Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office?

[Darias]

Please watch this video about GOP hopeful Herman Cain, as he clarifies his stance on Muslims:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?

2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?

[Darias]

And Darias, I rebutted your post in my post 37 and pointed out your errors and factual inaccuracies. Going off of your silence, can I just assume that you concede those points and aren't able to defend them or justify them? This is troubling since Believing Christians get hammered so many times for "disappearing from debates" but when a liberal does it I guess the forum community just goes with it.

Forgive me for my delay, but I have been following and posting in many areas. I have conceded nothing. And I don't know if I will until I get a chance to read and rebut your post.

And btw, Christians and liberals aren't mutually exclusive. I'm both.

[WinePusher]

Forgive me for my delay, but I have been following and posting in many areas. I have conceded nothing. And I don't know if I will until I get a chance to read and rebut your post.

I await your reply.

And btw, Christians and liberals aren't mutually exclusive. I'm both.

Notice the participle I placed in front of the word Christian: Believing. When I run down the list of famous liberal christians in my mind, they are people who don't believe most, if not all, of the tenants of Christianity. Believing Christians, those who actually accept the five fundamental beliefs of Christianity, are mutually exclusive from liberals. You have shown this to be true in your own posts in RR.

[Murad]

If you wish to indirectly call out another poster for not abiding by your donating standards, at least get the facts right. I donated to richardP's post 35, the quote you list above is found in richardP's post 33. For future reference so you can avoid making errors such as this, look to the top of the post where a gold emblem can be found, this indicates which post has and hasn't been donated to.

Post 34 is richard's comment to micatala's warning, where he is trying to justify his demonising of 1.6 Billion muslims because of past experiences (Hey richard, did you talk to all 1.6 Billion of us muslims?).

I don't know your subjective/oblique motives thus my assertion was made on a conjecture; If a muslim made that claim about Christians; not only would i not donate to him; but i would also admonish him for demonising Christians as a whole; but that is me & i understand not everyone thinks like me. Thus i will retract my statement.

I think we've beaten the Muslim thing to death here. Anyone who can read knows my attitude whether they like it or not.

That being said I'd like to address two issues.

The first one being whether a Muslim should be questioned about his or her religion prior to serving in government facilities. I disagree with Mr. Beck's assertion in this matter. The constitution of the united States makes specific restrictions upon congress about religion.

I suspect you have motives behind your belief; probably because you know Christianity could follow Islam if Mr Beck got his way. Anyone who demonises an entire people & continuously makes claims like "Never trust a Muslim" can never partake in a rational & civil discussion IMHO. I trust Pagans/Jews/Christians/Atheists the same way i trust muslims; before religion comes humility.

The second issue is your erroneous assertions that Christendom was responsible for WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades.

The word "Christendom" itself is ambiguous & has a wide range of connotative meanings. I never said Christendom; but rather CHRISTIANS.

Taking the last one first, the Crusades were a response to Islamic invasion of Europe through North Africa into Spain. The invasion was halted and successive Popes authorized a return invasion of Islamic territory. The ensuing wars were clumsily planned, executed and ultimately failed. If it wasn't for the efforts of Saladin history would have been written differently. Muslims started the wars and when the fighting was over their armies were the only ones standing on the field.

That's really funny, the last time i checked the muslims obtained the "Holy Land" (Palestine) from the Byzantine Empire. Technically this can be classified as an act of aggression. The European Crusaders then conquered Palestine from the muslims; this too is technically an act of aggression. So to claim the crusades were an act of "Self-Defence" (Like many Christians believe) is an outright lie from a historical point of view.

Massacre of Jerusalem

Jews fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders.[4] Saint Louis University Professor Thomas Madden, author of A Concise History of the Crusades, claims the "Jewish Defenders" of the city knew the rules of warfare and retreated to their synagogue to "prepare for death" since the Crusaders had breached the outer walls.[5] According to the Muslim chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, "The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads."[6] One modern day source even claims the Crusaders "[circled] the screaming, flame-tortured humanity singing 'Christ We Adore Thee!' with their Crusader crosses held high."[7]

Source

The armies of Islam won the Crusades, what are you complaining about?

Now where did i complain? I only want to show how incorrect Wootah's assertion was earlier.

The inquisition was an internal political affair conducted by the Papacy. It was primarily a control issue. I grant that the reasons and causes of it were unjust, but the number of deaths were actually relatively small compared to the wars of Napoleon and the twentieth century.

The inquisition was one of the greatest inter-religious wars in history. If Christians can't trust each other why only demonise muslims?

WWII and the holocaust were caused by atheistic governments.

Germany & the Soviet Union are in the top 10 for the "Largest Christian populations" [1]. Despite it dating from 2007, you get the idea. Thus; statistically; Christians have been involved in; and most likely killed more people than any other religion in the world.

Joseph Stalin persecuted Jews and the church years before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. You've probably read that the NAZIs sent six million Jews to their deaths, but you probably don't know that another six million Christians were also murdered by them.

It was not 6 million, but rather 3 million; but how does this change the fact that Christians (As a people) have killed more people than any other religion?

It should be noted that during WWII no Muslim raised a finger to defend their own country against NAZI invasion. The defense of those lands was conducted by the British army initially with the assistance of the American army toward the end of the campaign. It has been suggested by some historians that the Muslims were NAZI sympathizers and thus traitors to the cause of liberation of their own countries.

& who might those historians be? How do they substantiate such a derogatory/offensive belief?

WWI was a primarily a political war in Europe, WHICH INCLUDED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (Muslim) and was started in a Muslim country. It was geo-political and economic in nature, not religious.

The ottomon empire made up 11% of the military personnel from the central powers & only 4.4% of the military personnel in the entire conflict. Jeez, i wonder which countries with an "Atheistic/Muslim/Jewish/Pagan Majority" made the rest of the statistics.

With the possible exception of the Roman Catholic inquistion, which really wasn't a war, none of the conflicts you mentioned were started by Christians.

Such a strong claim, for the readers lets see your following disclaimer:

Christians participated in them all, but under the flag of their respective political nationalities and not the banner of Jesus (the armies of the Crusades fought under the banner of the papacy a political entity at the time - just in case you were wondering).

You just verified my assertion that Christians as a people have the bloodiest history in comparison with other religions. The reasons, whether they be political/theological are totally irrelevant here. My claim stands firm unless you would like to show that Muslims have killed MORE people than Christians statistically.

Only Muslims fight under the religious banner of Islam.

This is what you said earlier: "(the armies of the Crusades fought under the banner of the papacy a political entity at the time".

Im going to make the same claim for the Islamic Khilafah; what now?

Moving to the present age we see that Muslim aggression has been responsible for continual attacks upon Israel

Who illegally occupies Palestine. Yes we know terrorist organisations are using the situation for their advantage.

, for displacing the Hindu population in Pakistan

Actually it takes 2 to tango; muslims are also prosecuted by the hands of hindus.

and other countries and for persecution of Christians everywhere.

It's true; many people are wrongly prosecuted in the hands of muslims. Do you believe this justifies your previous assertion: "Never trust a muslim"

The cause of Islam is violent and non-compromising.

Christians have killed more people than muslims have, period. Prove me wrong or keep going in circles & raising irrelevant points.

If one were to create a religion for vicious wild animals, Islam would be it.

Hallelujah, you truley are the epitome of a "True Christian (tm)".

Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

& don't talk about the specs of dust in my eye when you have a plank in your own. (Matthew 7:3-5)

[JohnPaul]

Moving to the present age we see that Muslim aggression has been responsible for continual attacks upon Israel

Who illegally occupies Palestine. Yes we know terrorist organisations are using the situation for their advantage.

"illegally occupies"? You will have to educate me on that one. Apparently we have read very different histories on the question of Israel. (and I am not a Jew)

Other than that, I agree with most of what you have said here. Historians have called Christianity "The most murderous and bloodthirsty institution ever devised by man," and it was Islam that kept civilization and learning alive in Europe during the centuries of ignorance and barbarism of the Christian "Dark Ages."

John

[otseng]

If one were to create a religion for vicious wild animals, Islam would be it.

Moderator Comment

Implying that anybody that belongs to a particular belief are vicious wild animals would be considered an indirect attack.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[WinePusher]

Post 34 is richard's comment to micatala's warning.

Maybe it's just your computer screen, but my computer screen is telling me this is post 35.

I don't know your subjective/oblique motives thus my assertion was made on a conjecture; If a muslim made that claim about Christians; not only would i not donate to him; but i would also admonish him for demonising Christians as a whole; but that is me & i understand not everyone thinks like me. Thus i will retract my statement.

Did you read the reasons why I donated to him? It would serve you well to do so before you deceptively attempt to call out my actions and make it seem as if I'm doing something wrong. The reasons why I donated to richardP were clearly stated in the description which can be found in the designated thread in the designated subforum, I expect a forum moderator to understand this. The reasons why I donated to him had nothing to do with his statements about your faith. I underlined the operative word to make it easily recognizable for you, because even though my 'motives' were explained to you in a prior post you still do not seem to fully comprehend them and continue to attribute false motives to me. Stop.

[Murad]

Moving to the present age we see that Muslim aggression has been responsible for continual attacks upon Israel

Who illegally occupies Palestine. Yes we know terrorist organisations are using the situation for their advantage.

"illegally occupies"? You will have to educate me on that one. Apparently we have read very different histories on the question of Israel. (and I am not a Jew)

It is illegal under the UN Security Council Resolution 242.

I do recommend you read president Jimmy Carter's book; watch the short clip here.

There is a famous quote by Gandhi, incase you havn't read:

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…

As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.�

-Mahatma Gandhi 1938

You tell me, do you believe Israel is abiding by all international law & human rights regulations?

Other than that, I agree with most of what you have said here. Historians have called Christianity "The most murderous and bloodthirsty institution ever devised by man," and it was Islam that kept civilization and learning alive in Europe during the centuries of ignorance and barbarism of the Christian "Dark Ages."

John

Very thought provoking.

Well i wonder what richardP has to say about that; if muslims are "vicious wild animals" [quote from richard], what would Christians be? (rhetorical question; it's only aimed at 1 person; unlike richard i don't believe in the demonising of an entire population).

[Murad]

Did you read the reasons why I donated to him? It would serve you well to do so before you deceptively attempt to call out my actions and make it seem as if I'm doing something wrong.

You are not doing anything "wrong", it was a personal comment from me. Personally; if someone was demonising Christians as a whole & then decided to challenege a moderator comment because he felt that he could throw around provocative statements as they were natural to "adult discussions". I would not call it "correct analysis"; it's agreed that a few comments by Darias were inappropriate, but that does not mean phrases like "never trust muslims" are "adult conversations" which is what richardP was trying to justify. Again; i've said that these are subjective & i apologise if i gave you the wrong impression; i never asserted that you've made anti-Islamic statements or that you have an anti-Islamic agender.

[Woland]

Maybe it's just your computer screen, but my computer screen is telling me this is post 35.

The difference comes from the fact that Murad has me on ignore, and so cannot see my posts.

Someone please ask Murad these questions.
It will be enlightening to see what he answers.

You tell me, do you believe Israel is abiding by all international law & human rights regulations?

Israel most certainly isn't perfect.

Now, you tell ME, do you believe that "mainstream Islam" respects all human rights?

Do YOU respect all human rights?

Do Muslim-majority nation governments typically respect all human rights?

Can you condemn theocratic policies denying people their human rights when these are in full accordance with "mainstream Islamic teachings"?

unlike richard i don't believe in the demonising of an entire population)[/i].

What about "Allah"?
Didn't he viciously demonize entire populations quite a few times in his book?
What about Muhammad's words as recorded in the Sahih Hadith?
Are you willing to unconditionally denounce these MANY passages?

Probably not, right?
And so your words are meaningless, and your focus revealing.

Take the 2ft wide steel beam out of your own eye.

-Woland

[Murad]

Israel most certainly isn't perfect.

As a self proclaimed "Democratic Nation"; it certainly isn't.

Now, you tell ME, do you believe that "mainstream Islam" respects all human rights?

Firstly you have to tell me what "all human rights" are. An ambiguous phrase can always be exploited.

Do YOU respect all human rights?

I believe i do. I still support capital punishment for espionage/treason.

Do Muslim-majority nation governments typically respect all human rights?

I can't speak for every government; but i don't see how states like Turkey/Egypt/Syria don't respect all human rights. (Except for Syria lately).

Can you condemn theocratic policies denying people their human rights when these are in full accordance with "mainstream Islamic teachings"?

Just because you are in "accordance" with something; does not mean your policies/ideas cannot be incorrect or fallacious.

unlike richard i don't believe in the demonising of an entire population)[/i].

What about "Allah"?
Didn't he viciously demonize entire populations quite a few times in his book?

A typical deviation. You did not see me bring up Jesus in the NT calling the Jews cursed & that the nation of God would be "given to another nation" etc...etc... Let's drop the red herring for a moment; do you agree with richard's statement or not? "Never trust a muslim"?

What about Muhammad's words as recorded in the Sahih Hadith?
Are you willing to unconditionally denounce these MANY passages?

I am not denouncing anything & this thread has nothing to do with theology or Jesus/Muhammad/Abraham/Moses.

Probably not, right?
And so your words are meaningless, and your focus revealing.

Take the 2ft wide steel beam out of your own eye.

-Woland

Cut to the chase & state your position; since you seem to justifying richard's anti-Islamic rhetoric; do you agree with him or not?