The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[bodecea]

No, I'm not. bod's lying again...

If you're here, why not answer a simple question that's been posed to you a dozen times?



Don't worry Allie, you'll have a lot of people you buddy up with on this board cheering you for admitting to being a bigot.

So...if I'm lying, that means Allie's posting stealth now...because when I posed the question again, she was not on line in this subforum.

Yep...she's posting stealth now. I wonder if she ever will answer my question. It would take backbone to do so.

Ah, another neg rep....explain, Allie...if you will...why you keep negging people when they tell the truth? Are you allergic to the Truth? Is it painful to you? Apparently so.


And as to being Stealth,...we all know you've been on today...where are you on the list of posters on in the last 24 hours? Why, you're not there. Stealth posters don't show up, do they? You didn't know it would be that easy to check, did you?

Hey, one question, Allie...if you keep negging me, how come my rep keeps going up?

 

[TheBrain]

What..people?

And I would LOVE the verification that violent acts of terrorism are the acts of the lowest .0000000000001% of the Muslim population. That's a great number. Please provide a link.

So you are going to go the "play dumb" route now, Allie? I've asked you several times to define who those people are....I will even bump it again so you can run away again.

Wow people have really strayed from topic with this thread which was someone's stupid claim that our nation was not founded on Christian principles when in fact the writings of the more than 200 founders SPECIFICALLY detail how Christianity led them to design the system they did. Those arguing otherwise have clearly never read the writings of those who spent years and years debating how to best incorporate Christian principles into the creation of our system, what our Constitution must and must not include all while still providing religious protections for all. It was not founded as a theocracy which is a far different thing and the founders specifically rejected that as the ONLY way to protect all denominations of Christianity -which were viewed as different religions and not as one religion of "Christianity". Remember this was a time when nearly everyone was a Christian, there were no Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and only a few hundred Jews at the time. They were not interested in protecting non-Christians although they knew they would be doing so in order to protect all those who practiced the different Christian religions. There is no such thing as Christianity being one religion - and among Christians even today, all those different denominations are all considered to be totally different religions. Just ask a Baptist if he thinks Catholicism is the same religion as his own -or a Catholic if he thinks Mormonism is the same religion is as his own.

Sorry for those who want to re-write US history and hope to eliminate any role that Christianity played in its founding -but its very founding was the result of Christian principles put into practice in the first place. Those who like to pretend Christians actually want to impose a theocracy like Islam does are just full of shit -it is not consistent with Christian PRINCIPLES because there is no such thing as a "Christian" government to put in charge of it. That is because Christianity is not a single religion but a label to identify HUNDREDS of religions -which are considered to be different religions even by the practitioners of those different denominations to this very day. The founders rejected a theocracy NOT because they rejected the authority of Christ -but because they rejected the idea of placing one denomination (and its disputed doctrine) of Christianity above all the others[/B] which would open the door to future persecution of all the others just as happened routinely in Europe. But that our system was founded on Christian principles? ABSOLUTELY and you have to be an ignorant MORON not to know it because the founders left REAMS of their own writings and letters discussing how to best call upon those Christian principles, how a government might best utilize those Christian principles when put into practice and the role their own religious beliefs played in the entire process both on an individual level and among discussions and exchanges of letters between them. Those writings still exist and all you have to do is READ them to know what a lie the assertion is made by the person who started this thread who wants a re-write of history in order to diminish the importance the fundamental religious beliefs of the vast majority had in the formation of this country! The religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of ANY population are going to VASTLY influence what kind of society and government they form! DUH!

Nearly to a one at some point in the process these founders discussed, expressed, repeated or wrote about their desire to create a system that best reflected the PURE teachings of Christ but WITHOUT imposing a specific religion on citizens -because no system based on Christian principles could properly reflect those principles without also respecting the gift from God of FREE WILL -a fundamental Christian belief that the individual not only has a right to govern himself, but MUST govern himself -both in his daily life and in his ability to freely choose the leaders who will lead his government. This country was the first to be based on the RIGHT of human beings to govern THEMSELVES instead of one that assumed some people had a "right" to rule over others. "Free will" is an inextricable part of fundamental Christian doctrine that goes beyond the rejection of forced conversion as meaningless to God, but also means He gave us the RIGHT to self-governance and no one the "right" to RULE. It is inextricably intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL Christian principle and belief that God wants us to voluntarily come to Him and His teachings and totally rejects what is forced as the worthless crap it is. No other religion values the gift of free will to the degree Christianity or does and some outright reject it as a valuable gift from God and view it more as a curse.

For example, in Islam their god wants other men to force everyone else to do their god's bidding, proscribes rigorous, rigid and inflexible control over members in every way and very specific harsh, brutal, barbarian punishment and even murder as the tools to do it. Their god not only approves but orders stripping man of his free will and forcibly imposing their god's will on all others even at the point of a sword. MAJOR difference in the fundamental principles in the religious beliefs of a population will naturally produce MAJOR differences in the kinds of governments that can emerge from those principles. You really want to pretend Christian principles had nothing to do with the formation of THIS unique system of government -then go try living under one that was born of Islamic principles instead and see if you can spot the differences! The reason Americans, who were nearly ALL Christian at the time -claimed and still claim their rights are God given is because it serves as a very specific warning to those who seek power that what God has given us, no man has the right to take from us. Go try telling the populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran about their God given right of self-governance, their right of free speech, their right to worship as they choose and I'll take bets on the length of your survival. But before opening your mouth remember a recent poll following Mubarek's fall showed that 80% of Egyptians believed their non-Muslim minority deserved to be KILLED for being "infidels". And just think -Egypt is far from being the most radical Muslim nation.

Those claiming Islamofascist terrorists the ones who actually do the murders, represent some kind of MINUSCULE percentage of the whole are right -only a small percentage of the whole are willing to carry out the slaughter personally. But the percent of Muslims who SUPPORT them in doing it? TOTALLY different story!

Unlike other religions, Islam is EXTREMELY specific about the obligations of the individual when it comes to other Muslims. In Islam it is believed that Islam is the only "perfect" religion and Muslims the only "perfect" practitioners of any religion. So in Islam, as the only perfect people on the planet, Allah would NEVER allow Muslims as a group to go wrong, do wrong, be on the wrong side -not ever. NO EXCEPTIONS. But ESPECIALLY not ever with regard to "filthy infidels". In their bizarro world since ONLY Muslims practice the "perfect" religion -what they do as Muslims is also "perfect" because their god would never allow the only "perfect" people to be on the wrong side or do the "wrong" thing. Because that would mean if they are "wrong" or doing "bad" -that it is the infidels who are right and doing good. Which is impossible in their belief system.

The possibility that Muslims as a group are on the wrong side does not even exist as a possibility in their belief system EVER. Only an individual can be wrong -but NOT the group itself and their religion is all about keeping the individual with the group. Now this is where it gets interesting with regard to the responsibilities of individual Muslims as laid out in their religious doctrine. It specifically says that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is NO issue here for Muslims to know who they MUST support in that conflict. No real Muslim would ever support the non-Muslim side and any who does is not only wrong, but SO horrifically wrong many Muslims believe they would be deserving of the worst punishment both here and in the afterlife. Going against other Muslims and supporting infidels against them is spitting in the eye of Allah who would never allow the only people he loves AS A GROUP, the only group of people to practice the only "perfect" religion and do so "perfectly" -to EVER be on the wrong side in any conflict with non-Muslims! See how handy such a belief can be for all sorts of exploitation?

The individual Muslim already knows which he supports because his religion TELLS him which side he must support in such conflicts. He doesn't have to think about it, no moral quandary for him. When it comes to issues like murderous attacks on civilians, the majority -even if they don't support the idea -are NOT going to publicly condemn it! At best they will just give their religious rationalization for it -one of those "yes its bad but the other side is so much worse Muslims are forced to do it." A lot of people who are SO totally ignorant about this religion like to assign the same kind of traits and characteristics they know go with being Christian -as being traits of any and all people including Muslims, apparently ignorant that those are not only NOT valued traits in Islam, many are outright rejected. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about INDIVIDUAL salvation in the first place - that is a foreign concept in Islam. So is the idea of "sin" which is never mentioned or the idea that God grieves over man's sins. There is no repetition of God's Law has handed to Moses for a reason -Islam rejects it for its own law which favors Muslims at the expense of all others. Which is why they get far more upset about a cartoon drawn by a non-Muslim than the deliberate mass murder of innocent but INFIDEL children blown to bits by a Muslim. Their value system requires they place far, far less value on the life of a non-Muslim than the worst scum Muslim. That is just the way it is. They will rampage in the street looking for someone to kill - about only one of those. A major difference in thinking is even the notion of God's love. If you ask a Muslim if Allah loves him personally he might answer "only Allah knows". But in Christianity God's love for each and everyone one of us is an inextricable, rock bottom hardcore principle of Christianity! Christians believe as a fact that God knows and loves EACH of us as individuals -whether you love Him back or not! Christians believe we will each be judged for what we have done as individuals but in Islam it is the group that their god loves and individuals will be judged for how well they performed as part of that group. Speaking out against other Muslims to infidels would be viewed as not just undesirable -but treasonous to the group. Their doctrine specifically says to keep any disagreements from being known by infidels who might use those to create even greater wedges within the Muslims community - and to present a united front. And that means doing so even in the face of the pure evil repeatedly done in the name of their religion. You can see where these kinds of very fundamental differences in religious principles and beliefs would lead the practitioners of each religion to go in dramatically different directions when it comes to the kinds of governments they would create to live by and under! DUH!

There aren't three conflicts in the world that Islamofascism isn't at the root of that conflict -and you'd be hard pressed to find one that Muslims as a group do not pray for the success of the Muslim side in those conflicts in their mosques. In their religion they would be WRONG not to pray for the success of Muslims in any conflict with non-Muslims. There is no crime against humanity that is too horrific that would cause Muslims as a whole to suddenly side with non-Muslims in ANY conflict, not as long as they claim to do it in the name of Islam and not as long as their victims are non-Muslims and they claim to commit the horror in the name of Islam. In addition they are taught that any internal disagreements NEVER take place in front of non-believers because they might use it as a wedge to try and divide them further. So they must remain SILENT in front of the rest of us even if they actually object to the monsters among them hiding behind their religion out there raping children, butchering babies and blowing up unarmed civilians. Because a united FRONT before us "filthy infidels" is more important than letting us know how many -if any at all -actually condemn these kinds of barbaric acts done in the name of their religion. The problem is that Muslim extremists can EASILY find plenty in their religious doctrine to justify the most horrific acts against infidels while those who oppose it would have a harder time finding the religious justification for condemning it and that's a fact. So as long as the extremists confine themselves to making non-Muslims the victims of their psychopathy -they can count on the bulk of the world's Muslims to pray for their success when behind the closed doors of their mosque and shovel plenty of money their way to help do it.

A lot of non-Muslims tend to view all these different conflict as unrelated, individual conflicts. But among Muslims they are all part of the same ongoing conflict, just different fronts on that same conflict -a conflict their religion promises THEY will win and tells them it is their destiny and their god's promise they will be the lord and masters over us all. And if it means slaughtering us by the hundreds, thousands or even millions to get us to bow down to them and accept their claim to a "right" to rule over us all -that's just too bad for the rest of us because their god has no problem with it. The Koran is a book intended to be used to maintain GROUP control and keep the bulk of Muslims working to the same game plan to achieve power HERE ON EARTH. A book that repeatedly warns the individual what will happen to him if he strays or deviates away.

You doubt that -just compare the sound of CRICKETS you heard time and time again no matter who were the victims, even CHILDREN -as long as those being slaughtered were "filthy infidels". Compared to the OUTRAGE if Muslim civilians were ACCIDENTALLY killed by an errant US bomb. Or compare it to the DEMONSTRATIONS and KILLINGS over a fucking cartoon compared to the sound of crickets when it was THOUSANDS of Americans killed by Muslims. That silence was deafening because it actually spoke VOLUMES and addressed the fundamental religious beliefs of these people. What you get from people with regard to the kind of government they would seek to create is an INTRINSIC part of their religious beliefs. And you really have to be an uneducated moron to not get that.


And to underscore that, just consider some things. Among US Muslims under the age of 30, 1 in 4 believes the suicide bombing of unarmed civilians is acceptable. I find that appalling, frightening and downright scary. Comparing Muslims from different western nations, the BARE majority of US Muslims say they are concerned about Muslim extremism (51%) -which means 49% of them are NOT concerned about it -which I find appalling as well. But in France, Germany and Spain -all of which have significantly more trouble with Muslim extremism than we do here -nowhere close to half of their Muslims are concerned about Muslim extremism! In the Middle East the percent who are concerned about extremist are single digits and in fact a Muslim who even publicly denounces or speaks out against Muslim extremism is likely going to get him killed. With no outrage in the Muslim community when he is.

Of course the religious principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of any given population will absolutely determine what kinds of governments can emerge. And for the ignorant who just can't grasp this notion -for pete's sake take a basic course in anthropology and get involved in educating yourself instead of indulging in wishful thinking.


Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - Pew Research Center 1 in 4 US American Muslims under age 30...

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Rising Tide of Fury "Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims."

Muslim Statistics - WikiIslam

I didn't read your entire post. BUT as to your theory that this nation obviously wasn't you founded on Christian principles. You are dead wrong. This nation was founded entirely on Christian principles, it certainly was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy, but that is something entirely different than claiming it was founded on Christian principles.

If you don't know the difference between the two , there is zero point in debating with you.

 

[TheBrain]

If you're here, why not answer a simple question that's been posed to you a dozen times?



Don't worry Allie, you'll have a lot of people you buddy up with on this board cheering you for admitting to being a bigot.

So...if I'm lying, that means Allie's posting stealth now...because when I posed the question again, she was not on line in this subforum.

Yep...she's posting stealth now. I wonder if she ever will answer my question. It would take backbone to do so.

Ah, another neg rep....explain, Allie...if you will...why you keep negging people when they tell the truth? Are you allergic to the Truth? Is it painful to you? Apparently so.


And as to being Stealth,...we all know you've been on today...where are you on the list of posters on in the last 24 hours? Why, you're not there. Stealth posters don't show up, do they? You didn't know it would be that easy to check, did you?

Hey, one question, Allie...if you keep negging me, how come my rep keeps going up?

Please take your rep whines where they belong and keep this thread on track.

Thanks.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you're here, why not answer a simple question that's been posed to you a dozen times?



Don't worry Allie, you'll have a lot of people you buddy up with on this board cheering you for admitting to being a bigot.

So...if I'm lying, that means Allie's posting stealth now...because when I posed the question again, she was not on line in this subforum.

Yep...she's posting stealth now. I wonder if she ever will answer my question. It would take backbone to do so.

Ah, another neg rep....explain, Allie...if you will...why you keep negging people when they tell the truth? Are you allergic to the Truth? Is it painful to you? Apparently so.


And as to being Stealth,...we all know you've been on today...where are you on the list of posters on in the last 24 hours? Why, you're not there. Stealth posters don't show up, do they? You didn't know it would be that easy to check, did you?

Hey, one question, Allie...if you keep negging me, how come my rep keeps going up?

The perfect troll post.

And re: stealth...I know I've been on today...? I've posted? So wtf are you talking about??? check WHAT? That I've been on? Was there a question about it? Who cares anyway?

 

[bodecea]

So...if I'm lying, that means Allie's posting stealth now...because when I posed the question again, she was not on line in this subforum.

Yep...she's posting stealth now. I wonder if she ever will answer my question. It would take backbone to do so.

Ah, another neg rep....explain, Allie...if you will...why you keep negging people when they tell the truth? Are you allergic to the Truth? Is it painful to you? Apparently so.


And as to being Stealth,...we all know you've been on today...where are you on the list of posters on in the last 24 hours? Why, you're not there. Stealth posters don't show up, do they? You didn't know it would be that easy to check, did you?

Hey, one question, Allie...if you keep negging me, how come my rep keeps going up?

The perfect troll post.
And re: stealth...I know I've been on today...? I've posted? So wtf are you talking about??? check WHAT? That I've been on? Was there a question about it? Who cares anyway?

So, you plan on answering what percentage of all Muslims are the ones you think want Sharia, and therefore you fear?

 

[AllieBaba]

Why on earth would I do that?

I asked for verification of someone else's bogus numbers. I don't see how that translates into a requirement for me to provide stats at your bidding. I never made a claim. I just asked a retard to back their lie up.

And obviously, they can't.

 

[TheBrain]

Why on earth would I do that?

I asked for verification of someone else's bogus numbers. I don't see how that translates into a requirement for me to provide stats at your bidding. I never made a claim. I just asked a retard to back their lie up.

And obviously, they can't.

Hmm, she is completely avoiding me, wonder why?

 

[frazzledgear]

So you are going to go the "play dumb" route now, Allie? I've asked you several times to define who those people are....I will even bump it again so you can run away again.

Wow people have really strayed from topic with this thread which was someone's stupid claim that our nation was not founded on Christian principles when in fact the writings of the more than 200 founders SPECIFICALLY detail how Christianity led them to design the system they did. Those arguing otherwise have clearly never read the writings of those who spent years and years debating how to best incorporate Christian principles into the creation of our system, what our Constitution must and must not include all while still providing religious protections for all. It was not founded as a theocracy which is a far different thing and the founders specifically rejected that as the ONLY way to protect all denominations of Christianity -which were viewed as different religions and not as one religion of "Christianity". Remember this was a time when nearly everyone was a Christian, there were no Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and only a few hundred Jews at the time. They were not interested in protecting non-Christians although they knew they would be doing so in order to protect all those who practiced the different Christian religions. There is no such thing as Christianity being one religion - and among Christians even today, all those different denominations are all considered to be totally different religions. Just ask a Baptist if he thinks Catholicism is the same religion as his own -or a Catholic if he thinks Mormonism is the same religion is as his own.

Sorry for those who want to re-write US history and hope to eliminate any role that Christianity played in its founding -but its very founding was the result of Christian principles put into practice in the first place. Those who like to pretend Christians actually want to impose a theocracy like Islam does are just full of shit -it is not consistent with Christian PRINCIPLES because there is no such thing as a "Christian" government to put in charge of it. That is because Christianity is not a single religion but a label to identify HUNDREDS of religions -which are considered to be different religions even by the practitioners of those different denominations to this very day. The founders rejected a theocracy NOT because they rejected the authority of Christ -but because they rejected the idea of placing one denomination (and its disputed doctrine) of Christianity above all the others[/B] which would open the door to future persecution of all the others just as happened routinely in Europe. But that our system was founded on Christian principles? ABSOLUTELY and you have to be an ignorant MORON not to know it because the founders left REAMS of their own writings and letters discussing how to best call upon those Christian principles, how a government might best utilize those Christian principles when put into practice and the role their own religious beliefs played in the entire process both on an individual level and among discussions and exchanges of letters between them. Those writings still exist and all you have to do is READ them to know what a lie the assertion is made by the person who started this thread who wants a re-write of history in order to diminish the importance the fundamental religious beliefs of the vast majority had in the formation of this country! The religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of ANY population are going to VASTLY influence what kind of society and government they form! DUH!

Nearly to a one at some point in the process these founders discussed, expressed, repeated or wrote about their desire to create a system that best reflected the PURE teachings of Christ but WITHOUT imposing a specific religion on citizens -because no system based on Christian principles could properly reflect those principles without also respecting the gift from God of FREE WILL -a fundamental Christian belief that the individual not only has a right to govern himself, but MUST govern himself -both in his daily life and in his ability to freely choose the leaders who will lead his government. This country was the first to be based on the RIGHT of human beings to govern THEMSELVES instead of one that assumed some people had a "right" to rule over others. "Free will" is an inextricable part of fundamental Christian doctrine that goes beyond the rejection of forced conversion as meaningless to God, but also means He gave us the RIGHT to self-governance and no one the "right" to RULE. It is inextricably intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL Christian principle and belief that God wants us to voluntarily come to Him and His teachings and totally rejects what is forced as the worthless crap it is. No other religion values the gift of free will to the degree Christianity or does and some outright reject it as a valuable gift from God and view it more as a curse.

For example, in Islam their god wants other men to force everyone else to do their god's bidding, proscribes rigorous, rigid and inflexible control over members in every way and very specific harsh, brutal, barbarian punishment and even murder as the tools to do it. Their god not only approves but orders stripping man of his free will and forcibly imposing their god's will on all others even at the point of a sword. MAJOR difference in the fundamental principles in the religious beliefs of a population will naturally produce MAJOR differences in the kinds of governments that can emerge from those principles. You really want to pretend Christian principles had nothing to do with the formation of THIS unique system of government -then go try living under one that was born of Islamic principles instead and see if you can spot the differences! The reason Americans, who were nearly ALL Christian at the time -claimed and still claim their rights are God given is because it serves as a very specific warning to those who seek power that what God has given us, no man has the right to take from us. Go try telling the populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran about their God given right of self-governance, their right of free speech, their right to worship as they choose and I'll take bets on the length of your survival. But before opening your mouth remember a recent poll following Mubarek's fall showed that 80% of Egyptians believed their non-Muslim minority deserved to be KILLED for being "infidels". And just think -Egypt is far from being the most radical Muslim nation.

Those claiming Islamofascist terrorists the ones who actually do the murders, represent some kind of MINUSCULE percentage of the whole are right -only a small percentage of the whole are willing to carry out the slaughter personally. But the percent of Muslims who SUPPORT them in doing it? TOTALLY different story!

Unlike other religions, Islam is EXTREMELY specific about the obligations of the individual when it comes to other Muslims. In Islam it is believed that Islam is the only "perfect" religion and Muslims the only "perfect" practitioners of any religion. So in Islam, as the only perfect people on the planet, Allah would NEVER allow Muslims as a group to go wrong, do wrong, be on the wrong side -not ever. NO EXCEPTIONS. But ESPECIALLY not ever with regard to "filthy infidels". In their bizarro world since ONLY Muslims practice the "perfect" religion -what they do as Muslims is also "perfect" because their god would never allow the only "perfect" people to be on the wrong side or do the "wrong" thing. Because that would mean if they are "wrong" or doing "bad" -that it is the infidels who are right and doing good. Which is impossible in their belief system.

The possibility that Muslims as a group are on the wrong side does not even exist as a possibility in their belief system EVER. Only an individual can be wrong -but NOT the group itself and their religion is all about keeping the individual with the group. Now this is where it gets interesting with regard to the responsibilities of individual Muslims as laid out in their religious doctrine. It specifically says that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is NO issue here for Muslims to know who they MUST support in that conflict. No real Muslim would ever support the non-Muslim side and any who does is not only wrong, but SO horrifically wrong many Muslims believe they would be deserving of the worst punishment both here and in the afterlife. Going against other Muslims and supporting infidels against them is spitting in the eye of Allah who would never allow the only people he loves AS A GROUP, the only group of people to practice the only "perfect" religion and do so "perfectly" -to EVER be on the wrong side in any conflict with non-Muslims! See how handy such a belief can be for all sorts of exploitation?

The individual Muslim already knows which he supports because his religion TELLS him which side he must support in such conflicts. He doesn't have to think about it, no moral quandary for him. When it comes to issues like murderous attacks on civilians, the majority -even if they don't support the idea -are NOT going to publicly condemn it! At best they will just give their religious rationalization for it -one of those "yes its bad but the other side is so much worse Muslims are forced to do it." A lot of people who are SO totally ignorant about this religion like to assign the same kind of traits and characteristics they know go with being Christian -as being traits of any and all people including Muslims, apparently ignorant that those are not only NOT valued traits in Islam, many are outright rejected. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about INDIVIDUAL salvation in the first place - that is a foreign concept in Islam. So is the idea of "sin" which is never mentioned or the idea that God grieves over man's sins. There is no repetition of God's Law has handed to Moses for a reason -Islam rejects it for its own law which favors Muslims at the expense of all others. Which is why they get far more upset about a cartoon drawn by a non-Muslim than the deliberate mass murder of innocent but INFIDEL children blown to bits by a Muslim. Their value system requires they place far, far less value on the life of a non-Muslim than the worst scum Muslim. That is just the way it is. They will rampage in the street looking for someone to kill - about only one of those. A major difference in thinking is even the notion of God's love. If you ask a Muslim if Allah loves him personally he might answer "only Allah knows". But in Christianity God's love for each and everyone one of us is an inextricable, rock bottom hardcore principle of Christianity! Christians believe as a fact that God knows and loves EACH of us as individuals -whether you love Him back or not! Christians believe we will each be judged for what we have done as individuals but in Islam it is the group that their god loves and individuals will be judged for how well they performed as part of that group. Speaking out against other Muslims to infidels would be viewed as not just undesirable -but treasonous to the group. Their doctrine specifically says to keep any disagreements from being known by infidels who might use those to create even greater wedges within the Muslims community - and to present a united front. And that means doing so even in the face of the pure evil repeatedly done in the name of their religion. You can see where these kinds of very fundamental differences in religious principles and beliefs would lead the practitioners of each religion to go in dramatically different directions when it comes to the kinds of governments they would create to live by and under! DUH!

There aren't three conflicts in the world that Islamofascism isn't at the root of that conflict -and you'd be hard pressed to find one that Muslims as a group do not pray for the success of the Muslim side in those conflicts in their mosques. In their religion they would be WRONG not to pray for the success of Muslims in any conflict with non-Muslims. There is no crime against humanity that is too horrific that would cause Muslims as a whole to suddenly side with non-Muslims in ANY conflict, not as long as they claim to do it in the name of Islam and not as long as their victims are non-Muslims and they claim to commit the horror in the name of Islam. In addition they are taught that any internal disagreements NEVER take place in front of non-believers because they might use it as a wedge to try and divide them further. So they must remain SILENT in front of the rest of us even if they actually object to the monsters among them hiding behind their religion out there raping children, butchering babies and blowing up unarmed civilians. Because a united FRONT before us "filthy infidels" is more important than letting us know how many -if any at all -actually condemn these kinds of barbaric acts done in the name of their religion. The problem is that Muslim extremists can EASILY find plenty in their religious doctrine to justify the most horrific acts against infidels while those who oppose it would have a harder time finding the religious justification for condemning it and that's a fact. So as long as the extremists confine themselves to making non-Muslims the victims of their psychopathy -they can count on the bulk of the world's Muslims to pray for their success when behind the closed doors of their mosque and shovel plenty of money their way to help do it.

A lot of non-Muslims tend to view all these different conflict as unrelated, individual conflicts. But among Muslims they are all part of the same ongoing conflict, just different fronts on that same conflict -a conflict their religion promises THEY will win and tells them it is their destiny and their god's promise they will be the lord and masters over us all. And if it means slaughtering us by the hundreds, thousands or even millions to get us to bow down to them and accept their claim to a "right" to rule over us all -that's just too bad for the rest of us because their god has no problem with it. The Koran is a book intended to be used to maintain GROUP control and keep the bulk of Muslims working to the same game plan to achieve power HERE ON EARTH. A book that repeatedly warns the individual what will happen to him if he strays or deviates away.

You doubt that -just compare the sound of CRICKETS you heard time and time again no matter who were the victims, even CHILDREN -as long as those being slaughtered were "filthy infidels". Compared to the OUTRAGE if Muslim civilians were ACCIDENTALLY killed by an errant US bomb. Or compare it to the DEMONSTRATIONS and KILLINGS over a fucking cartoon compared to the sound of crickets when it was THOUSANDS of Americans killed by Muslims. That silence was deafening because it actually spoke VOLUMES and addressed the fundamental religious beliefs of these people. What you get from people with regard to the kind of government they would seek to create is an INTRINSIC part of their religious beliefs. And you really have to be an uneducated moron to not get that.


And to underscore that, just consider some things. Among US Muslims under the age of 30, 1 in 4 believes the suicide bombing of unarmed civilians is acceptable. I find that appalling, frightening and downright scary. Comparing Muslims from different western nations, the BARE majority of US Muslims say they are concerned about Muslim extremism (51%) -which means 49% of them are NOT concerned about it -which I find appalling as well. But in France, Germany and Spain -all of which have significantly more trouble with Muslim extremism than we do here -nowhere close to half of their Muslims are concerned about Muslim extremism! In the Middle East the percent who are concerned about extremist are single digits and in fact a Muslim who even publicly denounces or speaks out against Muslim extremism is likely going to get him killed. With no outrage in the Muslim community when he is.

Of course the religious principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of any given population will absolutely determine what kinds of governments can emerge. And for the ignorant who just can't grasp this notion -for pete's sake take a basic course in anthropology and get involved in educating yourself instead of indulging in wishful thinking.


Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - Pew Research Center 1 in 4 US American Muslims under age 30...

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Rising Tide of Fury "Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims."

Muslim Statistics - WikiIslam

I didn't read your entire post. BUT as to your theory that this nation obviously wasn't you founded on Christian principles. You are dead wrong. This nation was founded entirely on Christian principles, it certainly was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy, but that is something entirely different than claiming it was founded on Christian principles.

If you don't know the difference between the two , there is zero point in debating with you.

You are right -you didn't read it. I specifically said it WAS founded on Christian principles and even explained why a theocracy was NOT consistent with those principles and was rejected.

 

[TheBrain]

Wow people have really strayed from topic with this thread which was someone's stupid claim that our nation was not founded on Christian principles when in fact the writings of the more than 200 founders SPECIFICALLY detail how Christianity led them to design the system they did. Those arguing otherwise have clearly never read the writings of those who spent years and years debating how to best incorporate Christian principles into the creation of our system, what our Constitution must and must not include all while still providing religious protections for all. It was not founded as a theocracy which is a far different thing and the founders specifically rejected that as the ONLY way to protect all denominations of Christianity -which were viewed as different religions and not as one religion of "Christianity". Remember this was a time when nearly everyone was a Christian, there were no Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and only a few hundred Jews at the time. They were not interested in protecting non-Christians although they knew they would be doing so in order to protect all those who practiced the different Christian religions. There is no such thing as Christianity being one religion - and among Christians even today, all those different denominations are all considered to be totally different religions. Just ask a Baptist if he thinks Catholicism is the same religion as his own -or a Catholic if he thinks Mormonism is the same religion is as his own.

Sorry for those who want to re-write US history and hope to eliminate any role that Christianity played in its founding -but its very founding was the result of Christian principles put into practice in the first place. Those who like to pretend Christians actually want to impose a theocracy like Islam does are just full of shit -it is not consistent with Christian PRINCIPLES because there is no such thing as a "Christian" government to put in charge of it. That is because Christianity is not a single religion but a label to identify HUNDREDS of religions -which are considered to be different religions even by the practitioners of those different denominations to this very day. The founders rejected a theocracy NOT because they rejected the authority of Christ -but because they rejected the idea of placing one denomination (and its disputed doctrine) of Christianity above all the others[/B] which would open the door to future persecution of all the others just as happened routinely in Europe. But that our system was founded on Christian principles? ABSOLUTELY and you have to be an ignorant MORON not to know it because the founders left REAMS of their own writings and letters discussing how to best call upon those Christian principles, how a government might best utilize those Christian principles when put into practice and the role their own religious beliefs played in the entire process both on an individual level and among discussions and exchanges of letters between them. Those writings still exist and all you have to do is READ them to know what a lie the assertion is made by the person who started this thread who wants a re-write of history in order to diminish the importance the fundamental religious beliefs of the vast majority had in the formation of this country! The religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of ANY population are going to VASTLY influence what kind of society and government they form! DUH!

Nearly to a one at some point in the process these founders discussed, expressed, repeated or wrote about their desire to create a system that best reflected the PURE teachings of Christ but WITHOUT imposing a specific religion on citizens -because no system based on Christian principles could properly reflect those principles without also respecting the gift from God of FREE WILL -a fundamental Christian belief that the individual not only has a right to govern himself, but MUST govern himself -both in his daily life and in his ability to freely choose the leaders who will lead his government. This country was the first to be based on the RIGHT of human beings to govern THEMSELVES instead of one that assumed some people had a "right" to rule over others. "Free will" is an inextricable part of fundamental Christian doctrine that goes beyond the rejection of forced conversion as meaningless to God, but also means He gave us the RIGHT to self-governance and no one the "right" to RULE. It is inextricably intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL Christian principle and belief that God wants us to voluntarily come to Him and His teachings and totally rejects what is forced as the worthless crap it is. No other religion values the gift of free will to the degree Christianity or does and some outright reject it as a valuable gift from God and view it more as a curse.

For example, in Islam their god wants other men to force everyone else to do their god's bidding, proscribes rigorous, rigid and inflexible control over members in every way and very specific harsh, brutal, barbarian punishment and even murder as the tools to do it. Their god not only approves but orders stripping man of his free will and forcibly imposing their god's will on all others even at the point of a sword. MAJOR difference in the fundamental principles in the religious beliefs of a population will naturally produce MAJOR differences in the kinds of governments that can emerge from those principles. You really want to pretend Christian principles had nothing to do with the formation of THIS unique system of government -then go try living under one that was born of Islamic principles instead and see if you can spot the differences! The reason Americans, who were nearly ALL Christian at the time -claimed and still claim their rights are God given is because it serves as a very specific warning to those who seek power that what God has given us, no man has the right to take from us. Go try telling the populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran about their God given right of self-governance, their right of free speech, their right to worship as they choose and I'll take bets on the length of your survival. But before opening your mouth remember a recent poll following Mubarek's fall showed that 80% of Egyptians believed their non-Muslim minority deserved to be KILLED for being "infidels". And just think -Egypt is far from being the most radical Muslim nation.

Those claiming Islamofascist terrorists the ones who actually do the murders, represent some kind of MINUSCULE percentage of the whole are right -only a small percentage of the whole are willing to carry out the slaughter personally. But the percent of Muslims who SUPPORT them in doing it? TOTALLY different story!

Unlike other religions, Islam is EXTREMELY specific about the obligations of the individual when it comes to other Muslims. In Islam it is believed that Islam is the only "perfect" religion and Muslims the only "perfect" practitioners of any religion. So in Islam, as the only perfect people on the planet, Allah would NEVER allow Muslims as a group to go wrong, do wrong, be on the wrong side -not ever. NO EXCEPTIONS. But ESPECIALLY not ever with regard to "filthy infidels". In their bizarro world since ONLY Muslims practice the "perfect" religion -what they do as Muslims is also "perfect" because their god would never allow the only "perfect" people to be on the wrong side or do the "wrong" thing. Because that would mean if they are "wrong" or doing "bad" -that it is the infidels who are right and doing good. Which is impossible in their belief system.

The possibility that Muslims as a group are on the wrong side does not even exist as a possibility in their belief system EVER. Only an individual can be wrong -but NOT the group itself and their religion is all about keeping the individual with the group. Now this is where it gets interesting with regard to the responsibilities of individual Muslims as laid out in their religious doctrine. It specifically says that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is NO issue here for Muslims to know who they MUST support in that conflict. No real Muslim would ever support the non-Muslim side and any who does is not only wrong, but SO horrifically wrong many Muslims believe they would be deserving of the worst punishment both here and in the afterlife. Going against other Muslims and supporting infidels against them is spitting in the eye of Allah who would never allow the only people he loves AS A GROUP, the only group of people to practice the only "perfect" religion and do so "perfectly" -to EVER be on the wrong side in any conflict with non-Muslims! See how handy such a belief can be for all sorts of exploitation?

The individual Muslim already knows which he supports because his religion TELLS him which side he must support in such conflicts. He doesn't have to think about it, no moral quandary for him. When it comes to issues like murderous attacks on civilians, the majority -even if they don't support the idea -are NOT going to publicly condemn it! At best they will just give their religious rationalization for it -one of those "yes its bad but the other side is so much worse Muslims are forced to do it." A lot of people who are SO totally ignorant about this religion like to assign the same kind of traits and characteristics they know go with being Christian -as being traits of any and all people including Muslims, apparently ignorant that those are not only NOT valued traits in Islam, many are outright rejected. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about INDIVIDUAL salvation in the first place - that is a foreign concept in Islam. So is the idea of "sin" which is never mentioned or the idea that God grieves over man's sins. There is no repetition of God's Law has handed to Moses for a reason -Islam rejects it for its own law which favors Muslims at the expense of all others. Which is why they get far more upset about a cartoon drawn by a non-Muslim than the deliberate mass murder of innocent but INFIDEL children blown to bits by a Muslim. Their value system requires they place far, far less value on the life of a non-Muslim than the worst scum Muslim. That is just the way it is. They will rampage in the street looking for someone to kill - about only one of those. A major difference in thinking is even the notion of God's love. If you ask a Muslim if Allah loves him personally he might answer "only Allah knows". But in Christianity God's love for each and everyone one of us is an inextricable, rock bottom hardcore principle of Christianity! Christians believe as a fact that God knows and loves EACH of us as individuals -whether you love Him back or not! Christians believe we will each be judged for what we have done as individuals but in Islam it is the group that their god loves and individuals will be judged for how well they performed as part of that group. Speaking out against other Muslims to infidels would be viewed as not just undesirable -but treasonous to the group. Their doctrine specifically says to keep any disagreements from being known by infidels who might use those to create even greater wedges within the Muslims community - and to present a united front. And that means doing so even in the face of the pure evil repeatedly done in the name of their religion. You can see where these kinds of very fundamental differences in religious principles and beliefs would lead the practitioners of each religion to go in dramatically different directions when it comes to the kinds of governments they would create to live by and under! DUH!

There aren't three conflicts in the world that Islamofascism isn't at the root of that conflict -and you'd be hard pressed to find one that Muslims as a group do not pray for the success of the Muslim side in those conflicts in their mosques. In their religion they would be WRONG not to pray for the success of Muslims in any conflict with non-Muslims. There is no crime against humanity that is too horrific that would cause Muslims as a whole to suddenly side with non-Muslims in ANY conflict, not as long as they claim to do it in the name of Islam and not as long as their victims are non-Muslims and they claim to commit the horror in the name of Islam. In addition they are taught that any internal disagreements NEVER take place in front of non-believers because they might use it as a wedge to try and divide them further. So they must remain SILENT in front of the rest of us even if they actually object to the monsters among them hiding behind their religion out there raping children, butchering babies and blowing up unarmed civilians. Because a united FRONT before us "filthy infidels" is more important than letting us know how many -if any at all -actually condemn these kinds of barbaric acts done in the name of their religion. The problem is that Muslim extremists can EASILY find plenty in their religious doctrine to justify the most horrific acts against infidels while those who oppose it would have a harder time finding the religious justification for condemning it and that's a fact. So as long as the extremists confine themselves to making non-Muslims the victims of their psychopathy -they can count on the bulk of the world's Muslims to pray for their success when behind the closed doors of their mosque and shovel plenty of money their way to help do it.

A lot of non-Muslims tend to view all these different conflict as unrelated, individual conflicts. But among Muslims they are all part of the same ongoing conflict, just different fronts on that same conflict -a conflict their religion promises THEY will win and tells them it is their destiny and their god's promise they will be the lord and masters over us all. And if it means slaughtering us by the hundreds, thousands or even millions to get us to bow down to them and accept their claim to a "right" to rule over us all -that's just too bad for the rest of us because their god has no problem with it. The Koran is a book intended to be used to maintain GROUP control and keep the bulk of Muslims working to the same game plan to achieve power HERE ON EARTH. A book that repeatedly warns the individual what will happen to him if he strays or deviates away.

You doubt that -just compare the sound of CRICKETS you heard time and time again no matter who were the victims, even CHILDREN -as long as those being slaughtered were "filthy infidels". Compared to the OUTRAGE if Muslim civilians were ACCIDENTALLY killed by an errant US bomb. Or compare it to the DEMONSTRATIONS and KILLINGS over a fucking cartoon compared to the sound of crickets when it was THOUSANDS of Americans killed by Muslims. That silence was deafening because it actually spoke VOLUMES and addressed the fundamental religious beliefs of these people. What you get from people with regard to the kind of government they would seek to create is an INTRINSIC part of their religious beliefs. And you really have to be an uneducated moron to not get that.


And to underscore that, just consider some things. Among US Muslims under the age of 30, 1 in 4 believes the suicide bombing of unarmed civilians is acceptable. I find that appalling, frightening and downright scary. Comparing Muslims from different western nations, the BARE majority of US Muslims say they are concerned about Muslim extremism (51%) -which means 49% of them are NOT concerned about it -which I find appalling as well. But in France, Germany and Spain -all of which have significantly more trouble with Muslim extremism than we do here -nowhere close to half of their Muslims are concerned about Muslim extremism! In the Middle East the percent who are concerned about extremist are single digits and in fact a Muslim who even publicly denounces or speaks out against Muslim extremism is likely going to get him killed. With no outrage in the Muslim community when he is.

Of course the religious principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of any given population will absolutely determine what kinds of governments can emerge. And for the ignorant who just can't grasp this notion -for pete's sake take a basic course in anthropology and get involved in educating yourself instead of indulging in wishful thinking.


Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - Pew Research Center 1 in 4 US American Muslims under age 30...

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Rising Tide of Fury "Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims."

Muslim Statistics - WikiIslam

I didn't read your entire post. BUT as to your theory that this nation obviously wasn't you founded on Christian principles. You are dead wrong. This nation was founded entirely on Christian principles, it certainly was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy, but that is something entirely different than claiming it was founded on Christian principles.

If you don't know the difference between the two , there is zero point in debating with you.

You are right -you didn't read it. I specifically said it WAS founded on Christian principles.

My apologies, that is why I prefer not to write book length posts. Just get to the point.

 

[Gadawg73]

What..people?

And I would LOVE the verification that violent acts of terrorism are the acts of the lowest .0000000000001% of the Muslim population. That's a great number. Please provide a link.

So you are going to go the "play dumb" route now, Allie? I've asked you several times to define who those people are....I will even bump it again so you can run away again.

Wow people have really strayed from topic with this thread which was someone's stupid claim that our nation was not founded on Christian principles when in fact the writings of the more than 200 founders SPECIFICALLY detail how Christianity led them to design the system they did. Those arguing otherwise have clearly never read the writings of those who spent years and years debating how to best incorporate Christian principles into the creation of our system, what our Constitution must and must not include all while still providing religious protections for all. It was not founded as a theocracy which is a far different thing and the founders specifically rejected that as the ONLY way to protect all denominations of Christianity -which were viewed as different religions and not as one religion of "Christianity". Remember this was a time when nearly everyone was a Christian, there were no Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and only a few hundred Jews at the time. They were not interested in protecting non-Christians although they knew they would be doing so in order to protect all those who practiced the different Christian religions. There is no such thing as Christianity being one religion - and among Christians even today, all those different denominations are all considered to be totally different religions. Just ask a Baptist if he thinks Catholicism is the same religion as his own -or a Catholic if he thinks Mormonism is the same religion is as his own.

Sorry for those who want to re-write US history and hope to eliminate any role that Christianity played in its founding -but its very founding was the result of Christian principles put into practice in the first place. Those who like to pretend Christians actually want to impose a theocracy like Islam does are just full of shit -it is not consistent with Christian PRINCIPLES because there is no such thing as a "Christian" government to put in charge of it. That is because Christianity is not a single religion but a label to identify HUNDREDS of religions -which are considered to be different religions even by the practitioners of those different denominations to this very day. The founders rejected a theocracy NOT because they rejected the authority of Christ -but because they rejected the idea of placing one denomination (and its disputed doctrine) of Christianity above all the others[/B] which would open the door to future persecution of all the others just as happened routinely in Europe. But that our system was founded on Christian principles? ABSOLUTELY and you have to be an ignorant MORON not to know it because the founders left REAMS of their own writings and letters discussing how to best call upon those Christian principles, how a government might best utilize those Christian principles when put into practice and the role their own religious beliefs played in the entire process both on an individual level and among discussions and exchanges of letters between them. Those writings still exist and all you have to do is READ them to know what a lie the assertion is made by the person who started this thread who wants a re-write of history in order to diminish the importance the fundamental religious beliefs of the vast majority had in the formation of this country! The religious beliefs of the overwhelming majority of ANY population are going to VASTLY influence what kind of society and government they form! DUH!

Nearly to a one at some point in the process these founders discussed, expressed, repeated or wrote about their desire to create a system that best reflected the PURE teachings of Christ but WITHOUT imposing a specific religion on citizens -because no system based on Christian principles could properly reflect those principles without also respecting the gift from God of FREE WILL -a fundamental Christian belief that the individual not only has a right to govern himself, but MUST govern himself -both in his daily life and in his ability to freely choose the leaders who will lead his government. This country was the first to be based on the RIGHT of human beings to govern THEMSELVES instead of one that assumed some people had a "right" to rule over others. "Free will" is an inextricable part of fundamental Christian doctrine that goes beyond the rejection of forced conversion as meaningless to God, but also means He gave us the RIGHT to self-governance and no one the "right" to RULE. It is inextricably intertwined with the FUNDAMENTAL Christian principle and belief that God wants us to voluntarily come to Him and His teachings and totally rejects what is forced as the worthless crap it is. No other religion values the gift of free will to the degree Christianity or does and some outright reject it as a valuable gift from God and view it more as a curse.

For example, in Islam their god wants other men to force everyone else to do their god's bidding, proscribes rigorous, rigid and inflexible control over members in every way and very specific harsh, brutal, barbarian punishment and even murder as the tools to do it. Their god not only approves but orders stripping man of his free will and forcibly imposing their god's will on all others even at the point of a sword. MAJOR difference in the fundamental principles in the religious beliefs of a population will naturally produce MAJOR differences in the kinds of governments that can emerge from those principles. You really want to pretend Christian principles had nothing to do with the formation of THIS unique system of government -then go try living under one that was born of Islamic principles instead and see if you can spot the differences! The reason Americans, who were nearly ALL Christian at the time -claimed and still claim their rights are God given is because it serves as a very specific warning to those who seek power that what God has given us, no man has the right to take from us. Go try telling the populations of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Iran about their God given right of self-governance, their right of free speech, their right to worship as they choose and I'll take bets on the length of your survival. But before opening your mouth remember a recent poll following Mubarek's fall showed that 80% of Egyptians believed their non-Muslim minority deserved to be KILLED for being "infidels". And just think -Egypt is far from being the most radical Muslim nation.

Those claiming Islamofascist terrorists the ones who actually do the murders, represent some kind of MINUSCULE percentage of the whole are right -only a small percentage of the whole are willing to carry out the slaughter personally. But the percent of Muslims who SUPPORT them in doing it? TOTALLY different story!

Unlike other religions, Islam is EXTREMELY specific about the obligations of the individual when it comes to other Muslims. In Islam it is believed that Islam is the only "perfect" religion and Muslims the only "perfect" practitioners of any religion. So in Islam, as the only perfect people on the planet, Allah would NEVER allow Muslims as a group to go wrong, do wrong, be on the wrong side -not ever. NO EXCEPTIONS. But ESPECIALLY not ever with regard to "filthy infidels". In their bizarro world since ONLY Muslims practice the "perfect" religion -what they do as Muslims is also "perfect" because their god would never allow the only "perfect" people to be on the wrong side or do the "wrong" thing. Because that would mean if they are "wrong" or doing "bad" -that it is the infidels who are right and doing good. Which is impossible in their belief system.

The possibility that Muslims as a group are on the wrong side does not even exist as a possibility in their belief system EVER. Only an individual can be wrong -but NOT the group itself and their religion is all about keeping the individual with the group. Now this is where it gets interesting with regard to the responsibilities of individual Muslims as laid out in their religious doctrine. It specifically says that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is NO issue here for Muslims to know who they MUST support in that conflict. No real Muslim would ever support the non-Muslim side and any who does is not only wrong, but SO horrifically wrong many Muslims believe they would be deserving of the worst punishment both here and in the afterlife. Going against other Muslims and supporting infidels against them is spitting in the eye of Allah who would never allow the only people he loves AS A GROUP, the only group of people to practice the only "perfect" religion and do so "perfectly" -to EVER be on the wrong side in any conflict with non-Muslims! See how handy such a belief can be for all sorts of exploitation?

The individual Muslim already knows which he supports because his religion TELLS him which side he must support in such conflicts. He doesn't have to think about it, no moral quandary for him. When it comes to issues like murderous attacks on civilians, the majority -even if they don't support the idea -are NOT going to publicly condemn it! At best they will just give their religious rationalization for it -one of those "yes its bad but the other side is so much worse Muslims are forced to do it." A lot of people who are SO totally ignorant about this religion like to assign the same kind of traits and characteristics they know go with being Christian -as being traits of any and all people including Muslims, apparently ignorant that those are not only NOT valued traits in Islam, many are outright rejected. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not about INDIVIDUAL salvation in the first place - that is a foreign concept in Islam. So is the idea of "sin" which is never mentioned or the idea that God grieves over man's sins. There is no repetition of God's Law has handed to Moses for a reason -Islam rejects it for its own law which favors Muslims at the expense of all others. Which is why they get far more upset about a cartoon drawn by a non-Muslim than the deliberate mass murder of innocent but INFIDEL children blown to bits by a Muslim. Their value system requires they place far, far less value on the life of a non-Muslim than the worst scum Muslim. That is just the way it is. They will rampage in the street looking for someone to kill - about only one of those. A major difference in thinking is even the notion of God's love. If you ask a Muslim if Allah loves him personally he might answer "only Allah knows". But in Christianity God's love for each and everyone one of us is an inextricable, rock bottom hardcore principle of Christianity! Christians believe as a fact that God knows and loves EACH of us as individuals -whether you love Him back or not! Christians believe we will each be judged for what we have done as individuals but in Islam it is the group that their god loves and individuals will be judged for how well they performed as part of that group. Speaking out against other Muslims to infidels would be viewed as not just undesirable -but treasonous to the group. Their doctrine specifically says to keep any disagreements from being known by infidels who might use those to create even greater wedges within the Muslims community - and to present a united front. And that means doing so even in the face of the pure evil repeatedly done in the name of their religion. You can see where these kinds of very fundamental differences in religious principles and beliefs would lead the practitioners of each religion to go in dramatically different directions when it comes to the kinds of governments they would create to live by and under! DUH!

There aren't three conflicts in the world that Islamofascism isn't at the root of that conflict -and you'd be hard pressed to find one that Muslims as a group do not pray for the success of the Muslim side in those conflicts in their mosques. In their religion they would be WRONG not to pray for the success of Muslims in any conflict with non-Muslims. There is no crime against humanity that is too horrific that would cause Muslims as a whole to suddenly side with non-Muslims in ANY conflict, not as long as they claim to do it in the name of Islam and not as long as their victims are non-Muslims and they claim to commit the horror in the name of Islam. In addition they are taught that any internal disagreements NEVER take place in front of non-believers because they might use it as a wedge to try and divide them further. So they must remain SILENT in front of the rest of us even if they actually object to the monsters among them hiding behind their religion out there raping children, butchering babies and blowing up unarmed civilians. Because a united FRONT before us "filthy infidels" is more important than letting us know how many -if any at all -actually condemn these kinds of barbaric acts done in the name of their religion. The problem is that Muslim extremists can EASILY find plenty in their religious doctrine to justify the most horrific acts against infidels while those who oppose it would have a harder time finding the religious justification for condemning it and that's a fact. So as long as the extremists confine themselves to making non-Muslims the victims of their psychopathy -they can count on the bulk of the world's Muslims to pray for their success when behind the closed doors of their mosque and shovel plenty of money their way to help do it.

A lot of non-Muslims tend to view all these different conflict as unrelated, individual conflicts. But among Muslims they are all part of the same ongoing conflict, just different fronts on that same conflict -a conflict their religion promises THEY will win and tells them it is their destiny and their god's promise they will be the lord and masters over us all. And if it means slaughtering us by the hundreds, thousands or even millions to get us to bow down to them and accept their claim to a "right" to rule over us all -that's just too bad for the rest of us because their god has no problem with it. The Koran is a book intended to be used to maintain GROUP control and keep the bulk of Muslims working to the same game plan to achieve power HERE ON EARTH. A book that repeatedly warns the individual what will happen to him if he strays or deviates away.

You doubt that -just compare the sound of CRICKETS you heard time and time again no matter who were the victims, even CHILDREN -as long as those being slaughtered were "filthy infidels". Compared to the OUTRAGE if Muslim civilians were ACCIDENTALLY killed by an errant US bomb. Or compare it to the DEMONSTRATIONS and KILLINGS over a fucking cartoon compared to the sound of crickets when it was THOUSANDS of Americans killed by Muslims. That silence was deafening because it actually spoke VOLUMES and addressed the fundamental religious beliefs of these people. What you get from people with regard to the kind of government they would seek to create is an INTRINSIC part of their religious beliefs. And you really have to be an uneducated moron to not get that.


And to underscore that, just consider some things. Among US Muslims under the age of 30, 1 in 4 believes the suicide bombing of unarmed civilians is acceptable. I find that appalling, frightening and downright scary. Comparing Muslims from different western nations, the BARE majority of US Muslims say they are concerned about Muslim extremism (51%) -which means 49% of them are NOT concerned about it -which I find appalling as well. But in France, Germany and Spain -all of which have significantly more trouble with Muslim extremism than we do here -nowhere close to half of their Muslims are concerned about Muslim extremism! In the Middle East the percent who are concerned about extremist are single digits and in fact a Muslim who even publicly denounces or speaks out against Muslim extremism is likely going to get him killed. With no outrage in the Muslim community when he is.

Of course the religious principles and beliefs of the overwhelming majority of any given population will absolutely determine what kinds of governments can emerge. And for the ignorant who just can't grasp this notion -for pete's sake take a basic course in anthropology and get involved in educating yourself instead of indulging in wishful thinking.


Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - Pew Research Center 1 in 4 US American Muslims under age 30...

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center

RealClearPolitics - Articles - A Rising Tide of Fury "Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims."

Muslim Statistics - WikiIslam

So the Constitution does not protect non Christians is your claim.
Sorry there dumbass but there is over 200 years of case law to prove your absurd claims without any fact or foundation.
There is NO religous test of any kind in our LAWS.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their BULL SHIT ramblings on their various religions.
It never ceases to amaze me how STUPID Americans are. The LAW clearly states what the LAW is and they totally ignore it.

 

[frazzledgear]

I didn't read your entire post. BUT as to your theory that this nation obviously wasn't you founded on Christian principles. You are dead wrong. This nation was founded entirely on Christian principles, it certainly was NOT founded as a Christian theocracy, but that is something entirely different than claiming it was founded on Christian principles.

If you don't know the difference between the two , there is zero point in debating with you.

You are right -you didn't read it. I specifically said it WAS founded on Christian principles.

My apologies, that is why I prefer not to write book length posts. Just get to the point.

I can't argue that I don't have a tendency to wordiness when providing defense of my opinions when I am passionate about the subject under discussion. Sorry but there is just no way to back up my position and assertion that this nation really was founded on Christian principles to just a sound bite. I thought the discussion was significant enough to require a bit more than a stupid exchange of "yes it is" and "no it isn't". Last time I checked that kind of "discussion" was just childish banter and therefore lacked anything of substance and was incapable of providing a defense of one's position as well as lacking the substance to persuade others. But putting that aside - my assertion that this nation was founded on Christian principles was clearly stated in the very first sentence so that even if no one read beyond that they would instantly know my position.

I don't measure the quality of my life or the value of what others contribute to it by the number of words they use to express serious ideas -except for those times when I value brevity way more than I do the substance of the topic at hand. There are times I do value brevity over substance -a 911 call would certainly be one of those times. But this isn't one of them. Substantive ideas and arguments and persuasive debate are never conducive to being easily wrapped up as an exchange of sound bites. I've found that those who typically prefer "discussions" presented as sound bites are often the same people most likely to be incapable of rationally and factually defending one's position, incapable of carrying on a serious discussion of substance or even comprehending it -and I know you don't count yourself as one of those.

 

[Gadawg73]

What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
Slavery?
Indendtured servitude?
Smuggling?
Selling your own offspring from the slaves you knocked up?
Beating the unwed mothers in your community?
What?

 

[8atman]

"You stated that you "believe them" when the Founding Fathers stated they were using Biblical principles to form America's governance. Are you naive and simple to "believe them" when they specifically cite no particular Scripture to demonstrate their statements?

Well, now. There’s a random, unsubstantiated line of reasoning. Can I try?

The Founders never cited any article/section/clause of English law that they based the Constitution on. Therefore, the Constitution has no basis in English Common Law.

Absolutely ridiculous.

"For instance, Truman above did not cite specific Mosaic Laws from The Mount and did not show from Exodus, St. Matthew, Isaiah, and St. Paul what exactly were their words which supposedly were the basis for American Principles of Governance and Civility. Do you believe everything people say to you ... ? Do you like to listen to grandiose sounding and broadly visaged pronouncements without examining them for substance?

Yes, yes, we all know this is the current thought that we are told to believe: certain phrases and terms in, for example, the Declaration of Independence are merely “grandiose sounding,” and “broadly visaged pronouncements,” right? The Founders weren’t really saying our rights are endowed by our Creator. No. Of course not. Surely, they were just trying to placate the citizenry with religious verbiage, correct? (...an argument that did not surface ‘til sometime in the 1960s, by the way.) What they were really saying is that the State grants us rights as it sees fit, when it sees fit, and how it sees fit.

Wait, but that’s not what the document says, and there are inherent dangers with that position. More to the point, there is no evidence for this re-interpretation (not for this example or any other).

Surely, the fact that this country was founded by men who risked their means of making a living, risked their own lives and the lives of their families, and fled their homeland for the sake of religious freedom certainly supports the notion that their words are empty religious-speak.....doesn’t it? Doesn’t it?? Or is that little theory completely backwards?

Back to the statement that our rights are endowed by our Creator --is this just “grandiose sounding” language, or is the religious aspect the most important part? Is it throwaway language, or is the ideal that our rights come from our Creator necessary to the ideal that no man or government can take them away? To ask the question is to answer it.

Similarly, the ideal that our independence and freedom are rooted in the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” is more disposable religious-speak, right? Or, rather, is the religious element IN-disposable to the notion of a right and just civil law? More on this phrase and the concepts behind it in a moment.

In other words, this is what the revisionist argument has degenerated to --the Founders didn’t mean what they said. Moreover, the documents don’t mean what they say. As you can see, they even go so far as to claim that you cannot point to a concept in the **insert name of founding document here** and then cite its Biblical source (which, of course, is demonstrably false many times over). Of course, this “societal placation” theory directly contradicts the Founders’ writings, both private and public. It is supported by nothing more than the desire of some for it to be true.

Now, back to our friend, JoReba. You are far from being off the hook regarding Truman’s statement.

Come, now. Let’s be honest, shall we? You weren’t even aware of that Truman quote. You had no clue that those specific books of the Bible were recognized as the basis for The Bill Rights, did you?

So, now your only recourse is to try and posture as though, “Golly, that’s just not specific enough” --as if Truman, or anyone else, had provided chapter and verse you would have actually said, “Oh, okay.” The truth of the matter is you were under the impression there was no answer to your challenge.

Finally, getting back the phrase, “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” this goes to the heart of the issue. Revisionists have done their most strenuous somersaults to divorce the phrase from any sort of Biblical context. The only issue at hand is, what did it mean to the Founders? What did they believe it to mean?

The Founders took the whole concept of “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the supremacy of God’s Law from English Common Law. William Blackstone was the leading authority on English law in his day. He was widely followed and borrowed from by the Founders. Blackstone understood that English law (and later American law) had its roots in God’s law. Blackstone and the3 Founders believed that God’s Law took expression in: nature (the creation –especially man and his natural desire for freedom), and revelation (which for Blackstone and the Founders would be the Bible). With these concepts in mind, Blackstone explains that which constitutes just civil law:

Sir William Blackstone
“This Law of Nature dictated by God Himself is superior to any other...No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original. Upon these two foundations the Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation depend all human Law...Human laws are only declaratory of and act in subordination to Divine Law.”

(Gee, I guess Blackstone was trying “placate” English law students with “broadly visaged pronouncements.”)

Moreover, God’s Law as found in nature or revelation is immutable and absolute. Any government or law of man cannot rescind or violate it. This is the ideal that our rights are based on, that our nation’s laws may not encroach, and why those rights are unalienable. Sound familiar?

Therefore, we can easily see that the verbiage which you so greatly desire to brush aside as superfluous and “grandiose” was viewed by the Founders (and the philosophers they borrowed from) as the cornerstone upon which everything rests.


“All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human...But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God...Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.”

--James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and US Supreme Court Justice.

 

[8atman]

"If we continue to teach our children about tolerance and intolerance rather than good and evil, we will end up with an entire generation that tolerates evil. Tolerance is the last virtue of a degenerate society."

That just rules all over the place.

 

[TheBrain]

What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
Slavery?
Indendtured servitude?
Smuggling?
Selling your own offspring from the slaves you knocked up?
Beating the unwed mothers in your community?
What?

Our country was founded on NONE of those things. I suspect you know that.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So, you plan on answering what percentage of all Muslims are the ones you think want Sharia,r?

scripture says 100 % .

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"If we continue to teach our children about tolerance and intolerance rather than good and evil, we will end up with an entire generation that tolerates evil. Tolerance is the last virtue of a degenerate society."

nice

 

[bodecea]

What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
Slavery?
Indendtured servitude?
Smuggling?
Selling your own offspring from the slaves you knocked up?
Beating the unwed mothers in your community?
What?

Our country was founded on NONE of those things. I suspect you know that.

How odd that they were all there and most sanctioned by the government from the founding.

 

[AllieBaba]

But have nothing to do with the tenets upon which this country was founded.

And likewise are not Christian tenets. The claim that they are is a lie.

 

[TheBrain]

What Christian principles was this nation founded on?
Slavery?
Indendtured servitude?
Smuggling?
Selling your own offspring from the slaves you knocked up?
Beating the unwed mothers in your community?
What?

Our country was founded on NONE of those things. I suspect you know that.

How odd that they were all there and most sanctioned by the government from the founding.

LOTS of things were present at the founding of our country, but were not tenents of our country.

The Bill of Rights, there is your tenants of our country. Hmm coincidence that there were 10 Commandments and 10 original amendments ? I think not.

You can recognize that our nation was founded on Christian principles without being a Christian yourself you know? In fact many of my friends are not Christians, and yet they have the same moral code as I do, essentially anyway.

Maybe you're too simple minded to understand that concept, I don't know.