Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Public Reading Of The Koran In Berkley  
User currently offlinezrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3165 posts, RR: 9
Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Today, around 300 people of all faiths gathered in Berkley for a public reading of the Koran. I was not there (and am curious if others were). I understand it was a beautiful event, all about peace.

But I have questions:

1) When radical Islam burns US or Israeli flags, are there gatherings about reading the US Constitution or the Torah?
2) Is the message of this gathering, "See, Islam is a people of peace, and our text forbids all vioence?"


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3462 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
When radical Islam burns US or Israeli flags


Radical in the main word here. They do no represent the real Islam whatsoever. The Torah, Bible and the Koran represent words of god to each religion, we shall show all due respects to those books.
The Israeli flag is another story i will not discuss.



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

How can you compare man made US constitution to Holy Book Torah? it has absolutely no relevance, just in the US no where else, or do you think US is the world or sacred?

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8835 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

Quoting SOBHI51 (Reply 1):

Radical in the main word here. They do no represent the real Islam whatsoever. The Torah, Bible and the Koran represent words of god to each religion, we shall show all due respects to those books.

If someone did a public reading from the Bible or Torah in Saudi, or Pakistan, or in a number of other Muslim countries, somehow I do not think that the event would end without bloodshed or at the minimum, arrests.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
2) Is the message of this gathering, "See, Islam is a people of peace, and our text forbids all vioence?"

Aparently Imam Rauf disagrees. His message was essentially, "Islam is the religion of peace, and if you stand in their way people will die."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XysMxIhMllU&feature=player_embedded



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21561 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
His message was essentially, "Islam is the religion of peace, and if you stand in their way people will die."

That's twisting his words quite a bit - lumping him in with the radicals who he's obviously distancing himself from.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
That's twisting his words quite a bit - lumping him in with the radicals who he's obviously distancing himself from.

Agreed. His words are being deliberately taken out of context in order to make him appear as one with the radicals. That is not what he is arguing.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 2):
How can you compare man made US constitution to Holy Book Torah? it has absolutely no relevance, just in the US no where else, or do you think US is the world or sacred?

Not having a dog on any side in whatever fight this may be, I can easily make this comparison. I find the status of the two very similar indeed. One happens to be more modern and relevant to governing a state. Even some in Islam have worked out that the Koran does not provide the entire basis for governing a modern state. SBY in Indonesia certainly appears to be a devout follower of Islam but most of the laws he administers do not come from the Koran.

And do not forget 777way, that if you insist that the US constitution has no status elsewhere in the world, you can have your argument reversed that the Koran also has no status outside either Saudi Arabia - strictly - or outside countries with a majority of Muslims. And if that were the case, if the US constitution can be burned, then so could the Koran - according to your argument.

???Try a response that is not so reactive and is without much of a context??? You could easily make a case for the writers of the US constitution to have a collective status similar to Mohammed. Ever looked at how the King James version of the Bible was written?

[Edited 2010-09-12 00:30:03]

User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 2):
How can you compare man made US constitution to Holy Book Torah?


I don't think that the OP compared the US Constitution with the Torah. Reread the question: it seems the reference to the Constitution is in response to the burning of the US flag and is therefore appropriate, while the reference to the Torah is linked to the burning of the Israeli flag.

My only criticism of the OP's question is that "Islam" doesn't burn flags. Islam, if I not mistaken, means submission to God's laws. It is people who burn flags of any description and that is not an activity solely confined to Muslims who hold extreme positions.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2075 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):

1) When radical Islam burns US or Israeli flags, are there gatherings about reading the US Constitution or the Torah?

It seems to me that the question you really want to ask is "aren't Western societies much more liberal and tolerant than most Muslim societies?"

To which one could reply, yeah, they are. So what?



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineavent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
f someone did a public reading from the Bible or Torah in Saudi, or Pakistan, or in a number of other Muslim countries, somehow I do not think that the event would end without bloodshed or at the minimum, arrests.

They are behaving like christians from about 3 or more centuries ago when catholics and protestants were persecuting each other and grossly intolerant of each other and different religions. I don't think it's a coincidence many of these islamic countries are restrictive when it comes to freedom of information or media or travel; they (correctly, from their perspective) characterize them as corrupting and as undermining the medieval cultures they still have. But, as time progresses they will eventually modernize, and just as with christianity in the West, mainstream Islam will become more 'civilized' and more generic and less relevant to an increasing number of people. In the meantime, there's lots of money to be made from fear mongering and over-reacting to the inevitable excess from the radicals.

[Edited 2010-09-12 09:00:27]

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6601 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2707 times:

This public reading was organized, because the burning of Korans was also organized. It was not in direct response to something, like it could have been on the 12th of September 2001. Usually the burning of American flags happens in such context, as a response, not a premeditated act.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3989 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 2):
How can you compare man made US constitution to Holy Book Torah? it has absolutely no relevance, just in the US no where else, or do you think US is the world or sacred?

Well, let's see, they are all books written by men with the sole purpose of controlling their fellow men and exerting power over them... difference is, at least the U.S. Constitution (or any other Constitution, for that matter) are more explicit in their objective and can be changed by popular vote. Shall I go on?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinecontrails15 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2661 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
Well, let's see, they are all books written by men with the sole purpose of controlling their fellow men and exerting power over them... difference is, at least the U.S. Constitution (or any other Constitution, for that matter) are more explicit in their objective and can be changed by popular vote. Shall I go on?

Well said. Just wanted to get that in there before this thread is shut down.



Giants football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineavent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
Well, let's see, they are all books written by men with the sole purpose of controlling their fellow men and exerting power over them... difference is, at least the U.S. Constitution (or any other Constitution, for that matter) are more explicit in their objective and can be changed by popular vote. Shall I go on?

I think you're seriously missing the point. From an agnostic western perspective, what you say is correct, and I agree with it. However, from a religious perspective, christian, muslim or jew, you are quite wrong since each of these traditions claims an absolute truth that transcends Man, and hence the constitution is merely a man-made contrivance that may or may not be consistent with a higher truth. Even on this forum, we will regularly get americans - christians usally - who believe the constitution is an imperfect attempt to implement a christian ideal, so, the koran-burning-wanna-be in Florida is, basically, not all that different in religious extremism (barring stupid publicity stunts) than many who post here, and they are not that different from fundamentalist muslims who have little regard for man-made conventions either.

[Edited 2010-09-12 13:03:20]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3493 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
Quoting 777way (Reply 2):
How can you compare man made US constitution to Holy Book Torah? it has absolutely no relevance, just in the US no where else, or do you think US is the world or sacred?

Well, let's see, they are all books written by men with the sole purpose of controlling their fellow men and exerting power over them... difference is, at least the U.S. Constitution (or any other Constitution, for that matter) are more explicit in their objective and can be changed by popular vote. Shall I go on?

Talk about "How to fan the flames 101"...

in response to 777way, people find rallying points unique to their circumstance... Muslims have the Koran which is held in higher regard the and governmental documents, some Jewish hold the Torah in the same esteem, others to a lesser degree. Christianity in today's environment no longer decrees death to non believers or Bible burners.. is that a better position? Well it's perhaps more tolerant, however "Better" is loaded with individual context. And yes we have our minority radical groups that burning anything that they deem blasphamous. However it is more about their desire for exclusiveness and fear to challenge than anything else and we generally ignore them. except when they were burning their bras.

So where does the US Constitution rank... where the Koran and Torah unite people on a religious level, the US Constitution unites people on a common grounds level by allowing diversity and tolerance (well trying to anyway). In some minds it carries a near religious fervor, in others extreme frustration.

Country's flags are also a rallying point that transcends internal differences..

Are these books/documents written to control men and exert power.. no they present a collections of values. Are they used to control and exert power.. yes, not by the writers but by individuals who feel only personal power and control validate they belief systems.

The core problem is neither the books, documents or flags, it is their symbolism of an internally held belief. If you attack my symbol, you attack my belief... yet these symbols get burned everyday accidently, without creating even a tear, but do it intentionally, watch out!


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8835 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting avent (Reply 13):
we will regularly get americans - christians usially - who believe the constitution is an imperfect attempt to implement a christian ideal

Correct.

Quoting avent (Reply 13):
we will regularly get americans - christians usially - who believe the constitution is an imperfect attempt to implement a christian ideal, so, the koran-burning-wanna-be in Florida is, basically, not all that different in religious extremism (barring stupid publicity stunts) than many who post here, and they are not that different from fundamentalist muslims who have little regard for man-made conventions either.

Woah, woah, woah there. Logical disconnect. How does the religious beliefs which formed the basis of the political nation equate us to religious extremism? The founding principles (yes, based on Christian principles which push personal responsibility) included freedom of religion, and very specifically denounced and prohibited the idea that any particular religion would be forced on anyone - the exact opposite from what fundamentalist Muslims want and how most middle eastern nations are run. Even bible-thumping baptists are not calling for the subjugation by law of non-christians - the KKK used to call for that but that was a half-century ago.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3057 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

When did this become a religious/atheist discussion?

While it was rather nice of people to gather round and listen to the words of the Koran, I think it was just a small attempt to calm down emotions after the threat of burning the Koran, September 11th, etc. We've had nine years where American citizens in particular have a negative view of the Muslim world. Why is it that today of all days they finally had a public reading of the Koran?

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
But I have questions:

1) When radical Islam burns US or Israeli flags, are there gatherings about reading the US Constitution or the Torah?
2) Is the message of this gathering, "See, Islam is a people of peace, and our text forbids all violence?"

1. I don't think so..radical is the key word there. As long as they can portray someone/something they hate as an enemy, they won't try to see it as misunderstood. Hence why I believe this:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 11):
books written by men with the sole purpose of controlling their fellow men and exerting power over them

As long as a radical cleric can portray the US as an enemy, he can control people, declare himself to be god himself and do whatever he wants. After all, disobedience to him is punishable by death and hell.

2. I most certainly believe it to be. I am convinced (having researched Islam in high school) about the non-violent goals of Islam. Unfortunately, many do not. Instead of teaching about Christian faith in public schools, I would propose a course about world religions that explain the other 4 religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam) in high school. It's time to end people's ignorance and poor knowledge about religions and teach them that it's those that use it for their own purposes that are the enemy.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8835 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
Instead of teaching about Christian faith in public schools, I would propose a course about world religions that explain the other 4 religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam) in high school.

Why not Christianity as well? As we have seen in posts here and by many public figures (including the President), many people appear to be grossly ignorant of Christian principles, such as the importance of personal responsibility.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineavent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Woah, woah, woah there. Logical disconnect. How does the religious beliefs which formed the basis of the political nation equate us to religious extremism?

I dunno. Strictly speaking I never made that claim and I would argue to whatever extent religious beliefs were part of the nation's founding, they were more a language and collection of principals reflecting what was perceived as the best of a christian european culture. If the settlers came from the middle east, the foundations could have been based on Islam, with essentially the same outcome.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
The founding principles (yes, based on Christian principles which push personal responsibility) included freedom of religion, and very specifically denounced and prohibited the idea that any particular religion would be forced on anyone - the exact opposite from what fundamentalist Muslims want and how most middle eastern nations are run.

Except the founders were often escaping abuses from other flavors of christianity, so this notion of christian tolerance is a myth. If they embraced tolerance, it was not an idea founded in christianity with its history of inquisitions, pograms, crusades, and religious wars. They might have felt it to be, but it seems to me the weight of history is against that.

As I see it, religions are like fly-paper that accumulate nice philosophical ideas as time goes on, and they like to marvel at how wonderful the collection is, even though many of the ideas came from other belief systems that predated them, or from other belief systems altogether. This tends to account for how religions like christianity survive since it they are seen to be adaptable, and how they delude themselves into thinking they are the sole originators of wonderful ideas.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Even bible-thumping baptists are not calling for the subjugation by law of non-christians - the KKK used to call for that but that was a half-century ago.

No, but they want their prayer in schools, and their creationism, and their hatred of gays codified in law, and they gain support from those who claim the constitution is secondary to a higher power. In this case, a bible-thumper was willing to insult another religion/belief system. He was just a clown using brute force publicity that backfired. But less obvious are those who try aned dominate school text book commissions, Texas in particular, who want to rewrite history and science and who want to sterilize school libraries. There's not much tolerance there.


User currently offlineavent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Why not Christianity as well? As we have seen in posts here and by many public figures (including the President), many people appear to be grossly ignorant of Christian principles, such as the importance of personal responsibility.

Strictly speaking this is not a christian ideal since there were strains of christianity that said some were pre-ordained to go to hell, and others to heaven.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3493 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
Instead of teaching about Christian faith in public schools, I would propose a course about world religions that explain the other 4 religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam) in high school.

Why not Christianity as well? As we have seen in posts here and by many public figures (including the President), many people appear to be grossly ignorant of Christian principles, such as the importance of personal responsibility.



I don't read Dreadnoughts comment was excluding Christianity... However there is a problem with teaching any even general religious course in that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have sects some radically different ... and any attempt would invoke cries of foul because each sect believes that are the only true one... so who decides what is and isn't taught.

Back to the subject... it's great there was a reading, even if it only occurred in very tolerant Berkley... now let's do it in New York


User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5240 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
How does the religious beliefs which formed the basis of the political nation equate us to religious extremism? The founding principles (yes, based on Christian principles which push personal responsibility)

Repeating this myth isn't going to one day make it true. The Founding Fathers were not interested in basing the US on Christian principles, and some of them were decidedly anti-organized religion. Here is a nice little bit of evidence pointing toward the fact that the US was not founded upon Christian principles from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was signed by President Adams. And yes I am aware of the arguments out there regarding Article 11, but it was ratified into law by the Congress of the United States in its full version, so I have no reason to believe that the sentiments put forth in the Article were anything but genuine belief in the US at the time.

"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."

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Why not Christianity as well?

Why not none of them and respect the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineflyawa From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Too bad radicals have taken Islam, the religion of peace and besmirched it, claiming their efforts to kill are commanded by the Qur'an, religious direction from the same God of Adam (Islam's first prophet), Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus, to their prophet, Mohammed.

Although I've wondered why the peoples of the middle east did not industrialize as the west. They seem to continue in tribes and shiekdoms. Yet, they have the oil resources, which is the fuel of the world's economy.

Hopefully, the radicals can be moderated to a point of tolerance for the rest of God's sons and daughters who they share this earth with. (No offense to non-believers of intelligent design).

Madness can not be justified in the name of religion. Allied troops are engaged against this madness in the midst of defenseless civilian populations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lesson of 9-11 is: Take them on over there, not on our shores. Some say get out, but isolationism is not the answer. If you bring the troops home, you bring the fight home.

I don't understand the hatred and madness of mankind toward another.



Better than most, not as good as some.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8835 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

Quoting avent (Reply 18):
If the settlers came from the middle east, the foundations could have been based on Islam, with essentially the same outcome.

History shows that a country based on Islam eventually actively oppresses religious minorities.

Quoting avent (Reply 18):
Except the founders were often escaping abuses from other flavors of christianity, so this notion of christian tolerance is a myth. If they embraced tolerance, it was not an idea founded in christianity with its history of inquisitions, pograms, crusades, and religious wars.

Do not confuse the inquisitions and crusades with Christian teachings as laid out in the New Testement. Yes, Christians had their episodes of intolerance and violence, but it was precisely because they strayed from those teachings. That was the whole point of the Great Awakening (as in, awakening to the fact that what we've been doing so far was counter to what's in the Bible) which was one of the prime influences of the American Revolution and the Government which was created thereafter. Those sad events you spoke of were the result of the state and religion mixing in terms of authority - i.e. state leaders were heads of churches, and churches ran nations.

Quoting avent (Reply 18):
No, but they want their prayer in schools, and their creationism, and their hatred of gays codified in law, and they gain support from those who claim the constitution is secondary to a higher power.

You have neandrathals in all cultures - at least they are not violent.

Quoting kanban (Reply 20):
I don't read Dreadnoughts comment was excluding Christianity... However there is a problem with teaching any even general religious course in that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have sects some radically different ... and any attempt would invoke cries of foul because each sect believes that are the only true one... so who decides what is and isn't taught.

That is indeed a fair point, and tricky to get around. But I think it would be worth the effort.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):

Repeating this myth isn't going to one day make it true. The Founding Fathers were not interested in basing the US on Christian principles, and some of them were decidedly anti-organized religion.

Spoken by someone who clearly has not read any of the writings of the Founders.

See my answer above.

But yes, many of them were anti-organized religion, but that does not mean they were not strongly religious - they felt that the organized religions of the day such as the Church of England and the Catholic Church had been compromised by political and economic interests - again one of the motivations of the Great Awakening. There are millions of such people today that regularly go to non-denominational churches and are still very Christian.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):
Here is a nice little bit of evidence pointing toward the fact that the US was not founded upon Christian principles from Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was signed by President Adams. And yes I am aware of the arguments out there regarding Article 11, but it was ratified into law by the Congress of the United States in its full version, so I have no reason to believe that the sentiments put forth in the Article were anything but genuine belief in the US at the time.
The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America - Frank Lambert

The religious history of the US can be split into two parts, according to Lambert. Part one was the early puritan period, where the puritans were not interested in true religious freedom as we understand it today - they wanted the collective freedom to follow "the one true faith" which they were not allowed to do in Europe. They would be considered extremists and fundamentalists by today's standards. Then came the Great Awakening and Part two, when the puritan intolerance for religious deviation was rejected in favor of modern religious freedom - everyone would have the individual choice on which religion to follow, if any. This was embodied in the Constitution and over the following 50 years when the various establishment clauses at the state level were removed.

That shift, rooted in the Great Awakening, is based on the belief that you cannot pressure someone into the "one true religion", particularly Christianity, as Christ taught that our individual choices dictate our salvation. Charity is a comendable and holy act, but forcing someone to be charitable (i.e. taxing him and forcing him to give his money to others) is not. And here is the important part - Thomas Jefferson believed that the "one true religion", if allowed to freely compete, would eventually become dominant - in his view it was some sort of Unitarianism.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):
Why not none of them and respect the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?

I prefer knowledge to ignorance.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3057 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Why not Christianity as well? As we have seen in posts here and by many public figures (including the President), many people appear to be grossly ignorant of Christian principles, such as the importance of personal responsibility.

I assume that many Americans go to church or have at least a good background on Christianity. The point is to understand other religions, not further understand your own. For that, you can enroll in a Christian school or attend Church. Now, if it's for immigrants or those that "switch sides", then I see what you mean about having all five religions in the course and would agree with you.

I was fortunate enough that my last year of religion in high school (Catholic school) was mostly based around other religions and for our final project we had to go to a center where people of that faith congregated. I had to research about Judaism and went to a little synagogue (it was more like an office space that was used for the synagogue) and stayed for an entire evening with Jews there. We openly discussed our differences and similarities. I would have loved to go to a little mosque they have here in PR for the Islam project (we could join others in their experience as well), but torrential downpours prevented us from going (it's nearly a 50 mile trip...not likely when you're still 17).

Quoting kanban (Reply 20):
However there is a problem with teaching any even general religious course in that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have sects some radically different ... and any attempt would invoke cries of foul because each sect believes that are the only true one... so who decides what is and isn't taught.

This isn't meant to even teach the entire history of all religions, but more of an overview of each one. For instance, we know that there are many variants of Christianity...this wouldn't be to teach how each one formed or how they all differ...just an overview. That's it.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 21):
Why not none of them and respect the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?

I advocate for the separation of church and state and cry foul whenever the church meddles with government affairs. Yet you can't deny that the government has failed at (or at least has not been efficiently) teaching people that Muslims in general are not the violent people the media puts them to be. Tell me what you see when you see a Muslim? OK, that's you. What about your neighbors? Co-workers? Even with my agnostic/atheist stance, I advocate for people to be educated and taught. In that sense, I'm glad I went to catholic school. I may have rejected Christianity, but at least I'm well informed about religions other than Christianity and don't continue to blab what I'm told.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
25 avent : This has also been the history of Christianity for most of its existence. The problem with this is that anyone, be they communist, Nazi, christian or
26 kanban : you can get that off the Internet... otherwise deal with Sunni and Shiites, Orthodox and Reformed, Protestants, Catholics and Fundamentalists... and
27 Superfly : The torah is man made also. I wonder what the point of this public reading is really all about. Does anyone have a link?
28 Dreadnought : Not true. Nowhere, NOWHERE in the New Testament is there any call to expand Christianity by violence, coercion, or lying, nor is there any instructio
29 avent : But expanding christianity was not the issue. I was referring to how when judged by history, many believers will claim exceptions for their beliefs t
30 Quokka : Not sure what this has to do with the thread, unless it assumes industrialisation is opposed by Islam. But when you consider that many Arabic words h
31 Post contains links kanban : http://www.berkeleyside.com/2010/09/...y-to-rally-against-quaran-burning/ not much to go on...
32 NZ1 : Again, starting to go off topic. Time to lock this up people. NZ1
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Running Of The Bulls In New Orleans '09 posted Sun Jul 12 2009 10:27:40 by MSYtristar
What Is The Name Of The Song In This Video? posted Mon Oct 8 2007 11:08:42 by Chi-town
Not Matter What Your View Is Of The War In Iraq... posted Thu Jul 12 2007 03:10:33 by PC12Fan
The Role Of The Military In Modern Society? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 21:53:50 by MD11Engineer
Queen Of The Internet In Playboy posted Wed Nov 1 2006 02:31:18 by Corocks
Laura Bush Moved Out Of The WH In June? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 04:47:54 by RJpieces
Photos Of The Destruction In Lebanon posted Sat Jul 15 2006 09:54:01 by BA
A Bad Sign Of The Times In America posted Wed May 3 2006 19:11:24 by Ilikeyyc
Paying For Use Of The Toilet In Amsterdam posted Tue Nov 29 2005 12:05:02 by BNE
Ruling Party Wins 94% Of The Seats In Tunisia posted Tue May 10 2005 01:09:41 by MaverickM11