority are not ignorant and bigoted.

I SAID: Give peace a chance is a great thing, but when that does not work, its time to bring out Mr Colt and settle the problem once and for all. How did you read downright dangerously close to a threat to the lives of Muslims
I ALSO SAID: not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country I stand by that statement as under the laws of this country, Majority rules: IF MUSLIMS OVERPOPULATE THIS COUNTRY, SHARIA LAW WILL BECOME LAW OF THE US. Now if you want Sharia Law to become the new US law, then keep on posting as you do and that is your right under freedom of speech and press, but allow me the same courtesy and if you quote me, use the entire quote so no misunderstanding will happen. Thank you.

As their has been some bending of the lines of this Thread: THIS IS HOW IT STARTED: Maybe this will clear up some of the missquotes and interpritations.

The Constitution and Religion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure I could post directly on the forum with a faith concern, but in this case, it is as much a constitutional question. Last night Bill O gave a very interesting opinion or fact, I am not sure which, of the difference between Religion and Christianity in relation to the US Constitution. In brief, we have freedom from Religion like Catholic, Methodist etc. etc., but that the constitution was based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, the way I understood his intent: THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Assuming that is a FACT, why do we even entertain issues that pertain to laws and rights that are not within the realm of Christianity? Sharia Law for example.

MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..

Religon & politics always makes for such cordial conversation. My old high school buddies who get together once a year to golf have a rule: no talk of religion, politics, ed, other medical conditions. Needless to say it is a quiet, distraction-free round of golf.

Originally Posted by ilovetv;***210

Yes, our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature.....which is why I mentioned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....and not Ishmael or others.

And as for the chaplaincy of the House, it's not just that there is one. It's that God has always been acknowledged from the beginning in the formation of our nation and its lawmaking, while today, more and more people insist that there be no mention of Him at all "because of separation of church and state". The earliest prayers (and current ones) by the chaplains at the opening of the House and Senate sessions indicate no such separation.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

1) Is anyone in the Senate force to say the pray along? I'm guessing not.

2) Being founded on Judeo-Christian principles and being a Christian Nation (note the capitalization) are two very different things. In the former, the Bible may be inspiration - especially the better parts. In the latter, the Bible is the lawbook and that can be very dangerous.

As far as the whole "Christian Nation" thing goes... well, we are a nation made up, largely, of Christians. Again, big difference.

Are you put in prison for pre-marital sex?

If a woman, are you force to stay in a marriage even if your husband beats you?

Are you arrested for conducting business on a Sunday? (Blue Laws)

These were all Christian things in our colonial days.

One of the great things about our nation was that we did NOT ban members of other religions from holding public office or other positions. (Like how Catholics were banned from being lawyers from time to time in England)

Going back even further, the "Christian" thing to do would be to purify your neighbors sins by burning him or her if they were an infidel.

all these key strokes that present the past as justification for the here and now are for what purpose?

The here and now shows most civilized people have evolved to our modern level of beliefs. That would be the MAJORITY of the population here and now.

Yes there are some groups/individuals in the world that have not evolved and still live by the days of old.

They have that right....until or unless they embark upon efforts to impress what they believe upon me or my family....or change the way we live or what we believe in the here in now. And there are those that are committed to that end. And yes, SOME are Muslims. And thank GOD they are in the minority.

All the word smithing being presented is not going to change that one bit...nor is it going to change the notion that most of us want it to remain that way!!

It is really pretty simple. Some subject matter just does not need too much intellectualizing...in my humble opinion!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid;***291

all these key strokes that present the past as justification for the here and now are for what purpose?

The here and now shows most civilized people have evolved to our modern level of beliefs. That would be the MAJORITY of the population here and now.

Yes there are some groups/individuals in the world that have not evolved and still live by the days of old.

They have that right....until or unless they embark upon efforts to impress what they believe upon me or my family....or change the way we live or what we believe in the here in now. And there are those that are committed to that end. And yes, SOME are Muslims. And thank GOD they are in the minority.

All the word smithing being presented is not going to change that one bit...nor is it going to change the notion that most of us want it to remain that way!!

It is really pretty simple. Some subject matter just does not need too much intellectualizing...in my humble opinion!

btk

I hope all can understand this post. Well said. This is one of the very few issues that I say: YOU WILL NOT CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS ONE.

Originally Posted by djplong;***287

1) Is anyone in the Senate force to say the pray along? I'm guessing not.

2) Being founded on Judeo-Christian principles and being a Christian Nation (note the capitalization) are two very different things. In the former, the Bible may be inspiration - especially the better parts. In the latter, the Bible is the lawbook and that can be very dangerous.

As far as the whole "Christian Nation" thing goes... well, we are a nation made up, largely, of Christians. Again, big difference.

Are you put in prison for pre-marital sex?

If a woman, are you force to stay in a marriage even if your husband beats you?

Are you arrested for conducting business on a Sunday? (Blue Laws)

These were all Christian things in our colonial days.

One of the great things about our nation was that we did NOT ban members of other religions from holding public office or other positions. (Like how Catholics were banned from being lawyers from time to time in England)

Going back even further, the "Christian" thing to do would be to purify your neighbors sins by burning him or her if they were an infidel.

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

Originally Posted by RichieLion;***298

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

I see it that way, just could never say it so purrttyy.

Originally Posted by RichieLion;***298

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

My purpose was to demonstrate what "Christianity" meant when the Founders were writing our founding documents.

Modern day Christianity (by and large) is FAR more 'civilized' than it used to be. I mean, come on, I married one! ...and I'm insanely happy in said marriage.

The only part of your statement that I'll dispute is that modern mainstream AMERICAN Muslims are not, by and large, of that ilk. I honestly don't know what the ratio is in other countries of Islamo-fascists to more moderate Muslims.

Originally Posted by djplong;***358

My purpose was to demonstrate what "Christianity" meant when the Founders were writing our founding documents.

Modern day Christianity (by and large) is FAR more 'civilized' than it used to be. I mean, come on, I married one! ...and I'm insanely happy in said marriage.

The only part of your statement that I'll dispute is that modern mainstream AMERICAN Muslims are not, by and large, of that ilk. I honestly don't know what the ratio is in other countries of Islamo-fascists to more moderate Muslims.

I do not believe there is a moderate Muslim. That would be the same as a Sunday morning only Christian. If they do not wish to kill infidels, they are being disingenuous to their brotherhood of Muslims. If they are as you say, moderate, then they would not need Sharia Law in the first place. They would be happy to assimilate into the American culture. They would not kill their daughters if they dated a Jew, they would take their drivers license photo without a burqua on etc. etc. etc. Back to my OP, I have no problem with any faith or religion as long as they follow American law and CUSTOMS while residing in this country.

Originally Posted by The Villager II;***368

I do not believe there is a moderate Muslim. That would be the same as a Sunday morning only Christian. If they do not wish to kill infidels, they are being disingenuous to their brotherhood of Muslims. If they are as you say, moderate, then they would not need Sharia Law in the first place. They would be happy to assimilate into the American culture. They would not kill their daughters if they dated a Jew, they would take their drivers license photo without a burqua on etc. etc. etc. Back to my OP, I have no problem with any faith or religion as long as they follow American law and CUSTOMS while residing in this country.

Most of "them" (again, I stress in THIS country) *don't* need Sharia law.

What part of this aren't you getting? Did you look at the numbers from the recent Gallup poll I linked to? It clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO.

In case you missed it, I'll quote it for you.

Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 38% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Catholic: 39% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Jewish: 43% Never, 53% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 56% Never 43% Sometimes.
Muslim: 78% Never, 21% Sometimes.

Take a good hard look at that and tell me how that cognitive dissonance feels.

Try this one...

Question: "Some people think that for an individual person or small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 71% Never, 26% Sometimes.
Catholic: 71% Never, 27% Sometimes.
Jewish: 75% Never, 22% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 76% Never 23% Sometimes.
Muslim: 89% Never, 11% Sometimes.

This reality is clashing with your pre-conceived notions.

Again, I'll re-stress this was a poll done of AMERICAN Muslims.

Oh, and that "Sunday morning only Christian" you mention? Took me about 10 seconds to find a 2005 poll showing that only 45% of Protestants and Catholics attended mass every week. (For comparison, in 1955, 75% of Catholics and 42% of Protestants did)

You state that the poll clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO...BUT the question posed by the poll is Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Your conclusion and the poll results do not fit together...